Press Release

Denver, CO – 2/4/13 – While researching the scandal of the Catholic Health Initiatives legal briefs which denied the personhood of unborn children, Personhood USA has learned that the same Colorado hospital chain may be allowing or participating in abortions on the Catholic hospital grounds.

In November of 2010, a woman suffering a miscarriage sought treatment at Four Corners OB/GYN, which is located at Mercy Regional (listed as a CHI hospital) in Durango, Colorado. While recovering, and still grieving after losing her baby, the woman was billed for an elective abortion by Mercy Regional Lab. The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, sent documentation verifying her claims to Personhood USA.

After receiving the bill, the woman’s health insurance provider declined to pay, as elective abortions are not covered by their insurance policy.

The evidence indicates that CHI may be selling or allowing abortion services, and may have been doing so for years. This new information comes just weeks after a CHI legal brief made headlines. The brief denied culpability in a medical malpractice suit, claiming that unborn twins who died while in CHI’s care were not people.

“On top of the devastation of losing my baby, I am being sued by an aggressive collection agency for not paying for an abortion that never happened,” explained the woman. “It is horrible to have to deal with their attorney, and fight a battle against a big hospital for erroneous charges, when I’m still dealing with the pain of the death of my child. It’s just wrong.”

Catholic Health Initiatives had already been immersed in abortion scandal since allowing privileges to Durango abortionist Richard Grossman, who serves on the ethics board there and is the longest serving physician at Mercy Hospital with full admitting privileges. There is also an established link between CHI and abortion profiteer Stericycle.

“There is no question that Catholic Health Initiatives’ actions are contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic Church,” confirmed Gualberto GarciaJones, J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA. “There must be an immediate investigation into the possibility that CHI is killing children in their hospitals. Among many other steps that must be taken, these businesses should at the very least cease their ruthless pursuit of payment from this woman and her family. This is an outrageous breach of the trust. It is unacceptable for any health care facility to put dollars before human lives.”

Personhood Colorado files new amendment for unborn victims of violence

Denver, Co. – 01/28/13 – Immediately following the legislative defeat of H.B. 1032, Heather Surovik and Personhood Colorado filed an amendment to ensure that all victims of homicide are considered persons.

The Brady Project was created after Heather’s son was killed by a drunk driver, who was already a four-time offender. Surovik and her family were told that although Brady was near delivery, the driver could not be charged with vehicular homicide because under Colorado law her baby was not considered a ‘person’. Heather and Brady’s case is just one of many in recent years that disallowed prosecution for the baby’s death, including car accidents and shootings.

http://youtu.be/BCaVnHejbZ0

HB 1032, which was endorsed by The Fraternal Order of Police as well as the Colorado District Attorney’s Council, would have enabled prosecution for homicide in the cases of violent crimes against unborn babies.

Heather Surovik explained, “Since the legislature has failed to protect victims of violence in Colorado, we the people need to act immediately. In Colorado, there is a case of unsolicited fetal homicide nearly every year. In most other states, there would be justice for those victims, and it is time for Colorado citizens to demand justice as well.”

A new website, www.thebradyproject.com, hosts a video of Heather explaining the joys of her pregnancy with Brady and the circumstances of Brady’s tragic death.

“The current laws in Colorado do not go far enough,” continued Surovik. “The law says that Brady wasn’t a person, and as a result, the drunk driver who killed my son was not charged with homicide. Brady was eight pounds, two ounces. Brady was a person – his life was worth defending,” Heather continued.

The amendment was filed today and is expected to be heard by a Legislative Committee Hearing in two weeks.

Twitter: @bradyproject
www.thebradyproject.com
www.personhoodusa.com

A recent study published by the pro-abortion group National Advocates for Pregnant Women blames arrests and forced interventions on Personhood ideology, pleading for people who “value pregnant women” to “work together against personhood…so women can be assured that on becoming pregnant they will retain their civil rights.”

The study is timely, as the Alabama Supreme Court ruled just last week that chemical endangerment laws apply to children in utero, specifically affirming the personhood rights of unborn children.

 As a woman in my child-bearing years, of course I have a vested interest in assuring that all women, including myself, retain civil rights during pregnancy. So I took a deeper look at the report, titled “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States”, which was published this week in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law.

 I did a little reading on the NAPW website before I began, and I was unpleasantly surprised by an unrepentant vow to protect the rights of “drug-using women”, going on to assert that "you cannot have a culture of life if you do not value the women who give that life” (or death, apparently).  The author and NAPW Executive Director Lynn Paltrow has worked for some of the most dangerous foes of children in the United States, including Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

 There are several problems with this study, including false assertions about Personhood Mississippi’s 2011 amendment and an admitted use of news articles where hospital records weren’t available.  Many of the cases are tragic. Many are appalling. But a good number are drug-related. When should law enforcement, or child protective services, intervene?

 Should a woman have the right to decide where and how to give birth to her baby? Should she be able to decide which medical interventions, if any, she wishes to receive? Yes, she should.

Should a woman be able to use cocaine and methamphetamines, making her child an addict who will suffer horrible withdrawals after birth? No, she should not. Personhood USA believes that the line is drawn at intentionally harming the child. But NAPW disagrees.

Is the information in this study correct? Possibly. The treatment of the pregnant women outlined here in many cases is horrendous, and the actual data may be correct. But the findings and conclusion are so far off base, and so based on personal bias, that it makes the study nearly impossible to take seriously.

The study is not surprising, but it is based upon two incorrect premises: first, that a woman should be able to do whatever she wishes during pregnancy with no consequences, and second, that recognizing the value and rights of the child is harmful to women.

By assuming that personhood amendments promote the rights of the child above those of the mother, the authors draw various incorrect conclusions. The fact is (as has been determined by numerous legal and medical professionals), a personhood amendment requires that both mother and child be treated as patients. For example, if a mother is undergoing cancer treatments, the baby should be monitored and treated as a patient as well. If a woman is suffering a life-threatening condition and the baby must be delivered via c-section to save her, it is permissible to do so while doing everything possible to save the baby’s life. The Dublin Declaration in 2012 determined that it is never medically necessary to abort (intentionally kill) the child to save his mother’s life.

Recognizing the personhood of the child is not dangerous to his mother. In fact, countries where abortion is illegal enjoy the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates. It is critical that we recognize that the problem in the cases where there truly is unnecessary government involvement is not personhood, but rather an illegal application of laws that already exist. 

The personhood of the child in the womb is dangerous to groups like NAPW because they seem to believe that there is NO case in which a woman should be prosecuted for endangering her child in the womb, and there is NO restriction on abortion that is permissible. Our wealthy enemies – Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, and NAPW – will not suffer any regulations or restrictions, including those well-intentioned restrictions to make clinics “safer”. With a zero-tolerance policy for any abortion restriction whatsoever, of course personhood is loathed by these adversaries of human life, and made into a scapegoat.

While there are certainly clear cases of violations of mother’s rights, there are also very clear cases where a woman intentionally harmed herself, thus harming her child. Recently, the Alabama case of Amanda Kimbrough made headlines. Kimbrough admitted to smoking crystal meth three days before her baby, Timmy, was delivered at 25 weeks. After his birth, he lived for only nineteen minutes before dying of methamphetamine exposure. Should there not be a voice for Timmy? Should the state ignore his death instead of seeking justice?  

Therein lies the problem: to Lynn Paltrow and the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, babies are little more than human garbage. Far from being true advocates for pregnant women, the NAPW seeks to dehumanize the baby, the very human being whose existence makes his or her mother a pregnant woman. The devaluing of human life is a disservice to mother and child.  

Shameful as they are, these pro-child endangerment positions are consistent. As abortion advocates, I suppose it would be hypocritical for them to say that abortion is acceptable, but forcing your baby to be a meth addict is not. After reading the official positions of NAPW and their “study”, I believe that the name ‘National Advocates for Pregnant Women’ is disingenuous. Perhaps the name ‘National Advocates for Child Abuse’ is more fitting.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2012/05/08/nr-felon-moms-in-alaba…

Montgomery, AL – The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a chemical endangerment statute must protect children who have not been born yet. The strongly worded ruling is the most important affirmation of the personhood of the pre-born child since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The case was appealed to the AL Supreme Court by Amanda Kimbrough, a mother who admits that she smoked meth three days before her baby was born at 25 weeks. Tragically, baby Timmy lived for only a few minutes. The autopsy showed that the baby died from methamphetamine exposure.

“The Alabama Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to the constitutional fraud of Roe v. Wade by recognizing that the preborn child is a person,” explained Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. “This is yet another confirmation that the fight for personhood is targeting the Achilles’ heel of the abortion industry and Roe v. Wade.”

The New York Times covered Kimbrough’s case in in April, when she was found guilty of a Class A felony. The article quoted assistant district attorney Angela Hulsey as stating, “She caused the death of another person, a person that will never have the chance to go to school, go to the prom, get married, have children of their own. You’re dealing with the most innocent of victims.”

The Alabama Supreme Court agreed with Hulsey, stating in their ruling that, “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”

“The Alabama Supreme Court ruling is a monumental victory for the personhood rights of preborn children,” affirmed Personhood Alabama member Dan Becker. “Personhood Alabama is committed to continuing our fight for the rights of every baby in Alabama.”

Personhood Alabama is a chapter of Personhood USA, an organization established to seek protection for the personhood rights of every human being, born and unborn.. In April of 2012, Personhood Alabama delivered a copy of Ray Comfort’s groundbreaking film “180” to every Alabama legislator.