PRO-LIFE NEWS IN BRIEF

Doctors Will Examine Schindler-Schiavo

In the latest turn in a lengthy legal battle, five doctors will have the opportunity to examine Terri Schindler-Schiavo and determine whether she has any potential for improvement or whether she should be starved and dehydrated to death, according to the Tampa Tribune.

Schindler-Schiavo, the Florida woman who suffered severe brain injuries in a 1990 heart attack, resides in Hospice House Woodside in Pinellas Park while the long court battle continues. Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have been fighting her husband Michael's request that her food and fluids be stopped, the St. Petersburg Times reported.

Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge George Greer first authorized Schindler-Schiavo's death in February 2001, and she was without food and fluids for 60 hours beginning April 24, according to the Times.

Her parents obtained a temporary injunction of the order and she was fed, but Judge Greer again ordered her feeding tube to be removed.

However, the Schindlers took the case to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. The three-judge panel ruled on October 17 that doctors should examine Schindler-Schiavo before a final decision is made.

Michael Schiavo appealed this ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. On March 14, the court announced that it would not hear the case, and sent it back to Judge Greer, the Associated Press reported.

Doctors are scheduled to examine Schindler-Schiavo in April, and another trial date has been set for October, according to the Tribune.

"It means essentially that Terri is going to live for the rest of the year and be examined by doctors," Pat Anderson, a lawyer for the Schindlers, told the Tribune. "That's a good thing."

Judge Throws Out Challenge to Louisiana "Choose Life" License Plate

Louisiana's "Choose Life" license plate is closer to distribution after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a pro-abortion lawsuit March 29, asserting that the plaintiffs had no basis to challenge the law.

On a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel ruled that the pro- abortionists, represented by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, lacked legal standing for the suit. According to the Times-Picyaune, this means that they failed to prove they would be "adversely and directly affected by the law at issue."

The plaintiffs asserted that since there was no corresponding pro-abortion license tag, the "Choose Life" plate would restrict their right of free speech. However, the appeals court panel rejected this argument and said that "blocking the plates would not give the opponents a place to express their view," the Times- Picayune reported.

The license plate, which features the "Choose Life" slogan and a drawing of a baby wrapped in a blanket in the beak of the state bird, a pelican, was unanimously approved by the legislature in 1999. Money raised from the sale of the plates would go to organizations that promote adoption.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., stopped the sale of the license plates in August 2000. Through its March decision, the appeals court sent the case back to Duval and ordered him to dismiss it. Brigitte Amiri of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy told the Times-Picyaune that the group is considering an appeal.

Australian Court Considers "Wrongful Life" Lawsuits

The New South Wales, Australia, Supreme Court heard a test case in March to determine if disabled children can sue doctors and others for allowing them to be born. The case focuses on three children whose parents contend they would have had abortions if they had known of their children's disabilities.

If the court allows the lawsuits, doctors could be sued in the name of the children themselves, not their parents. These suits are often referred to as "wrongful life," to distinguish them from cases filed on behalf of the parents, which are usually known as "wrongful birth." According to The Age, "Opponents say the [ 'wrongful life'] concept diminishes the value of life and amounts to arguing that the children should not have been born."

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the children involved in the case are Chelsea Edwards, 2, who was born with a chromosomal abnormality after her father's vasectomy failed; Alexia Harriton, 20, whose mother had an undiagnosed case of rubella while pregnant; and Keeden Waller, 17 months, who was conceived through in vitro fertilization but whose genetic disorder was not diagnosed because doctors failed to screen for it.

The Australian case comes after France's highest court ordered doctors to pay damages in 2001 to a disabled boy whose mother had rubella while she was carrying him. Since doctors' errors "had prevented [the mother] from exercising her choice to end the pregnancy in order to avoid the birth of a handicapped child," the French court ruled, "the latter can ask for compensation for damages resulting from this handicap."

Peter Garling, the lawyer representing the Australian doctors, warned the court that allowing the suits might lead doctors to urge their patients to abort children with even minor disabilities in fear that they could be sued, according to the Morning Herald. Garling also insisted that the law does not recognize that people have "an interest in avoiding their own birth," the AAP reported.

The court has not yet announced its decision.

Florida Parental Notification Law Comes Before State Supreme Court

Pro-abortionists, represented by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, have asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the state's parental notification law, which requires that the abortionist contact a parent 48 hours before aborting a minor girl under 18. It has a judicial bypass provision. The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments March 4 on the law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in June 1999.

The law has never been in effect. It was declared unconstitutional by a circuit court in 1999 and 2000, but upheld by the 1st District Court of Appeals in 2001, according to the Florida Times-Union.

The state Supreme Court struck down an earlier parental involvement law in 1989, declaring that a requirement that minors receive their parents' consent before having an abortion violated privacy rights. However, the current law does not require consent but only notification, which has been upheld by other courts.

The Times-Union reported that during the March hearing justices asked many questions about the 1989 ruling and how it related to the current law under review.

Senior Assistant Attorney General John Rimes defended the law, saying that "the state wants to make sure that girls get help from parents that could protect their health," according to the Times-Union.

The pro-abortionists claimed that the law violates the right to privacy and could be dangerous for some minors, the newspaper reported.

New Zealand Hospital Removed and Stored Organs without Consent

New Zealand has been rocked by revelations that Green Lane Hospital in Auckland removed internal organs from aborted babies and others who died at the hospital and stored them for up to 50 years without the consent of parents or relatives.

Late last year, the hospital admitted that it was storing 1,300 abnormal hearts, mostly taken from children and babies, according to the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA). Kirsten Finucane, Green Lane's director of children's heart surgery, told the NZPA that "quite a large proportion" were from aborted babies, "often from terminations before 20 weeks, sent here because the heart was found to be a little funny."

The hospital offered to return the organs to families who requested it through a toll-free phone number, and said it would conduct a ceremony and blessing over the body parts, the NZPA reported. Individual families then began to speak to reporters, saying that the hospital returned not only hearts but also lungs, all harvested without permission.

Gaelynn Beswick, whose four-month-old daughter Melissa died in 1978, told the NZPA that she was devastated when she received a call from Green Lane telling her that Melissa's heart and lungs had been removed and stored in a jar for 24 years. "I feel like I 'm walking through a bizarre horror movie," she said. "My daughter is dead, yet her heart and lungs -- those organs that gave her life, breath -- still exist."

Organs removed from aborted babies posed a difficult problem for hospital officials, who were hesitant to contact women who had abortions. "It's a very delicate matter," Finucane told the NZPA. " People from Green Lane approaching a woman about that 30 years later -- it could become very uncomfortable for her."

The hospital continued to take organs without permission even after informed consent regulations were tightened in 1998. "We instituted processes for consent in the 1990s," Auckland District Health Board spokeswoman Brenda Saunders told the NZPA. "As we've said all along, they haven't been followed to the letter. We have some that have fallen through the cracks."