Women forced to have abortions?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, March 9, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Women forced to have abortions?
Expectant mother who screamed 'stop' will petition Supreme Court

---

Posted: March 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Responding to a recent ruling allowing forced abortions, a former judge is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to acknowledge a woman's "right to say no."

An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

But pro-life attorney Chris Sapp is prepared to challenge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Jan. 23 in Roe II v. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., says the Virginia-based Population Research Institute, or PRI, which says it is "dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of 'family planning,' and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of 'overpopulation.'"

Sapp is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion at any point in time.

His argument is based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which makes violation of a woman's right to receive reproductive health care a federal crime.

If a woman had a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp contended, she also has a right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby.

'My God, you're hurting me'

The Roe II case began March 29, 1997, when a young, pregnant mother entered the Aware Women Center for Choice clinic in Florida to get an abortion.

According to RPI, William P. Egherman, who has performed more than 10,000 abortions and been addicted to alcohol and opiates, began the procedure by attempting to dilate the woman's cervix.

But the woman had a change of heart.

"My God, you're hurting me" the woman began to scream. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies. ... Stop!"

But Egherman ignored the pleas and screams and called for assistance from clinic workers who held the woman down as he continued to dilate her cervix.

Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps -- "the bear" Ehgerman called them -- and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out part of the woman's intestines.

Sapp, who represented the woman, said she described it as like being drawn and quartered.

When he realized what he had done, Egherman heavily sedated the woman then he called for an ambulance.

But he instructed the ambulance to come slowly, without lights or sirens, to give him "time to pack the woman with gauze."

Egherman said he also was worried his regular flow of business would be interrupted by "all the hoopla."

"Saturday's our big day," he explained, "and I didn't want to generate … any more confusion, any more panic than was already present at the time. She was loud, and as I said, she was shrill, and there were a lot of patients who were hearing what was going on, and the normal rhythm of the day was interrupted. The other patients must have been terrified, and I didn't want the ambulance showing up with all the lights and sirens. …"

The woman underwent an operation at the hospital and the damage to her internal organs was repaired. But her baby was dead.

The matter would have ended at that point if not for Sapp's federal suit, arguing Egherman had violated the FACE Act.

Sapp argued forcing the abortion procedure and preventing the woman from going immediately to a hospital where her pregnancy could have been saved violated her reproductive rights.

Egherman's defense attorneys maintained "if he had to go back in" in order to protect the woman's health, then this would not constitute a violation of the FACE Act.

On a summary judgment, the appeals court agreed, but Sapp asserts the evidence shows the abortion had just begun when the woman called for Egherman to stop and that he went "back in" to perform the abortion against her will.

"This ruling does establish a precedent for forced abortion," Sapp said.

For example, he said, an expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam could be held down and forcibly aborted. The physician would simply have to argue the abortion was necessary to protect the mother's health or life, which would not violate the FACE Act.

'I've already paid for it'

PRI said it has learned of another case of forced abortion. A 25-year-old Maryland woman, four months pregnant, changed her mind after being taken to the procedure room.

She ran back to the clinic entrance where her boyfriend stopped her. The boyfriend said she must get an abortion, "I've already paid for it."

Three clinic workers and the abortion performers surrounded the women, sedated her by injection, then took her back into the procedure room. After the forced abortion, she awoke in a closet.

---

[Feiny]

I wonder if NOW will be making a statement?

[Dajjal]

"My God, you're hurting me" the woman began to scream. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies. ... Stop!"

But Egherman ignored the pleas and screams and called for assistance from clinic workers who held the woman down as he continued to dilate her cervix.

Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps -- "the bear" Ehgerman called them -- and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out part of the woman's intestines.

Sapp, who represented the woman, said she described it as like being drawn and quartered.

Pro-Life ping

[maxwell]

How come a chick can say "no" in the middle of sex, and the act automatically becomes prosecutable rape, but she can't say "no" even at the beginning of an abortion? Something don't compute...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Creepy! Sounds like a campy horror film.

They Knew Too Much about Abortion

Invasion of the Baby Snatchers

[Siobhan]

SHEER HORROR

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Horror film ping. "Invasion of the Baby Snatchers"?

[Siobhan]

Forced Abortion in the USA

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Discussion Ping list.

[jwalsh07]

Here is the case in question from the 11th circuit.

It gives a different view of than this article does.

[shaggy eel]

,,, check this one out.

[Coleus]

check

[shaggy eel]

,,, 10,000+ Americans missing before action.

[MHGinTN]

Uh, I thought this defense of serial killing was all about a woman's exclusive god-like right to 'choose'. Obviously, only if the choice is to join the Molech worhsippers.

[Coleus]

Dear Colleague:

A federal court has ruled that an abortionist can perform an abortion on a woman even if she does not want one, setting a dangerous precedent for forced abortion in America.

Warning: The following report contains graphic descriptions of an abortion performed on a young woman against her will.

Steven Mosher
President

PRI Weekly Briefing
27 February 2004
Vol. 6 / No. 8

About F.A.C.E: Forced Abortions Now Legal In the U.S.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act makes the violation of a woman's right to receive reproductive health care a federal crime. It is hard to imagine a worse violation of reproductive rights than forced abortion. Yet the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals apparently disagrees.

On 23 January 2004, in Jane Roe II vs. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the abortionist argues that it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

The story begins on 29 March 1997, when a young, pregnant mother entered the Aware Women Center for Choice clinic in Florida. She was there for an abortion.

Awaiting her was the abortionist, William P. Egherman,who has committed over 10,000 abortions and who has, perhaps not surprisingly, been addicted to alcohol and opiates. He began the procedure by attempting to dilate the woman's cervix with a 12 millimeter dilator.

"My God, you're hurting me" the woman began to scream. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies.. Stop!"

The woman had had a change of heart. She did not want an abortion. She wanted to keep her baby. And she wanted to leave. Immediately. "Stop. Let me out of here," she cried.(1)

Instead of respecting the woman's wishes and stopping the procedure, Egherman called for assistance. Clinic workers held the woman down as Egherman, ignoring the woman's screams, continued to dilate her cervix. Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps-"the bear" Ehgerman called them (2)-and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out part of the woman's intestines. For the woman, said her attorney, Chris Sapp, it was like being drawn and quartered.

Realizing what he had done, Egherman heavily sedated the woman. Then he called for an ambulance. He instructed the ambulance to come slowly, without lights or sirens, in order to give him "time to pack the woman with gauze."

Egherman was also worried that his regular flow of business would be interrupted by "all the hoopla." "Saturday's our big day," he explained, "and I didn't want to generate a lot of. any more confusion, any more panic than was already present at the time. She was loud, and as I said, she was shrill, and there were a lot of patients who were hearing what was going on, and the normal rhythm of the day was interrupted. The other patients must have been terrified, and I didn't want the ambulance showing up with all the lights and sirens."

At the hospital, the woman was operated on and the damage to her internal organs repaired. Her baby was found to be dead, and was removed.

There the matter would have ended, if not for the intervention of attorney, and former judge, Chris Sapp. Sapp filed suit on her behalf in the federal courts, arguing that the abortionist had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). FACE was passed to guarantee the right of women to receive reproductive health care. But if a woman had a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp argued, she also has a right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby.

In calling for the abortionist to stop the procedure, Sapp argued, the woman was clearly invoking her rights under the FACE Act. By forcing the abortion procedure on her, and by preventing her from going immediately to a hospital where her pregnancy could have been saved, the abortionist violated her reproductive rights.(3)

Egherman's defense attorney's maintained that "if he [Egherman] had to go back in" in order to protect the woman's health, then this would not constitute a violation of the FACE Act. On a summary judgment, the appeals court agreed, even though the evidence shows that the abortion had scarcely begun when the woman called for the abortionist to stop the abortion, and that he went "back in" to perform the abortion against her will.

According to Sapp, "This ruling does establish a precedent for forced abortion." An expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam, for example, could be held down and forcibly aborted. The abortionist would merely have to argue that the abortion was necessary to protect the mother's health or life, and this would not be a violation of the FACE Act.

PRI has recently learned of another forced abortion in America. A 25-year-old Maryland woman, four months pregnant, changed her mind about having an abortion after being taken to the procedure room. She ran back to the clinic entrance where her boyfriend stopped her. You have to get an abortion, he told her. I've already paid for it. Three clinic workers and the abortionists surrounded the women, sedated her by injection, and then took her back into the procedure room. After the forced abortion, she
awoke in a closet.

Chris Sapp is determined to fight on. He is prepared to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging that a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion, at any point in time, is absolute, and that this right is found in the FACE Act.

ENDNOTES

1. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION, AUGUST 28, 2002: JANE ROE, II, PLAINTIFF, VS. AWARE WOMEN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., PATRICIA B. WINDLE, WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D.,
DEFENDANTS; CASE NO.: 6:99-CV-850-ORL-19KRS.
2. Ibid., Deposition of William Egherman.
3. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Jane Roe II vs. Aware Woman Center for Choice, January 23, 2004.
_________
Steve Mosher is the president of Population Research Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to debunking the myth that the world is overpopulated.
__________
© 2004 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.Redistribute widely. Credit required.

[Siobhan]

Bump to Post # 34 by Coleus -- Read it, pray the Rosary, go to Adoration, make Communion of Reparation, get on the phones to Congress, write letters......

[Siobhan]

bump

[HitmanLV]

An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

The editor at WND was caught snoozing. The expectant mother can be aborted? Is that a homicide? Sheesh!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

On 23 January 2004, in Jane Roe II vs. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the abortionist argues that it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

This is completely wrong from a medical standpoint. You cannot force anyone to submit to medical care. Every patient has a right to consent to or deny procedures, even if it would result in death. This right gets a little controversial in dealing with kids and psych patients but we try to honor it as much as possible.

This is a very, very dangerous court ruling.

[Siobhan]

Bump

[He Rides A White Horse]

An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."

The common denominator, whether it be gay marriage, "euthanasia", or abortion is "the judges".

"The Judges" have decided that they are 'untouchables'..............that the legislative and executive branches of government are mere rubberstamps for whatever decree they issue.

They need to be taken down hard. Put back in their places.

They are not the final word as they have so many people believing; they continue only as long as We The People suffer it to be so.