Uncategorized

2003 Archives

December 31, 2003 by

Partial Birth Abortion Ban – An Important First Step Toward Ending Abortion in America
Wed, Nov 5, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The signing of the long awaited ban on partial birth abortion represents a small but important first step toward ending abortion in America, according to Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center. The bill signed by President Bush prohibits doctors from partially delivering a baby, and then killing the baby by puncturing its skull.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented on the significance of the legislation. “The ban on partial birth abortion is significant in that it represents an important first step towards providing legal protection for innocent human life at its earliest stages. I applaud the President and Congress for enacting this important first step toward ending abortion in America.”

Thompson continued, “We must keep in mind that this law prohibits only the medical procedure used to kill approximately 5,000 of the 1.3 million babies aborted each year. These babies can still be killed using other medical procedures while in the womb. And these unborn babies are being killed by procedures no less horrific and barbaric. We have a long way to go.”

Law Center attorneys have been carefully monitoring the legislation, and are now preparing for a legal battle likely to end up in the Supreme Court. “We have reviewed this legislation carefully, and believe it properly addresses the problems the Supreme Court found in its decision three years ago,” said Thompson. “We have been in regular contact with members of the United States Senate and are prepared to represent them in defending this law all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Governor Bush Has Legal Authority, But Lacks Political Will To Save Terri Schiavo’s Life
Fri, Oct 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – According to Richard Thompson, former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has the legal authority to act in the case of Terri Schiavo, but lacks the political will to do so. Responding to the Governor’s statements that he cannot intervene in the civil case, Thompson claimed Bush is confusing the public on what is being asked of him.

“Nobody is asking the Governor to intervene in the civil case. We are asking him to initiate an independent criminal investigation based on a list of facts that suggest criminal wrongdoing,” said Thompson. “We have outlined for the Governor some of these facts, and confirmed his Constitutional authority to act. The fact that he has chosen to confuse the public by referring to the civil case, completely ignoring the request that we presented, reveals a lack of moral courage and political will. We expect the Governor to do the right thing, and so far, he has refused to do so.”

“If Governor Bush does not act quickly, I expect Terri will be killed by an overdose of morphine. She is being starved and denied fluids, and the Governor needs to act now before it’s too late,” said Thompson.

Thompson, now president of the Thomas More Law Center, delivered two emergency letters to Bush Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, asking him to initiate a criminal investigation. The letters outlined the constitutional authority of the Governor to act in the case, including a factual basis for initiating a criminal investigation. Bush has maintained he has no authority to interfere in the civil case that led to the feeding tube being removed.

Former Prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian Delivers Emergency Letters To Governor Jeb Bush in Terri Schiavo Euthanasia Case
Thu, Oct 16, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI –Richard Thompson, responsible for the initial prosecutions of Jack Kevorkian, now Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, delivered two emergency letters to Florida Governor Jeb Bush Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, outlining the constitutional authority of the Governor to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, including a factual basis for initiating a criminal investigation. The letters were prepared hours after a feeding tube was removed from Schiavo, depriving her of food and water, leaving her to starve to death unless immediate action is taken.

Recognizing the emotional and political issues involved, the two letters explain that the Florida Governor has authority under the Florida Constitution to intervene, and urged him to initiate a criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement based on a growing list of facts which suggest criminal wrongdoing and a conflict of interest on the part of Terri Shiavo’s husband and guardian Michael Shiavo.

Joining Thompson in the letters were former federal prosecutors Edward White III and Robert Muise. White served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, and Muise served as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Both now work under Thompson at the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI. Based on the extensive law enforcement experience of the attorneys involved, the letters set forth facts and steps upon which a formal criminal investigation should be initiated.

The letters assert that the facts of the case clearly establish probable cause to initiate a formal criminal investigation, and call on the Governor to direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct a full investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case, including securing search warrants, interviewing witnesses and medical experts, and to take measures to prevent future harm to Ms. Schiavo pending the outcome of the investigation.

Thompson noted in the supplemental letter that he was responsible for the initial prosecutions of Jack Kevorkian, and that in at least one case of physician-assisted suicide, the wife was a victim of domestic violence, and her death was used as a cover-up for the husband’s wrongdoing.

In a statement Thursday morning, Thompson urged the Florida Governor to review the letters, and take immediate steps to intervene in the case. “It seems prudent under the circumstances that the presumption for life should prevail and a formal “time-out” should take place, allowing for a formal criminal investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and allow Terri’s parents to administer the necessary rehabilitation services to determine if Ms. Schiavo is able to ingest food on her own.”

Woman Continues 3 Year Battle To See Her Court File Dealing With Abortion Request
Mon, Aug 11, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals in its continued efforts to permit a young women to obtain access to her own court file relating to the “judicial bypass” proceeding she went through as a fifteen year old to obtain an abortion without her parents’ consent.

At the time of the bypass proceeding, she was suffering from a mental illness and was undergoing medical treatment and taking prescribed drugs for her mental condition. As a consequence, she continues to have only a vague memory of what occurred during the proceeding, and now wants to examine her file to learn whether the court was informed about her mental condition and to learn such things as whether she actually agreed to the judicial bypass and the abortion.

The young woman’s request to see her file was denied by a Michigan Probate Court Judge in early 2000. After several appeals to various courts during the last 3 years, on June 12, 2003, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the Michigan Court of Appeals to render a decision in the case.

According to Edward L. White III, Associate Counsel with the Law Center, “This case presents issues of significant public interest and involves legal principles of major significance to the State’s jurisprudence. Our client not only seeks access to her own court file, but the establishment of legal principles that will instruct lower courts in ruling on future requests by women who want access to their own court files that deal with the judicial bypass proceedings they went through to obtain abortions without parental consent.”

Tension High in Hawaii Courtroom Over Aerial Pro-Life Banners
Mon, Jul 21, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – A packed Honolulu courtroom heard arguments Monday concerning a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance enacted by the City and County of Honolulu banning aerial banners over Honolulu beaches. The case will have far reaching implications, according to federal district judge Aiken, who presided over the hearing,

Robert Muise, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, argued that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it represents a total ban on a certain form of speech, and it completely forecloses an effective medium of communication for the Law Center’s pro-life client, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. Muise further contended that recent changes to FAA regulations make clear that municipalities such as Honolulu lack authority to enact such laws because they would interfere with federal objectives.

Tensions have been high in the Hawaiian capital recently as residents and city officials have complained that the pro-life banners carried by airplanes would disrupt the pristine character and natural beauty of the island habitat.

Acknowledging the controversial nature of the banners, Muise maintained that they are protected by the Constitution, “The First Amendment protects speech even when it stirs people to anger and creates unrest. Graphic images of injustice have long been a part of social reform, and it is no different for the pro-life movement. These pictures provide irrefutable visual evidence that abortion causes the death of an innocent human life and is therefore contrary to the common good.”

The Thomas More Law Center successfully sued the City of Huntington Beach, California last year on a similar ordinance. Shortly after the Law Center’s legal action was filed Huntington Beach repealed the ordinance and paid the Law Center $10,000 in attorney fees. Judge Aiken indicated that she will issue her ruling in the Hawaii case within the next three weeks.

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Federal Judge Orders Municipality to Pay Over $44,000 in Michigan Pro-Life Case
Tue, May 13, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – Ending a lawsuit that had drawn national attention last year, Federal Judge Paul V. Gadola has ordered the City of Royal Oak, Michigan, to pay $44,707.17 in damages and attorneys’ fees, and has permanently prohibited police from interfering with the rights of California resident, Ronald Brock, when he displays his pro-life and Christian messages on the public streets of that city.

The lawsuit grew out of police action during the 2001 Woodward Dream Cruise, an annual event that celebrates the cars, music, and memories of “cruising” during the 1950s and 1960s and draws more than a million people. The Dream Cruise turned into a nightmare for Brock, as he was driving his motor home through Royal Oak during the celebration, because the sides of Brock’s motor home displayed Christian Crosses, Bible quotes, and photographs of aborted babies and of the Nazi Holocaust.

Because of the display, Royal Oak police ordered him to pull over, searched his vehicle, confiscated his personal property, and impounded his vehicle as evidence in a charge of “obscene literature.” Brock contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Brock.

As alleged in the lawsuit, in an attempt to justify their stop, police tested the lights, brakes, turn signals, and tire treads of the motor home. They searched the motor home and personal belongings. When Mr. Brock attempted to record the police conversation with his tape recorder, the police seized the recorder. When he attempted to have a citizen photograph the police in action, the police seized his camera. Despite finding no evidence of a crime, the police towed away Mr. Brock’s motor home, and left him stranded on the streets of Royal Oak with a few personal belongings in a duffel bag. The Law Center obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enabling Brock to drive his motor home displaying his messages during the 2002 Woodward Dream Cruise weekend. As a result, Brock was able to display his messages on the public streets of Royal Oak and adjoining cities during the 2002 Dream Cruise without police interference.

On April 30, 2003, Judge Gadola signed a stipulated consent judgment awarding damages and attorney fees amounting to $44,707.17. The judge ruled that the First Amendment protects the symbols, messages, and signs, including those depicting images of aborted babies, displayed on Brock’s motor home, and that Brock’s constitutional rights had been violated during the 2001 Dream Cruise. The judge permanently enjoined the City from interfering with Brock when he is peacefully displaying his pro-life, Christian, and political symbols, messages, and signs in the City, and permanently enjoined the City from stopping, searching, and seizing Brock’s motor home and his other property without probable cause, a warrant, or consent.

According to Edward L. White III, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, who handled the case, “We are pleased with the result we obtained for Mr. Brock, especially because Mr. Brock is now free to peacefully display his messages in public without fear of further interference from the police.”

Thomas More Law Center Fights Political Correctness in Public Schools
Wed, Apr 30, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI —April 28th was designated “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day,” and many students across the country proudly wore their shirts to school, expressing their opposition to abortion. However, despite a student’s clearly established constitutional right to express his or her views in this manner, some students were denied this right, so they sought the assistance of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Attorneys for the Law Center sent demand letters to offending school officials in New Hampshire and Michigan, outlining the law in this area. These demand letters had the desired effect: the students were allowed to express their pro-life message free from harassment.

In New Hampshire, a high school freshman was told that her “abortion is homicide” shirt was offensive to some students and faculty and so school officials threatened her with suspension should she not find a more “positive” way of expressing her beliefs. This same school, however, actively promoted just weeks earlier the pro-homosexual “National Day of Silence,” where students and teachers expressed their pro-homosexual views by wearing rainbow ribbons during school. School officials apparently did not find this politically correct view “offensive.” Shortly after the Thomas More Law Center got involved, school officials agreed that the student had a right to wear her pro-life shirt, even if they didn’t like it. The student proudly wore her shirt this past Monday and says that she will continue to wear it to make her point.

In Big Rapids, Michigan, a junior honor roll student was similarly warned that her pro-life t-shirt was “offensive” to students, and school officials gave her the choice of changing her shirt or going home. The student chose to go home. The student then contacted the Law Center because she wanted to wear her shirt on “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.” Law Center attorney Edward L. White III sent a letter to the principal of this Michigan high school, and, as a result, the student returned to school with her pro-life shirt this past Monday. According to Mr. White, “We are pleased that our client was free to wear her pro-life shirt to school on Monday without any further interference from the school. Wearing the shirt on that day and expressing her pro-life views was very important to this student.”

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling the New Hampshire case, commented, “The political correctness police are out in full force in the public schools across this nation, seeking to suppress ideas and messages that they oppose. What is most disturbing about the New Hampshire case is that our client’s brother is presently serving in Iraq with the U.S. Marines. I wonder what he and the other servicemen fighting to free the Iraqi people from tyranny would think about the way in which his younger sister was treated here in the United States. I doubt they would approve of it.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

LA County Sheriffs, School Administrator, Sued For Banning Pro-Life Speech
Tue, Apr 22, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — This past March, Los Angeles County sheriff deputies, citing a California law that prohibits “disruptive” activity on any street adjacent to a school, prevented the operation of a truck displaying pictures of first-term aborted fetuses on the public streets near a middle school. As a result, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit last Thursday alleging a violation of the Free Speech provision of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and two of its members, against the sheriff’s department, the sheriff, several deputy sheriffs, and a school administrator.

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling this case, acknowledged the controversial nature of the pictures and commented, “Regardless of how one feels about these disturbing photos, CBR has a constitutional right to display them. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have embedded themselves in public school systems throughout this country. So long as pro-abortion groups insist on targeting school-age children, it is appropriate that these same students receive at least a modicum of truthful education about abortion. CBR’s photographs do not lie and they show abortion for what it is: the killing of an innocent human life.”

CBR is a California-based, pro-life organization that displays controversial pictures depicting graphic images of first-term aborted fetuses on the sides of box body styled trucks. CBR drives these trucks on public streets and highways throughout the United States, including public streets adjacent to middle schools and high schools. CBR takes its pictures to middle schools and high schools because it believes there are students at these schools who have either had or are contemplating having an abortion without being fully informed of the truth or reality of abortion, and in many cases, without informing their parents. CBR believes that students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see one.

According to the lawsuit, a CBR member was driving one of the trucks on a public street adjacent to the Dodson Middle School in Los Angeles County when he and another pro-lifer who was accompanying him in an escort sedan were pulled-over and detained by several deputies from the county sheriff’s department. The deputies detained the pro-lifers for more than an hour and a half, searched their vehicles, and then warned them that their activity was disruptive and to not return to the school with their pictures, citing the California criminal code. The sheriffs solicited the assistance of a school administrator, who was also named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that it is unconstitutional to use this California law to restrict the operation of CBR’s trucks on public streets, an order enjoining the defendants from doing so in the future, plus nominal damages and attorney fees.

Lawsuit Filed to Allow Pro-Life Speech to Take Flight in Hawaii
Mon, Apr 7, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — The constitutionality of an ordinance enacted by the City and County of Honolulu banning pro-life aerial banners over Honolulu beaches is the focus of a federal lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The lawsuit was filed in U. S. District Court on Friday on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and its executive director Greg Cunningham, against the City and County of Honolulu and the city prosecutor and police chief. CBR is a California-based, pro-life organization that uses controversial pictures depicting graphic images of first-term aborted fetuses displayed on banners towed behind aircraft.

Robert Muise, associate counsel for the Thomas More Law Center handling this case, acknowledged the controversial nature of the towed displays and commented, “We are committed to keeping public forums open for pro-life speech regardless of the controversial nature of the speech, including those forums that are 500 feet above the ground. Many people do not like these aerial banners because they are a window into the abortion industry that reveals the shocking and disturbing truth about first-term abortions.”

The Thomas More Law Center successfully sued the City of Huntington Beach, California on a similar ordinance. Shortly after the Law Center’s legal action was filed Huntington Beach repealed the ordinance and paid the Law Center $10,000 in attorney fees.

The federal lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of this ordinance on several grounds. Foremost is the allegation that this law violates the free speech rights of CBR and Cunningham. According to the complaint filed, this ordinance is unconstitutional because it is a total ban on a certain form of speech, and it completely forecloses an effective medium of communication for CBR. The lawsuit also challenges this ordinance on equal protection grounds, and it claims that the ordinance violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because Congress, through the FAA, has acted to preempt any state or municipal law that regulates banner towing and aerial advertising flight operations. According to the lawsuit, recent changes to FAA regulations make clear that municipalities such as Honolulu lack authority to enact such laws because they would interfere with federal objectives.

State and Federal Law Enforcement Harass Pro-Lifers In Ohio: Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against 21 Defendants
Tue, Feb 25, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — Three men were winding down their peaceful pro-life caravan against abortion and were in the process of parking their two trucks for the night when scores of law enforcement officers from three municipalities, including the county sheriff’s department, and the FBI descended upon them. The men were detained for three hours while their vehicles and personal items were searched, and photographs were taken of their pro-life signs. No charges were ever filed. As a result, a federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Ohio against four state and federal law enforcement agencies and seventeen law enforcement officers.

The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (“CBR”), a national pro-life organization, and the three men, all residents of Ohio who were working for CBR at the time. Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, stated, “We are hopeful that this lawsuit will remind those in authority that the Bill of Rights applies to pro-lifers. What happened in Ohio is not supposed to happen in this country.”

In the late afternoon on June 10, 2002, approximately fifteen law enforcement officers from the Clearcreek Township and Springboro Police Departments, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, and the FBI stopped and surrounded the three men who had been driving two trucks and an automobile through Dayton, Ohio, as part of CBR’s pro-life project.For the past several years, CBR has used its pro-life trucks in states throughout the country. The trucks display large photographs of first-term aborted fetuses with the word “Choice” inscribed above the photographs.

Despite the controversy often surrounding the display of graphic images of aborted babies, this is the first time law enforcement officers have so interfered with CBR’s constitutional right to publicly express its message. After the long ordeal was over, the police released the men without any legitimate explanation for the stop.

According to the lawsuit, the actions of the law enforcement officials, many identified as “John Does,” violated CBR’s and the three pro-lifer’s constitutional right to free speech and the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that these law enforcement officials were acting pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or practice of “profiling” pro-life demonstrators as criminals. In addition to compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, the lawsuit asks the court to declare unconstitutional the actions of the defendants and to enjoin any further such acts against the pro-lifers.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Connecticut Pro-Life Advocate Escapes the Clutches of State and Federal Government Attorneys
Mon, Feb 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — An array of attorneys, including the Connecticut Attorney General himself, and one of his assistants, plus two U.S. Department of Justice attorneys from Washington D.C. failed last week in their attempt to convict seventy-seven year Stanley Scott of civil contempt. Scott, a retired tollbooth collector, is one of Connecticut’s most prominent pro-life advocates.

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a 1997 federal district court permanent injunction restricting Scott’s pro-life advocacy in front of the Summit Women’s Center, an abortion clinic then located on Middle Street in Bridgeport. Scott has been regularly protesting outside Summit and other area abortion clinics during the past twenty-seven years.

During the two-day hearing, government attorneys introduced videotape evidence and called several witnesses, including an FBI agent who testified that he had spent three months investigating Scott. The government attorneys wanted the federal judge to hold Scott in contempt for numerous alleged violations of the permanent injunction, occurring between May 2001 and May 2002. They also wanted the federal judge to impose a $1000 fine on Scott. Scott left the courtroom victorious.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented Scott at no charge. Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case, was elated, “We had a big fight on our hands. We were up against the awesome resources of the United States and the State of Connecticut, not to mention several attorneys. We are tremendously pleased with the result.”

Scott, who had been found guilty of contempt on three previous occasions when he represented himself was equally elated, “I am very grateful for the judge’s decision, and particularly grateful for Mr. White’s zealous defense of my constitutional right to express my opposition to abortion.”

2002 Archives

December 31, 2002 by

New York City Schools Sued In Federal Court Over Policy Discriminating Against Christians During Christmas Season
Tue, Dec 10, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of New York, the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and another school official, alleging that the City’s policy regarding “Holiday Displays” unlawfully discriminates against Christians. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two children, elementary school students in the New York City public school system.

At issue is a school policy promulgated by the Chancellor’s office that prohibits the display of Nativity scenes in the City’s schools during the Christmas season, but expressly permits and encourages these schools to display during certain religious holidays and seasonal observances the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent. City officials claim that the goal of this policy is “to promote understanding and respect for the diverse beliefs and customs relating to our community’s observance of the winter holiday.” Ms. Skoros and her children are devout Roman Catholics, and they object to this policy because it endorses and promotes the Jewish and Muslim faiths and conveys the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity.

Last year, pursuant to this policy, several New York City public schools, including one of the schools attended by Ms. Skoros’ son, displayed the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but not the Nativity scene. In fact, one public school principal issued a memo pursuant to the “Holiday Displays” policy encouraging teachers to bring to school “religious symbols” that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions. No mention of Christianity was made in this memo. Catholic League president William Donohue made several attempts to get school officials to change their discriminatory policy, with no success. School officials dismissed requests to display the Nativity scene and instead would only allow Christmas trees. However, the Christmas tree is a secular symbol and not the equivalent of the religious symbols allowed for Jews and Muslims.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “The policy relegates Christians to second class citizens. Forcing schools to only allow secular symbols for Christmas while allowing religious symbols for other religions’ holiday observances shows a callous indifference and hostility toward Christians during one of their holiest seasons. It is ironic that a religion enjoying the largest following in this nation is consigned by the City of New York to a least-favored status. It’s a shame that we have reached a point in our Nation’s history that ‘respect for diverse beliefs and customs’ has come to mean discrimination against Christians—at Christmas time no less.”

This year, New York City public schools are at it again. Pursuant to the City’s policy, prominent displays of the Jewish Menorah abound, with no Christian Nativity scenes to be found. According to the lawsuit, the City’s policy violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as Ms. Skoros’ constitutional right as a parent to direct the religious education of her children.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Pledge of Allegiance Defended – Free Legal Defense Offered
Sat, Jun 27, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center hereby offers free legal counsel to any school denied the right to permit students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the words “under God”. The Center may be contacted at 734-827-2001.

The following statement was issued by Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in response to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision finding the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional: “Yesterdays ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which found the words “under God” to be unconstitutional is but the latest example of the widespread judicial hostility to all things religious. Over the course of the past 40 years, the courts have wielded unprecedented power in imposing their anti-Christian, anti-religious agenda on America, with this ruling representing one of its most egregious decrees. Sadly, religious people have slept as their liberties have been systematically stripped away by an activist court system, atheistic in disposition, and ruthless in its disregard for the religious foundations or our country.

It is no secret that America is a religious country. From the Declaration of Independence to our national motto, we have unabashedly acknowledged our reliance upon God. This acknowledgement however is distinct from any fear of an establishment of a national religion. The 9th Circuit ruling would have us believe that the words “under God” constitute an establishment of religion. They do no such thing. The words “under God” merely recall the religious roots of our founding which asserted the inalienable rights of every human person, rights which no government can legitimately take away. They serve to foster patriotism and unite people around this central defining principle. In doing so, they remind us of our moral obligations to each other, and to the world.

Therefore, The Thomas More Law Center is prepared to defend the Pledge of Allegiance by offering free legal counsel to any school denied the right to permit students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the words “under God”. The Center may be contacted at 734-827-2001.”

Religion in Public Schools: Pledge Out, Islam In
Tue, Jun 25, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – In the same week that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal lawsuit was filed in San Francisco after Christian students across California were forced to pretend they were Muslims for three weeks, praying in the name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful, chanting Praise to Allah, picking a Muslim name from a list to replace their own name and to stage their own Jihad via a dice game.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, representing parents and four children, filed the lawsuit against the Byron Union School District and various school officials to stop the use of the “Islam Simulation” materials in the Byron/Excelsior Public School in Byron, California.

“What’s at issue,” said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “is the true meaning of the Establishment Clause. The use of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance in no way establishes a national religion. However, the Byron Union school district crossed the line and is clearly in violation of the Establishment clause by using taxpayer dollars to teach students how to worship as a Muslim.”

At issue in the lawsuit is a three-week segment of the seventh grade “World History” class using the textbook “Across the Centuries” published by Houghton Mifflin and supplemented by Islam simulation materials. Students were told that, “you and your classmates will become Muslims.”

To receive points toward their overall grade, students were encouraged to dress as Muslims and to use such phrases in their speech as “Allah Akbar,” which is Arabic for “God is great”. Students were required to memorize Muslim prayers, fulfill the Five Pillars of Faith and fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Thompson further noted, “parents with children in this course were totally caught off guard and had no idea what their children were being taught.”

Said Thompson, “This is unbelievable. While public schools prohibit Christian students from reading the Bible, praying, displaying the Ten Commandments, and even mentioning the word “God”, students in California are being indoctrinated into the religion of Islam. Public schools would never tolerate teaching Christianity in this way. Just imagine the ACLU’s outcry if students were told that they had to pray the Lords Prayer, memorize the Ten Commandments, use such phrases as ‘Jesus is the Messiah,’ and fast during Lent.”

According to Thompson, “Although it is constitutional for public schools to have an instructional program about comparative religion or teach about religion and utilize religious books such as the Bible in courses about our history and culture, the Byron Union School District crossed way over the constitutional line when it coerced impressionable twelve year olds to engage in particular religious rituals and worship, simulated or not.”

Fifth Circuit Reverses itself in Texas School Prayer Case
Tue, Apr 16, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed itself in a Texas school prayer case handing Christian student, Marian Ward, and her parents an important victory. The Thomas More Law Center, which had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Wards’ petition for a rehearing, applauded the court for its quick reversal and affirmation of an important principle in constitutional law litigation.

“The issue in this case was particularly important to lawyers engaged in protecting the constitutional rights of students. A claim for nominal damages has traditionally been sufficient to keep a lawsuit alive even after a student has graduated from school. Now the Ward family will be able to litigate to final judgment the important constitutional issues raised in their case,” said Richard Thompson, the Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

The case brought by Marian Ward and her family attacked the constitutionality of the Santa Fe (Texas) Independent School District’s anti-prayer policy. Marian Ward had sued the school district for the unconstitutional attempts by officials to prevent her from mentioning anything religious in a pre-game message she was to make before a high school football game. The trial court permitted Marian to give a message of her choice without governmental discrimination against faith-based speech. The message Marian chose was a prayer, which she delivered at each of the five home games of the 1999-2000 high school football season.

Yet, after Marian had graduated and the school district had rescinded its anti-prayer policy, the trial court dismissed the entire case as moot, even though the Ward family had requested nominal damages based on the constitutional violations. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court, and the Ward family filed a petition for rehearing. Granting petitions for rehearing are rare in the Fifth Circuit. Only fourteen, or about 2.6%, of the 499 rehearing petitions were granted during the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 2000.

In support of the Ward family’s petition, the Thomas More Law Center’s brief pointed out that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion ran contrary to existing law and maintained that if the Fifth Circuit’s decision was not changed on rehearing, the decision would be an impediment to those plaintiffs who seek to litigate constitutional issues, especially in cases brought by students against their schools.

Within a matter of days, the Fifth Circuit granted a rehearing, sending the case back to the trial court to rule on the issue of nominal damages. The Fifth Circuit stated in part that “our prior opinion was in error insofar as we held that Marian Ward’s claim for nominal damages was moot. . . . Other authority supports the proposition that, whether or not a plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief has become moot, a suit should not be dismissed in its entirety so long as the plaintiff has alleged a cognizable claim for nominal damages for the constitutional violation he suffered. . . . We are persuaded that the [Ward family’s] case was not entirely moot in light of the claim for nominal damages. We grant the petition for rehearing and withdraw our prior opinion insofar as it held otherwise.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services without charge and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations and corporations for support. The Thomas More Law Center is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. You may contact the Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Gay Rights Activists Demand School Take Action Against Christian Club
Fri, Apr 12, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – A controversy, which has been brewing over the past few months at Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, between gay rights supporters and the Pioneers for Christ student club, came to a head this past Wednesday night during an emotion-filled meeting of the Ann Arbor School Board. At this meeting, gay rights activists demanded that the Board take action against the Christian club for not adopting a so-called “non-discrimination” policy as part of its mission statement.

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, addressed the Board during this meeting and pledged the support of the Center to protect the rights of this Christian club. Said Muise, “Pioneers for Christ is being singled out simply because its members do not support the agenda of gay rights activists. Presently at Pioneer High School there are faculty members and administrators who desire to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of students’ constitutional and federal statutory rights.” Muise reminded the school board that “the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Access Act . . protect Pioneers for Christ from such blatant and discriminatory attacks from gay activists.”

Earlier this year, Pioneer High School officials demanded that Pioneers for Christ adopt its so-called “non-discrimination” policy as part of the club’s mission statement. This policy would force Pioneers for Christ to accept members who are not committed to its cause or adherents to the Christian faith. Moreover, this policy would prohibit its members from expressing and promoting their Christian view toward various issues, including homosexuality, thereby affecting the content of the members’ speech.

More recently, during the so-called “Diversity Week” held at Pioneer High School, students were not allowed to express their Christian view of homosexuality during a panel discussion that the school sponsored for the purpose of discussing religion and homosexuality. The Gay Straight Alliance student club, with the support of school officials, monopolized this discussion by presenting only the view of several adults who claimed to be clergy of denominations that support the homosexual lifestyle. School officials prevented any other view to be expressed during this event, which occurred during the school day.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services without charge and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations and corporations for support. The Thomas More Law Center is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. You may contact the Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Assists in Texas School Prayer Case
Thu, Apr 11, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a case that could have significant impact on Christians attempting to protect their constitutional rights, the Thomas More Law Center has submitted a “friend of the court” brief in support of high school student Marian Ward and her family who want a federal court to render a judgment on the constitutionality of the Santa Fe (Texas) Independent School District’s anti-prayer policy. The case is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on a petition of rehearing.

At stake is the ability of law firms to bring actions on behalf of classes of individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated, but are unable to show a measurable monetary injury. Most jurisdictions follow the general rule that nominal damages are awarded to those who suffer a violation of their constitutional rights. This rule prevents those who violated rights of students to avoid a final adjudication of those rights for future reliance by other students. An often-used tactic by public schools is to craft a temporary solution, wait for the student to graduate and then ask the court to dismiss the case because the case had been rendered moot. The Thomas More Law Center’s brief addressed the issue of whether a request for nominal damages will prevent a case from becoming moot in such a situation.

High school senior Marian Ward and her family initially sued the school district for the unconstitutional attempts by officials to prevent her from mentioning anything religious in a pregame message she was to make before a high school football game.
The trial court granted temporary injunctive relief in Marian’s favor which resulted in Marian being able to give a message of her choice without governmental discrimination against faith-based speech. The message Marian chose was a prayer. She delivered a prayer at each of the five home games of the 1999-2000 high school football season. However, after Marian had graduated and the school district had rescinded its anti-prayer policy, the trial court dismissed the entire case based on mootness. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court. Because the case was dismissed as moot, future students would not be able to rely on a court judgment to protect their rights should the school again adopt an anti-prayer policy.

The Thomas More Law Center claimed that if the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not changed on rehearing, the decision would have a radical and negative impact on civil liberties. The Fifth Circuit’s decision would serve as an impediment to those plaintiffs who seek to litigate constitutional issues, especially in cases brought by students against their schools.

According to the Center’s brief, prepared by Associate Counsel Edward L. White III, “Even though a nominal damage award is small, the importance of the constitutional issue at stake in such cases is significant and needs to be litigated. By mooting cases, even when nominal damages have been alleged, constitutional rights, in many cases, will go unprotected because plaintiffs will have no recourse to the courts. Moreover, the development of constitutional law will be hindered. ”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Thomas More Law Center provides its services at no charge, and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations, and corporations for support. The Thomas More Law Center is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001, or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (PA) Joins Law Center Board
Fri, Mar 22, 2002

Ann Arbor, Michigan – United States Senator Rick Santorum, third ranking Republican in the Senate and renowned pro-life advocate who led the fight to ban partial birth abortion, has agreed to serve on the Thomas More Law Center’s Advisory Board. The Advisory Board provides leadership and advice to the Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which promotes and defends religious freedom, traditional family values and the sanctity of human life.

Richard Thompson, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of the Center welcomed the distinguished Senator stating, “We are extremely honored that Senator Santorum has agreed to join the other distinguished members of our Citizens Advisory Board. His proven leadership will be a tremendous asset both to the Board and to the Law Center.”

Senator Santorum in a recent statement remarked, “It is an honor to be on the Citizens Advisory Board of the Thomas More Law Center. For many years, the Center has been the ‘Sword and Shield for People of Faith’, defending religious freedom, family values and the sanctity of human life. It is a moral force, breaking new ground in the discussion of virtue and justice in civil society.”

Other Board members include Bowie Kuhn, (Chairman) former Commissioner of Major League Baseball from 1969 to 1984, Ambassador Alan Keyes, former presidential candidate and current host of his own cable news program on MSNBC; Megan Nini, former candidate for the U. S. House of Representatives and a leader in many civic and pro-life causes; Mary Cunningham-Agee, Director of the Nurturing Network and the Culture of Life Foundation; Paul Henkels, prominent Pennsylvania businessman and leader in the struggle for school choice; and Richard Campbell, managing partner of a Colorado law firm, former FBI agent, and member of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America.

Rick Santorum has served in the United States Senate since January 1995. He is the youngest member of the leadership and the first Pennsylvanian in the leadership since Senator Hugh Scott was Republican Leader in the 1970’s. Senator Santorum and his wife, Karen Garver Santorum of Penn Hills, PA, are the parents of seven children.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services at no charge, and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations, and corporations for support. The Thomas More Law Center is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. You may contact the Center at (734) 827-2001, or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Catholic Jail Ministry to Start in Washtenaw County
Wed, Feb 6, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – Catholic inmates in the Washtenaw County Jail on Hogback Road, Ann Arbor, will have a Catholic jail ministry administering to their specific spiritual needs. The Catholic ministry will be part of the Christian Service Volunteers, an interdenominational jail ministry at the Washtenaw County Jail.

Deacon Edwin Novak, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, approached Washtenaw County officials this past December about starting the Catholic jail ministry.

Deacon Novak worked with St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Ann Arbor, which spearheaded the effort to establish the jail ministry. Scott Wright, the Social Ministry Director at St. Francis, will assist Deacon Novak in its operation. Bishop Carl Mengeling of the Diocese of Lansing has appointed Deacon Novak the Catholic Chaplain for the Washtenaw County correctional facilities.

Edward L. White III, associate counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, who assisted Deacon Novak, stated, “I am pleased the Law Center was able to assist in the establishment of a Catholic jail ministry. This ministry is needed to administer to the spiritual needs of the Catholic inmates in Washtenaw County.”

Before moving to Washtenaw County last year, Deacon Novak successfully ran a Catholic jail ministry in Genesee County, Michigan, for approximately ten years. His jail ministry in Genesee County had the lowest recidivism rate of any jail program.

According to Deacon Novak, “Jesus has instructed us that what we do for the least of our brothers, we do for Him. This includes visiting those in jail and caring for their spiritual needs. I look forward to working with Sheriff Dan Minzey, the jail’s administrative staff, Reverend Ell Dudley and the interdenominational jail ministry, Scott Wright, and St. Francis of Assisi Church to make the Catholic jail ministry in Washtenaw County a success.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services at no charge and is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. The Center’s number is (734) 827-2001, and its website is www.thomasmore.org.

Free Legal Defense With ‘In God We Trust’ Posters for Schools
Tue, Jan 15, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – Responding to a recent state law “encouraging” state and local units of governments to display the national motto “In God We Trust”, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan has announced it will distribute free of charge to classrooms and government offices professionally designed 16×20” posters displaying the national motto ‘In God We Trust’. The posters include a bald eagle and American flag over amber waves of grain.

The Thomas More Law Center is informing public schools that it will defend them without charge should a display of one of their posters be challenged by the ACLU or any other organization. The ACLU, which opposed the recent law, and the Thomas More Law Center clashed over its constitutionality during state Senate hearings.

“The ACLU representative told senators that the bill was unconstitutional. Let’s see if they are willing to back that claim in a court of law,” said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “The phony argument that mentioning trust in God somehow establishes a state sponsored religion is absurd, and people shouldn’t be afraid to profess what an overwhelming majority of the country already believes. Agencies like the ACLU have been stripping even the mention of the word God from schools for too long. ”

The motto ‘In God We Trust’ was declared the national motto by the United States Congress in 1956, and first appeared on U.S. currency in 1864.

The Thomas More Law Center, national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is a section 501(c)(3) organization affiliated with the Ave Maria Foundation. The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. TMLC does not charge for its services. You may contact TMLC at 734-827-2001 or by visiting their website at www.thomasmore.org.

2002 Archives

December 31, 2002 by

Supreme Court Seeks Bush Administration Opinion in Major Pro-Life Free Speech Case
Mon, Dec 16, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a rarely used process, the U.S. Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the opinion of the federal government in a major case involving the free speech rights of pro-life activists. The case has been reported by court watchers as one of four major cases to be considered for review this term.

A New York Times December 1st story described the Oregon case as “an important First Amendment case that asks the court to examine the boundary between provocative but legitimate advocacy and unprotected threats and intimidation” against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and a group of abortion doctors “sued under a provision of the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics and won a $120 million verdict, which was upheld on appeal,” reported the Times.
Abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood have long sought the ability to construe pro-life speech as threatening in order to suppress anti-abortion speech by legal intimidation.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents seven of the fourteen pro-life defendants in the case. Associate Counsel Edward L. White III, who is handling the case for the Law Center noted, “This is a pure free speech case. None of the posters used by our clients contained threats, and no doctor listed on any of the posters was ever harmed.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to review the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case, identified by the New York Times as one of the top four cases to be considered for review this term. The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents seven of the fourteen pro-life defendants in the case.

The Times December 1st story described the case as “an important First Amendment case that asks the court to examine the boundary between provocative but legitimate advocacy and unprotected threats and intimidation” against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and a group of abortion doctors “sued under a provision of the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics and won a $120 million verdict, which was upheld on appeal,” reported the Times.

Abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood have long sought the ability to construe pro-life speech as threatening in order to suppress anti-abortion speech by legal intimidation.

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, indicated that the Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision whether to hear the appeal on Monday, December 16. A petition for Supreme Court review was filed in October 2002. According to White, “At stake is the question of whether legitimate pro-life speech, specifically posters that do not contain threats yet bear the names of abortion providers, should be restricted.”

Edward White III will be available for comment immediately after the Court announces its decision on whether to hear the appeal. He can be reached by contacting Brian Burch at 734-827-2001.

The Times November 30th story described the case as “an important First Amendment case that asks the court to examine the boundary between provocative but legitimate advocacy and unprotected threats and intimidation” against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and a group of abortion doctors “sued under a provision of the federal law that protects access to abortion clinics and won a $120 million verdict, which was upheld on appeal,” reported the Times.

Abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood have long sought the ability to construe pro-life speech as threatening in order to suppress anti-abortion speech by legal intimidation.

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, indicated that the Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision whether to hear the appeal on Monday, December 16. A petition for Supreme Court review was filed in October 2002. Mr. White will be available for comment immediately after the Court announces its decision on whether to hear the appeal. He can be reached by contacting Brian Burch at 734-827-2001.

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a case that has drawn national attention, Detroit Federal District Judge Victoria A. Roberts has ordered that Plymouth Township, Michigan, pay monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs totaling $39,545.15 and has permanently enjoined the Township from interfering with the rights of pro-life demonstrators to display signs of aborted babies.

The case began this past July in Plymouth Township when pro-life advocates began to demonstrate against Michigan Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Jennifer Granholm, and her “pro-choice” stance, on the public sidewalk in front of the church she attends. The demonstrators displayed various signs, including signs that depicted images of aborted babies. Plymouth Township Police Officers seized the aborted baby signs on the basis that they were tantamount to pornography.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of three of the pro-life advocates who were prohibited from displaying the aborted baby signs. The Law Center sought an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Plymouth Township officials.

Within 24 hours after the lawsuit was filed, Federal Judge Roberts held a hearing and granted the emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in favor of the three pro-life advocates, permitting them to display their aborted baby signs in public. Judge Roberts also found that there was a strong likelihood that the Thomas More Law Center’s clients would prevail in showing that the police had violated their constitutional rights. Based on Judge Roberts’s order, the pro-life advocates resumed their peaceful protest without interference from the Plymouth Township police.

This past week, Judge Roberts signed a consent judgment ruling that the First Amendment protects the display of aborted baby signs and that the Plymouth Township Police Officers violated the United States Constitution when they prevented the pro-life advocates from displaying the aborted baby signs in public and when they confiscated the signs without consent, a warrant, or probable cause.

As a result of the lawsuit, the three pro-life advocates received a total of $23,000 in monetary damages.

Thomas More Law Center attorneys Edward L. White III and Robert J. Muise handled the case on behalf of the pro-life advocates.

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Thomas More Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Thomas More Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Victory Achieved for Michigan Pro-Life Advocates
Tue, Dec 3, 2002

Thomas More Law Center attorneys Edward L. White III and Robert J. Muise handled the case on behalf of the pro-life advocates.

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Thomas More Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Thomas More Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Victory Achieved for Michigan Pro-Life Advocates
Mon, Dec 2, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – Detroit Federal District Judge Victoria A. Roberts has entered a consent judgment and stipulated permanent injunction in favor of three pro-life advocates in a case that has drawn national attention.

The case began this past July in Plymouth Township, Michigan, when pro-life advocates began to protest against abortion and Michigan Attorney General and “pro-choice” gubernatorial candidate, Jennifer Granholm, on the public sidewalk in front of the church she attends. The pro-life advocates were displaying various signs, including signs that depict images of aborted babies. Plymouth Township Police Officers seized the aborted baby signs on the basis that they were tantamount to pornography and thereby prevented the pro-life advocates from displaying the signs in public.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of three pro-life advocates and sought an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Plymouth Township officials.

This past week, Judge Roberts signed a consent judgment and stipulated permanent injunction in which it was ordered that the First Amendment protects the aborted baby signs the pro-life advocates display. It was also ordered that the Plymouth Township Police Officers violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they prevented the pro-life advocates from displaying the aborted baby signs in public and that the Officers violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when they seized the aborted baby signs without consent, a warrant, or probable cause.

Judge Roberts further ordered Plymouth Township, its employees, agents, and successors in office to be permanently enjoined from preventing and/or interfering with the pro-life advocates when they are peacefully expressing their opposition to abortion in a public forum through the display of signs depicting images of aborted babies, fetuses, or human embryos. The Judge also permanently enjoined Plymouth Township, its employees, agents, and successors in office from seizing and confiscating such signs without probable cause, a warrant, or consent.

In addition, Judge Roberts ordered that Plymouth Township pay monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in a total amount of $39,545.15.
Associate Counsel Edward L. White III and Robert J. Muise handled the case on behalf of the Thomas More Law Center.

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Thomas More Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Thomas More Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

U.S. Supreme Court To Consider Whether To Review The “Nuremberg Files” Case
Tue, Nov 26, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Supreme Court is set to consider whether to review the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case, which many consider one of the most important First Amendment cases in the country. The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents seven of the fourteen pro-life defendants in the case. Associate Counsel Edward L. White III is handling the case for the Law Center.

The case involves a multi-million dollar jury verdict and lifetime injunction against the pro-life defendants, who had voiced their opposition to abortion. In 2001, the verdict and injunction were set aside by three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who unanimously ruled that the defendants’ speech, which included two posters identifying abortion doctors, was protected by the First Amendment. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned this year by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, who voted six to five in the case.

The six-judge majority held that the pro-life defendants’ speech was not protected as “political speech” under the First Amendment, but was instead “threats.” The five dissenting judges strongly disagreed and maintained that the First Amendment protected the defendants’ speech. The five dissenting judges further underscored that there was no evidence that the defendants had threatened the plaintiffs, especially because the posters make no threats.

This past October, the Thomas More Law Center, along with the American Catholic Lawyers Association and private attorney, Norman Lindstedt, filed a joint petition for certiorari on behalf of all defendants. Last week, the final brief was submitted on behalf of the defendants. The case is now set for the Supreme Court to decide whether it wants to “grant cert.” and review the case. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision within the coming weeks.

ANN ARBOR, MI — After the Thomas More Law Center successfully obtained a restraining order from a federal judge in California, temporarily halting the enforcement of a law designed to stop a pro-life group from flying its aerial tow banners with graphic images of aborted babies over the City of Huntington Beach, the City reconsidered its law and voted unanimously to permanently repeal it.

On September 16, 2002, the City of Huntington Beach passed an ordinance that banned all aerial displays, including the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s (CBR) pro-life banners, above or within the boundaries of the City. The Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance on behalf of CBR and seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to halt its enforcement. On October 16, 2002, the date the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Alicemarie Stotler signed a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the ordinance until an injunction hearing that was held on November 1, 2002.

At the injunction hearing, the judge continued the restraining order until December 6, 2002, because the City wanted additional time to consider arguments presented by the Thomas More Law Center attorney representing CBR. The City responded by conceding the strength of the Law Center’s legal arguments and calling an emergency meeting of its City Council to repeal the ordinance. Rather than fight a losing legal battle, the City council voted unanimously on November 18, 2002, to permanently remove the ordinance from its municipal code.

According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center handling this case, “We are pleased that the City acted quickly to repeal its ordinance. However, they didn’t have much of a choice—if they didn’t do it, we are confident that the judge would have. It’s unfortunate that the City had to spend taxpayer’s money in this litigation. This law should have never been passed in the first place.”

ANN ARBOR, MI — The pro-life group Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) will resume flying its aerial tow banners displaying graphic images of aborted babies over the City of Huntington Beach, California, thanks to a temporary restraining order (TRO) obtained by the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The TRO temporarily halts the enforcement of an ordinance recently passed by the City of Huntington Beach that bans all aerial displays, including CBR’s pro-life banners, above or within the boundaries of the City.

The Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance on behalf of CBR and seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to halt its enforcement. On October 16, 2002, the date the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Alicemarie Stotler signed the TRO stipulated by the City’s attorneys barring enforcement of the ordinance until the injunction hearing scheduled for November 1, 2002.

According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “We are very pleased that the temporary restraining order was issued. The law is clear that even a momentary loss of First Amendment liberties constitutes irreparable injury. It was necessary to stop this law before it went into effect, and the next step is to get this law off the books permanently through an injunction.”

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on October 1, 2002, the new ordinance is unconstitutional because it totally closes a forum for speech and completely forecloses an effective medium of communication. CBR estimates that by displaying one banner for approximately five hours, they are able to communicate their pro-life message to hundreds of thousands of people. The lawsuit also challenges the ordinance on equal protection grounds, and it claims that the ordinance violates the commerce clause and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

MADISON, WI – Judgment has been entered against the Madison Abortion Clinic and others in a civil case stemming from an incident in December 2001, in which Will Goodman, a pro-life advocate, was attacked by a staff member of the abortion facility. The Thomas More Law Center, a national pro-life, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represented Goodman in his lawsuit against the abortion facility. Judgment was entered in favor of Goodman for his claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring, training and supervision.

Robert Muise, the attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, who successfully litigated the case, commented, “This was a David and Goliath case from the beginning, and David has been victorious Sadly, Goliath continues to destroy countless lives through the violent attack of surgical abortion. This assault must end.”
After over a year of litigation this judgment brings the personal injury claims portion of the lawsuit to an end. Other aspects of the case continue to be fought out in the courts. Damages of an unspecified amount were paid directly to Goodman, and the Thomas More Law Center was awarded costs.

“While this is a just conclusion to the case,” commented Goodman, “the real victims in this whole tragedy are the innocent human persons destroyed by abortion, the mothers in tough situations who are exploited by the abortion industry, the fathers who have no voice, and our society who is deprived of these lives.”
The case revolved around an incident in which Goodman delivered a letter to Dennis Christensen, the abortionist, and his staff at the abortion center. The letter affirmed the dignity of their lives as well as the lives of the unborn babies in the womb and their mothers. Soon after, Goodman quietly handed out information on crisis pregnancy resources to women in the waiting room, and he was tackled by a member of the abortion facility staff and held in a headlock. A security officer then pulled Goodman to the ground while he was kneeling in prayer and forcefully placed Goodman in handcuffs.

When asked about the monetary award Goodman replied, “the money will be donated to a young impoverished mother from Africa who is struggling with a crisis pregnancy and to an organization helping young un-wed mothers to raise their families.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – In what one would have imagined would have been a straightforward request has turned into an almost three year legal battle, involving four appeals.

At issue is a woman who seeks access to her closed court file that contains information about a judicial bypass proceeding she went through as a minor to obtain an abortion without her parents’ consent. The woman is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
When the woman had gone through the judicial bypass proceeding, she was a minor suffering from a history of mental illness, was under medical treatment for that illness, and was under medication for that illness. She has only a vague memory of what took place during the proceeding, which occurred several years ago.
In early 2000, a Michigan Probate Court denied the woman’s request to open her court file for the woman to learn whether the court had been informed about her mental illness, treatment, and medication when the she had gone before the court as a minor for the waiver of parental consent and to learn whether she had knowingly agreed to obtain the waiver of her parental consent to obtain the abortion in light of her mental condition. Since 2000, the case has been moving through the Michigan Court system. Now, in what amounts to her fourth appeal, the woman has sought relief from the Michigan Supreme Court to obtain access to her own court file.

According to Edward L. White III, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “The woman simply wants to look at her own file, not someone else’s file. There is no legal justification for not permitting the women to examine her own file, and we trust the Michigan Supreme Court will review this case and correct this injustice.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – In a case considered by many to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the country, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that a joint petition for certiorari has been filed with the United States Supreme Court requesting the Court to review the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case. The Thomas More Law Center submitted the petition along with the American Catholic Lawyers Association and private attorney, Norman Lindstedt, on behalf of the fourteen defendants.

The case involves a $120 million jury verdict and injunction against the pro-life defendants, who had voiced their opposition to abortion. In 2001, the verdict and injunction were set aside by three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who unanimously ruled that the defendants’ speech was protected by the First Amendment. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned this year by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, who voted six to five in the case.

The six judge majority held that the pro-life defendants’ speech, which consisted of two posters identifying abortion doctors and a list of abortion doctors, among hundreds of other names, on an Internet website, were not protected as

2002 Archives

December 31, 2002 by

School Retreats from Pro-Homosexual Policy After Student Christian Club Threatens Lawsuit
Mon, Oct 14, 2002

ANN ARBOR, MI – Threats of legal action ended a controversy that had been brewing over the past year at Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, between gay rights activists and the Pioneers for Christ student club. Gay activists had demanded that the School Board take action against the Christian club because the club refused to adopt the school’s “non-discrimination” policy as part of its mission statement.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the Christian Club, the policy would have unconstitutionally prohibited members from expressing their Christian view against homosexuality. Under the threat of litigation, the Ann Arbor School Board voted last week to change its policy.

Robert Muise, associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, appearing at a school board meeting earlier in the year warned, “Pioneers for Christ is being singled out simply because its members do not support the agenda of gay rights activists. Presently at Pioneer High School there are faculty members and administrators who desire to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of students’ constitutional and federal statutory rights….the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Access Act . . . protect Pioneers for Christ from such blatant and discriminatory attacks.”

According to reports, attorneys for the School Board agreed that the policy was not legally defensible, so the Board changed it.

In a separate but related controversy, during the so-called “Diversity Week” held at Pioneer High School last March, students were not allowed to express their Christian view of homosexuality during a panel discussion that the school sponsored for the purpose of discussing religion and homosexuality. The Gay Straight Alliance student club, with the support of school officials, monopolized this discussion by presenting only the view of several adults who claimed to be clergy of denominations that support the homosexual lifestyle. School officials prevented any other view to be expressed during this event, which occurred during the school day. This has resulted in a federal lawsuit, which was filed this past July by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Betsy Hansen and her mother, challenging the school’s actions. This lawsuit is distinct from the non-discrimination policy controversy and, according to Center attorneys, will continue.

According to Attorney Muise, “We are pleased that the School Board recognized that its so-called ‘non-discrimination’ policy was constitutionally suspect and that it threatened the rights of Christian students and others. We believe that our lawsuit against the School Board over the Pioneer High School ‘Diversity Week’ events, which is separate but related to the non-discrimination policy issue, will cast further light on the way that gay rights activists are improperly influencing the public school system.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services without charge and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations and corporations for support. The Thomas More Law Center is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. You may contact the Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Public High School Pushes Homosexual Agenda and Discriminates Against Christian Student During “Diversity Week” – Federal Lawsuit Filed
Wed, Jul 10, 2002

Ann Arbor, MI — A controversy over school-sponsored activities designed to promote the homosexual agenda and the school’s censorship of a Christian student’s speech critical of homosexual activity have resulted in a federal lawsuit. The Thomas More Law Center filed the civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the student, Betsy Hansen, and her mother against the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its administrators and faculty members who work at Pioneer High School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Betsy and her mother are devout Roman Catholics who object to the school promoting activity that is contrary to their religious beliefs. Betsy graduated this past June from Pioneer High with the highest honors; she has a brother and a sister who will be attending Pioneer High School this Fall.

During Pioneer High’s “2002 Diversity Week,” held this past March, the school sponsored various events, including student speeches given at an all school assembly and panel discussions on various issues such as race, religion, and “Homosexuality and Religion.” Although Betsy was permitted to give a speech during the student assembly, she was required to submit her speech to school officials for their prior approval. School officials removed all references critical of homosexual activity.

Also during this week, certain school officials jointly agreed to prevent Betsy from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel. School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey; that is, that homosexual behavior and religion are compatible, and that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful.
In order to further achieve their purpose with this panel discussion, school officials selected and invited certain religious leaders and clergy members who would promote and endorse their pro-homosexual “religious” belief. School officials denied Betsy’s request to have panel members present who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexual activity. School officials also pre-screened questions for the panel members, selected the faculty advisor for the Gay Straight Alliance to act as “moderator,” prohibited “open” questions to panel members, and expressly prohibited the students from personally interacting with any panel member before, during, or after the panel discussion.

Moreover, to ensure that only a particular religious belief regarding homosexuality was presented during the student panel discussion on religion, which immediately followed the discussion on “Religion and Homosexuality,” school officials created written guidelines that prohibited, among other things, student panel members from making comments that “target” another person’s “sexual orientation.”

This federal civil rights lawsuit challenges these actions, alleging that school officials violated Betsy’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that school officials violated the Establishment Clause by impermissibly promoting and endorsing the religious belief that homosexual activity is compatible with religion, by conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of the Roman Catholic belief that homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, and by coercing students to accept and support the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful.

Betsy’s mother, Connie Hansen, is suing because, as a parent, she objects to the Ann Arbor school’s practice of promoting religious beliefs that conflict with her private religious beliefs, the religious beliefs of her children, and the religious beliefs of her family. The lawsuit alleges that Pioneer High School officials have interfered with Connie’s constitutional right to direct the religious education of her children.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “The facts alleged in the Complaint clearly show that school officials at Pioneer High School are hostile to Betsy’s Roman Catholic belief that homosexual activity is immoral and sinful. In their zeal to promote the homosexual agenda during this so-called “Diversity Week,” school officials gave a powerful lesson of intolerance and bigotry toward traditional Christian beliefs. This is nothing short of hypocrisy and parents of Pioneer High School students need to know what is being disguised as education in the Ann Arbor Public school system.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Center provides its services at no charge, and is dependent upon individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Transsexual Marriages Rejected In Kansas – Thomas More Law Center Defends Traditional Marriage
Tue, Mar 19, 2002

Ann Arbor, MI – The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of traditional marriages, holding that transsexual J’Noel Gardiner is a man under Kansas law and thus not entitled to share the proceeds in the estate of Marshall Gardiner.
J’Noel Gardiner, 40, married 85 year old Marshall Gardiner in 1998. Although J’Noel’s original birth certificate indicated he was a male, he began a series of medical procedures in 1991 that ultimately gave him the physical appearances of a female. Marshall Gardiner died intestate a year after their marriage leaving an approximate $2.5 million estate. The estate then became the subject of the legal dispute between J’Noel and the son of Marshall Gardiner from a previous marriage about whether J’Noel’s marriage to Marshall was valid.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case maintaining that, because J’Noel Gardiner is a male, who appears through man-made means to be a female, he cannot validly marry another man under Kansas law. The court agreed, noting that despite the fact that J’Noel’s body was manipulated by physicians, “J’Noel does not fit the common meaning of female,” and “J’Noel remains a transsexual, and a male for purposes of marriage” under Kansas law.

The case represents a major victory for traditional marriage. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that the public policy of Kansas recognizes only “the traditional marriage between two parties who are of the opposite sex,” which is commonly understood to be a “biological man and a biological woman.” The court ruled that a post-operative male-to-female transsexual is not a woman under Kansas law and cannot validly marry another man.

“The ACLU and others, who supported the legal position of J’Noel in this case, have once again attempted to entice courts to assist in destroying the traditional family unit as we know it,” said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center. “The Kansas Supreme Court wisely decided to uphold the will of the people, and affirm traditional marriage.”

The Thomas More Law Center is a national public interest law firm recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization. It provides its services without charge and is partially funded by the Ave Maria Foundation as well as other foundations, corporations, and individuals who support its mission of defending and promoting religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001, or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Applauds Nebraska Supreme Court’s Rejection of Gay Adoption
Wed, Mar 13, 2002

Ann Arbor, MI – The Nebraska Supreme Court has rejected the attempt by two lesbians to adopt a four-year old boy, after one of the women became pregnant through artificial insemination. The petition for adoption was brought by the ACLU in an obvious attempt to bypass Nebraska’s state constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2000 banning gay marriage. The ACLU Board will meet on March 16 to decide whether to ask the Court to reconsider their opinion.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan had joined the Nebraska Catholic Conference in filing a “friend of the court” brief in the case. The Law Center applauded the ruling with a word of caution. Rob Muise, associate counsel with the Law Center, explained, “The Court’s decision placed a roadblock in the way of the ACLU’s gay rights agenda. And while this is an important victory, it is doubtful that the ACLU and other promoters of the gay rights will cease their overt attacks on the traditional family.”

The Nebraska Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion with one dissent, affirmed a lower court decision holding that the boy could not be adopted because the mother had not relinquished her parental rights as required under state statute, leaving open the constitutional issue of whether gay couples are prohibited from adopting in general.

The Thomas More Law Center and the Nebraska Catholic Conference had argued in their brief that these same-sex partners “are attempting to achieve legal recognition of their view toward marriage, family, and sexual relationships by seeking a judicial decree that would legally create this unique ‘family.’ Such a result would be inconsistent with the history of the Nebraska adoption statutes, would create significant conflict with the Nebraska laws that apply to the legal relationships of parents and children, and would result in a dramatic shift in the social policy of this State.”

According to Robert Muise, “Both the constitution and statutory law of Nebraska overwhelmingly supports the time-honored family unit consisting of one male father and one female mother. Had the Court granted the adoption in this case, it would have created a new type of ‘family’ that Nebraska’s law simply does not and should not recognize.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a section 501(c)(3) organization, is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. You may contact the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

2001 Archives

December 31, 2001 by

Thomas More Law Center Defends California High Schooler’s Right To Wear Pro-Life Shirts To School
Tue, Nov 20, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan – A senior at Littlerock High School in Littlerock, California, has asked the Thomas More Law Center to defend her right to wear pro-life shirts to school. At issue is whether the school will change its position and allow the student to wear shirts with messages such as “I’m Pro-Life,” “Abortion is Wrong,” and “Abortion is Killing.”

The student, an ardent believer that abortion is the intentional killing of unborn children, wants to express her pro-life message on her clothing to the same extent that other students are allowed to express various messages including the Playboy Bunny symbol and the rock band Marilyn Manson, among other things.
Thomas More Law Center attorneys, Edward L. White III and Kimberly A. Daniels, sent a letter to the school superintendent and school board members explaining the student’s constitutional right to advance her pro-life views at school and requested immediate written assurance that she would be permitted to wear her pro-life clothing.

According to Richard Thompson, the Thomas More Law Center’s Chief Counsel, “It is a fundamental constitutional principle that students do not lose their right to free speech just because they are in school. Students may express themselves on controversial subjects such as abortion. A school cannot confine a student to expressing only those messages that the school has officially approved.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center provides its services at no charge. The Center’s number is (734) 827-2001 and its website is www.thomasmore.org .

Law Center Gets School To Permit Pro-Life Message
Mon, Nov 5, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan – The Thomas More Law Center successfully intervened on behalf of a student who was prevented by her public high school in Malone, New York, from wearing a sweatshirt to school stating on the front “Abortion is Homicide” and on the back “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”

This past September, the student wore the sweatshirt to her high school and was told by the school she had to wear a different shirt or go home because the message on the sweatshirt was “offensive.” The girl was placed on in-school suspension until her father came to school. The girl, who was visibly upset over the matter, went home rather than wear a different shirt to school that day.

The girl and her family then contacted the Thomas More Law Center. Edward L. White III, one of the Center’s attorneys, sent a letter to the Malone Central School District superintendent explaining in detail the student’s constitutional right to wear the pro-life sweatshirt, and demanded written assurance that the school would no longer interfere with the girl’s right to wear her sweatshirt as well as a written apology to the girl and her father.

The school district continued to prohibit the student from wearing her sweatshirt citing a new reason, namely, that the sweatshirt conveyed a religious message and constituted religious proselytizing. The school’s lawyer argued that a student may not proselytize a specific, religious point of view in school, and the district could prohibit a student’s religious proselytizing just as the district can restrict a student’s promotion of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco slogans.

The school district, however, made a dramatic turn around after Mr. White explained to officials that not only do court decisions contradict the district’s decision to stifle religious speech, but even the United States Department of Education’s guidelines, which every school district has received, permits students to display religious messages on clothing to the same extent that students are permitted to display other comparable messages.

The school district gave written assurance to the Thomas More Law Center that their client would be allowed to wear her pro-life sweatshirt to school. In the same letter, the school district apologized to the student and her father for any hardship caused to them as a result of the incident.

According to White, “The school district did the right thing in acknowledging our client’s constitutional right to freely express her pro-life views in school. Unfortunately, we receive many calls each school year from public school students throughout the country whose pro-life speech is wrongly prohibited or restricted by their schools. Many of those students comply and stop wearing their pro-life shirts, even though they don’t have to. In this case, the student and family had the courage to stand up for her rights, and I am pleased we were able to quickly restore her right to wear her pro-life sweatshirt to school.”

Mr. White went on to thank New York attorney John M. Kennedy, who assisted the Thomas More Law Center with this case.

The Thomas More Law Center is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and is partially funded by the Ave Maria Foundation. The Center promotes and defends religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Thomas More Law Center is a section 501(c)(3) organization, and provides its services at no charge. You may contact the Center at (734) 827-2001.

Pro-Lifers Free To Protest on Grass in Front of Abortion Clinic
Mon, Oct 29, 2001

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has secured written assurance from the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Henrico County, Virginia, that the Center’s pro-life clients may freely demonstrate on the grass in front of A Capital Women’s Health Clinic, an abortion clinic in Henrico County, near Richmond.

The Thomas More Law Center represented Dennis Green and his two minor children, who are part of Life and Liberty Ministries, a pro-life organization based in Petersburg, Virginia.

Because there are no paved sidewalks along the street in front of the abortion clinic, the Greens had been peacefully protesting against abortion on the grass area in front of the clinic near the street.

However, when police threatened the Greens with a trespassing citation on the basis that the grassy area was part of the clinic’s property, they contacted the Thomas More Law Center. The Center sent a letter to the local law enforcement authorities explaining that based on the facts of the case, the grassy area was a right of way and the functional equivalent of a public sidewalk, which is a quintessential public forum where free speech activity may take place.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney agreed with the Center’s legal position that the Greens and others could legally protest on the grass and so informed the local police. According to Dennis Green, “We consulted the Thomas More Law Center to get clarification whether we were trespassing. Having received the written assurance of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, we can protest without concern of any future threats of being charged with trespass.”

Edward L. White III, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, stated, “I am pleased for our clients that this matter has been resolved. They did not want to violate the law and wanted clarification from the government whether they were indeed trespassing. I am confident that our clients will now be able to freely exercise their pro-life protest in front of the abortion clinic without further police interference.” White went on to thank local Richmond attorney, Paul Morken, who assisted the Thomas More Law Center with the case.

The Thomas More Law Center is a section 501(c)(3) organization that is affiliated with the Ave Maria Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. The Center does not charge for its services, and you may contact the Center at 734-827-2001.

Thomas More Law Center Defends High Schooler’s Right to Wear Pro-Life Shirt to School
Thu, Sep 20, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan – The Thomas More Law Center has sent a demand letter to school officials in upstate New York on behalf of a public high school student who was ordered by school officials to remove her sweatshirt that displays the words “Abortion is Homicide” on the front and the words “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.” on the back.

The pro-life student had worn the sweatshirt on a number of occasions to high school this school year without disrupting the workings of the school and without interfering with the rights of other students. She had received only positive comments from fellow students about the shirt.

On Friday, September 14, 2001, however, a school official told her that she had to put on a different shirt or go home because the sweatshirt was “offensive.” The girl was placed in in-school suspension until her father came to school. The girl, who was visibly upset over the matter, went home rather than wear a different shirt to school that day.

According to Richard Thompson, the Thomas More Law Center’s Chief Counsel, “It is outrageous that the high school is attempting to silence this girl’s pro-life message, while other students are permitted to wear shirts to that same school advertising beer companies and rock bands such as Marilyn Manson. The only thing ‘offensive’ in this case is the school’s restriction of the girl’s free speech rights.”

The Thomas More Law Center’s five-page letter explains the student’s clearly established constitutional right to wear her pro-life clothing and demands that the school take immediate action and provide written assurance that the girl will be permitted to wear her “Abortion is Homicide” sweatshirt to school. Should the school disregard this demand and continue to violate the student’s rights, the Thomas More Law Center is prepared to seek appropriate relief in federal court at no charge to the girl and her family.

The Thomas More Law Center is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm affiliated with the Ave Maria Foundation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It provides its services at no charge and can be contacted at (734) 827-2001.

Thomas More Law Center Sues Planned Parenthood Over Abortion – Breast Cancer Link
Wed, Aug 15, 2001

SAN DIEGO, CA, – Three California women are suing Planned Parenthood to force the nation’s largest provider of abortions to reveal scientific evidence of a substantial link between induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer, it was announced today by the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The women, Agnes Bernardo of Chula Vista, Pamela Colip of Loma Linda, and Sandra Duffy-Hawkins of Sacramento, filed suit this morning in the San Diego branch of the state superior court against Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties, which operates an abortion clinic in San Diego, as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (P.P.F.A.), headquartered in New York City. The plaintiffs are represented in the action by the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center. Stuart Fagan is serving as local legal counsel.

Patrick Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center’s lead attorney in the case, explained that the complaint alleges that both P.P.F.A. and its San Diego affiliate consistently mislead women about the safety of abortion by obscuring evidence that induced abortion causes breast cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking no monetary damages. Rather, they want the court to compel Planned Parenthood to inform women that abortion poses a significant health risk in the form of increased vulnerability to breast cancer, the leading cause of death among middle-age women in America.

“Planned Parenthood advocates a woman’s right to choose,” Gillen said. “Our clients want all women to have free access to the truthful and accurate information they need to make an informed choice.”

The complaint filed today notes that Planned Parenthood touts the safety of abortion both in its printed materials and on its websites, claiming that childbirth “carries seven times more risk” than a surgical abortive procedure. But the complaint points out that the American Medical Association considers that any death subsequent to an abortion is related to the procedure if it results from “a direct complication of an abortion, an indirect complication caused by the chain of events initiated by the abortion, or the aggravation of a preexisting condition.”

“Planned Parenthood is trying to focus the attention of women only on surgical errors and other immediate complications of the procedure itself, which grossly understates the risk,” Gillen said. “They dismiss the research that shows a connection between abortion and breast cancer which can increase the health risks associated with abortion by 30 percent.”

Dr. Joel Brind, an endocrinologist at Baruch College of the City University of New York, who has analyzed the research concerning an abortion-breast cancer link, noted that a correlation between breast cancer and induced abortion was observed as long ago as a 1957 study conducted in Japan. In the years since, a body of evidence has accumulated from around the world, lending credence to the abortion-breast cancer connection.

“Out of 37 independently published studies, 28 show a causal connection,” Brind said. “And of those, 17 provide positive associations that reach statistical significance suggesting a 95-percent certainty that this association is not due to chance. That is scientific evidence which simply cannot be ignored.”
Brind noted that research suggests the problem becomes more acute the earlier in life a women has an abortion. “The younger a woman is at the time of her first pregnancy, the greater the protection she will have if she carries her baby to term,” he said. “Correspondingly, the younger she is when she has an abortion, the more prone to cancer she will likely be.

The three plaintiffs have brought their suit on behalf of the people of California, as permitted by California law. Agnes Bernardo explained that she and her co-plaintiffs feel a high degree of personal motivation in this effort. “I have experienced abortion, and I have been treated for a non-malignant tumor,” Bernardo said. “I am very concerned about developing breast cancer as are most women. I strongly believe women should receive complete information about the studies linking induced abortion and breast cancer before making the decision to have an abortion.”

Pamela Colip noted that she had an abortion some 30 years ago, which precipitated a premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy. “I was terribly disturbed when I learned about the abundance of scientific medical evidence showing that women who have had an induced abortion have a much greater risk of developing breast cancer,” Colip said. “My abortion was performed some thirty years ago and I remember it as though it were yesterday. Besides the emotional and physical pain, and the tremendous health risks to future pregnancies, now there is the added risk of this devastating cancer. I believe that you can never have too much information. I believe that every woman deserves the respect to be fully informed about all the consequences surrounding such a procedure as this one. I had no such information about the negative consequences, I want to help make sure that others do.”

Saundra Duffy-Hawkins explained that, while she has never had an abortion, she has been treated for cancer twice, and her mother died of cancer. “We all know first-hand what it means to go through these experiences,” she said. “I want to do what I can to protect others from tragedies that can be avoided simply by having truthful information available. I believe that women need to understand the real risks they face before making choices that can destroy lives.”

John Kindley, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, has published an article on legal liability arising from failure to disclose the abortion-breast cancer link. Kindley noted some of the ways in which Planned Parenthood is alleged to have misled women about the health risks of abortion.

“It’s their practice to make claims about the safety of abortion based on very incomplete data,” Kindley said. “At the same time, they attempt to discredit the very real scientific work which has been done showing an abortion-breast cancer link. For instance, they cite five studies that say the connection is unclear, while ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of the scientific evidence to the contrary. Then they assure their clients that the case for a connection is unproven. This is not only bad science, it’s disingenuous to the point of being unethical.”

Brind explained the physical process which the studies indicate causes the increased risk.

“In the early stages of pregnancy, there is a dramatic increase in the level of estrogen, the female sex hormone,” Brind said. “This estrogen surge causes an increase in the number of breast cells in preparation for nursing, which is why a pregnant woman’s breasts tend to swell. In the last eight weeks of a full-term pregnancy, other hormones cause the increased tissue to stabilize into milk-producing cells. But at the early stage of rapid development, breast cells are in an undifferentiated state and highly vulnerable to mutations that can cause cancer.”

Abortion interrupts the natural process of preparing a woman’s body to bear and nurse a child, Brind observed, cutting off the final part of the sequence that provides breast tissue with a significant measure of protection against cancer.

Thomas More Law Center Announces Another Victory in the “Nuremberg Files” Case
Wed, Aug 1, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan – The Thomas More Center For Law & Justice, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announces today that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied Planned Parenthood’s attempt to get all twenty-five active judges on the court to rehear the appeal of the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case.

This past March, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit stunned the pro-abortion world when it reversed an Oregon jury’s $107 million damage verdict against fourteen pro-life defendants. The Thomas More Law Center represents seven of the defendants on appeal.
The Oregon jury had held the pro-life defendants liable for making threats against abortion doctors and clinics, who are the plaintiffs in the case. Some of the plaintiffs had been named in two posters and a website. The two posters, for example, had declared the abortion doctors “guilty of crimes against humanity” for their roles in the abortion industry.

The unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned the jury’s verdict and ruled that the First Amendment protected defendants’ speech, which did not threaten the plaintiffs or urge anyone else to harm the plaintiffs.

After losing on appeal, Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that all twenty-five active judges on the Ninth Circuit rehear the case and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel. The Thomas More Law Center, joined by attorney Christopher Ferrara of the American Catholic Lawyers Association and attorney Norman Lindstedt, who represent the other defendants, responded to the petition and explained to all the active judges that the three-judge panel’s decision followed governing case law of the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment’s protection of the defendants’ speech. Review of the decision by the full Ninth Circuit was therefore unnecessary.

Not only did the Thomas More Law Center have to respond to Planned Parenthood’s petition for rehearing, the Center had to respond to five “friend of the court” briefs filed in support of Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs. These briefs were submitted by more than eighty (80) individuals, groups, and States, some represented by prestigious national law firms. The supporters of Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs include fifty-nine members of the United States Congress, including Senators Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, the American Medical Association, the Anti-Defamation League, and the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, and West Virginia through their Attorneys General.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated “the decision by the full Ninth Circuit to not rehear this appeal is not surprising. The three-judge panel’s First Amendment decision was sound and based on established case law. This case is not yet over. We expect Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs to request that the United States Supreme Court review this case. If that occurs, the Thomas More Law Center will continue to vigorously advance the First Amendment rights of its clients.”

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a section 501(c)(3) organization, is affiliated with the Ave Marie Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. TMLC defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. TMLC does not charge for its services. You may contact TMLC at 734-827-2001.

Plaintiffs Appeal Reversal of “Satan Trial” Win to Supreme Court
Mon, Jun 25, 2001

RAMSEY, NJ – June 25, 2001. The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Ramsey, NJ and the Thomas More Center For Law & Justice, Ann Arbor, MI, today jointly filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, following the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of a trial-level victory by a group of Catholic parents in what the media dubbed the “Satan trial” lawsuit.

The lawsuit by parents and students against the Bedford Central School District in Westchester County, NY, had challenged a series of school-sponsored activities that the plaintiffs contended were promoting Eastern, pagan, and satanic religious concepts in Bedford schools. Plaintiffs’ claims included a school-sponsored card game called “Magic the Gathering,” in which students summoned demons depicted on the playing cards, which also depict human sacrifice and a pact with the devil.

The federal district judge agreed with plaintiffs as to four of the claims, holding that the Bedford Central School District had violated the First Amendment rights of parents and students when the school district directed children to make images of a Hindu god out of paper and clay, played audiotapes of prayers to the earth in the classroom (including “This is what we believe. The Mother of us all is the Earth. The Father is the Sun. The Grandfather is the Creator who bathed us with his mind and gave life to all things.”), told children to make and purchase“ worry-dolls” to ward off evil, and conducted what the district court termed an “Earth Day liturgy.”

The district court found that Bedford’s “Earth Day liturgy” involved annually assembling the entire high school student body before a large globe on a tripod, where class leaders would offer “gifts” to the Earth in the form of speeches. The district court concluded “The liturgy of Earth Day . . . evolved into a proceeding which takes on much of the attributes of the ceremonies of worship by organized religions.”

In a decision rendered last March, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the entire trial court judgment, mostly on the technical grounds of “lack of standing,” in that three of the four plaintiff families had moved, or were about to move out of the district.

Christopher A. Ferrara, chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, said that “We believe the decision of the Court of Appeals is erroneous. The remaining plaintiffs had standing to sue, and the district court’s legal and factual findings were clearly in line with Supreme Court precedent requiring religious neutrality in public schools. The district court correctly recognized that neutrality means neutrality, not just hostility toward Christianity in the public schools. If the schools cannot promote Christianity, then neither can they promote Earth-worship or Hinduism.”

Edward L. White III, associate counsel with the Thomas More Center For Law & Justice, commented that “We agreed to join in this certiorari petition because we believe this is a case of national importance in which the Circuit Court has made rulings that conflict with Supreme Court precedent and decisions in other circuits.”

A decision on whether the Supreme Court will accept review of the case is not expected until September.

Thomas More Center Scores Victory in “Nuremberg Files” Appeal
Thu, Mar 29, 2001

Ann Arbor, Michigan – The Thomas More Center for Law & Justice, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, scored a landmark legal victory yesterday when a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the jury verdict and injunction against the Center’s seven clients and the other defendants in the so-called “Nuremberg Files” case. The jury had awarded damages in excess of $107 million against the pro-life defendants, and the district court had enjoined the defendants’ speech. The jury’s multi-million verdict and the court’s injunction had made national headlines.

In the case, pro-life activists had published the names and addresses of abortion providers. For example, the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) unveiled at a public event a poster that listed the names and addresses of the “Deadly Dozen,” a group of abortion providers, and that declared the abortion doctors guilty of “crimes against humanity.” The poster offered $5,000 for any information leading to the arrest, conviction, and revocation of their medical licenses. At another public event, the ACLA unveiled a series of dossiers, dubbed the “Nuremberg Files,” that contained information about abortion doctors, abortion clinic employees, politicians, judges, and other abortion rights supporters. The ACLA had compiled the files so that Nuremberg-like war crime trials could be held in “perfectly legal courts once the tide of this nation’s opinion turns against the wanton slaughter of God’s children.” The ACLA sent hard copies of the files to another person, who posted the information contained in the files on a website.

In response to the posters and website, four abortion doctors and two Portland, Oregon, based abortion clinics sued the ACLA, twelve other people, and an affiliated organization. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had made threatening statements against them that violated state and federal law.
After a lengthy trial in federal district court in Portland, Oregon, the jury found that all of the alleged statements were true threats and awarded the plaintiffs $107 million in actual and punitive damages. The district court then issued an injunction barring defendants from making or distributing the posters, the webpage, or anything similar.

The Thomas More Center represented seven of the defendants on appeal: the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), Advocates for Life Ministries, Andrew Burnett, David Crane, Catherine Ramey, Michael Bray, and Dawn Stover.

The Thomas More Center argued on appeal that its clients’ statements were protected by the First Amendment. In its unanimous opinion, the panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed. The Ninth Circuit vacated the jury’s multi-million dollar verdict against the defendants and ordered that the district court dissolve its injunction.

“This is an important victory for the free speech rights of pro-life advocates,” said Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Center.
The American Catholic Lawyers Association represented the other defendant on appeal. “Friend of the court” briefs urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the jury’s verdict were filed by such groups as the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ACLU Foundation of Oregon, and the Anti-Defamation League, as well as by the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington through their Attorneys General.
For a copy of the Court’s opinion, contact the Thomas More Center.

The Thomas More Center, a section 501(c)(3) organization, is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Thomas More Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. The Thomas More Center achieves these goals on behalf of the citizens of the United States through education, litigation, and related activities. The Thomas More Center provides its services at no charge and can be contacted at (734) 827-2001.

2001 Archives

December 31, 2001 by

Brighton Assembly of God Church Supports Thomas More Law Center
Mon, Nov 12, 2001

Ann Arbor, MI – While acknowledging the current war against terrorism in Afghanistan, a local Assembly of God congregation recently stepped up to support the ongoing battle for the soul of America at home. After listening to a brief talk by Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, the congregation took up a collection totaling over thirteen-hundred dollars in support of the Center, recognizing its ministry in the domestic battle for religious freedom and the sanctity of human life.

Brighton Assembly of God Church invited Thompson to speak November 7th on the role of faith in public for people today. Thompson delivered his message to a group of about 200 listeners, calling attention to the battleground in America, and the importance for people of faith to stand up and respond to the forces that seek to remove “every vestige of God from our public life.” Nicolette Pearce of Northville Public High School was also in attendance, and spoke out about the work the Law Center performed on her behalf in allowing her Bible Club to meet after hours at school. The congregation demonstrated their support for Thompson and the Thomas More Law Center’s efforts in defense of Christians, by taking up the unexpected collection.

“We must return to the Founding principles of this great nation. If we do nothing, we will bear the personal responsibility before God and future generations for having allowed evil to triumph in our country,” said Thompson. Brighton’s Assembly of God Church apparently agrees.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), is a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michiga. It is a section 501(c)(3) organization affiliated with the Ave Marie Foundation. TMLC defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. TMLC does not charge for its services. You may contact TMLC at 734-827-2001.

Dr. Laura Touts The Thomas More Law Center To Counter Harassment By ACLU
Thu, Oct 18, 2001

ANN ARBOR, MI – Nationally syndicated radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger recognized the efforts of the Thomas More Law Center in their offer to provide free legal assistance to those denied the right to display the American flag or express patriotic slogans such as “God Bless America”.
The Dr. Laura Show, which provides answers to callers’ moral and ethical dilemmas, was responding to specific requests from listeners whose children were told they could not wear an American flag pin to school. Dr. Laura recommended the services of the Thomas More Law Center noting, “Anyone denied the right to display the flag, schools, businesses, anywhere, or to profess God Bless America, they will defend you. The ACLU has been busy harassing people coast to coast…and these people will help you counter that.”

The radio program website also featured the TMLC as one of “Dr. Laura’s Warriors”. Under the title “A Message from Dr. Laura” the website asked “Is your child being harassed for wearing “In G-d We Trust” to school? Here’s help.” Within seconds of the broadcast, callers supporting their efforts jammed the Center’s phone lines. Chief Counsel Richard Thompson was complimentary of his staff that is working swiftly to respond to the national broadcast to over 18 million listeners.
The Thomas More Law Center is a 501c(3) public interest law firm affiliated with the Ave Maria Foundation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Part of its mission involves the defense and promotion of religious freedom and traditional family values. It provides its legal services without charge.