file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0305.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 5 March, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This Pro-Life Newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) `BUTCHER OF NEW YORK' CONVICTED A Manhattan jury Monday convicted doctor Dr. Abu Hayat of performing an illegal abortion on a woman who hours later gave birth to a girl whose arm apparently was severed during the botched abortion. Hayat, 62, was also convicted in NY State Supreme Court of four counts of assault, including one against the maimed girl. Hayat was charged with performing an illegal abortion on Rosa Rodriguez without properly examining her, even though she was close to eights months pregnant. State law prohibits abortions after the 24th week. The jury convicted Hayat of performing the illegal abortion on Rodriguez, 22, in October 1991, in his dirt-strewn office in Manhattan's East Village. The jury could not reach a verdict on two other counts, performing an illegal abortion on a second woman and assault, and acquitted Hayat of another assault charge. Hayat also was convicted on two counts of falsifying business records and one count of offering a false instrument for filing. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 and one-third to 61 years in prison at his sentencing, scheduled for March 15. She also said that when she heard a woman scream from an operating room in the office, Hayat told her, "Not everyone wants anesthesia, and not everyone can pay for the anesthesia." She received an anesthetic injection. Rodriguez testified that she thought she was in her fourth month, but when she felt the fetus moving as Hayat began the procedure, she tried to stop it but the doctor told her that was ``impossible.'' When she awoke from the anesthesia, she had blood on her legs and blouse. Hayat told her to return the next day, and warned her against going to another doctor in the meantime. Hours after she left his office, she was rushed to a hospital where she gave birth to a three-pound girl whose right arm had been severed, apparently by Hayat efforts hours earlier. The prosecutors said Hayat charged Rodriguez $1,500 for the procedure -- $1,200 over his fee for a legal abortion. In the weeks following Hayat's arrest, dozens of women came forward to say Hayat had botched their abortions. Officials said a 17-year-old girl died after he allegedly perforated her uterus during an abortion. Hayat is an immigrant from India who received his license to practice medicine in New York State in 1973, and had his license revoked upon his indictment last April. He has since filed for bankruptcy protection and allegedly owes as much as $17 million after losing three multi-million-dollar malpractice judgments. Hayat did not have malpractice insurance, which is not required to practice medicine in New York. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) THE BRAY CASE Court rules that KKK Law does not apply to Abortion Protestors On January 13th, The Supreme Court ruled in the Bray decision that the KKK Act of 1871 can no longer be used to keep pro-life groups like Operation Rescue from blockading abortion clinics. The 5-4 decision stripped abortionists of a major weapon that was being used nationally by pro-abortion federal judges to issue broad injunctions against clinic protesters. Those who obstruct access to abortion clinics will still face prosecution, but most will risk arrest only for violating local trespass laws. State courts also lack the ability of federal courts to issue injunctions that cover wide geographic regions. Critics warned that such a ruling could spark a boost in pro-life activities outside abortion mills. The case was initially argued last term before Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court, but was rescheduled in June, most likely because of a 4-4 deadlock. Thomas joined the five vote majority Wednesday. The ruling comes six months after the court upheld Roe. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who helped form a coalition in that June decision, joined the majority Wednesday in an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and also joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White and Thomas. The impact of Wednesday's decision could be blunted if President-elect Bill Clinton, who takes office next week, teams with the Democratically controlled Congress to legislate protection of abortion mills. The KKK statute can be used if two or more persons "conspire" to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws." In this case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Operation Rescue violated the rights of a class of women seeking abortions at a clinic in Alexandria, Va., and others in the Washington, D.C., area. The injunction had threatened members of Operation Rescue with a $1,500 fine and imprisonment for contempt-of-court for "trespassing on, blockading, impeding or obstructing access to or egress from" a number of abortion mills. The 4th Circuit case held that the fundamental right being violated was the right to interstate travel, because some 30 percent of the women seeking abortions had crossed state lines. The circuit court case did not address whether the right to an abortion was also being violated. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York, also has held that blocking access to abortion clinics violates the same law. Judge Patrick Kelly, a federal judge in Wichita, Kan., in the summer of 1990 invoked the same 1871 civil rights law when that city became the target of a national rescue. Jay Sekulow, arguing for the Brays told the court that women seeking abortion are not a "class of persons," and thus the law should not apply; In the 13 January decision, the Supreme Court agreed. "Our precedents establish that in order to prove a private conspiracy in violation of the first clause of (the law), a plaintiff must show... that 'some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus (lay) behind the conspirators' action'...and that the conspiracy 'aimed at interfering with official, encroachment,"' wrote Scalia. "We think neither showing has been made in the present case." "The record in this case does not indicate that petitioners' demonstrations are motivated by a purpose (malevolent or benign) directed specifically at women as a class; to the contrary, the district court found that petitioners define their 'rescues' not with reference to women, but as physical intervention 'between abortionists and the innocent victims' and that 'all (petitioners) share a deep commitment to the goals of stopping the practice of abortion and reversing its legalization,"' wrote Scalia. "Given this record, respondents' contention that a class-based animus has been established can be true only if one of two suggested propositions is true: (1) that opposition to abortion can reasonably be presumed to reflect a sex-based intent, or (2) that intent is irrelevant, and a class-based animus can be determined solely by effect. Neither proposition is supportable." Justice David Souter, in a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, said the law should be allowed to find a conspiracy when action is "intended to hobble or overwhelm the capacity of duly constituted state police authorities to secure equal protection of the laws, even when the conspirators animus is not based on race or a like class characteristic." He said while such a violation apparently occurred here, he would have remanded the case to lower court for such a determination. Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Harry Blackmun, wrote that it is "irrelevant whether the court is correct in its assumption that 'opposition to abortion' does not necessarily evidence an intent to disfavor women." "Many opponents of abortion respect both the law and the rights of others to make their own decisions on this important matter," wrote Stevens. "Petitioners, however, are not mere opponents of abortion; they are defiant lawbreakers who have engaged in a massive concerted conduct that is designed to prevent all women from making up their own minds about not only the issue of abortion in general, but also whether they should (or will) exercise a right that all women - and only women - possess." Stevens wrote that the "error that infects the court's entire opinion is the unstated and mistaken assumption that this is a case about opposition to abortion." "It is not," he wrote. "It is a case about the exercise of federal power to control an interstate conspiracy to commit illegal acts." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also joined Blackmun, and said the court had so restricted the original statute "to the point where it now cannot be applied to a modern-day paradigm of the situation the statute was meant to address." Interestingly, the secular press attributes the win to the Justice Department under the Bush Administration, which had filed an amicus brief, but ignores Sekulow who brought and argued the case. This was Sekulow's ninth appearance before the court. - Ed Hersh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) HELPFUL HINTS Sometime a friend or relative may confide in you that she is pregnant and seriously considering an abortion. Here are some helpful hints that hopefully, will help her change her mind. - Above all, listen to her and let her express her difficulties. - Talk to her about alternatives to abortion, fetal development, physical and psychological problems of abortion and the supportive services available. Provide her with literature on the above. - Maintain contact with her if at all possible. - Encourage her to take time before making a final decision. - Remind her that she must be able to live with the decision 24 hours a day, year after year because abortion is an irreversible decision. - If she decides to abort, be available to her afterward. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) READER RESPONSES (a little late...) From v3n1: >If the movement for children's rights focuses on trying to prevent child >abuse, I will more than consider supporting it. But if it tries to place >- or rather force - immorality onto children, I cannot support it. The >question is: Which of these paths is the movement traveling on? > - Rose Recchia The "Children's Rights" movement does outwardly focus on trying to prevent child abuse - something which obviously should be prevented as often as possible. However, their definition of "abuse" and the actions they advocate to prevent "abuse" are cause for concern. Their definition of abuse is extremely vague and includes things that most "normal" people do not consider abusive. In fact, there are quite a few documented cases in which parents who have a strong religious beliefs and pass these beliefs on to their children have been accused of "brainwashing" their children and not giving them their "right" to "choose" what they want to believe. In some of these cases the children are taken from their parents and made wards of the state. I have a very interesting article (not online, unfortunately) that documents many cases in various states where children have been taken from and kept from parents for just such reasons - against the will of both parents and children. The two main main flaws in the "Children's Rights" movement are: 1. It assumes that children of just about any age are capable of and should be allowed to choose what is right for themselves. Children need guidance. They need to be taught right from wrong. If they are not, they are the ones that pay in the long run. 2. It assumes that government is a better povider and care giver for children than are their parents. This is ludicrous. Considering the government has shown complete lack of competence in the tasks that are ordinarily given to it, why should we assume that they would be any better at raising our children? Now, I recognize that some parents are incompetent and/or abusive and that in these cases just about anything would be better than keeping the children with their parents. This is the exception to the rule, however, and does not justify government intrusion into all families. Unless it is obvious that parents are physically abusing their children, they should be allowed to raise them as they see fit. While the initial motive of the "Children's Rights" movement may be good, the means and ends they use are a disaster for parents, children, and our society. - Chris Bord - - - - - - - - - On the difference between Animal rights and Human Rights: About the question of being able to enter into an agreement as a condition for having rights (fetuses or animals): This argument implies that people in a coma, mentally incompetent people, insane people, and even people who are asleep are all devoid of rights, because they are all incapable of entering into agreements. I think the error comes from taking the phrase "X is incapable of entering into an agreement" too literally. In one sense, it is true that fetuses and animals and sleeping people are all incapable of entering into agreements: AT THIS MOMENT, it is true of all of them. But in another, much more fundamental, sense, it is only true of animals: animals, unlike humans, are a KIND OF ENTITY that is incapable of entering into agreements. The other examples are all a kind of thing (human) that is capable of forming agreements, except that this capacity is for some reason inoperative. - Anne-Marie Gorman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) READER QUESTIONS Here at Bucknell (Central PA) Life week is going ok -- the pro-choice group on campus that never really does anything set up a table today, since we had one out all week (there are tables in the main hall of our student union). We also had a food/etc drive for the local community -- one of the local churches has a food distribution program, and the needed soap, shampoo, etc, canned goods, etc. That went really well. Our table didn't go as well, no one really stopped, but we got our point across (we had a jar full of 900 some jelly beans representing the number of abortions done every 5 hours in the US -- that attracted attention, because people though we were giving away free jelly beans. Friday is Celebrate Life day, and we're going to have an 'adopt a jelly bean' day (adoption, not abortion, and i want to get rid of the jelly beans) Question: I have read several places about where to write to get names, etc. of the women (108) who are known to have died from legal abortion? I written to several places, but have heard nothing. Does anyone else have this information or know how to get it? - Lynn Firestine - - - - - - - - - Question: Does anyone have the address/phone number for the New-York based Jewish Anti-Abortion League, headed by Rabis Yehuda Levin? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "Speaking on behalf of ''those who could not vote and have no choice,'' in recent remarks before the Children's Defense Fund, Hillary Clinton asked: ''What on earth could be more important than making sure that every child has a chance to be born healthy?'' Good for Mrs. Clinton. We've been asking the same thing ever since Roe v. Wade." +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - Based on a New York API Article. | | 2 - From a 17 January `LifeLink' article. The LifeLink Foundation may be | | contacted via Dave Powell, P.O. Box 54818, Tulsa, OK 74155. Lifelink | | is a network of pro-life organizations connected nationally through a | | server computer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Many thanks to reader Ed Hersh. | | 3 - From the Birthright of Pittsburgh Winter 1993 newsletter, p.1.. BR can | | be contacted at 459 40th Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, (412) 621-1988. | |QOM- From the January 18, 1993 "National Reveiw," many thanks to reader | | Steven Klepzig. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.