Judge OKs suit over baby body parts research

A woman’s lawsuit against a New Mexico abortion center will proceed, thanks to a New Mexico judge’s refusal to dismiss her case.

Jessica Duran filed suit last year against Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) for not telling her about its relationship with the University of New Mexico (UNM) and the possibility that it sent her dead baby there for research.

The abortion center and abortionist Curtis Boyd filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but New Mexico District Judge Clay Campbell ruled this month that all seven counts filed against SWO—including negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress—merit a trial by jury.

Because the consent form Duran signed before her abortion “only authorized the clinic and/or physician to perform any research, the plaintiff Jessica Duran did not have knowledge of the facts, conditions, or circumstances that would have caused her to make a reasonable inquiry into whether someone or some other entity other than the clinic and/or treating physician may perform research on any donated tissue or parts,” Campbell wrote.

Elisa Martinez, director of New Mexico Alliance for Life, told me her organization is optimistic Duran will win at trial, since the facts are “clear and unambiguous.”

“This case is a monumental decision in that it shows what we and the Select Panel on Infant Lives have been pointing out all along that women are being deceived and taken advantage of by the abortion industry,” Martinez said. “The very reason the abortion industry seeks to deceive women like Jessica about the value of their baby is the very reason the bodies are harvested for parts: their humanity.”

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives Select Panel on Infant Lives, chaired by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., disclosed the relationship between UNM and SWO and requested an investigation by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas.

After the House panel procured and published a log of baby body parts collected by SWO for UNM researchers, Duran suspected her baby was among their number.

Duran said her abortion haunts her, and discovering researchers might have used her baby for experiments added to her pain. Staff never told her what could become of her baby or that she could have declined to participate in the research program. The research consent form staff gave her was the same as the one providing consent for the abortion procedure.

In her lawsuit, Duran claims SWO staff “violated my right to choose.”

“We found evidence that women were being misled by these consent forms,” Blackburn noted in a statement. “I welcome this ruling and applaud Ms. Duran for continuing her fight against these injustices on behalf of the women who have endured the same.”

The case will now go to trial, although a judge has not yet set a date for jury selection.

Pro-lifers protest UN proposal to endorse abortion, euthanasia

Pro-life governments and nongovernmental organizations have asked the United Nations Human Rights Committee to amend its draft of a legal commentary endorsing abortion and euthanasia.

The UN’s proposed commentary on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights retains the commitment to recognize and protect “the right to life of all human beings” but doesn’t name the unborn as human beings. It also forbids pro-life laws that “jeopardize [mothers’] lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering” and encourages member states to allow doctors to “facilitate the termination of life” for terminally ill patients.

The United States and other countries, as well as nongovernmental organizations, submitted briefs asking the UN to revise the commentary, with many specifically requesting it include the unborn and other vulnerable groups.

“While securing the lives of some, but not others, the draft is arbitrary, and even discriminatory, in singling out certain developmental stages and diagnoses that are deemed less worthy of human life protections,” the National Catholic Bioethics Center wrote.

The governments of Australia, Egypt, Malta, Poland, and the Russian federation asked for the protection of the unborn, and the United States said abortion access issues “are outside the scope of Article 6.”

Other nations applauded the commentary or asked it to go further: Denmark and the United Kingdom requested the UN strike out the phrase “pregnant woman,” as they allege it discriminates against women who identify as men. —S.G.

HHS: Protect life from ‘conception to natural death’

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a draft of a four-year strategic plan that includes promoting the sanctity of human life beginning at conception.

The department states its mission includes “our dedication to serve all Americans from conception to natural death,” adding the “conception” phrasing to Obama-era wording.

Every four years, the department publishes a new strategic plan, and this one will remain in place until 2022. It is accepting public comments on the draft until Oct. 27. —S.G.

Marie Stopes International promotes birth control without parental consent

Parents of girls at a school in Kitui County, Kenya, have demanded the arrest of Marie Stopes International staff who allegedly handed out birth control to teenage girls without their parents’ consent.

A team from the international abortion group visited Archbishop Boniface Lele Secondary School Mang’elu during International Day of the Girl Child earlier this month. Parents claim girls as young as 14 received family planning drugs including Norplant, a hormone-releasing implant.

The school principal said he didn’t know the group planned to dispense birth control. The workers claimed they wanted to discuss health awareness. Julius Muthamba, education secretary for the Kitui Catholic Diocese, called it “scandalous and criminal.” —S.G.

Australian state advances bill to legalize euthanasia

Victoria, Australia, edged closer to legalizing euthanasia Friday when its Parliament passed a bill that would allow the practice for anyone over 18 years old with a terminal illness. Some say the bill would serve as a model for other Australian states. The bill still needs to pass Victoria’s Senate, and if passed, would not go into effect for 18 months. —S.G.