Assisted suicide opponent remembered for his strength, determination

Montgomery, Ala., Mar 9, 2019 / 04:30 pm (CNA).- In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the United States, an attorney will represent the estate of an aborted child, after the father filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the six-week old fetus.

Court documents allege that a then-16-year-old Alabama woman obtained a medication abortion in February 2017, despite the protestations of her boyfriend, who says he is the father of the child.

The man subsequently sued the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville last month, saying that he had wanted to keep the child.

Brent Helms, the attorney representing the father in the lawsuit, told CNA in an interview that the goals of the lawsuit are to ensure that no father has to endure what the defendant has so far endured, and also to protect unborn children in cases of abortion by establishing a right to legal “personhood” for them.

“The issue that we ran into, in the case of ‘personhood,’ there was some incongruency there in that the definition of ‘person’ from conception excluded an aborted child,” Helms said.

“And so one of the goals of this case was to ensure that we were able to establish personhood for the unborn baby.”

Alabama voters approved changes to the state constitution – Amendment 2 – in November 2018 to establish a right to life of unborn children, known as a “personhood clause.” The measure passed with 60 percent support from the public.

In addition to the new constitutional amendment, Alabama has statutes created by the legislature, Helms said, to define “personhood” as beginning at conception. The state also has seven opinions from the Alabama Supreme Court defining personhood as beginning at conception, he said.

None of these, however, have immediate legal effect, due to Roe v. Wade establishing a constitutional “right to abortion” nationally.

The attorney sees this lawsuit as another effort to enshrine personhood in the state.

Helms said he’s already had one indication that the lawsuit could succeed; he successfully set up an estate for the aborted child – identified in court documents as “Baby Roe” – and Probate Judge Frank Barger has allowed the lawsuit to go forward.

“That was the first estate, to my knowledge, ever created in the United States for an aborted child,” he said.

“So we’ve already had one victory, and we’re moving on now to the wrongful death case…Obviously, it’s the first case of its kind, ever, and we hope to establish legal precedent.”

In terms of broader implications if the father wins his lawsuit, Helms explained that in the state of Alabama, abortion is a profit-making industry, and in a wrongful death lawsuit the wrongdoer is punished in some way. In this case, the lawsuit names as wrongdoers the manufacturer of the pill that terminated the unborn baby’s life, as well as the abortion clinic, the doctor, the nurses, all those that participated in the abortion.

If those entities are found liable for the wrongful death of Baby Roe, Helms said, then what was once a profit-making industry will now be subject to liability.

“And the question for them will be, ‘are we more subject to liability than we are to profitability?’ If a drug manufacturer determines that they’re going to be held liable for an abortion in the state of Alabama, I doubt they’re going to send any kind of pills to Alabama for an abortion,” Helms speculated.

“So I would think [their] conclusion would likely be that liability outweighs profitability, and therefore abortion is eliminated in the state of Alabama. It’s just a simple business decision.”

Prominent pro-abortion groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America have spoken out against the lawsuit and the implications for legal personhood for aborted fetuses.

Eric Johnston, a fellow attorney and president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition, told CNA that while he doesn’t “disagree in principle” with what Helms is doing, he is worried that the lawsuit will not succeed unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 decision that found a constitutional right to abortion.

While the lawsuit is currently in a state court, he said, if the abortion clinic or the drug company can successfully move it to federal court, it will be “rejected in pretty short order.” If it stays in the state system, he said, even the Alabama Supreme Court is unlikely to rule in favor of the father.

“That case is not going to be upheld until Roe v. Wade is reversed,” Johnston told CNA. “I really don’t think that that approach is an approach that will get to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Johnston said putting together the right lawsuit to challenge a longstanding precedent like Roe v. Wade is extremely difficult. He said he thinks laws passed by states, that directly challenge Roe v. Wade and are designed to be reviewed in the Supreme Court, are more likely to succeed.

“The Court has ruled in the past that the father of the child does not have a right over the unborn child, that it’s the woman’s right, and that’s based on the idea that abortion is legal,” Johnston explained.

“So I don’t think that the claiming of wrongful death damages by a father is the right set of circumstances that would cause the Supreme Court [to hear the case] to review Roe v. Wade. I just don’t think that’s the right approach for it. I just don’t think it’s going to fly.”

Johnston said as long as Roe v. Wade gives the woman the right of privacy to have an abortion, then there is not a wrongful death cause of action, regardless of Alabama law.

“The Alabama Constitution does not supersede or overrule the U.S. Constitution,” Johnston said.

“And under Roe, they have held that the U.S. Constitution permits abortion. So it’s irrelevant what the Alabama Constitution says and it’s irrelevant what the Alabama Supreme Court has said in several cases.”

Helms is more hopeful. “We’re in uncharted territory, and we’re trying to do the best we can to navigate through it. But that also means the other side is in the same uncharted territory,” he said.

“We’re obviously excited about the opportunities that this may present for future fathers who are in the same position as [this father].”

Helms said protecting life is a particularly important issue for his family – he’s the father of seven children.

“When my mom was pregnant with my brother, the doctor told her that your health is such that either you or the baby is going to die, and my mom said ‘Well, if the Lord wants one of us or both of us he’ll take us,’” Helms reflected.

“And so she refused to have an abortion, and had my brother. He’s the smartest and best-looking of the bunch, an so we’re grateful to have him. So yes, [the pro-life issue] does hit home, and my wife and I have been blessed and we’re grateful to have such a large family.”

The Huntsville abortion clinic has until April 1 to respond to the lawsuit.

[…]

Brownsville, Texas, Jul 2, 2018 / 04:13 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- During a visit to the United States’ southern border, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles called for Catholics to lobby Congress to fix the United States’ “dysfunctional&rd… […]

Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 05:08 pm (CNA).- Federal legislation purporting to guarantee equality explicitly rejects religious freedom protections and would open the gates to anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious believers and institutions who disagree with the bill’s broad view of LGBT discrimination, critics said.

Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom’s U.S. legal division, said the proposed Equality Act, reintroduced into the House of Representatives on March 13, would undermine “the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience that the First Amendment guarantees for every citizen.”

She said “disagreement on important matters such as marriage and human sexuality is not discrimination.”

The Equality Act would add anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to existing protections for race, color, national origin, sex, disability and religion.

Waggoner compared it to similar state and local laws that would “force Americans to participate in events and speak messages that violate their core beliefs.”

About 20 states have such legislation. Besides combating mistreatment of self-identified LGBT persons, they have been invoked to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that only place children with a mother and a father or to compel people working in the wedding industry, like florists, photographers and bakers, to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies.

Critics have argued that the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity are too broad and will lead to rejecting appropriate recognition of difference between the sexes or differences between married heterosexual couples and other couples.

The legislation could endanger religious protections, particularly for those who believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. While U.S. law has historically allowed for broad religious freedom protections, those who disagree with same-sex marriage could be viewed as “discriminating” against a same-sex couple.

Though the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed with overwhelming support, such protections have recently drawn strong opposition from some lawmakers, pro-abortion access groups and LGBT advocates who contend they interfere with basic rights.

As drafted, the Equality Act explicitly removes the ability under RFRA to cite religious freedom as a defense against discrimination claims.

Tim Schulz, president of 1st Amendment Partnership, told the Deseret News that if the Equality Act becomes law, religiously affiliated schools and other faith-based organizations could face lawsuits over policies on self-identified LGBT students, customers or employees.

“There would be an effort to punitively sue them into oblivion,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a backer of the bill, said the legislation “clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used in civil rights contexts, prohibiting religious liberty — which is a core American value — from being used as a license to discriminate.”

The ACLU has long opposed Catholic hospitals that act according to Catholic ethics and refuse to provide “reproductive health” services including abortion and sterilization. In California, the legal group filed a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital for refusing an elective hysterectomy to a woman who identifies as a man and who sought the procedure as part of her putative sex reassignment.

It has also sided with efforts targeting institutions and small businesses that do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. ACLU lawyers have backed a lawsuit against a Washington State florist who declined to serve a same-sex ceremony, while the group has tried to block Michigan state agencies’ cooperation with Catholic adoption and foster agencies.

Waggoner was critical of the Equality Act and predicted negative consequences if it becomes law.

“Americans simply deserve better than the profound inequality proposed by this intolerant, deceptively titled legislation,” she said.

“Our laws should respect the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every citizen, but the so-called ‘Equality Act’ fails to meet this basic standard,” Waggoner added. “It would undermine women’s equality and force women and girls to share private, intimate spaces with men who identify as female, in addition to denying women fair competition in sports.”

The proposed law would apply not just to employment, but other areas like housing, jury duty, credit, and education. It bars discrimination in retail stores, emergency shelters, banks, transit and pharmacies, among others. It would also specify facility access for self-identified transgender persons, such as access to male and female bathrooms.

David Cicilline, D-R.I., is the bill’s main sponsor in the House, NBC News reports. As of March 13, the bill had 239 co-sponsors in the House.

“In most states in this country, a gay couple can be married on Saturday, post their wedding photos to Instagram on Sunday, and lose their jobs or get kicked out of their apartments on Monday just because of who they are,” he charged. “We are reintroducing the Equality Act in order to fix this.”

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is the only Republican to back the bill, though she was one of four currently serving Republican Senators to back similar anti-discrimination categories in a 2013 employment bill.

The legislation’s 161 corporate sponsors include PayPal, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. Overall they have a combined revenue of $3.7 trillion, CNBC reported March 8.

Leaders with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have not yet commented on the Equality Act. However, in the past they have criticized the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar actions deemed to be employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In May 2010, the bishops said the act “could be used to punish as discrimination what the Catholic Church teaches.” While they called for a “comprehensive religious exemption” to such a bill, there could be “government retaliation” for institutions that rely on such exemptions. Without strong protections, it would be applied “to jeopardize our religious freedom to live our faith and moral tenets in today’s society,” they said.

The bishops rejected “every sign of unjust discrimination,” while also stating that Catholic teaching cannot be equated with unjust discrimination.

Leading bishops criticized the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in an Oct. 31, 2013 letter to the U.S. Senate, saying it does not advance “authentic non-discrimination.” They warned that the bill’s vague definition of sexual orientation does not distinguish between homosexual “status” and “conduct.” Its concept of “gender identity” rejects the “biological basis of gender” and would give force of law to a view of gender as “nothing more than a social construct or social psychosocial reality.”

CNA investigations have found close to $10 million in spending that targets religious freedom protection, including funding for ACLU projects. Major backers of the campaign include the Ford Foundation, which gives out some $500 million in grants annually, as well as the Arcus Foundation, an LGBT advocacy group that also funds groups that reject historic Christian ethics on LGBT issues. The network of funded groups tends to argue that religious freedoms are too broad if they exempt objectors to “reproductive rights” and LGBT political and legal concerns.

[…]