ADF has been involved in many cases protecting the sanctity of human life. Our involvement includes case funding, direct litigation and amicus support, mentoring, training, strategic planning and coordination, and other forms of partnership and assistance.
The cases listed are just a random sampling of some of the victories that ADF has been blessed to help enable through the power of an alliance.
A Victory for Pro-Life Speech in the Pelican State…
A Tragic Story That Leads to a Life-Affirming Victory…
ADF’s University Project Nets Another Victory for Pro-Life Speech!
A Victory for Life in Louisiana...
A Victory for Life in Arizona...
Pro-Life Speech Victorious at the University of Houston…
Free Speech for Pro-Life Protestors Protected at U.S. Supreme Court…
Another Victory for Pro-Life Speech on College Campuses…
ADF Stands in the Gap to Save a Life…
Pro-Life Speech Affirmed at Arizona Clinics…
ADF Funded Attorney Successfully Defends Pro-Life Nurse...
ADF Successful in Defeating Assisted Suicide in Alaska…
ADF Protects Life in the Golden State…
A Victory for Pro-Life Speech in the Pelican State…In January 2004, officials in Jefferson Parish (Louisiana) applied the “circus ordinance” (no – that’s not a misprint) to stifle a pro-life gathering on public property memorializing children lost because of the 1973
Roe v. Wade decision. Sheriff’s deputies were instructed to prevent event organizers from using low volume amplification equipment, using a small “soapbox” stage, and from playing religious songs to a peaceful crowd of nearly 300 pro-life advocates.
ADF staff counsel Mike Johnson sent a letter to the parish, on behalf of Rev. Bill Shanks and the pro-life advocates, demanding that their most basic constitutional rights be respected. When the parish refused to comply, Mike and other ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court.
That finally got the council’s attention. In June 2004, the council made emergency changes to its ordinances regulating speech. Although this step was in the right direction, the case continued to move forward to ensure that this type of discrimination would not happen again, and to guarantee Louisiana pro-lifers are allowed the same access to public property that others enjoy.
In February 2005, the council agreed to settle the case.
ADF’s Mike Johnson says: “The ordinances that the parish was using to keep the organizers of a somber rally from memorializing the victims of
Roe v. Wade were vague and unconstitutional. The council has done the right thing. No longer will obscure ordinances be used to impede pro-life speech on public property in Jefferson Parish.”
back to top
A Tragic Story That Leads to a Life-Affirming Victory…A frightened young indigent, pregnant woman arrives at a local hospital. She is undergoing premature labor – her baby is at 23 weeks and three days gestation.
Eight hours after she is admitted to the hospital she gives birth to a pound and a half baby boy, whom she names Bridon.
Instead of treating the tiny baby immediately so that he has a chance to live, the hospital staff ignores him. One nurse says that she would like to treat the baby, but because of hospital policy, she cannot. The mother continues to plead for treatment, but instead he is left without care in the mother’s room…to die.
This may sound something like a bad dream…but this story actually happened. Because of a hospital policy that stated that no child born prior to 24 weeks gestation is to receive treatment, young Bridon never had a chance to survive.
ADF allied attorneys James Bopp and Tom Marzen filed an ADF-funded suit against the hospital – alleging that it was in violation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA is a federal statute which provides that federally funded hospitals with emergency departments must examine and stabilize any patient who requests treatment.
The suit charged that the hospital – regardless of a lower survival rate for Bridon than an older newborn – deprived him of at least an opportunity for survival and that such failure constituted malpractice and violated EMTALA.
Marzen said: “It is utterly tragic that they walked away from their obligation to Bridon. It is unconscionable what they did to this child.”
After an initial loss at the state Court of Appeals, Marzen and Bopp appealed to the state Supreme Court. On July 13th, Wisconsin’s highest court agreed with the young mother and ruled against the hospital – stating that it was in violation of EMTALA.
While this victory did not come in time to save Bridon’s life – it could help save countless lives of other innocent premature babies in the future by stopping “disposal policies” for newborns. And for that, we can be thankful.
back to top
ADF’s University Project Nets Another Victory for Pro-Life Speech!Justice for All (JFA), a pro-life advocacy group ADF has represented in a number of cases, sought to bring its life-saving display to the Boulder campus, just as it had at the University of Houston and the University of Texas-Austin after ADF’s successful legal efforts.
But when JFA submitted their request for equal access to campus facilities, their proposed event date was denied. Then they were denied their requested location, even though the group had peacefully put up their display there in 2003. Instead, school officials assigned them to a far less traveled location without enough room to set up the entire display.
ADF staff litigation attorney Jeremy Tedesco, working with James Rouse, an ADF allied attorney in Colorado, and Jim Spencer, Chief Counsel of Justice for All, filed a lawsuit against the university in the U.S. District Court on behalf of JFA’s free speech/equal access rights.
As a result, a settlement agreement was reached with the University that allows JFA to have equal access to their requested location, and not be banished to a place far away from student traffic.
Jeremy Tedesco says: “Thank God… these advocates for life can use a preferred site on campus for the exhibit. The standard for free speech is not what speech government officials may like, but what the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment applies to everyone – even pro-lifers.”
back to top
A Victory for Life in LouisianaEmily (last name omitted for privacy) is a 15-year-old girl from Ruston, Louisiana who found herself pregnant and scared. Like many confused teenagers, she did not know where to turn – especially since she had already experienced the serious devastation of a broken home.
In Louisiana, a minor needs to have parental consent before she can obtain an abortion. Emily’s estranged father escorted her to a Shreveport abortion facility and signed a “parental consent” for the abortion – which was scheduled for a few days later.
Emily’s mother believes in the sanctity of human life and is the custodial parent for Emily and her two younger siblings. With the assistance of ADF attorney Mike Johnson, she filed an emergency petition with the court for a restraining order to stop the abortion. The court agreed and ordered Emily to be counseled on abortion alternatives.
There was reason to be concerned. The Louisiana statute says that a minor needs only the consent of one parent to obtain an abortion. The court needed to decide whether or not this overrode the meaning and application of Louisiana’s statute governing joint custody arrangements and establishing the legal superiority of the custodial parent’s will in major decisions affecting a minor child.
Mike Johnson said: “As straightforward as this may sound, these issues are extremely complex in light of existing federal and state case law. Let’s just say that the local casinos would have gleefully given us very low odds for winning this case!”
(Sadly, after this case was decided, Emily’s father violated the court order and took Emily across state lines, against her will, to have an abortion).
back to top
A Victory for Life in Arizona…In 1996, the state of Arizona passed a law that required females under the age of 18 to gain the consent of at least one parent before they could have an abortion. Parental consent laws have been PROVEN in state after state to reduce the number of abortions that occur annually.
After an activist court struck down the law, pro-life legislators in Arizona, guided by the Focus on the Family affiliated state public policy group, went back to the drawing board and were successful in getting a new bill passed in 2000 that addressed the previous issues raised by the court.
Of course, Planned Parenthood immediately filed a new lawsuit to block the implementation of the new legislation. In addition, the attorney general for the state of Arizona was hesitant to defend the law and publicly stated that she did not want to “waste taxpayer money” defending the bill.
With ADF funding, allied attorneys Gary McCaleb, Nik Nikas, and Denise Burke were able to form an effective coalition of allied organizations to jump into the gap to assist the state in defending against Planned Parenthood’s attack. The result? On Wednesday, October 9th, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 95% of the law, striking down only a few minor regulatory items. The bottom line? The law was found to be constitutional and countless babies will be saved!
back to top
Pro-Life Speech Victorious at the University of Houston…In U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, a stunning victory for the free-speech rights of pro-life groups was achieved.
In the case of
Pro-Life Cougars and Tullos v. Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, U.S. District Court Judge Ewing Werlein Jr., ruled that the University of Houston violated the free speech rights of the “Pro-Life Cougars” when they were denied access to Butler Plaza, a designated public forum, to display their pro-life exhibit. Judge Werlein held that the university policy banning speech whenever the university deemed it “potentially disruptive” was unconstitutional.
The exhibit featured photographs that affirmed the right to life for the unborn, the disabled, the infirm, and the aged. It had been previously set up on campus with no complaints or disruptive behavior.
However, when the Pro-Life Cougars asked for permission in October 2001 to set up the display again, they were denied by Dean William F. Munson, the Assistant Vice-President for Student Development and the Dean of Students on the grounds that it was “potentially disruptive” under the policy. Instead, they were told that they would have to set up at one of two alternate sites that were too small for their display because it was “potentially disruptive.”
ADF chief counsel Benjamin W. Bull intervened on behalf of the Pro-Life Cougars, stating that their First Amendment rights had been infringed by the university’s actions.
Judge Werlein ruled that the plaintiffs, the Pro-Life Cougars, demonstrated that the Dean’s actions were an infringement on their First Amendment rights. Therefore, he has issued a preliminary injunction against the Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, the Vice-President of Student Affairs, and Dean Munson, stating that they must “cease and desist” from restraining the First Amendment rights of the Pro-Life Cougars, or any other student group, in Butler Plaza.
In a 20-page opinion and three-page order, Judge Werlein found that the university’s park-like areas are public zones for student expression. In his opinion, he held that the University could not discriminate against pro-life expression in the access of those campus areas.
back to top
Free Speech for Pro-Life Protestors Protected at U.S. Supreme Court…ADF helped support a longterm fight and ultimate victory at the U.S. Supreme Court after a 17-year struggle to protect pro-life speech. The protesters had been alleged to be members of a nationwide conspiracy to “shut down” abortion clinics through a pattern of “racketeering” activity that included acts of extortion in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute and other laws that are designed to punish extortion.
The groups had staged peaceful demonstrations in front of abortion clinics, similar to previous demonstrations done by civil rights and anti-war protestors. The RICO statute, on the other hand, was meant to be used against drug dealers and mafia bosses. Under RICO, defendants must pay triple damages if found liable. The purpose of these fines is to financially cripple criminal enterprises so they can no longer engage in racketeering and other such activities.
In the lower court proceedings, the pro-life groups had been ordered to pay $258,000 in triple damages to the Delaware and Summit Women’s Health Organizations. This decision had originally been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 when it ruled RICO laws could be applied even if there was no evidence that the activity was motivated by an economic purpose. The case then went back to lower courts and took 11 years to return to the High Court.
In an 8-1 victory (only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented) held RICO and other extortion laws were improperly used to punish pro-life protestors because the protestors did not “obtain” -- or even attempt to obtain -- property from the clinics, and therefore cannot be punished under the RICO laws or any other law designed to punish extortion. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in favor of the free speech rights of pro-life and all other protestors.
ADF has provided funding for this case through a number of ADF allied attorneys and organizations, including Americans United for Life and The American Center for Law and Justice.
back to top
Another Victory for Pro-Life Speech on College Campuses…The student group Justice for All had asked the administration of Lamar University to have a pro-life display in the “quad” area of the campus, like other groups can. The administration stonewalled the group and eventually tried to deny the request.
ADF-trained, NLA graduate attorney Jim Spencer, who had been involved in the
Pro-Life Cougars case, then sent a demand letter to the vice-chancellor of the university, informing him of the
Pro-Life Cougars decision. Spencer informed the vice-chancellor of the threat of a lawsuit if the administration denied the group its free speech rights.
Jim Spencer e-mailed the results to ADF:
“Lamar …[is] allowing the student group to put up the exhibits in three places on the Quadrangle…The student group president is picking up the approved paperwork this afternoon, but he talked to the VP of the university who confirmed that he has given instructions for the paperwork to be approved. Praise God!”
back to top
ADF Stands in the Gap to Save a Life… Thirteen years ago, then-twenty-six year old Terri Schiavo collapsed suddenly in her Florida home. Her heart stopped beating and the lack of oxygen to her brain resulted in permanent brain damage.
While Terri remains bedridden to this day, many of her bodily functions are normal and her parents say that she can recognize voices and vocalize sounds. She can communicate. She cannot feed herself and must have all her food and water from a tube. In 1998, her husband went to court to have her feeding tube removed, which would result in Terri’s starvation and eventual death.
But Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, want to see their daughter live. With significant financial assistance from ADF to an allied ministry, the Schindlers have thus far been successful in their efforts to keep Terri alive. An appellate court ruled against them and instructed the trial court to have Terri’s feeding tube removed. But the Schindlers were not about to give up, and neither was ADF. A motion to the Second District Court of Appeals resulted in a stay on the court order to remove her tube. Her husband then went to the Florida Supreme Court to have that stay lifted. On Friday, August 1, the court declined without comment to lift the stay.
Then on October 15th, a county circuit judge ordered that Terri’s tube be removed. After five days of forced starvation, the battle for Terri’s life moved from the courts to the Florida House and Senate, which passed a bill that would allow the restoring of her feeding tube. The bill then went to the desk of Governor Jeb Bush, who signed it into law.
The attorney representing Terri’s husband (who has sought to have her feeding tube removed) went back to the same judge asking for a restraining order against the enforcement of the executive order. However, the judge denied the motion, and Terri was once again able to eat! Tragically, those who seek her passing are already working behind the scenes to deny her nourishment through other means.
In the words of Bob Schindler,
“If it wasn’t for ADF and its support, Terri would now be dead.”
back to top
Pro-Life Speech Affirmed at Arizona Clinics…In 1996, the state of Arizona passed a law that required females under the age of 18 to gain the consent of at least one parent before they could have an abortion. Parental consent laws have been PROVEN in state after state to reduce the number of abortions that occur annually.
After an activist court struck down the law, pro-life legislators in Arizona, guided by the
Focus on the Family affiliated state public policy group, Center for Arizona Policy, went back to the drawing board and were successful in getting a new bill passed in 2000 that addressed the previous issues raised by the court.
Of course, Planned Parenthood immediately filed a new lawsuit to block the implementation of the new legislation. In addition, the attorney general for the state of Arizona was hesitant to defend the law and publicly stated that she did not want to “waste taxpayer money” defending the bill.
With ADF funding, allied attorneys Gary McCaleb, Nik Nikas, and Denise Burke were able to form an effective coalition of allied organizations to jump into the gap to assist the state in defending against Planned Parenthood’s attack. The result? In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 95% of the law, striking down only a few minor regulatory items. The bottom line? The law was found to be constitutional and countless babies will be saved!
back to top
ADF Funded Attorney Successfully Defends Pro-Life Nurse...
Michelle Diaz was a nurse at a government run health center in Riverside County, California. In March 1999, she and three other nurses expressed their religious objections to handing out the so-called “morning-after” pill to the women who came to the clinic. Their supervisor worked out a compromise: the nurses would give out information about the pill to patients but would not be required to dispense it.
The compromise did not last long. Just a few months later, the nurses were given a packet that identified the tasks they were supposed to perform at the clinic. In the packet was a requirement that the nurse practitioners must give information and dispense medication for “emergency contraceptives.” The Director of Public Health told the nurses that he could not guarantee jobs for them and if they declined to sign the form, their employment would be terminated.
Three of the nurses chose to resign rather than sign the form, but Mrs. Diaz decided to write a letter to explain why she would not be signing it.
Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Diaz, who was pregnant, was required by her doctor to stay home for a week due to complications with her pregnancy. While she was away at work, a local newspaper got in touch with her, as well as CBS, and asked for an interview with regard to her situation. After the CBS interview aired, Diaz returned to work and was fired for “failing to fulfill her probationary requirements,” and she was told that she was being terminated without cause.
With the assistance of ADF allied attorney Francis Manion and ADF National Litigation Academy graduate and then-volunteer attorney Robert Tyler, Mrs. Diaz filed a religious discrimination suit against the County of Riverside.
The U.S. District Court, a jury found that the County had violated Mrs. Diaz’s right to free speech and freedom of association when she was fired.
back to top
ADF Successful in Defeating Assisted Suicide in Alaska…In December 1998, a case was filed on behalf of a 43-year-old AIDS victim and a breast cancer patient in her 60s, challenging the state’s ban on assisted suicide. The case challenged the ban under the liberty component of the Alaska constitution, as well as its privacy and equal protection clauses.
Alaska was a key state in the push for assisted suicide for another reason: Alaskan courts have a history of broadly interpreting the state’s right to privacy provision. It was a very broad interpretation of the so-called “right of privacy” in the U.S. Constitution that gave us
Roe v. Wade back in 1973. In fact, the Alaska Supreme Court is on record as saying that they have a duty “to develop additional constitutional rights and privileges under our Alaska Constitution if we find such fundamental rights and privileges to be within the intention and spirit of our local constitutional language…”
“Right-to-die” proponents hoped for this type of judicial activism. ADF funded amicus briefs to the Alaska Supreme Court on behalf of our allies, the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and Alaskan Doctors Against Physician Assisted Suicide, to make sure they didn’t receive it.
A unanimous Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Alaska’s constitutional guarantees of privacy and liberty do not afford terminally ill patients the right to a doctor’s assistance in committing suicide, and that Alaska’s manslaughter statute, which prohibits aiding anyone in suicide, was constitutional.
back to top
ADF Protects Life in the Golden State…In 1993, Robert Wendland, a husband and father of three, was critically injured in an automobile accident that left him cognitively disabled. After sixteen months in a coma, Robert awoke, and with time and physical therapy, started to regain some cognitive and physical abilities. Nevertheless, midway through his physical therapy, his wife, who also served as his conservator, sought to not only have his treatment stopped, but also to remove his feeding tube. This was despite the fact that Robert had never expressed his wishes regarding future treatment if he became disabled. Robert’s mother went to court to block the tube’s removal and with the assistance of ADF and its allies, she won at the trial court level.
His wife appealed to the appellate court which ruled in her favor. Robert’s mother then appealed to the state Supreme Court. By this time, Robert had progressed to the point that he could operate a manual wheelchair with his left hand or foot or an electric wheelchair with a joystick. He could also operate an augmentative communication device to give “yes” or “no” answers to questions.
The California State Supreme Court issued an unanimous 6-0 decision ruling in favor of Robert’s mother and consequently, the right to life for disabled individuals was affirmed and the so-called “right-to-die” was dealt a crushing blow.
Robert Wendland passed away before the decision was issued but after the California Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the case. If Robert had died earlier, while this case was still at the lower court level, it might have never made it to the California Supreme Court because the issue could have been considered moot and untold numbers of disabled individuals may have faced an early death.
Janie Hickok Siess, the attorney for Robert’s mother said: “It [the decision] is going to save a lot of lives. I just wish Robert were here for this.”
back to top