Thursday, December 23, 2010
STRASBOURG, December 23 (C-FAM) Europe’s highest human rights court says there is no human right to abortion in Europe’s human rights convention, and that abortion laws are the purview of sovereign states.
The European Court of Human Rights made the statement last week in its conclusion of “A, B, and C v. Ireland.” Three anonymous plaintiffs claimed that Ireland’s strict abortion laws violated their human rights to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The women claimed that they had traveled to Britain for abortions with the belief that they could not secure abortions in Ireland given their circumstances.
Pro-life advocates had been concerned that the court would hand down a European version of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision that interpreted the right to privacy broadly and strike down all state laws restricting abortion in any way. The European court rejected that path, but found Ireland in violation of the right to privacy in one of the three cases.
The situation involved a woman who said she was unsure what the effects of her pregnancy had on her remittent cancer, what effects medical tests would have on the unborn child, and whether an abortion would be legal in her situation.
The court found that even though article 8 on the right to privacy does not contain a right to abortion, Ireland nonetheless violated the woman’s privacy by the law’s “chilling effect” on obtaining sufficient information about her situation.
William Saunders said the court mischaracterized the Irish constitution which does not provide for a “right to abortion,” but rather it guarantees the right to life of both mother and child. The court was unduly intrusive, in effect telling doctors in Ireland when to “prescribe” abortion, Saunders said.
Critics also say that the court based their findings on the woman’s feelings of uncertainty rather than on proof that her health was at risk. If the woman needed a cycle of chemotherapy, she could have received it according to Irish law.
One senior EU official said that the facts of the case were murky because the case was never investigated for trial in Ireland. For that reason alone the court should have dismissed the case out of hand, he said, since the convention requires plaintiffs to exhaust remedies in national courts before bringing them to Strasbourg.
“While one must be glad about today’s judgment, the way the court operates today remains a reason for grave concern for anyone seriously and genuinely committed to the protection of human rights,” the official said, “But at least it did not succumb to the pressures of those who wanted it to ‘discover,’ hidden in the penumbral fringes of the convention, a ‘right to abortion’ that would oblige all EU member states to legalize the killing of the unborn.”
The court’s decision is binding only on the 47 European nations which are party to the European Convention on Human Rights and does not extend to international law outside Europe.
NEW YORK, December 23 (C-FAM) The United States made good on its promise to force a vote on “sexual orientation” in the General Assembly this week angering many delegations from the global south.
With support from the European Union, the Nordic countries and Canada, the US launched a massive campaign to re-insert “sexual orientation” into a UN resolution before final approval in the General Assembly. Reportedly, the US was working “at the highest levels” to push countries to support its amendment.
The US move followed in the wake of a vote in a lower level committee last month, when opponents of the “sexual orientation” language won their bid to have the language removed. The deletion of that term caught its supporters off-guard because “sexual orientation” had been included in the resolution on “Summary, Arbitrary, or Extrajudicial Executions” for the past 10 years.
The bid was successful and in a last-minute reversal, UN member states voted to reinsert of the contentious language on “sexual orientation.” An analysis of the vote shows that 23 countries, consisting mainly of small island states and countries from Latin America & the Caribbean, changed their positions from November’s vote that allowed the US motion to carry.
The fact that the US abstained from supporting the final resolution despite the passage of their amendment caused some to question the real motive of the US maneuvering.
Delegations who originally voted to remove the language reiterated concerns over the “undefined and controversial” term “sexual orientation,” citing the reality that there is “no foundation in any international legal or human rights instrument that justifies its inclusion” in the resolution.
The Islamic countries vowed that they “will continue to reject” the misinterpretation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights treaties to include notions that were “never approved by the general membership of the UN.”
One delegation blasted the US-led attempt to reintroduce “sexual orientation” into the text as “international legal adventurism.”
South Africa, who reversed its original position to support the US amendment, took the floor to assert that propagating the issue in such a manner did nothing to help advance the “sexual orientation” cause. South Africa called for an intergovernmental process to discuss a definition of the term.
Some observers expressed deep concern that at least three delegations quoted a recent controversial speech by UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon in support of the US amendment. Ban had claimed that “sexual orientation” was part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although that document makes no reference to the term.
President Obama applauded supporters of the US amendment. In a statement, Obama said, “While today’s adoption of an inclusive resolution is important, so too are the conversations that have now begun in capitals around the world about inclusion, equality, and discrimination.”
The high-level political pressure exerted in this resolution caps an aggressive year-long campaign by the Obama administration to push “sexual orientation” issues at the UN and domestically. On Wednesday, President Obama signed legislation that ended the ban on homosexuals from serving openly in the US military.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
On Monday, the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA), decertified Carleton Lifeline for its anti-abortion views. It told the club that being against abortion violated CUSA’s anti-discrimination policy, but that it could get recertified in a day or two.
“We invite you to amend your constitution to create one that respects our anti-discrimination policy as laid out above,” wrote Khaldoon Bushnaq, CUSA’s vice-president of internal affairs. “If you are able to resubmit a constitution that meets our criteria by Thursday, November 18th we will be able to certify your club for this semester.”
Ruth Lobo, the president of Carleton Lifeline, said CUSA assumes all students are “pro-choice,” which is not necessarily the case. Its policy, she said, smacked of hypocrisy.
“It’s very ironic that they have a discrimination policy that allows them to discriminate against pro-life groups,” she said. “CUSA claims to be representative of all students. As a pro-life student I am not represented by an organization I am forced to pay dues to in my tuition. Either they should create a policy in which students can opt out of fees or get rid of the discrimination policy,” Ms. Lobo said.
“Pro-choice should also mean that a woman has the right to not have an abortion, so I think CUSA is being anti-choice by not allowing people to hear the other side.”
CUSA did not return phone calls on Tuesday. The Canadian Federation of Students, an umbrella group for student associations, said it does not get involved with local matters on specific campuses.
The letter from Mr. Bushnaq noted Carleton Lifeline believes in the “equal rights of the unborn and firmly believes that abortion is a moral and legal wrong.” Therefore, because of CUSA’s commitment to the pro-abortion-rights position, Carleton Lifeline can no longer promote its views on campus or lobby in any way that would oppose that position.
It can no longer book space for advocacy or events, nor is it eligible for funding.
Ottawa lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, who is defending the Lifeline students, said CUSA’s “appalling” decision goes against all principles of free speech.
In a letter to CUSA, Mr. Polizogopoulos noted that CUSA’s own constitution, which overrides all bylaws and policies enacted by CUSA, calls for “maintaining an academic and social environment free from prejudice, exploitation, abuse or violence on the basis of, but not limited to, sex, race, language, religion, age, national or social status, political affiliation or belief, sexual orientation or marital status.”
Mr. Polizogopoulos continued: “Since the Discrimination on Campus Policy explicitly calls for the discrimination [against] individuals on the basis of their political belief that life begins at conception, [therefore] it cannot, according to CUSA’s Constitution, continue to be in effect.”
Late on Tuesday Carleton University said in a statement: “CUSA is an independent, incorporated organization; they operate independently of the university and the university plays no role in and has no standing with regard to CUSA’s decision making.”
The Carleton Lifeline became certified in 2006 after a failed attempt by CUSA to keep the club off campus.
Ms. Lobo said she can only speculate why CUSA decided to ban them now but she assumes that it is related to an incident involving the club last month.
On Oct. 4, Ms. Lobo and four other students were arrested on campus by Ottawa police for attempting to display graphic anti-abortion posters. The police were called in by the school administration and the students were charged with trespassing. The case is still pending.
John Carpay, a civil liberties lawyer from Calgary, who has dealt with similar bans on anti-abortion groups, said CUSA’s offer to reinstate the club if they agree to endorse abortion rights can only be laughed at.
“That’s awfully generous of them to offer an opportunity for repentance,” said Mr. Carpay. “But it is truly alarming that CUSA would so easily suppress free speech. It’s tragic.”
Read more: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/16/carleton-student-association-bans-anti-abortion-club/#ixzz15drsRun3
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Refer to this link
Whats wrong with this?
1 - So much money is wasted when there are kids who need to be adopted.
2 - Invitro fertilization leads to the destruction of fertilized embryos this is abortion so these parents in a desire to have a child are willing to kill other kids.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
My mother was raped in January 1933 and as a result, I was born in October of that year. I wasn’t aborted and I didn’t end up dead on a rubbish heap and my mother didn’t abandon me. Had I been disposed of as a dead infant like thousands of infants who had mothers around the world who had unwanted pregnancies, certain events in history would not have occurred. For example, it was I that proposed in a UN crime conference in 1980 that a bill of rights for young offenders be created. That bill of rights was adopted by the UN five years later and has an effect on the lives of millions of children world-wide. It was I that suggested at a crime conference in Canada that Legal Aid should have 24-hour duty counsel on call so that anyone arrested in Canada at any time of the day or night has access to free legal advice while in the police station. I am mentioning these two events to point out that all human beings have some role to play in our society and shouldn’t be killed as infants simply because they are unwanted.
It’s ironic when you think about it. Many years ago I was driving home on a motor scooter early in the morning. I was on a highway heading south towards Toronto and the moon was out so I turned off my headlight as the moon lit up the countryside. Up ahead, I saw about a mile away, a turn in the highway. I remembered that turn when I was heading northward days earlier. There was a cliff at the beginning of the turn. Suddenly I saw a bright light in my face and heard the blaring of a loud horn. I stopped my motor scooter and much to my horror, I discovered that I had driven the mile towards the cliff while I was asleep. My eyes were open while I was driving towards the cliff but I was totally unconscious as to where I was or what I was doing. It was no different than sleepwalking.
A truck driver stopped his rig and he called out and asked me if I was alright. I told him I was so he climbed back into his rig and drove away. I realized that it was his headlights that flashed before me and his horn that I heard. He obviously saw me heading towards the cliff rather than continuing on the turn. If he hadn’t been at that location at that precise moment and warned me of what I was doing, I would have driven off the cliff and been killed. If that had happened, none of what I had accomplished after that would have come about. What is ironic about this event is that the truck driver has no idea that his actions had an effect on the lives of millions of children around the world who are protected by the UN bill of rights for young offenders. Had he been aborted or killed as an unwanted baby and discarded onto a garbage heap, I would have been killed that fateful night and nothing I did after that would have occurred.
I have said it before and I will continue saying. Everyone’s life has an effect on the lives of other people. If you doubt that, then ask yourself this rhetorical question; “Would I exist today if my mother or my father were killed as an infant because they were unwanted?”
Friday, May 14, 2010
(Courtesy VideoMan Ottawa)
OH Canada sung at the National March for Life 2010.
Will you stand on guard for Canada or will you just sing it on your lips but never stand for on guard for Canada against abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia.
(Courtesy VideoMan Ottawa)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
This is the coverage from The Globe and Mail.
Do read the comments, they will either make you laugh on the floor or weep buckets. Its so nice that we live in a country that has free speech, however lack of intelligence is a serious impediment to free speech.
We support this stance of the government not to finance abortion in countries of the Third World. But we would like some more courage, to do something more in Canada in defence of the unborn," Cardinal Marc Ouellet (*Source Montreal Gazette)
(Cardinal Marc Oulette )
Bishop Nicola de Angelis of Peterborough, also addressed the crowds, saying: “My message is very simply, my friends, just to remind you that God created life. God did not create death. We don’t own our lives.
"We are the custodians of our life. It is up to God to call our life back whenever he decides and nobody can anticipate for any selfish initiative to terminate life.
“Every child that is born is a sign that God is not tired of man. Remember this my friends: welcome children to life," he urged.
“I congratulate you dear friends, particularly young people, so many young people are here,” said the bishop. “Dear friends, and most of all young people, in promoting and defending life, you don’t count your personal costs. … You are always in the front line trenches, day by day, bearing witness for the cause of life."May God strengthen you and give you joy in your undertakings.” (* Source LifeSite News)
Some of the Shephers present at March for Life 2010 Include
Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa,
Bishop Luc Cyr of Valleyfield, Quebec,
Bishop Stephen Chmilar of the Ukrainian Church in Toronto,
Bishop Michael Mulhall of Pembroke, Ontario,
Bishop John Pazak of the Canadian Slovaks of the Byzantine Rite in Canada,
Bishop Brendan O’Brien of Kingston,
Bishop Terrence McGrattan, the auxiliary bishop of Toronto,
Bishop Ibrahim M. Ibrahim of the Catholic Greek Melkites of Canada, and
Bishop Car Reid of the Traditional Anglican Catholics. (*Source LifeSite news)
These are pictures of the March for life 2010 from the Toronto Sun oddly enough the first picture is a pro-abortion picture. As I have said previously the main stream media does us no favours.
(Our Lady of Guadalupe - Pray for us now and at the hour of our death Amen)
(By the sake of Thy sorrowful passion have mercy on us and on the whole world)
This is a little snippet from the CTV Ottawa web site:
Thousands of pro-life demonstrators gathered on Parliament Hill Thursday to voice their opposition to abortion and demonstrate the need to pass legislation governing the issue.
"There are no laws on abortion in Canada and we want the unborn to be protected," said Jim Hughes, president of the Campaign Life Coalition.
This article at least calls us by our correct name Pro Life. I do like the tone of this article.
(Jim Huges - Photo from CTV Ottawa website)
Thestar.com - VideoZone - Thousands turn out for anti-abortion rally
Last year the news media ignored the March for Life. This year however with elections looming large on the Canadian horizon, along with Prime Minister Harper rejecting abortion as a part of maternal health care for poor nations, we have actually got some coverage in the main stream media about the March for LIfe 2010. I am appalled at the language used by the media, Prolifers have been referred to as activists and abortion foes.
This is a link from the Montreal Gazette
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Re: G8 Proposal on Maternal & Child Health
February 4, 2010
In light of the many positive contributions that Canada can make to the improvement of maternal and child health, it is astonishing that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Michael Ignatieff, has issued an official statement advocating contraception and abortion as fundamental elements in addressing this important issue.
There are many fruitful ways to improve maternal and child health, and the discussion should centre on the most effective strategies for doing this. We all await with keen interest the tangible measures that the Prime Minister will propose.
Certainly the provision of clean water, the expansion of immunization, and the assurance of a supply of adequate food are among the ways in which the goal of
improved health can be attained.
Even those who think that abortion should be allowed do not, however, propose it
as a positive contribution to the good of society.
When there are so many obvious practical steps that can be taken to promote
maternal and child health throughout the world, it is sad to see Mr. Ignatieff introduce into the discussion this negative proposal, which in no way serves to improve the health of mothers or children, but which rather imperils the most vulnerable among us.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Euthanasia is already a reality in Quebec hospitals, the president of the federation of Quebec medical specialists, told a National Assembly committee yesterday.
Doctors know when death is "imminent and inevitable," Gaétan Barrette explained.
But doctors are aware they can be charged with murder if they administer a "palliative sedative" before a patient is on his or her last breath.
Geoffrey Kelley, chairman of the committee, explained that MNAs will hear about 30 expert witnesses on "dying with dignity" to prepare a paper for a travelling public consultation this fall. (Dying with Dignity is very different from being snuffed out by a doctor who thinks he knows more about life and death than The Almighty God)
Barrette told the committee the issue of euthanasia could not be discussed in Quebec 50 years ago, comparing it with the evolution in thinking about abortion.
"Doctors are ready to debate euthanasia," Barrette said. And like abortion, he said, limits must be established. Not every patient will want euthanasia and not all doctors will agree to perform the procedure.(Living in Canada we have seen how easy it is to over turn legal safeguards, google up Gay Marriage and legal safe guards in Vancouver, the bill will be written with legal safeguards and as soon as it becomes law the legal safegaurds will be overturned by the Human Rights Tribunals)
Barrette explained that a patient who is lucid consults with a doctor, friends and family members before requesting euthanasia.
For patients who are not lucid, a biological will can guide relatives who must decide. (Can you see the throng of money grabbing relatives waiting to pull the plug so that they can have the money, to hell with what the patient really wants)
The patient could have a terminal disease, like cancer. And patients at the "end of life" could be babies born with serious medical difficulties or seniors whose bodies are shutting down, one system after another. (No Bloody way are we going to kill little babies without trying our best to save them first, no matter what the cost life is worth it.)
"It's a cascade," Barrette said. "We can't invent it. We see it. There are safeguards."
Barrette said palliative care, using opiates to ease the pain, is also an important facet of end-of-life care.
"The choice of the patient is his choice," he said. "We want legislation in tune with the wishes of the public."
Polls indicate a high percentage of Quebecers favour euthanasia, including doctors.
But Barrette and Yves Lamontagne of the Quebec College of Physicians told the committee that doctors do not want to perform assisted suicides.
"We are not there to execute people," Lamontagne said.
Euthanasia, the decision to end life when death is imminent and inevitable, is "extremely complex and emotionally charged," Lamontagne added.
Yves Robert, secretary of the College, told the committee that Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada where patients can refuse medical treatment, which can lead to death.
"It doesn't exist elsewhere in Canada," Robert said. "We are ahead. Can we go farther?"
Thursday, January 28, 2010
In a foreword, Bert Koenders of the Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, which helped fund the publication, asserts that, "Young people have the right to be fully informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services. These rights are enshrined in various internationally agreed human rights convention and treaties, but – unfortunately – they are still not universally respected."
According to IPPF, as "young people are sexual beings," it should be self-evident that "sexuality education promotes individual well-being and the advancement of broader societal and public health goals." IPPF argues that "comprehensive sexuality education" must be mandatory in school, and governments must also ensure that this education is delivered to those young people who are out of school (I find this particularly designed against home schooled kids and kids in private catholic schools).
IPPF claims that "With young people as partners, today's adult decision-makers have the chance to recast sex and sexuality as a positive force for change and development, as a source of pleasure, an embodiment of human rights and an expression of self."
IPPF contends that comprehensive sexuality education is necessary to encourage young people's "self-esteem, thoughtful decision-making and negotiation skills and it helps them to develop satisfying and pleasurable sexual lives." Moreover, IPPF expounds that the "power" of comprehensive sexuality education "to challenge traditional gender roles" must not be underestimated.
The IPPF report stresses granting young people "unconstrained" access to sexuality education and services, "free from administrative restrictions and obstacles," like requiring health providers to obtain parental or spousal permission before providing contraceptives. IPPF demands that young people be able to "obtain the services they need and want, unconstrained by psychological, attitudinal, cultural or social factors."
IPPF targets religion and religious groups as one of the main barriers to adolescent access to sexuality education and sexual and reproductive "services." IPPF criticizes that many religious teachings "deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage," which IPPF claims has been ineffective in many settings.
According to IPPF, religious institutions – like the Catholic Church and Islamic schools – need to be "pragmatic" to accommodate young people as "sexual beings" and amend their teachings to "find a way of explaining and providing guidance on issues of sex and sexual relationships among young people, which supports rather than denies their experiences and needs."
Sexual education has been a topic of heated debates at the United Nations, with many critics fearing that parental rights to educate their children will be violated. Just last year, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a set of sexual education guidelines that were met with such staunch resistance from conservatives that the organization was forced to take down the document from its website and review.
Critics expect more debates over "comprehensive sexuality education" to flare up in the coming months as UN Commission season gets underway.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
First, their baby son — on the same day he was initially scheduled to be removed from life support — moved his legs in a way they hadn’t seen before, raising them to his stomach in alternating fashion.
“And (Isaiah) was wiggling his body as he was doing it, and moving his hands and his arms — just like you would see any other baby move,” 23-year-old mother Rebecka said by phone from Edmonton.
“It gives us hope.”
Second, the young family received a flood of support for the legal bid they launched earlier this week to keep their son on life support until they feel they know for certain what his medical future holds.
“Hopeful and confident — we have so much support out there,” she said, adding people are stopping and wishing them well. “It’s been very encouraging and uplifting for us. We are very humbled by it.”
On Tuesday, the couple from Rocky Mountain House, Alta., won a reprieve from the courts for their son. Last week, the first-time parents received a letter indicating doctors would take Isaiah off life support at 2 p.m. Wednesday.
The Mays are seeking 90 days to assess Isaiah’s condition in order to see if it improves and to explore alternatives. They are also seeking a second opinion.
Alberta Health Services are looking for a decision to be made within 30 days.
The board’s lawyer has said caregivers at Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton have also been under considerable stress about the medical and ethical decision.
“It is appropriate to turn now to the courts for direction,” the health board said in a statement.
A judge is expected to make a decision about such a timeline on Jan. 27.
“The lawyers representing Alberta Health Services and the doctor who has primary care for Isaiah, they are professionals I very much respect and I know that we are working on this from a team perspective,” said the couple’s lawyer, Rosanna Saccomani.
Isaiah was born on Oct. 24, 2009, with his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck in the Rocky Mountain House hospital following a 40-hour labour.
Deprived of oxygen and having inhaled amniotic fluid and fecal matter, he was taken by air ambulance to Stollery Children’s Hospital, where he has been on a ventilator ever since. He is fed through an IV tube.
Rebecka and Isaac have been told that their son has severe and irreversible brain damage.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Two Toronto advertising veterans have come up with park bench plaques – actually stickers – meant to draw attention to the fact that death can be excruciatingly difficult and to stir up debate about euthanasia and the need for living wills.
"Both Andy (McKay) and I have had parents who died painful deaths," Andy Manson says of the stickers, which look more striking than the familiar brass plaques issued for $1,525 under the City of Toronto's commemorative tree and bench program.
"We've both seen cases where passive euthanasia is the right thing to do."
Fort the rest of this revolting article refer to the Toronto Star (Liberal Canada news rag)
Friday, January 8, 2010
Socrates' minority government pushed the bill through the house with support from left wing parties, while alternative proposals by the centre-right opposition for civil partnerships and a referendum on the issue were rejected.
"It is a small change in the law, but a very important and symbolic step to fully realise values that are pillars of open, tolerant and democratic societies; freedom, equality and non-discrimination," Socrates told parliament ahead of the vote.
The bill gives gay marriages the same rights as heterosexual marriages, including those on taxes, inheritance and housing, but does not offer them the right to adopt children.
It marks another modernising step for this predominantly Catholic country, especially after abortion was legalised in 2007. But the Catholic Church warned against the move.
"Millenary culture deems marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Changing this understanding of what is a family can have extremely grave consequences in the future," said Bishop Dom Jose Policarpo, Lisbon patriarch.
The bill now needs to be ratified by conservative President Anibal Cavaco Silva. If he approves it, Portugal will join Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and Canada in allowing gay marriages, all of which allow gay married couples to adopt children as well.
Gay and lesbian hopes had been dented by the rejection of the Left Bloc party's gay marriage bill and by a Constitutional Court upholding a ban last year.
Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood center in this southeast Texas city but turned in her resignation on October 6 after years of a local pro-life group helping her see the problem with abortion.
Johnson quit after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion.
Planned Parenthood officials hit both Johnson and the Coalition for Life with restraining orders requiring them not to disclose information about the abortions done at its facility.
But, District Judge J.D. Langley issued a ruling earlier this month saying Planned Parenthood did not provide sufficient evidence that Johnson breached a confidentiality agreement concerning identity of an abortion practitioner who works at Planned Parenthood.
Now, the Alliance Defense Fund, which has provided legal help to Johnson and the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, tells LifeNews.com Planned Parenthood has dropped its lawsuit.
Planned Parenthood falsely claimed she violated a confidentiality agreement and breached an employment contract, though she never had one with the abortion center, ADF legal counsel Steven Aden explained. “This was the latest in a series of national Planned Parenthood scandals,” he told LifeNews.com yesterday. “It wasn't about one woman or one clinic. Planned Parenthood is a national organization that has been kept afloat by hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding."
"The American people need to understand that this organization has been involved in scandal after scandal and has never owned up to them. Like so many Planned Parenthood lawsuits, this lawsuit was baseless, so we are pleased that it has been withdrawn," he continued. The order withdrawing the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Johnson, was issued by the Brazos County District Court, 85th Judicial District.
In his decision, Judge Langley also ruled that Planned Parenthood provided no evidence to back up its allegations that Johnson took confidential patient records out of Planned Parenthood on the day she resigned. The judge also denied a Planned Parenthood request to prevent Johnson from seeking any lawsuit until a trial or any other court action had been made.
Dropping the lawsuit opens the door for her to offer more specifics about her work at Planned Parenthood and the reasons she resigned. Employed with Planned Parenthood for eight years, Johnson, the 2008 employee of the year for Planned Parenthood’s southeast Texas region, says she was put under duress by her employer in August when her center was economically pressured to perform more abortions to raise profits.
After recently being required to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion procedure which she observed on screen, Johnson decided to resign.