Abortion Harms to Women in Virginia's Clinics

Women are not well-cared for by abortion clinics in Virginia, or elsewhere, according to recent facts that have come to light in the evidence outlined in an article by Chris Freund of the Virginia Family Foundation which can be read in its entirety at http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/01/virginia-ignores-abortionists-that-treat-women-worse-than-cattle/.  In fact, the article illustrates how farm animals are cared for better than women in abortion surgery.  Pro-choice voices serve to create an echo-chamber around one view that abortion is safe (see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2201231 ) while ignoring the grave harms women endure when abortion doctors rush exams in unhygienic circumstances and routinely use unsterilized equipment, and politicians persist in throwing off even reasonable regulations on such serious medical surgery.  As Freund so clearly illustrates, these are gross violations of women's basic rights.

And the worst part of this evidence is that the Commonwealth of Virginia appears to be ignoring and even endorsing this very poor treatment of women.  In fact, today the state Board of Health meets in Richmond, VA to vote on a recommendation by the Governor's administration to weaken abortion center health and safety standards despite the more than 400 violations against women enduring unsafe abortion practices in the Commonwealth.  To join today's protest visit http://familyfoundation.org/.  While the media is quick to give a platform to outcries that women need reproductive freedoms, it is apparent that what is not characterized in the media is that abortion more accurately marks the fall of women's rights (see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2007200 ) and that most media outlets avoid, overlook, and outright intentionally ignore the harms it brings to women. 

The harmful effects that abortion rights have had on women and their families is pervasive and apparent not only in the surgical room, but in marriage, in parenting, and in intimate relations between men and women generally (see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2441274 ).  Justice for women harmed by abortion lacks not only prudence (see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1957188 ) but also basic rule of law regulatory notions that should apply to all surgical patients, regardless of gender or the type of surgical procedure chosen. 

Abortion procedures harm women in ways that no state or local government should ever stand for, and certainly turn back the clock on women's rights.  Women desperately need women's rights support to take the form of protective state regulation in any abortion services delivery.  When women are harmed, their families are also gravely harmed.  Restoration requires regulation that protects women from the harms of abortion.

Life, Death, and Family Restoration

The second edition of Abortion, Execution, and the Consequences of Taking Life, by James D. Slack, is a book about the cultures of life and death at war in America.  Dr. Slack is a Professor at the Robertson School of Government and the Director of the Master of Public Administration (MPA) Program at Regent University.  His book is available here.

Providing an in-depth examination of policy toward life and death in the United States, Dr. Slack examines human life from the perspective of Imago Dei—the idea of being made in God’s image—Slack argues that the taking of human life is the termination of the image of God. Intended to remind citizens and governments of their obligations to determine moral truth, this volume uses theocentric phenomenology to focus on the intimate consequences of abortion and capital punishment. Abortion alternatives as well as execution alternatives are explored as ways to encourage a policy that affirms life.

 
This volume intends to reconcile the truth found in the world with the truth found in Scripture, by studying the  intimate consequences of murder, abortion, and capital punishment. Using methodology of direct observation and qualitative open-ended conversations, Dr. Slack interviewed eighty-one people about abortion and its alternatives, the death penalty and its alternatives, and justice in society. This second edition is completely revised, placing greater emphasis on the thoughts of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and includes a new chapter on post-abortion restoration.

I have joined colleagues in arguing that a culture of death harms women, even robbing them of happiness (that article can be accessed at SSRN), but this abortion conundrum was developed slowly over time.  Another article (which can also be accessed at SSRN) outlines the legal aspects of abortion, showing that state abortion regulations are the vehicle now to provide for the protection of women. 

Family restoration requires an objective perspective on abortion that protects family members.  Abortion, Execution, and the Consequences of Taking Life, by James D. Slack, seeks to ground public policy and administration firmly in morality, the rule of law, and the restoration of the family.

A Running Back, a Professor, and an Author: Shedding Light on the Aftermath of Roe

From Guest-blogger and Regent 3^rd Year Law Student Elizabeth Oklevitch

Today marks the end of Sanctity of Life Month, a month designated to commemorate Roe v. Wade. The last month made one thing clear: forty-one years after the Supreme Court handed down the Roe decision, the issue of abortion remains far from settled in American law and culture. Churches across the country took time to recognize National Sanctity of Human Life Day on January 19th, and thousands joined the March for Life in D.C. on January 22nd. Though these events are in some ways "the face" of the pro-life movement, several developments took place in January that shed light on coerced abortion, abortion's relation to women's health, and the deliberations behind Roe, and these developments may prove to have subtle yet lasting impact on the abortion discussion.  

 A lawsuit filed against NFL running back Arian Foster illuminates the ongoing problem of coerced abortions. A Life Site News article explains that the mother of Foster' unborn child is "seeking a restraining order, so the NFL star and his family will stop haranguing her to abort a baby she wants to keep." This may be one of few alleged coercion cases to be litigated, let alone make headlines, but unfortunately, there have been more than a few instances of coerced abortion since Roe. The article notes that the allegations against Foster and his family "are consistent with what pro-life leaders say is a ubiquitous problem: coerced abortion. Post-abortive women have testified that they felt pressured – or in some cases were forced to abort – by parents, boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, husbands, abusers, even policemen." 

While the Foster situation brought awareness to mainstream culture on the issue of coerced abortion, law professor Helen Alvare advanced informed, life-respecting perspectives before federal legislators. In her testimony before a House subcommittee considering legislation on federal funding of abortions, she shared that popular opinion does not support the idea that abortion is a "public good." Although abortion advocates profess to champion the underprivileged, Alvare cited a study finding that women, the less educated, and the poor are more likely to be pro-life than their counterparts. As a second key point, Alvare demonstrated that federal government statements and other sources indicate that abortion is not actually part of a women's health agenda. Frankly, one paragraph in a blog post doesn't do her thoughts justice; check out this summary article, or better yet, take five minutes to watch the video of her testimony. 

 

 

Also in January, Clarke Forsythe gave a presentation on his book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade at The Heritage Foundation. His research delves into the Justices' personal papers, revealing what one review calls the "blend of misinformation, backroom politics, arbitrary logic, and incomplete jurisprudence" that led to "most controversial decision in recent Supreme Court history." Since its release last fall, the book's publicity has included coverage in The Weekly Standard and a review by The Washington Times. As Forsythe's book continues to reach a wider audience, it provokes reconsideration of the quandaries, values, and assumptions underlying legalized abortion's foundational case. 

From the national events to the smaller developments in culture, law, and literature, January was filled with vivid illuminations of the aftermath of Roe. Four decades later, America has not settled into placid acceptance of legalized abortion. Roe has brought to a head conflicts over coerced abortion, abortion's relationship to women's health, and the "jurisprudence" of abortion rights.  Thankfully, these confrontations make it nearly impossible to "settle in." Rather, they provide important perspectives to inform the abortion discussion. Each time one of these issues arises in the news or in everyday life, it sheds light on the true consequences and motivations of Roe and gives an opportunity to speak up, to stand up for freedom rather than coercion, for true public goods rather than agendas parading as "women's health," and for the rule of law rather than "arbitrary logic." In January, a running back, a professor, and an author all helped to expose aspects of the conflicts surrounding Roe; the rest of the year is left to respond to those conflicts in a way that promotes life and fosters restoration of individuals, families, and culture.

Protecting Life Restores Families

From Guest-blogger and Regent 3^rd Year Law Student Jennifer D. Jones, Associate Presiding Officer, Honor Council, and President, Regent Students for Life

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” – Proverbs 31:8

At Regent University, students are encouraged to consider their professional vocation as a mission, a calling by God.  Students are also urged to be involved in making a difference in their community for the glory of God. Regent University is a special place to obtain an education because it does not provide students with just an education in their field of study; rather, it encourages students to contemplate how they can use their education as a way to minister to society.

One way in which students practice this is through student organizations, such as Regent Students for Life.  This organization is focused on 1) raising awareness on issues surrounding life, primarily the issue of abortion, and 2) encouraging others to allow that knowledge to set a fire in their hearts to be moved into action.  Regent Students for Life desires to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves – for the unborn children in the womb.  It seeks to minister to women who are facing a crisis pregnancy through prayer and support.  It takes the position that every single life – born and unborn – is precious, sacred, and ordained by God.

This spring, Regent Students for Life has several exciting events planned to further its objectives, two of which are happening in the month of January. January is a particularly special month for those involved with pro-life activities as it is considered Sanctity of Human Life month.  This is because on January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States released its infamous decisions on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Through its decisions abortion was legalized, enabling women to claim this as a fundamental right. Ever since then, pro-life organizations and individuals have faithfully spoken up for the rights of unborn children, reminding society that the lives of unborn children are sacred.

First on its agenda, Regent Students for Life is taking a group up to the national March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, January 22.  The March was first organized by Nellie Gray the year after the Roe and Doe decisions.  Every year since abortion was legalized, the numbers of those attending the national March for Life have steadily increased.  It is an experience unlike any other as people from all over the nation gather together in support of defending the right to life.

Then on Thursday, January 30, Regent Students for Life will be hosting law chapel.  This chapel is particularly close to the hearts of those involved with Regent Students for Life as they are bringing in Rebecca Kiessling.  Ms. Kiessling, a family law attorney in Michigan, has an incredible story to share about her experience as a survivor of conception by rape. At that time, abortion was illegal as Roe and all the cases that followed had not yet occurred.  Her birth mother wanted to get a back-alley abortion. In fact, her birth mother went two different times to pursue that end, but both times she backed out. Instead, Rebecca Kiessling was given the gift of life and placed for adoption.  Her inspirational story is sure to touch the hearts of all who attend.

Later in the semester the organization will be hosting a baby bottle drive which will raise donations for the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Tidewater. This will be a way in which the students can know they are doing something practical.  It is a tangible way to help provide love and support to mothers facing crisis pregnancies while also supporting the work of a local crisis pregnancy center.

Speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves – whether through a peaceful march, raising awareness with inspirational speakers, or raising donations – is an essential way in which society restores the family unit.  Abortion hurts the family unit, but through God’s grace there is healing.  Through the power of prayer, everyone who has been hurt from an abortion (babies, mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, other family members, physicians, and society as a whole) can be restored to wholeness once again. Together, we can restore families by speaking up and defending the rights of these sacred lives.

Fox News Highlights Regent Law Graduates Protecting Life

The Kelly Files, a Fox News program, hosted and highlighted the work of the Texas Center for the Defense of Life, a pro-life public interest law firm dedicated to the protection of victims of abortion.  You can view the video of Stephen Casey and Greg Terra here. 

In this situation, a judge had previously ordered a teenage girl to live in the home of a sex offender, who raped her and was coercing her to have an abortion of his child.  The young girl was not removed even after admitting abuse to the court, her teachers, and her other caregiver – a woman who was recently found dead in the home.  Texas Center for Defense of Life was the conduit for justice, and protection of this teenage girl victimized by these events.

Abortion Regs that Protect Life Foster Family Restoration

After Texas Governor Perry called for a special session to vote on HB 2, a bill to protect preborn children from pain inflicted by abortion when the child is 20 weeks gestational age, the bill was passed by a margin of 19-11, marking an unparalleled opportunity to protect innocent babies in Texas, while also protection mothers.  To find out more about the bill, the controversy over it, and the future implications of its passage see the New York Times article on it.

The bill will also increase safety standards for licensed abortion facilities, require that chemical induced (RU486) abortions are performed by FDA standards to protect women’s health, and will require physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after a flawed abortion by having privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. 

Advocates for both sides of the debate gathered at the Texas capitol to provide testimony and support, but few expected the level of public incivility that followed when in response to #Stand4Life advocates pro-abortion activists throughout the day shouted epithets in an effort to drown out pro-life speeches and an impromptu rendering of "Amazing Grace." It was clearly a spiritual battle as well as a political one.  CNN's Josh Rubin confirmed these events by tweeting on site: "Crowd of anti-abortion activists giving speeches while a group of people chant 'hail Satan' in the background.” 

Most Americans favor banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll also shows many Americans remain conflicted in their views on abortion. 

Texas’ decision to regulate the off-label use of abortion-causing drugs such as RU-486 is similar to a 2011 Oklahoma measure which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States (in a case known as  Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice).  Eight women have died from bacterial infections following an RU-486 medical abortion administered according to one of the off-label protocols, whereas no women have died from such infections following use of the FDA-approved protocol.  Thus, the Oklahoma, and now Texas, Legislatures acted to address this serious health and safety problem by requiring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the FDA's prescribed protocol, though the Oklahoma Supreme Court held--without analysis or discussion--that the Oklahoma law is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Oklahoma's request to review that decision, and asked the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to answer whether the Oklahoma law prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.  This is an historic review, and the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in this case until they receive a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

The United States Congress will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) which states that because there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, a compelling governmental interest exists in protecting unborn children from this stage. Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az) who has sponsored the bill stated, “Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.”  Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to Congress in April. The House approved the bill by a vote of 228-196. More information on it is available at CitizenLink. 

All of these bills are pro-woman, pro-child, pro-science, and pro-family.   Finally, the Tenth Circuit Court of the United States provided an important victory for Christian business owners against the HHS Contraception Mandate, as Hobby Lobby and its sister organization, Mardel, a Christian bookstores proprietor, were upheld in their refusal to provide coverage of drugs they believe cause abortion and, therefore, violate their religious beliefs. The Tenth Circuit held "that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.” The District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma subsequently granted the injunction.

Protecting lives of mothers and preborn children is a solid key to family restoration.  Texas made a bold step in that direction this past summer.  Congress and federal courts could follow.

Living it Out - One Alum's Work to Defend the Unborn

By guest blogger Elizabeth Oklevitch, Regent University Law School, Candidate for J.D., 2014.

Every year, many students arrive at Regent Law eager to earn their degrees, get out in the real world, and champion the cause of the unborn. For Regent alumnus, Noel Sterett ‘06, defending life through the practice of law is not a dream, but reality. This month he celebrated a significant victory in a strenuous battle to protect unborn children, vulnerable teenage mothers, and concerned parents in Illinois.  

Noel Sterett

The clash over Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 spanned nearly two decades. Essentially, the Act requires parents be given 48-hours notice before a minor daughter undergoes an abortion, unless a parent accompanies the daughter or provides a written waiver, there is a medical emergency, the minor claims to be the victim of abuse or neglect, or a judicial by-pass is granted. For those committed to making abortion available to anyone, anytime, anywhere, this precaution that aims to ensure the well-being of vulnerable teenagers is a no can do. Six days after the Act’s enactment in 1995, its constitutionality was challenged in court. On July 11, 2013, eighteen years later, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously upheld the law as constitutional.  (More information on the history of this Act can be found within the decision).

Reporting on the court’s decision on the day it was issued, the Christian Newswire announced: 

Despite this law's passage in 1995, the court has not allowed the law to be enforced because of repeated lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Illinois Supreme Court has now invalidated the ACLU's claims that the law violated the state constitution. Mauck & Baker filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., v. Flores case decided today.

The Court's opinion states: We conclude, therefore, that our Parental Notice Act furthers a "constitutionally permissible end" by encouraging an unmarried, pregnant minor to seek the help and advice of a parent or other adult family member in making the very important decision whether or not to bear a child.

The decision wording echoes that of the amicus brief filed by Mauck & Baker attorneys on behalf of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association. 

The brief, authored by Richard C. Baker, Amy Parrish, and Noel Sterett, argued that Illinois' Parental Notice Act served the legitimate purpose of helping minors make mature and informed decisions about whether to abort, allow parents to assist their daughter in selecting a safe and competent abortion provider, ensure that parents have the opportunity to provide additional medical history and information to assist abortion providers, and ensures that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to post-abortion complications.

Thus, in co-authoring an influential brief, Noel Sterrett’s work has impacted the landscape of constitutional law in Illinois, literally saved lives, and brought public recognition to the family as an institution providing needed protection and guidance to children. 

Students attending Regent frequently hear, “Law is more than a profession – it’s a calling.” It is encouraging to see a Regent alumnus walking out that calling, not merely holding it as a dream, but successfully fighting for the defense of the vulnerable and the restoration of the family. 

To find out more about Noel’s firm, Mauck & Baker, and their commitment to integrity, justice, and religious liberty, visit www.mauckbaker.com.   

Abortion Regs that Protect Life Foster Family Restoration

            After Texas Governor Perry called for a special session to vote on HB 2, a bill to protect preborn children from pain inflicted by abortion when the child is 20 weeks gestational age, the bill was passed by a margin of 19-11, marking an unparalleled opportunity to protect innocent babies in Texas, while also protection mothers.  To find out more about the bill, the controversy over it, and the future implications of its passage see the New York Times article on it.

            The bill will also increase safety standards for licensed abortion facilities, require that chemical induced (RU486) abortions are performed by FDA standards to protect women's health, and will require physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after a flawed abortion by having privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility.  
            Advocates for both sides of the debate gathered at the Texas capitol to provide testimony and support, but few expected the level of public incivility that followed when in response to #Stand4Life advocates pro-abortion activists throughout the day shouted epithets in an effort to drown out pro-life speeches and an impromptu rendering of "Amazing Grace." It was clearly a spiritual battle as well as a political one.  CNN's Josh Rubin confirmed these events by tweeting on site: "Crowd of anti-abortion activists giving speeches while a group of people chant 'hail Satan' in the background."

            Most Americans favor banning abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll also shows many Americans remain conflicted in their views on abortion.

            Texas' decision to regulate the off-label use of abortion-causing drugs such as RU-486 is similar to a 2011 Oklahoma measure which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States (in a case known as  Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice).  Eight women have died from bacterial infections following an RU-486 medical abortion administered according to one of the off-label protocols, whereas no women have died from such infections following use of the FDA-approved protocol.  Thus, the Oklahoma, and now Texas, Legislatures acted to address this serious health and safety problem by requiring that RU-486 and other abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the FDA's prescribed protocol, though the Oklahoma Supreme Court held-without analysis or discussion-that the Oklahoma law is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted the state of Oklahoma's request to review that decision, and asked the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to answer whether the Oklahoma law prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies.  This is an historic review, and the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in this case until they receive a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

            The United States Congress will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) which states that because there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, a compelling governmental interest exists in protecting unborn children from this stage. Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az) who has sponsored the bill stated, "Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are."  Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to Congress last month. The House approved the bill by a vote of 228-196.

            All of these bills are pro-woman, pro-child, pro-science, and pro-family.  You can read more at CitizenLink. Finally, the Tenth Circuit Court of the United States provided an important victory for Christian business owners against the HHS Contraception Mandate, as Hobby Lobby and its sister organization, Mardel, a Christian bookstores proprietor, were upheld in their refusal to provide coverage of drugs they believe cause abortion and, therefore, violate their religious beliefs. The Tenth Circuit held "that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction."

            Protecting lives of mothers and preborn children is a solid key to family restoration.  Texas made a bold step in that direction this past week.  Congress and federal courts could follow.

 

Law is a Calling in Abortion Protest Representation

...Law is more than a profession - it's a calling.

Toussaint Romain (Regent Law 2009) recently represented Mr. Flip Benham, of Operation Save America, who was charged with Stalking an Abortion Doctor in North Carolina.  Mr. Benham is known for his work on educating the public on abortion, which includes posting billboards and large posters of aborted fetuses on college campuses around the nation.  He is also known as a sidewalk preacher, and when he was charged several years ago with stalking, Romain represented him in that charge.  Romain calls the case "probably the biggest fight of my criminal career." The case lasted 3 years, 2 months and 54 days, but has now been voided by the prosecutor for failure to prove necessary elements of the crime - thanks to the hard work, legal education, faith, and perseverance of Romain.
 
Benham, Romain's client, created WANTED posters with an abortion doctor's picture on it, of which thousands were passed around by Benham and about 15 of his crew at the doctor's private practice and in the building (with hundreds of other tenants), at the abortion clinics he worked in, as well as at the doctor's exclusive Lake mansion.  When Benham went door to door, mansion to mansion, knocking on neighbors' doors and passing out flyers, the doctor called a detective who works with local police and with the Dept. of Homeland Security to "investigate." Benham was then arrested for stalking and became the defendant in a criminal trial where Romain became his attorney.

After losing a bench trial, defendant appealed and proceeded with a week long jury trial and lost there as well. After an appeal the NC Court of Appeals agreed with one of Romain's trial arguments and ORDERED a new trial. 

The new trial was set to begin Monday, May 13, 2013.  During the initial jury trial, however, Romain's questioning led the doctor to admit on the record that he was not afraid of Benham and that he was never present when flyers were passed out, two key elements of the stalking charge.  As a result, the District Attorney had no choice but to void the charge (since it does not meet the elements of stalking).  You can see the North Carolina Court of Appeals' Unpublished Opinion here. 

What is most interesting is that additionally NOVANT Health Insurance has since dropped the doctor from its insurance - which means this doctor is no longer performing abortions. 

Romain has called this case the "biggest fight of my life" and it has had other peripheral effects on his life, but he also calls this case "a win for the Kingdom; a win for this alum; a win for my Calling; a win for us!"  Romain shares, "I learned a great deal, and hope this experience can be helpful to others" in the battle to protect people in their defense of women, children, and families from abortion.  

...Law is more than a profession - it's a calling.

Gosnell Murder Convictions Illustrate Value for Women, Children and Future Families

Kermit Gosnell was convicted yesterday of 261 criminal counts in his work as an abortion doctor in downtown Philadelphia when he killed babies born alive and recklessly caused the death of a mother who was his patient.

The jury determined that Baby A, Baby B, and Baby C were intentionally murdered while alive, convicting Gosnell of first degree murder, a crime punishable by death in Pennsylvania.  The Washington Post reported on the trial and the convictions on its website.

This was a horrifying abortion-related crime.  The Times reported that media hesitated to cover it because it revealed the gruesome nature of abortion.  They reported that the crimes illustrate the horrors of abortion, how poverty is exploited in abortion, and how race is a target of abortion.  See that article here. 

Regent University School of Law is producing lawyers who will bring about similar convictions of those who murder women and children.  The Gosnell case proves that criminal laws and clinic regulations can work to protect women, children, and future families harmed by abortion.  Indeed, the law is more than a profession - it's a calling.