# Amicus Curiae Brief — Cano v. Baker (No. 06-162)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_1263%3A4

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2006

## Text

MOTION FILED ¢)

SEP 1 - 2006 No. 06-162

~
——

In The
Supreme Court of the Anited States
¢

SANDRA CANO, FORMERLY KNOWN
AS “MARY DOE” OF DOE V. BOLTON,

Petitioner,

V.

THURBERT E. BAKER, Attorney General of the State

of Georgia, PAUL L. HOWARD, JR.., District Attorney

of Fulton County, Georgia, RICHARD PENNINGTON,
Chief of Police of the City of Atlanta,

Respondents.
S

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eleventh Circuit

+

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI
CURIAE AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE
NURTURING NETWORK, HEARTBEAT
INTERNATIONAL, CARE NET, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES,
ABORTION RECOVERY INTERNATIONAL
NETWORK, AND CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

+

Counsel for Amici Curiae

SAMUEL B. CASEY GEORGE R. GRANGE II
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY Counsel of Record
8001 Braddock Road, SCOTT J. WARD

Suite 300 ROBERT W. MALONE
Springfield, Virginia 22151 GAMMON & GRANGE, P.C.
(703) 642-1070 8280 Greensboro Dr.,7th FI.

McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 761-5000

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
AMICI CURIAE

Amici curiae The Nurturing Network (TNN), Heart-
beat International, Inc. (Heartbeat), Care Net, The Na-
tional Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA),
The Abortion Recovery International Network (ARIN), and
the Christian Legal Society (CLS) have sought the consent
of the parties to participate in this matter by the filing of
the enclosed brief. A consent letter from counsel for Peti-
tioner to file this brief is on file with the Clerk in accor-
dance with Rule 37.3, but counsel for Respondents has
withheld consent, necessitating this motion.

This motion and the enclosed brief are filed in support
of the Petitioner Sandra Cano to inform the Court of the
interests of amici in this case and to show how significant
medical, scientific, and psychological developments in the
33 years since this Court’s decisions in Doe v. Bolton, 410
U.S. 179 (1973), and its companion case Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973), render continued application of the
decision in Doe unjust.

As set forth more fully in the “Statements of Interest of
Amici Curiae” section of the attached brief, amici TNN,
Heartbeat, Care Net, NIFLA, and ARIN are §501(c)(3)
nonprofit organizations involved in caring for women who
encounter an unexpected pregnancy or its aftermath.’

* Amici CLS is a nonprofit interdenominational association of
Christian attorneys, law students, law professors, and judges. CLS and
many of its members not only advocate on behalf of the inalienable
right to life, but also work to create a society that will embrace and care
for both mother and child. To this end, CLS and many members have
worked to help develop legal and social mechanisms to address the
needs of women who might otherwise pursue abortions and to assist

(Continued on following page)

Amici collectively have more than one hundred years
experience caring for women who have undergone abor-
tions. As national organizations whose affiliated members,
professional staff, and volunteers have collectively worked
directly with the hundreds of thousands of women who
encounter crisis pregnancies, many of whom have experi-
enced or will soon face harmful post-abortion symptoms or
conditions harmful- to their physical and psychological
health, amici have direct and vital interests in protecting
women from the various harms abortion yields that were
not known or considered by the Court when it rendered its
opinions in Doe and Roe. Amici have witnessed and now
care for tens of thousands of women who are now report-
ing how abortion has harmed them. Amici have every
reason to believe that many more women will be coming
forward to report the harm abortion has done and is doing
to them.

Amici submit this brief to address two critical factual
assumptions made by the Court in Doe and Roe that have
changed since those decisions were rendered. First, con-
trary to the expressed assumption that abortion helps
women, amici have first-hand experience that abortion
poses significant and grave risks to the health of women
far exceeding the health risks and other concerns posed by
carrying their children to term. Second, in the 33 years
since Doe and Roe were decided, an infrastructure of care
has developed in the United States offering a variety of
practical and compassionate alternatives to abortion for
women that-simply did not exist in 1973. These alterna-
tives mean that an unwanted pregnancy no longer must

organizations, such as the other amici, that care for women who are
considering or have undergone abortions.

result in an unwanted and burdensome child, a dashed
career, or an abortion. Amici have been intimately and
extensively involved in the development of these alterna-
tives and continue to provide this care and support to
hundreds of thousands of pre- and post-abortive women
each year.

The experience of amici in providing thi« extensive
ongoing care to so many pre- and post-abortive women
offers an important analytical complement to and a unique
perspective on the factual, legal, and constitutional issues
presented by the pending petition. Amici therefore respect-
fully urge that the Court grant this Motion For Leave To
File Brief Amici Curiae.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for Amici Curiae Z
SAMUEL B. CASEY GEORGE R. GRANGE II
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY Counsel of Record
8001 Braddock Road, Scott J. WARD
. Suite 300 ROBERT W. MALONE
Springfield, Virginia 22151 GAMMON & GRANGE, PC.
(703) 642-1070 8280 Greensboro Dr.,7th FI.

McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 761-5000

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Should the original judgment in Doe v. Bolton, 410
U.S. 179 (1973), be vacated under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60 due to the substantially changed
factual and/or legal conditions that make it no longer
just or equitable for prospective application?

Is Petitioner Sandra Cano entitled under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to any relief, substantive
or procedural?

Should the Court, at a minimum, require the district
court to hold a hearing to afford fundamental due
process that would lead to determining whether Doe
v. Bolton should be reexamined?

Does the district court have a role in preparing the
factual basis in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) motion based on Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203
(1997)?

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...........0:ceccosressssosecsereeeses i
TATE OF CITI oa scsncscscsseveesesdenseevierossvcvsesss ii

_ SABLE OF AUPHORITIRG ....-.n.cccescscssescevsevsesivoverses v
STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIE ....... i
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT............cccccccseseeeees 2.
RISO MIIOE ccisisesnsereiscctenisveeses Pidiiiiem cae acu 4

I. The Petition Should Be Granted To Permit
The Federal Courts To Consider Significant
Changes In The Material Facts Regarding
The Harm Abortion Causes Women And Al-
ternatives To Abortion That Were Not Known
At The Time Of This Court’s Decision In Doe
ERI a AMEE ET IN Hide Cy LEI 4

A. This Court Has The Legal Authority To
Grant Petitioner’s Motion Under Its
Construction Of Rule 60(b) In Agostini
And Of Stare Decisis In Casey.............6066 4

B. Amici Can Provide Substantial Evidence
Of Changed Facts And Factual Under-
standings To Support Granting Peti-
tioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion......................4. 7

II. The Serious, Pervasive, Long-Term Psycho-
logical Consequences That Amici Have Wit-
nessed And Currently Care For In The Lives
Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Post-Abortive
Women Are Substantial Factual Changes
That Support Granting The Petition.............. 9

IT].

iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

A. “If Only I Had Known”: The Nurturing
Network’s 20-Year Experience Counsel-
ing And Caring For Thousands Of Post-
I Pi va cccstenrecdssctczcitcerorsscievene

B. The Consistent Experience Of Heartbeat
International’s Affiliates Is That Abor-
tion Harms Women So Deeply And So
Often That Most Affiliates Now Offer
Post-Abortion Counseling Programs To
Address The Depression, Anger And Re-
gret Post-Abortive Women Suffer.............

C. Care Net’s Affiliated Pregnancy Resource
Centers Annually Serve More Than
100,000 Women Suffering From The Ad-
verse Impacts Of Abortion Upon Their
ITS csicitaeiapuinssicecienaeicibneadencemeesioanaeinds

The Availability Of Operating Networks Of
Agencies Offering Better Alternatives To
Abortion — More Protective Of The Physical,
Psychological, Social, Spiritual And Legal In-
terests Of Women And Their Children —- Is A
Substantial Factual Change That Supports
CECT TO FI sc ca svevnniiscecnecesessccsssodeanes

A. Heartbeat International Affiliates Offer
A Wide Range Of Free Women’s Health
Services Not Available When Doe Was
NI cee es ro

B. Care Net Mobilizes An Extensive Network
Of Staff And Volunteers To Help Women
Find Alternatives To Abortion Or To Recover

From The Harms Of Abortion .....................

11

13

15

16

18

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ~- Continued
Page
C. The Nurturing Network Provides -Post-

a onereorececees 20
CO a iii ccc veccesccrcnncesccesese 20
PS ig 0) SRR App. 1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
CASES:
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)... 2, 3, 6, 7
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (19738).............cccceseseeeeees passim
McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), cert.
denied, 543 UB. 1154 (2OG6)........cccrcccvesecercevsceseveseerss 5 Me

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ......2, 3, 4, 11
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 510 U.S. 1309 (1994)

I CIE I iii ie 6
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)........... cee eeeeeeeeeeeee passim
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 US.

SEE ATID ih iiiccitisdrianeieidccitacnidiaasisisigapisaisbcincakdamiauaasdadecaieia 6
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)......... eee 6

RULES AND REGULATIONS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)...................... passim

OTHER SOURCES:

Mary Cunningham Agee, “The Health Risks of
Abortion,” panel presentation for Family Re-
search Council (April 2002), at www.nurturing
i sinsiicsivtnntecervicsinindinteminibiciticabunenditabnanaiensia 13

Mary Cunningham Agee, “The Nurturing Network:
Serving the Urgent and Practical Needs of Moth-
ers in Crisis: Personal Reflections of the Founder
Based Upon Twenty Years of Compassion in Ac-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES —- Continued

Page
“A List of Major Psychological Sequelae of Abor-
tion,” Fact Sheet Courtesy of the Elliot Institute,
Springfield, illinois, 1997 (available at www.
| RIT Ra IO MI ETE EEE 10

Justice Harry Blackmun, Remarks Before the
Franco-American Colloquium on Human Rights
(1979) (transcript available in the Harvard Law
School Library), quoted in- Note, The Changing
Social Vision of Justice Blackmun, 96 HARV. L.
ees: Be SD iaicscasss bcd iteasdnwadiasb odcacdbaamaerea iakoabLaameeabeuat 5

Henry J. Friendly, The Courts and Social Policy:
Substance and Procedure, 33 U. MIAMI L. REV. 21
a 5

Gissler, Mika, Berg, Cynthia, Bouvier-Colle, Marie-
Héléne & Buekens, Pierre (2004), Methods For
Identifying Pregnancy-Associated Deaths: Popu-
lation-Based Data From Finland 1987-2000,
Paediatric & Perinatal Epidemiology 18 (6), 448-

CEES ok RSENS SS aR 79? Aer DSLAM SONY OSE es 17

Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D., “Pregnancy Help Centers:
Prevention, Crisis Intervention, Healing: Putting
It All Together,” in Back to the Drawing Board:
The Future of the Pro-Life Movement, Teresa R.
Wagner, ed. (South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s
I IEEE diirisicdiatiniicelidslacusistnunsavenniiddainnnandaces 14, 18, 19

Heartbeat International, “Worldwide Directory of
Life Affirming Pregnancy Services,” at www.
heartbeatinternational.org...............::::::eeeseeeeees 15, 17, 18

Note, The Changing Social Vision of Justice
Blackmun, 96 HARV. L. REV. 717 (1983) ....0.....ccceeee cece eee 5

Report of the South Dakota Task Force To Study
NE I, BID cdicclacniccrtincsnivcabdnccnnentemedvenoueventts 8, 9, 10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
“The Ministry of Care Net” (2004 brochure)......... 15, 19, 20

Pregnancy Decision Health Centers (PDHC) “An-
nual Report, 2003,” and “Board Report: 3rd
Quarter 2004” (published in the PDHC “Annual
I ITEP cictdocssvncvunihansddixsccnrnsesvasecassnnusdtaceitvosencdinial 15

STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE’

The Statements of Interest of amici curiae are set out
in Appendix A hereto. Amici curiae Heartbeat Interna-
tional, Inc, Care Net, The Nurturing Network (TNN),
Abortion Recovery Inter-national Network (ARIN), and
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA)
are all 501(c)(3) not for profit organizations involved in
caring for women who encounter an u ‘expected pregnancy
or its aftermath. Amici Christian Legal Society (CLS) is a
nonprofit interdenominational association of Christian
attorneys, law students, law professors, and judges. CLS
and many of its members not only advocate on behalf of
the inalienable right to life, but also work to create a
society that will embrace and care for both mother and
child.

As national organizations whose affiliated members,
professional staff and volunteers have collectively worked
directly with hundreds of thousands of women who en-
counter crisis pregnancies, many of whom have experi-
enced or will soon face harmful post-abortion symptoms or
conditions harmful to their physical and psychological
health, amici have direct and vital interests in protecting
women from the various harms abortion yields that were
not known or considered by the Court when it rendered its
opinion in Doe v. Bolton. Because amici have witnessed
and now care for the thousands of women who are now
reporting how abortion has harmed them, and because
amici have every reason to believe that many more women
will be coming forward to report the harm abortion has
done and is doing to them, amici urge this Court to grant
certiorari, vacate the rulings below and remand with

* This amici curiae brief is submitted in support of the Petitioner.
By letters filed with the Clerk of the Court, Petitioner has consented to
the filing of this brief. Respondent has withheld consent. Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici disclose that: (1) no counsel for a party
authored this brief in whole or in part; and (2) no person or entity, other
than the amici curiae, their supporters, or their counsel has made a
monetary contribution to the preparation of this brief.

2

instruction to hold an evidentiary hearing so that Peti-
tioner may demonstrate that the facts and factual under-
standings underlying the Doe decision have so materially
changed as to make its further prospective application
neither just nor equitable.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

This Court has indicated that when the facts support-
ing a constitutional decision — even a “watershed” decision,
such as Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) — “have so
changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have
robbed the old rule of significant application or justifica-
tion,” that decision should be reexamined, and modified or
even overruled, by this Court.’ Yet such reexamination
cannot occur unless those changed material facts may be
introduced into evidence before a court with authority to
consider them.

Submission of evidence of significantly changed facts
and factual understandings is precisely the purpose of
Petitioner’s underlying Rule 60(b) motion. The majority
opinion in Doe was based upon significant factual assump-
tions that were believed true at the time but have since
been proved incorrect or false. Petitioner’s motion prof-
fered voluminous evidence of such material factual
changes and asked that the District Court conduct an
evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied that
motion.

This Court’s decisions in Agostini v. Felton and in
_ Planned Parenthood v. Casey provide the critical constitu-
tional principles that permit this Court to grant Peti-
tioner’s petition. Both articulate the principle that
significant changes in the facts or law underlying an
earlier constitutional decision of this Court warrant

> See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854-55 (1992)
(O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., plurality opinion) (hereinafter
“Joint Opinion”).

3

revisiting and even reversing that decision.’ Casey pro-
vides the corollary that such action may be required not
only by changes in the facts per se, but also by changes in
the way that such facts have come to be seen or under-
stood.’ Finally, Agostini establishes that Rule 60(b)(5) is
the appropriate mechanism for a party to the earlier
decision to seek such reexamination and reversal.”

Amici submit this brief to address two substantial
“factual” presumptions made by the Court that have
changed since the decision in Doe. First, contrary to the
expressed presumption in Doe and Roe’ that abortion
helps women, the amici have first hand experience that
abortion poses significant and grave risks to the health of
women far exceeding the health risks and other concerns
posed by carrying their children to term. Second, in the 33
years since Doe was decided, an infrastructure of care has
developed for women offering a variety of practical and
compassionate alternatives to abortion that simply did not
exist in 1973. These alternatives mean that an unwanted
pregnancy no longer has to result in an unsafe pregnancy,
an unwanted and burdensome child, a dashed career, or an
abortion.

Amici therefore respectfully urge this Court to grant
the petition, vacate the rulings below, and remand this
case to the District Court with instructions to conduct an
evidentiary hearing and determine in the first instance
whether there are significant changes in the facts and
factual understandings underlying the Doe decision that
make its prospective application unjust or inequitable.

* See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 215 (1997); Casey, 505 U.S.
at 854-55, 863 (Joint Opinion).

* See Casey, 505 U.S. at 854 (Joint Opinion) (overruling earlier
constitutional decision warranted where “facts have so changed, or
come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of signifi-
cant application or justification”) (italics added).

* See Agostini, 521 U.S. at 238-40.
" Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

4

ARGUMENT

I. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO PERMIT
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES IN THE MATERIAL FACTS REGARDING
THE HARM ABORTION CAUSES WOMEN AND AL-
TERNATIVES TO ABORTION THAT WERE NOT
KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THIS CouURT’S DECISION
IN DOE v. BOLTON.

A. This Court Has The Legal Authority To
Grant Petitioner’s Motion Under Its Con-
struction Of Rule 60(b) In Agostini And Of
Stare Decisis In Casey.

Whenever the facts supporting a _ constitutional
decision of this Court “have so changed, or come to be seen so
‘differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant
application or justification,” that decision should be re-
examined by this Court.® Even a “watershed” constitutional
decision, such as Doe v. Bolton, should be overruled or
modified when justified based upon “facts, or an understand-
ing of facts, changed from those which furnished the claimed
justifications for the earlier constitutional resolutions.”

Yet such re-examination cannot occur unless the
material facts that “have so changed, or come to be seen so
differently,” may be introduced into evidence before a court
with authority to consider them. Submission of such
evidence and consideration of such changed facts and
factual understandings is precisely the purpose of Peti-
tioner’s underlying Rule 60(b) motion. That motion asked
that the District Court conduct an evidentiary hearing
regarding material factual changes that might require
vacating the 1973 judgment in Petitioner’s favor in the
original Doe litigation.

* See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854-55 (1992)
(O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., plurality opinion) (hereinafter
“Joint Opinion”).

* See Casey, 505 U.S. at 863 (Joint Opinion).

5

Petitioner’s motion arises from her recognition that
the relevant scientific, medical, legal, and philosophical
facts as they exist and are understood today do not sup-
port the position she took and the relief that she obtained
and, more significantly, do not support the majority
opinion in Doe.” The majority opinion in Doe was based
upon a significant number of factual assumptions that
were believed true at the time but have since been proved
incorrect or false." Most of the medical and scientific
information considered by the Court and relied upon in
Justice Blackmun’s majority opinions in Doe and in Roe
was introduced for the first time in the Supreme Court,”
or uncovered by the research of individual Justices.” In
this respect, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion seeks to permit
the development of the full factual record that should have
been developed in the original litigation of this matter.“

Indeed, Petitioner has submitted uncontroverted evidence that
the factual record upon which relief was granted in Doe was in her case
simply false and that she “neither wanted nor sought an abortion.”
Compare Doe, 410 U.S. at 185-86, with Affidavit of Sandra Cano,
Petitioner’s Appendix at 34-43.

" See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 208 (1973) (Burger, C.J.,
concurring) (“I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken
[judicial] notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its
conclusion”).

" See, e.g., Henry J. Friendly, The Courts and Social Policy:
Substance and Procedure, 33 U. MIAMI L. REv. 21, 37 (1978) (noting
thet the medical and scientific information introduced in Roe and Doe
was presented for the first time at the Supreme Court level).

‘* Justice Blackmvn later explained that he personally conducted
much of the research ‘or the Roe majority opinion at the Mayo Clinic
library. See Justice Aarry Blackmun, Remarks Before the Franco-
American Colloquium on Human Rights 14-15 (1979) (transcript
available in the Harvard Law School Library) (stating *..at opinion in Roe
was based upon “research, personally and very .rivately performed,
[which] was, I believe, rewarding”), quoted in Note, _ .e Changing Social
Vision of Justice Blackmun, 96 HARV. L. REV. 7! ° 723 n.34 (1983).

* Amici expect that, if this Court grants tne petition and permits
the Rule 60(b) motion to proceed in District Court, substantial] evidence will
be submitted not only by Petitioner, but also by a number of intervenors
and amici on both sides of the issue. This will result in the development

(Continued on following page)

6

The extensive evidence that Petitioner proffered to the
District Court demonstrates that these material facts and
factual understandings have significantly changed since
this Court issued its decisions in Doe and Roe in 1973, and
indeed even since the subsequent decisions in Casey and ©
in Stenberg v. Carhart.” Yet the District Court refused to
hold an evidentiary hearing, nor even to consider any of
this evidence, ruling that Rule 60(b)(5) did not permit any
relief after the passage of so many years.” The District
Court’s treatment of Rule 60(b) is inconsistent with this
Court’s statements regarding that Rule. As this Court has
stated, such an effort by a party to seek relief from pro-
spective application of the earlier judgment is a “proper
application of Rule 60(b)(5),”" particularly where, as here,
there has been “a significant change either in factual
conditions or in law.””

. In Casey, although presented with none of the compel-
ling medical, scientific, psychological, and other evidence
that Petitioner now seeks to provide, the Court, while
reaffirming Roe’s and Doe’s “central holding,” nevertheless
adjusted the requirements of Roe and overruled parts of several

and testing of an extensive factual record that will greatly aid the District
Court, the Court of Appeals, and ultimately this Court in carrying out their
respective responsibilities as explained in Casey and Agostint.

° Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

© See District Court Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion (March 25,
2004), Pet. App. at 21-31. Cf. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 510 US.
1309, 1313-14 (1994) (Souter, Circuit Justice) (noting, in denying
plaintiffs’ application for stay of Court of Appeals’ mandate pending
petition for certiorari, that plaintiffs “had been given a fair opportunity
to develop the record in the District Court” where “the original District
Court opinion ... contains 287 detailed findings of fact and carries
every indication that the applicants were given broad latitude to
introduce evidence, call witnesses, and elicit testimony”).

" See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203; 238-40 (1997).

* Sev id. at 215, citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502
U.S. 367, 384 (1992) (appropriate to grant a Rule 60(b)(5) motion when
the party seeking relief can show “a significant change either in factual
conditions or in law”).

7

earlier rulings that had extended Roe’s application. Petitioner's
Rule 60(b)(5) motion now seeks to submit for consideration by
the courts (and ultimately by this Court”) precisely what was
not considered in Casey: “serious and substantial evidence .. .
that goes to the heart of the balance Roe [and Doe] struck
between the choice of a mother and the life of her unborn
child.” Granting certiorari will allow this Court the opportu-
nity to thoroughly and thoughtfully consider the substantial
changes in the medical, scientific, psychological, and other facts
and factual understandings regarding abortion in America.

Petitioner contends, and amici agree, that these changed
facts and factual understandings demonstrate that prospec-
tive application of Doe is no longer just or equitable. But this
Court need not resolve that question to grant certiorari.
Indeed, this Court may not yet have a sufficient factual record
upon which to resolve such a question — as it would if Peti-
tioner were allowed to proceed with her Rule 60(b) motion in
the District Court. Consequently, amici respectfully urge this
Court to grant the petition, vacate the rulings below, and
remand this case to the District Court with instructions to
conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine in the first
instance whether there are significant changes in the facts
and factual understandings underlying the Doe decision that
make its prospective application unjust or inequitable.

B. Amici Can Provide Substantial Evidence
Of Changed Facts And Factual Under-
standings To Support Granting Peti-
tioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion.

Amici’s extensive experience in providing support,
counseling, and care to women contemplating abortion and

* Consistent with Agostini, the ultimate determination whether to
overrule or modify Doe obviously must rest with this Court. See
Agostini, 521 U.S. at 237-38.

*® See McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 850 (Sth Cir. 2004) (Jones, J.,
concurring).

8

to women dealing with the significant psychological,
physiological, emotional, spiritual, and medical conse-
quences of having had abortions enables these amici to-
provide substantial evidence of changes in critical facts
and factual understandings to support Petitioner’s Rule
60(b) motion. The most significant factual changes relate
to the issue, central in Doe and Roe, of the health of the
mother, in two primary ways. =

First, Doe and Roe were premised upon the factual
assumption (now demonstrably wrong) that the termina-
tion of an unwanted pregnancy through an abortion
provided a safe end to a short-term crisis that would allow
a woman to return to a normal and a productive life. The
years that have passed since Doe have made clear that for
a substantial number of women the crisis does not end
after their abortions.” These women cannot just “get over”
the experience of their abortions. Instead, a great many of
these women are psychologically devastated as they
realize that they have aborted their unborn children. For
these women, abortion is not a relatively safe and easy
solution to a crisis pregnancy but the beginning of a much
greater crisis.

Second, Doe and Roe were premised upon the factual
assumption and understanding that abortion is the only
option available to enable most women to avoid the emo-
tional and financial burdens of pregnancy and even more
of motherhood. That assumption is also now demonstrably
wrong. There are now a myriad of practical and compas-
sionate alternatives to abortion that simply did not exist
in 1973. An extensive infrastructure of care is now avail-
able to women in crisis pregnancies throughout the United
States. This care network allows women to avoid the grave
emotional and financial hardships that some women once

*" See, e.g., Report of the South Dakota Task Force To Study
Abortion (Dec. 2005), included in Petitioner’s Appendix to the Petition
for Certiorari (“Pet. App.”) at 289-411 and referred to hereinafter as
“Task Force Report,” at 362-66.

9

faced in giving birth, while at the same time allowing
them to avoid the emotional harms of an abortion.

II. THE SERIOUS, PERVASIVE, LONG-TERM PSYCHO-
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES THAT AMICI HAVE WIT-
NESSED AND CURRENTLY CARE FOR IN THE LIVES
OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POST-ABORTIVE
WOMEN ARE SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL CHANGES
THAT SUPPORT GRANTING THE PETITION.

Doe and Roe were founded largely ‘pon several
essential factual assumptions: (1) that un unwanted
pregnancy presents a short-term crisis; (2) that an abor-
tion will provide a “health” benefit to the woman facing
such a crisis by allowing her to return to a normal life; and
(3) that abortion is a relatively rare and safe procedure
without lasting harmful effects on the woman.” With the
dramatic increase of abortions since the Doe and Roe
decisions, the unexpected and tragic consequences of
abortion are emerging and establish the need to reexamine
these assumptions.”

* See Roe, 401 U.S. at 149. The Doe and Roe Court further
assumed that a woman’s decision to obtain an abortion would be a
medical decision made by or in conjunction with the woman’s physician
and that such relationship of professional medical care would alleviate
any health or safety issues. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 149-50; Doe, 410 U.S.
at 190-91. As the evidence offered by Petitioner below and lodged with
this Court shows, nothing could be further from the truth today. To the
contrary, as tens of thousands of women have told amici, most women
don’t even meet a doctor until their abortion is underway. Similarly,
most such women report that the informed medical consent required in
every state in other forms of professional medical care was either
absent or grossly inadequate as they approached the decision to abort.
See, e.g., Task Force Report, Pet. App. at 313, 352.

* According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s estimates for the
years 1973-2000 and the National Right to Life Committee’s (NLRC)
estimates for the years 2001-2004, more than 45,000,000 abortions
have been reported in the United States since Doe was decided in 1973.
See NRLC web site at http:/Awww.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.
html. Based upon their collective experience caring for post-abortive
women, amici estimate at least 75% of those women have suffered from

(Continued on following page)

10

In 1973, neither this Court nor the women who have
since undergone abortions could have known of the psy-
chological and physiological harms that legalized abortion
would cause such women.” The presumption communi-
cated by Doe, Roe, and their progeny is that “abortion is
legal and therefore it must be safe as weil.” However, the
experience of amici, in working with hundreds of thou-
sands of women yearly since the Doe decision, parallels the
extensive factual findings presented in the Report of the
South Dakota Task Force To Study Abortion, Pet. App. at
289-411, and in the affidavits of experts David C. Reardon,
Ph.D. and Theresa Burke, Ph.D. (see Pet. App. at 236-37)
regarding the complications and ill-effects of abortion. The
harmful psychological effects include post-abortion trau-
matic stress disorder; suicide, suicidal attempts, and
suicidal ideation requiring psychiatric care and/or the use
of psychotropic drugs; sleep disturbance (including recur-
ring nightmares); sexual dysfunction; increased smoking,
alcohol and drug abuse; eating disorders; abuse and/or
neglect of their living children; chronic relationship
problems (including divorce); and repeat abortions.” These
changed factual circumstances, further documented below
by amici, warrant this Court’s attention under Rule 60(b),

or are currently suffering psychological or physical harm from their
abortions. The magnitude of this harm to women’s health, as well as the
“downsizing” of America’s population by abortion (ranging from a
population loss by age group of between 10.2% and 27.4%, excepting
only the age group 45 years or older in 2000), now presents serious
implications for women’s health, social security, and immigration policy.
These implications cannot be adequately addressed by our democratic
institutions until this Court considers the material factua) and legal
circumstances that were not known when Doe and Roe were decided.

* This brief addresses only the psychological effects of abortion as
experienced by the women counseled by the amici and their affiliates.

* See “A List of Major Psychological Sequelae of Abortion,” Fact
Sheet Courtesy of the Elliot Institute, Springfiéld, Illinois, 1997 (from
www.afterabortion.org), at Appendix (“App.”) 3-14.

11

particularly since this Court is the only public institution
with the constitutional authority to do so.”

A. “If Only I Had Known”: The Nurturing
Network’s 20-Year Experience Counseling
And Caring For Thousands Of Post-Abortive
Women.

The Nurturing Network (TNN) is extensively involved
in working with women suffering from post-abortion
trauma. Approximately 50% of such women have already
experienced at least one abortion at the time they contact
TNN for help.” Many such women served by TNN express
fear about having to go through another abortion, great
remorse, and strong conviction not to add to the emotional
anguish already endured. They often share a sense of
having been betrayed and then abandoned by those who
convinced or pressured them to pursue abortion.

TNN has found that the forces and influences that
tend to drive women to abortion are an immediate attempt
to escape from shame, hope for greater economic security,
and the hope of saving a fragile relationship. However, the
actual testimonies of the betrayed and abandoned women in
TNN’s files expose the miscalculations and illuminate the
disillusionment that follow their abortions. Most women
identify four primary sources of pressure or coercion that led

* As Judge Edith Jones succinctly pointed out in her concurring
opinion in McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 852 (5th Cir. 2004): “[T]he
problem inherent in the Court’s decision to constitutionalize abortion
policy is that unless the Court creates another exception to the moot-
ness doctrine, the Court will never be able to examine its factual
assumptions on a record made in court. . .. Hard and social science will
of course progress even though the Supreme Court averts its eyes... .
One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such
developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly.”

* See “The Nurturing Network: Serving the Urgent and Practical
Needs of Mothers in Crisis: Personal Reflections of the Founder Based
Upon Twenty Years of Compassion in Action” written by TNN President
and founder Mary Cunningham Agee, at App. 15-29.

12

them to abortion: the father of the baby, forcing a choice
between the relationship with him or the baby; parents,
forcing a choice between continued support or the baby;
employers, forcing a choice between continued employ-
ment or the baby; and peers, forcing a choice between
continued social standing or the baby. Each ultimatum
threatens to impose an emotional toll calculated to force
the pregnant woman to make a desperate choice.”

And yet, as the testimonies in the Appendix indicate,
it is primarily the woman alone who suffers the agonizing
remorse, the hidden grief, and the debilitating guilt from
undergoing the abortion. Thus, most women who have
chosen abortion do so not out of “freedom of choice” but out
of a desperate sense that they have no choice at all. Under
these circumstances, most post-abortive women come to
believe that the only “freedom” an abortion affords is
experienced by those “significant others” who have much
to lose if the pregnancy continues. Another tragic but all
too frequent occurrence among post-abortive women is
that after expressing regret in having made the “choice” to
abort, many become pregnant again in an effort to remedy
their error and “recreate” their deceased child, only to then
experience yet another abortion, because these same
influences convince them once again that it is the only
“practical” thing to do.

The President and founder of TNN, Mary Cunning-
ham Agee, describes her extensive experience during the
past twenty years addressing post-abortion trauma in
women:

“If only I had known.” This is the haunting la-
ment that I hear almost daily on the toll free cri-
sis hotline of The Nurturing Network. Since
founding this charitable organization almost
twenty years ago, I have been invited by literally
thousands of frightened, wounded women to un-
derstand the painful circumstances of their trou-
bled lives.... They call desperately seeking

* Id.

13

immediate, practical assistance in order to avoid
an abortion procedure which almost half of our
clients have already experienced in a prior preg-
nancy.

[Ajlmost all of them would tell you that if they
could erase just one decision in their lives, it
would be the irreversible one that ended the life
of their unborn child. Their grief is difficult to
capture here in a few words because it is always
tinged with a sense of having been betrayed.
These women consistently describe the panic and
loneliness that sets in when those whom she has
trusted create fatal trade-offs between their role
in her life and her child. How can she help but
feel tricked and manipulated by boyfriends, par-
ents, friends and employers who conveniently
wash their hands of her maternal needs and
choose to describe her unborn child as an incon-
venience and even a threat. None of these ac-
complices, of course, will ever live out the
permanent consequences of an abortion decision
the way she will and so her sense of abandon-
ment and isolation is profound.”

B. The Consistent Experience Of Heartbeat
International’s Affiliates Is That Abortion
Harms Women So Deeply And So Often
That Most Affiliates Now Offer Post-
Abortion Counseling Programs To Ad-
dress The Depression, Anger And Regret
Post-Abortive Women Suffer.

Since the founding of Heartbeat International in 1971,
its affiliates have also worked with many thousands of

* See “The Health Risks of Abortion,” a panel presentation for The
Family Research Council offered by Mary Cunningham Agee, President
& Founder of The Nurturing Network, in April 2002, at App. 30-37. For
the testimonies referred to in Ms. Cunningham Agee’s address, quoted
above, see App. 23-29.

14

women who suffer emotionally from having undergone
abortions. Although the term “post abortion syndrome”
had not yet been coined in the early 1970’s, the Heartbeat
International affiliate pregnancy centers quickly began to
see suffering women who had one or more abortions. In
consulting with professionals to develop programs to help
these women, the centers were advised on the one hand
that abortion did not have any damaging effects on
women. Yet, on the other hand, the centers were cautioned
that volunteers (“nonprofessionals”) should not get in-
volved for fear that post-abortive women might become
suicidal. This advice only confirmed what the centers were
experiencing — that for a significant number of women, the
choice to abort their unborn children left them deeply
psychologically harmed.”

The President of Heartbeat International, Dr. Peggy
Hartshorn, has personally received hundreds of calls,
letters, and personal contacts from women seeking post-
abortion help who expressed depression, anger, and regret
as a result of a past abortion. Heartbeat International’s
experience in working with such women over the years
further substantiates the research findings of Dr. Reardon
and Dr. Burke” with regard to the psychological harm the
women they work with are experiencing. Due to the great
number of post-abortive women seeking such help, Heart-
beat International advises its affiliates to have professional
counselors available as resources and referrals, and over
two-thirds of the pregnancy resource centers affiliated with
Heartbeat International now offer post-abortion programs.
For example, one Columbus, Ohio Heartbeat International
affiliate, Pregnancy Decisions Health Centers (PDHC),

*° Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D: “Pregnancy Help Centers: Prevention,
Crisis Intervention, Healing: Putting It All Together,” published in Back
to the Drawing Board: The Future of the Pro-Life Movement, Teresa R.
Wagner, ed. (South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2003), as ex-
cerpted for the Court’s reference at App. 38-48 (hereinafter “Harts-
horn”).

* See Pet. App. at 236-37.

15

reports that in the period 2002 to 2004, more than 55% of
the post-abortive women they served reported “unresolved
feelings” and “regret” with regard to past abortions.”
Heartbeat International is not alone in these findings — it
calculates that at least 785 of the 2,026 pregnancy re-
source centers it has identified in the United States now
offer post-abortion programs to help women who are
suffering from symptoms of post-abortion trauma.”

C. Care Net’s Affiliated Pregnancy Resource
Centers Annually Serve More Than 100,000
Women Suffering From The Adverse Impacts
Of Abortion Upon Their Health.

Care Net is a network of over 800 pregnancy resource
centers that provide support, care and resources to pregnant
women. In 2004, 101,000 women and 2,710 men participated in
Care Net pregnancy center post-abortion counseling and
education support groups in this nation. One of Care Net’s
affiliates reports that 75% of the women it serves have experi-
enced past abortions and struggle with the grief from the
experience. In response, more than 450 Care Net pregnancy
centers now offer recovery support groups to women and men
who have experienced the trauma of a past abortion.”

* See Pregnancy Decision Health Centers (PDHC) “Annual Report,
2003,” and “Board Report: 3rd Quarter 2004” (published in the PDHC
“Annual Report, 2004”), at App. 49-62.

* Id. See also Heartbeat International’s “Worldwide Directory of
Life Affirming Pregnancy Services,” at www.heartbeatinternational.org.

* “The Ministry of Care Net” (2004 brochure), at App. 63-68.

16

III. THE AVAILABILITY OF OPERATING NETWORKS OF
AGENCIES OFFERING BETTER ALTERNATIVES TO
ABORTION — MORE PROTECTIVE OF THE PHYSICAL,
PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, SPIRITUAL AND LEGAL
INTERESTS OF WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN - IS
A SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL CHANGE THAT SUPPORTS
GRANTING THE PETITION.

This Court’s opinions in Doe and Roe were premised
upon a profound concern for the distress and difficulties
that the Court assumed bringing an unwanted child into
the world would have upon the mother psychologically and
financially. The Roe majority opinion identified the specific
harm it believed would result from denying a prégnant
woman the choice to terminate her pregnancy:

Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable
even in early pregnancy may be involved. Mater-
nity, or additional offspring, may force upon the
woman a distressful life and future. Psychologi-
cal harm may be imminent. Mental and physical
health may be taxed by child care. There is also
the distress, for all concerned, associated with
the unwanted child, and there is the problem of
bringing a child into a family already unable,
psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In
other cases, as in this one, the additional difficul-
ties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood
may be involved.”

All of these identified harms except the first arise not from
pregnancy per se but rather from motherhood and child
care.” The Court was concerned that women often had

* 410 U.S. at 153. Cf. Casey, 505 U.S. at 853 (Joint Opinion)
(stating that one view on the abortion issue “is that the inability to
provide for the nurture and care of the infant is a cruelty to the child
and an anguish to the parent.”).

* To the extent that the Court addressed medical risks from
pregnancy, its conclusions in Doe and Roe were predicated, in signifi-
cant part, on the conclusion that induced abortion was safer than
childbirth. Since that time, proponents of abortion have continued to
(Continued on following page)

17

only a few options: single parenthood with the prospect of
poverty, a dashed career, adoption with the attendant
stigma, or a costly and, in most states, illegal “back alley”
abortion. Moreover, there were few material and social
resources available to pregnant women to help them
through the pregnancy and afterward.

However, over the 33 years since Doe and Roe were
decided, an extensive infrastructure of care offering
practical support to pregnant women facing crisis preg-
nancies has developed. In the public realm, this includes
the recent “Safe Haven” or “Baby Moses” laws adopted in
most states. In the private realm, a network of nearly
3,500 organizations has arisen throughout the United
States offering practical support to women facing crisis
pregnancies.” The development of the infrastructure is

make this argument based largely upon data from the Centers for
Disease Control comparing rates of death for childbirth to the rate of
death associated with abortion based exclusively upon death certificate
information. However, in 2004, researchers from the National Research
and Development Center for Welfare and Health in Finland published a
study disclosing that 94% of maternal] deaths associated with abortion
are not identifiable from death certificates alone. Proper tracking of
pregnancy-associated deaths requires linking death certificates to the
deceased women’s entire medical records. The study shows that the
long held presumption that abortion is associated with fewer deaths
than childbirth does not hold up once the pregnancy history of women is
actually investigated using record linkage. Previously, it has been
claimed that the mortality rate associated with abortion was 1/6th that
of childbirth. But these estimates were based on information gathered
only from death certificates or other public records. Proper identifica-
tion of pregnancy records, the study found, reveals that the death rate
associated with abortion is actually three times higher than that of
childbirth. See Gissler, Mika, Berg, Cynthia, Bouvier-Colle, Marie-
Héléne & Buekens, Pierre (2004), Methods For Identifying Pregnancy-
Associated Deaths: Population-Based Data From Finland 1987-2000,
PAEDIATRIC & PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY 18 (6), 448-455.

” Currently, pregnancy resource centers outnumber the abortion
clinics by 1,283 in the United States. This figure is based on the report
from Life Dynamics (at www.ldi.org) that there are currently 743
abortion clinics in the United States, as compared with the 2,026
pregnancy resource centers in the United States listed in the Heartbeat
International’s Worldwide Directory of Life Affirming Pregnancy

(Continued on following page)

18

exemplified by Heartbeat International’s “Worldwide
Directory of Life Affirming Pregnancy Services” (“Direc- |
tory”). While the initial Directory listed less than 80
organizations providing alternatives to abortion, the 2004
Directory listed 5,162 organizations. Of those organiza-
tions, 3,471 were in the United States. These included
approximately 2,026 pregnancy resource centers offering
pregnant women medical services, hotline counseling and
other support services, clothing, and/or housing; nonprofit
adoption agencies; social service agencies; and groups that
offer post-abortion support. The Directory also lists 507
professional social service agencies; 319 maternity homes;
166 nonprofit adoption agencies; 27 counseling hotlines;
and 54 independent post-abortion programs.

A. Heartbeat International Affiliates Offer A
Wide Range Of Free Women’s Health Ser-
vices Not Available When Doe Was De-
cided.

Amici Heartbeat International is an association of
pregnancy resource centers, medical clinics, maternity
homes and nonprofit adoption agencies serving over 850
affiliates in the United States and in 33 countries. Heart-
beat International was formed in 1971 as a loose federa-
tion of independent organizations that sought to network
with each other primarily in the “crisis intervention”
arena, offering pregnant women support and referrals to a
variety of services in the community such as medical care,
housing, material aid, and social services.”

Today, most pregnancy resource centers offer to
women facing an undesired pregnancy a wide range of
services completely free of charge. Typical services include
pregnancy tests, crisis intervention for deciding among
alternatives, peer or professional counseling, support

Services, at http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/worldwide_directory.
asp.
* See Hartshorn, at App. 38-48.

19

groups, adoption support, parenting classes, shelter,
material aid, community referrals, and community educa-
tion programs. Many also offer professional services
needed for adoption, medical care, childbirth classes, legal
assistance, financial assistance, housing, and similar
services. Some Heartbeat International affiliated centers
now offer a wide range of medical and health services
including sexually transmitted disease testing, pap
smears, prenatal care, abuse recovery, post-abortion
programs, and ultrasound technology.”

B. Care Net Mobilizes An Extensive Network
Of Staff And Volunteers To Help Women
Find Alternatives To Abortion Or To Re-
cover From The Harms Of Abortion.

Amici Care Net is one of the largest pro-life organiza-
tions in the infrastructure of pregnancy resources centers.
Care Net represents a network of over 800 pregnancy
resource centers, which include approximately 2,400 paid
staff and 30,000 volunteers. Care Net affiliates provide
services similar to those of Heartbeat International to
more than 250,000 young women each year. These affili-
ates provide alternatives to abortion to more than 100,000
women each year. Care Net’s affiliates serve women in
crisis pregnancy situations in three primary ways: inter-
vention, prevention, and reconciliation.” As part of the
process of healing and reconciliation, more than 450 of
Care Net’s affiliated centers also offer recovery support
groups to women and men who have experienced the
trauma of a past abortion.

m ot
* “The Ministry of Care Net” (2004 brochure), at App. 63-68.

20

-

C. The Nurturing Network Provides Post-
birth Care For Mothers And Their Babies.

This infrastructure of care developed to provide
women with alternatives to abortion does not end after the
children are born. The Nurturing Network (TNN) main-
tains over 42,000 volunteer resource members who provide
for all of the urgent and practical needs of women with
unplanned pregnancies focusing heavily on this post-birth
aspect of care for mothers. Like Heartbeat International
and Care Net, TNN seeks to provide for every aspect of a
pregnant woman’s needs, frem initial pregnancy testing to
delivery of her baby and provision of information on
parenting and adoption. TNN’s volunteers include licensed
counselors, nurses, social workers, and others, who seek to
provide information to the women regarding available
resources. They also conduct detailed evaluations of the
women’s needs, and provide comprehensive plans of
assistance that incorporate the appropriate services of
TNN and other organizations.”

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully urge
this Court to grant the petition for writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for Amici Curiae

SAMUEL B. CASEY GEORGE R. GRANGE II
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY Counsel of Record
8001. Braddock Road, Scott J. WARD

Suite 300 ROBERT W. MALONE
Springfield, Virginia 22151 GAMMON & GRANGE, P.C.
(703) 642-1070 8280 Greensboro Dr.,7th FI.

McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 761-5000

September 1, 2006

“ See Agee, supra note 25, at App. 15-16.

App. 1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Heartbeat International, Inc. is a national association
of life-affirming pregnancy resource centers, medical clinics,
maternity homes and nonprofit adoption agencies. Heartbeat
International currently serves over 850 affiliates in the United
States and in 33 countries, providing the education, training
and support they need to serve women facing unexpected
pregnancies. Heartbeat International also provides a World-
wide Directory of Life Affirming Pregnancy Services, a com-
prehensive source that identifies organizations providing
alternatives to abortion. Heartbeat International is committed
to the principle that it is tragic to tell a woman that her only
option is to take the life of her child.

CareNet is a network of over 800 pregnancy resource
centers, all of which provide support, care and resources to
pregnant women. More than 450 CareNet affiliate pregnancy
centers offer recovery support groups to women and men who
have experienced trauma arising from past abortions.

The Nurturing Network (TNN) is an international
charitable organization that works with over 42,000 volunteer
resource members who provide for all of the urgent and
practical needs of women with unplanned pregnancies. TNN
has served over 17,000 pregnant women and unborn children
with its practical compassion.

The Abortion Recovery International Network
(ARIN) is an affiliate organization dedicated to connecting like-
minded abortion re very programs with over 250 affiliates
(“partners”) that pruvide post-abortion counseling, care, and
assistance in various locations around the world. It has devel-
oped the first online directory solely committed to listing abortion
recovery programs within the United States and abroad. ARIN
also assists in the design and development of new post-abortion
programs for stand-alone recovery agencies, as well as the
programs already existing in pregnancy resource centers.

App. 2

The National Institute of Family and Life Advo-
cates (NIFLA) supplies legal services and consultation to
pregnancy help centers nationwide. Founded in 1993, NIFLA
now serves a membership of 850 pregnancy resource centers
in 48 states. Nearly 400 of these centers are either operating
as medical clinics or are preparing to do so in the near future.
NIFLA’s services to its members include: legal review and
audit of pregnancy resource center documents, legal consulta-
tion and education of centers, board training for center
governing boards, publication of educational materials and
training manuals, training in the development of medical
clinic status, training of nurses and doctors in the provision of
ultrasound services, and the publication of bulletins that
highlight legal and medical concerns for pregnancy resource
centers. NIFLA places an emphasis on the conversion of
pregnancy resource centers into licensed medical clinics, to
enable them to provide to the women they serve a variety of
medical services such as: pregnancy diagnosis, pregnancy
confirmation via ultrasound examination, and testing and
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

The Christian Legal Society (CLS), founded in 1961,
is a nonprofit interdenominational association of more than
3,000 Christian attorneys, law students, law professors, and
judges. Since 1975, CLS’s Center for Law and Religious
Freedom has litigated and educated on behalf of the inalien-
able right to life. CLS and many of its members not only
advocate on behalf of the inalienable right to life, but also
work to create a society that will embrace and care for both
mother and child. To this end, they have worked to help
develop legal and social mechanisms to address the needs of
women who might otherwise pursue abortions and to assist
organizations, such as the other amici, that care for women
who are considering or have undergone abortions.

App. 3

Fact Sheet Courtesy of the Elliot Institute,
PO Box 73478 Springfield, IL 62791-7348

A List of Major Psychological Sequelae
of Abortion

REQUIREMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT:

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after
their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of
nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep distur-
bances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had
been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family
doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian
provinces found significantly greater use of medical and
psychiatric services among aborted women. Most signifi-
cant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made
visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control
group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly
more likely than others to subsequently require admission
to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are
teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with
a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-aborted women use repression as a
coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial
before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed
feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric
or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some
counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion
distress is the causative factor in many of their female
patients, even though their patients have come to them
seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD or
PAS): A major random study found that a minimum of

App. 4

19% of post-abortion women suffer from diagnosable post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Approximately half had
many, but not all, symptoms of PTSD, and 20 to 40 percent
showed moderate to high levels of stress and avoidance
behavior relative to their abortion experiences. (6) Because
this is a major disorder which may be present in many
plaintiffs, and is not readily understood outside the coun-
seling profession, the following summary is more complete
than other entries in this section. PTSD is a psychological
dysfunction which results from a traumatic experience
which overwhelms a person’s normal defense mechanisms
resulting in intense fear, feelings of helplessness or being
trapped, or loss of control. The risk that an experience will
be traumatic is increased when the traumatizing event is
perceived as including threats of physical injury, sexual
violation, or the witnessing of or participation in a violent
death. PTSD results when the traumatic event causes the
hyperarousal of “flight or fight” defense mechanisms. This
hyperarousal causes these defense mechanisms to become
disorganized, disconnected from present circumstances,
and take on a life of their own resulting in abnormal
behavior and major personality disorders. As an example
of this disconnection of mental functions, some PTSD
victim may experience intense emotion but without clear
memory of the event; others may remember every detail
but without emotion; still others may reexperience both
the event and the emotions in intrusive and overwhelming
flashback experiences. (7)

Women may experience abortion as a traumatic event for
several reasons. Many are forced into an unwanted abor-
tions by husbands, boyfriends, parents, or others. If the
woman has repeatedly been a victim of domineering
abuse, such an unwanted abortion may be perceived as the

App. 5

ultimate violation in a life characterized by abuse. Other
women, no matter how compelling the reasons they ave
for seeking an abortion, may still perceive the termination
of their pregnancy as the violent killing of their own child.
The fear, anxiety, pain, and guilt associated with the
procedure are mixed into this perception of grotesque and
violent death. Still other women, report that the pain of
abortion, inflicted upon them by a masked stranger
invading their body, feels identical to rape. (8) Indeed,
researchers have found that women with a history of
sexual assault may experience greater distress during and
after an abortion exactly because of these associations
between the two experiences. (9) When the stressor lead-
ing to PTSD is abortion, some clinicians refer to this as
Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).

The major symptoms of PTSD are generally classified
under three categories: hyperarousal, intrusion, and
constriction.

Hyperarousal is a characteristic of inappropriately and
chronically aroused “fight or flight” defense mechanisms.
The person is seemingly on permanent alert for threats of
danger. Symptoms of hyperarousal include: exaggerated
startle responses, anxiety attacks, irritability, outbursts of
anger or rage, aggressive behavior, difficulty concentrat-
ing, hypervigilence, difficulty falling asleep or staying
asleep, or physiological reactions upon exposure to situa-
tions that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the trau-
matic experience (eg. elevated pulse or sweat during a
pelvic exam, or upon hearing a vacuum pump sound.)

Intrusion is the reexperience of the traumatic event at
unwanted and unexpected times. Symptoms of intrusion
in PAS cases include: recurrent and intrusive thoughts

App. 6

about the abortion or aborted child, flashbacks in which
the woman momentarily reexperiences an aspect of the
abortion experience, nightmares about the abortion or
child, or anniversary reactions of intense grief or depres-
sion on the due date of the aborted pregnancy or the
anniversary date of the abortion.

Constriction is the numbing of emotional resources, or the
development of behavioral patterns, so as to avoid stimuli
associated with the trauma. It is avoidance behavior; an
attempt to deny and avoid negative feelings or people,
places, or things which aggravate the negative feelings
associated with the trauma. In post-abortion trauma
cases, constriction may include: an inability to recall the
abortion experience or important parts of it; efforts to
avoid activities or situations which may arouse recollec-
tions of the abortion; withdrawal from relationships,
especially estrangement from those involved in the abor-
tion decision; avoidance of children; efforts to avoid or
deny thoughts or feelings about the abortion; restricted
range of loving or tender feelings; a sense of a foreshort-
ened future (e.g., does not expect a career, marriage, or
children, or a long life.); diminished interest in previously
enjoyed activities; drug or alcohol abuse; suicidal thoughts
or acts; and other self-destructive tendencies.

As previously mentioned, Barnard’s study identified a 19%
rate of PTSD among women who had abortions three to
five years previously. But in reality the actual rate is
probably higher. Like most post-abortion studies, Bar-
nard’s study was handicapped by a fifty percent drop out
rate. Clinical experience has demonstrated that the
women least likely to cooperate in post-abortion research
are those for whom the abortion caused the most psycho-
logical distress. Research has confirmed this insight,

App. 7

demonstrating that the women who refuse followup
evaluation most closely match the demographic character-
istics of the women who suffer the most post-abortion
distress. (10) The extraordinary high rate of refusal to
participate in post-abortion studies may interpreted as
evidence of constriction or avoidance behavior (not want-
ing to think about the abortion) which is a major symptom
of PTSD.

For many women, the onset or accurate identification of
PTSD symptoms may be delayed for several years. (11)
Until a PTSD sufferer has received counseling and
achieved adequate recovery, PTSD may result in a psycho-
logical disability which would prevent an injured abortion
patient from bringing action within the normal statutory
period. This disability may, therefore, provide grounds for
an extended statutory period.

SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION: Thirty to fifty percent of
aborted women report experiencing sexual dysfunctions, of
both short and long duration, beginning immediately after
their abortions. These problems may include one or more
of the following: loss of pleasure from intercourse, in-
creased pain, an aversion to sex and/or males in general,
or the development of a promiscuous life-style. (12)

SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS:
Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-
abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent
actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted
suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have
identified a strong statistical association between abortion
and suicide in a records based study. Thely] identified 73
suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending
either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual

- App. 8

suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide
rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9).
Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For
miscarriage the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion
34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an
abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven
times higher than for women carrying to term, and nearly
twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage.
Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among
post-abortion teenagers.(13)

INCREASED SMOKING WITH CORRESPONDENT
NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS: Post-abortion stress is
linked with increased cigarette smoking. Women who
abort are twice as likely to become heavy smokers and
suffer the corresponding health risks. (14)

Post-abortion women are also more likely to continue
smoking during subsequent wanted pregnancies with
increased risk of neonatal death or congenital anomalies.
(15)

ALCOHOL ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked with
a two fold increased risk of alcohol abuse among women.
(16) Abortion followed by alcohol abuse is linked to violent
behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, and job
loss. (17) (see also New Study Confirms Link Between
Abortion and Substance Abuse)

DRUG ABUSE: Abortion is significantly linked to subse-
quent drug abuse. In addition to the psycho-soc.al costs of
such abuse, drug abuse is linked with increased exposure
to HIV/AIDS infections, congenital malformations, and
assaultive behavior. (18)

App. 9

EATING DISORDERS: For at least some women, post-
abortion stress is associated with eating disorders such as
binge eating, bulimia, and anorexia nervosa. (19)

CHILD NEGLECT OR ABUSE: Abortion is linked with
increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug
abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal
bonding with children born subsequently. These factors
are closely associated with child abuse and would appear
to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-
abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse. (20)

DIVORCE AND CHRONIC RELATIONSHIP PROB-
LEMS: For most couples, an abortion causes unforeseen
problems in their relationship. Post-abortion couples are
more likely to divorce or separate. Many post-abortion
women develop a greater difficulty forming lasting bonds
with a male partner. This may be due to abortion related
reactions such as lowered self-esteem, greater distrust of
males, sexual dysfunction, substance abuse, and increased
levels of depression, anxiety, and volatile anger. Women
who have more than one abortion (representing about 45%
of all abortions) are more likely to require public assis-
tance, in part because they are also more likely to become
single parents. (21)

REPEAT ABORTIONS: Women who have one abortion
are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the
future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four
times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those
with no prior abortion history. (22)

This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion
due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious
desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual
activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur

App. 10 7

because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have
a child and continued pressures to abort, such as aban-
donment by the. new male partner. Aspects of self-
punishment through repeated abortions are also reported.
(23)

Approximately 45% of all abortions are now repeat abor-
tions. The risk of falling into a repeat abortion pattern
should be discussed with a patient considering her first
abortion. Furthermore, since women who have more than
one abortion are at a significantly increased risk of suffer-
ing physical and psychological sequelae, these heightened
risks should be thoroughly discussed with women seeking
abortions.

NOTES:

1. An excellent resource for any attorney involved in
abortion malpractice is Thomas Strahan’s Major Articles
and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion
(Rutherford Institute, PO Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA
22906-7482, (804) 978-388 [sic].) This resource includes
brief summaries of major finding drawn from medical and
psychology journal articles, books, and related materials,
divided into major categories of relevant injuries.

2. Ashton, “They [sic] Psychosocial Outcome of Induced
Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122,
(1980).

3. Badgley, et.al., Report of the Committee on the Opera-
tion of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services,
1977)pp.313-321.

4. R. Somers, “Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institu-
tions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced

App. 11

Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,”
Dissertation Abstracts International, Public Health 2621-
B, Order No. 7926066 (1979); H. David, et al., “Postpartum
and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions,” Family Planning
Perspectives 13:88-91 (1981).

5. Kent, et al., “Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A
Clinical Report”, World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Au-
tumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.

6.- Catherine Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological
Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Preg-
nancy Loss, 1990).

7. Herman, Trauma and Recovery, (New York: Basic
Books, 1992) 34.

8. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York:
Random House, 1978) 84-95.

9. Zakus, “Adolescent Abortion Option,” Social Work in
Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987); Makhorn, “Sexual Assault &
Pregnancy,” New Perspectives on Human Abortion, Mall &
Watts, eds., (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of
America, 1981).

10. Adler, “Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social
Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem.” Journal of
Social Issues, 1979, 35, 100-110.

11. Speckhard, “Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging
Public Health Concern,” Journal of Social Issues, 48(3):95-119.

12. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; and Belsey, et al.,
“Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King’s
Termination Study — IV,” Soc. Sci. & Med., 11:71-82 (1977).

App. 12

~

13. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; Gissler, Hemminki
& Lonngqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-
94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine
313:1431-4, 1996.C. Haignere, et al., “HIV/AIDS Preven-
tion and Multiple Risk Behaviors of Gay Male and Run-
away Adolescents,” Sixth International Conference on
AIDS: San Francisco, June 1990; N. Campbell, et al.,
“Abortion in Adolescence,” Adolescence, 23(92):813-823
(1988); H. Vaughan, Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion
Syndrome, Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss,
1991; B. Garfinkel, “Stress, Depression and Suicide: A
Study of Adolescents in Minnesota,” Responding to High
Risk Youth, Minnesota Extension Service, University of
Minnesota (1986). ;

14. Harlap, “Characteristics of Pregnant Women Report-
ing Previous Induced Abortions,” Bulletin World Health
Organization, 52:149 (1975); N. Meirik, “Outcome of First
Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion:
A Controlled Cohort Study,” Acta Obsetricia et Gyne-
cologica Scandinavia 63(1):45-50(1984); Levin, et al.,
“Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Preg-
nancy Loss,” JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.

15. Obel, “Pregnancy Complications Following Legally
Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with
Special Reference to Prematurity,” Danish Medical Bulle-
tin, 26:192-199 (1979); Martin, “An Overview: Maternal
Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Out-
come,” Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-
427, (1982).

16. Klassen, “Sexual Experience and Drinking Among
Women in a U.S. National Survey,” Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 15(5):363-39 ; M. Plant, Women, Drinking and

App. 13

Pregnancy, Tavistock Pub, London (1985); Kuzma &
Kissinger, “Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in
Pregnancy,” Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Terotology,
3:211-221 (1981).

17. Morrissey, et al., “Stressful Life Events and Alcohol
Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center,”
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39(9):1159 (1978).

18. Oro, et al., “Perinatal Cocaine and Methampheta-
mine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates,” J.
Pediatrics, 111:571-578 (1978); D.A. Frank, et al., “Cocaine
Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates,” Pedi-
atrics, 82(6):888 (1988); H. Amaro, et al., “Drug Use
Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk,” Pediatrics
84:144-150, (1989)

19. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
Sheed & Ward, Kansas City: MO, 1987; J. Spaulding, et al,
“Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of
Psychiatry 125(3):364 (1978); R.K. McAll, et al., “Ritual
Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa,” The Lancet, August 16,
1980, p. 368.

20. Benedict, et al., “Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors
and Child Abuse,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 9:217-224
(1985); P.G. Ney, “Relationship between Abortion and
Child Abuse,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 24:610-620,
1979; Reardon, Aborted Women -— Silent No More (Chi-
cago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a
case of woman who beat her three year old son to death
shortly after an abortion which triggered a “psychotic
episode” of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.

21. Shepard, et al., “Contraceptive Practice and Repeat
Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation,” J.
Biosocial Science, 11:289-302 (1979); M. Bracken, “First

App. 14

and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and
Delay,” J. Biosocial Science, 7:473-4 31 (1975); S. Henshaw,
“The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S.
Abortion Patients,” Family Planning Perspectives,
20(4):158-168 (1988); D. Sherman, et al., “The Abortion
Experience in Private Practice,” Women and Loss: Psycho-
biological Perspectives, ed. W.F. Finn, et al., (New York:
Praeger Publ. 1985), pp98-107; E.M. Belsey, et al., “Predic-
tive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King’s
Termination Study-IV,” Social Science and Medicine,
11:71-82 (1977); E. Freeman, et al., “Emotional Distress
Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abor-
tions,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 55(5):630-636 (1980); C.
Berger, et al., “Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?” Family
Planning Perspectives 16(2):70-75 (1984).

22. Joyce, “The Social and Economic Correlates of Preg-
nancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race
and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis,” Am. J. of Public
Health, 78(6):626-631 (1988); C. Tietze, “Repeat Abortions
— Why More?” Family Planning Perspectives 10(5):286-
288, (1978).

23. Leach, “The Repeat Abortion Patient,” Family Plan-
ning Perspectives, 9(1):37-39 (1977); S. Fischer, “Reflection
on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations,”
Journal of Social Work Practice 2(2):70-87 (1986); B.
Howe, et al., “Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims,” Am.
J. of Public Health, 69(12):1242-1246, (1979).

copyright 1997 Elliot Institute Compiled by David C.
Reardon, Ph.D.

www.afterabortion.org
copyright 2000 Elliot Institute

App. 15

THE NURTURING NETWORK:
SERVING THE URGENT AND PRACTICAL NEEDS
OF MOTHERS IN CRISIS

Personal Reflections of the Founder
Based upon Twenty Years of Compassion in Action

It is an honor to be invited to address you about a topic
that matters more to me than any other. Instead of ad-
dressing the myriad of vital issues concerning the termi-
nation of life for an unborn child, let us focus today upon
the life and well-being of another victim, the mother. I
believe that it is time to shift our emphasis from the
obvious harm that abortion causes an unborn child to the
tragedy it inflicts upon the life of the mother.

Introduction:

My name is Mary Elizabeth Cunningham Agee. I am the
mother of three children, one of whom died in a second
term miscarriage twenty years ago on January 8th. It was
this personal loss that riveted my heart and redirected my
mind to the pivotal societal issue that we are addressing
today.

You might appreciate knowing a little more about the
person whose perspective you are about to hear. Please
allow me to introduce myself:

Professional Background:

You may recognize my name as having been one of the
first women in America to “break the glass ceiling” by
serving in the Senior Management of two Fortune 100
Companies as the Vice President of Strategic Planning in
the 198C . I wrote a best-selling autobiography about my

App. 16

experience at the Bendix Corporation and Joseph E
Seagram & Sons and was twice voted by World Almanac
as one of the “Twenty-five most influential women in
America.” I have been given the opportunity to share my
thoughts about corporate culture, women in business and
professional ethics at the Commonwealth Club, in the Wall
Street Journal, Reader’s Digest and Newsweek, and on
many prime time television shows including Barbara
Walters, Peter Jennings, Donahue, the Today Show and
Good Morning America.

Educational Background:

My education includes a BA with Honors from Wellesley
College (’73) where I was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and
received two Danforth nominations in Moral Philosophy
and Ethics. I have also earned an MBA from the Harvard
Business School (’79) and studied Law and Jurisprudence
at Notre Dame University and Trinity College in Dublin,
Ireland. I have been awarded six honorary doctorates
primarily for my work over the past two decades in trying
to alleviate the suffering of thousands of women and
children whose circumstances have caused them to be
vulnerable to abortion.

Particular Expertise:

My primary expertise on the topic we are addressing today
is based upon two decades of experience as the Founder
and President of the Nurturing Network (TNN.) TNN is
an international charitable organization comprised of over
42,000 volunteer resource members who provide for all of
the urgent and practical needs of women with unplanned
pregnancies. Over 17,000 pregnant women and unborn

App. 17
children have been served through the practical compas-
sion of the Nurturing Network during the past twenty
years.

While I must admit that it took the personal anguish of a
mid-trimester miscarriage for me to grasp the horror of
prenatal death, it has taken the daily, life-saving activity
of the Nurturing Network to teach me the importance of
translating my reverence for human life into concrete
action. This growing awareness enabled me to not look
back for even one moment to the comfort and grandeur of
an executive suite in midtown Manhattan. I chose to leave
that way of life and a six figure salary for the far more
rewarding and, I dare say, more vital work of managing
and directing the Nurturing Network.

Viewpoint:

While TNN’s mission has had nothing to do with debating
the merits of abortion or trying to remove that alternative,
the performance of my counseling role has required me to
listen to the unsolicited testimonies of literally thousands
of women. To a person, each woman has shared her pro-
found regret and lingering emotional wounds as a result of
an abortion experience. It is this unexpected, and yet,
undeniable revelation that compels me to share what I
have learned with you.

When the option of abortion was first presented for your
consideration, scientific and anecdotal evidence was very
limited. Since 1973, valuable medical and scientific re-
search has been conducted and revealing anecdotal testi-
monies have been collected. The insights gleaned from
these sources offer a compelling case for reevaluating a

App. 18

procedure that was once considered to be a safe and
private solution for women in crisis.

Unlike thirty years ago, we now have a generation of
women who are prepared to open their private lives and
expose their wounds in the hope that their experience
might prevent others from the grief and emotional harm
that they have known. I hope that you will agree that we
cannot afford to turn a deaf ear to these women who
provide such an eloquent witness to the dangers caused by
a procedure made available to them in the hope of provid-
ing assistance.

At the close of my remarks, I will share several moving
testimonies of actual TNN clients who profoundly regret
their choice of abortion. Their words convey an anguish
and loss that the passage of time or euphemistic rhetoric
cannot repair. Their experience is a haunting reminder
that what many once hoped would provide a “reproductive
freedom” within a woman’s “private choice” has, instead,
resulted in a prison of tragic regrets for a generation of
women who now know that they deserve better than
abortion.

TNN Facts:

Approximately 50% of all TNN clients have already
experienced at least one abortion at the time they contact
us for help. This fact is revealed in either an initial toll
free phone call requesting assistance, a referral from a
local crisis pregnancy center, a first counseling session, or
a confidential online questionnaire.

App. 19

What the Clients Are Saying:

TNN clients express fear in having to “go through” another
abortion. They candidly share their profound remorse and
the conviction that they do not want to augment the
emotional anguish they have already endured. They often
share a sense of having been betrayed and then aban-
doned by those who convinced or coerced them into having
an abortion.

It may be difficult to imagine how utterly sincere and
blatantly honest these confidential counseling sessions are
between a TNN counselor and a client. More often than
not, I do not have the opportunity to meet a TNN client in
person. Our relationship usually takes place in the rela-
tive privacy of a phone call or by internet which seems to
afford more freedom to express what their hearts have
wanted to say for many years. A bond of trust is readily
established when a client discovers, often for the first time
in her life, that TNN wants nothing from them: No fees, no
baby to adopt, no promises, no work in exchange for our
services.

To more fully understand the wrenching sadness and
lasting regret that TNN clients describe following an
abortion, it may be worth examining the forces and influ-
ences that drive a woman to make this choice: An immedi-
ate escape from shame, the possibility of enhanced
economic security, the hope of saving a fragile relationship.

The actual testimonies of the betrayed and the abandoned
in TNN’s client files expose the miscalculations and
illuminate the disillusionment that inevitably follows:

App. 20

Most women readily identify four primary sources
of pressure or coercion that lead to an abortion
“choice”:

e The father of the baby: “It is our relationship
or the baby.”

e The parents: “It is either our financial sup-
port or the baby.”

e The boss: “It is either your job or the baby.”

e The peers: “It is either your social standing or
the baby.”

Of course, none of these tradeoffs have anything
to do with offering a woman in crisis the “free-
dom to choose.” Each ultimatum threatens to
impose an emotional toll calculated to force her
to make a desperate choice. And yet, as the at-
tached testimonies indicate, she alone will suffer
the agonizing remorse, the hidden grief, the de-
bilitating guilt.

Most women who have chosen abortion do so not
out of “freedom of choice” but out of a desperate
sense that they have no other choice.

Most women believe that the only “freedom” an
abortion affords is experienced by those “significant
others” who have much to lose if she continues her

pregnancy.

Most women express regret in having made the
“choice” to abort and many become pregnant again
in an effort to remedy their error and “recreate”
their deceased child.

App. 21

¢ Most women admit that very practical needs influ-
enced their decision to abort a pregnancy. I have
heard many say:

“If only I had been offered an alternative
educational opportunity; my peers were so
cruel when they found out that I was preg-
nant.”

“If only I could have been given a different
job; the father of the baby was my boss and I
just couldn’t put up with his ridicule and
pressure every day at work.”

“If only I could have had a peaceful, affirm-
ing place to live; my parents were so disap-
pointed in me that every day would have
been emotionally devastating living at
home.”

“If only I could have seen a good counselor to
help me understand what I was about to do
and what was at stake.”

“If only I could have had some financial sup-
port for college, rent and medical bills; my
parents withdrew all support and I just
couldn’t make ends meet.”

Listening to these women articulate what forms of practi-
cal support would have permitted their pregnancy to
continue is how the Nurturing Network was actually
formed. Before founding TNN, I interviewed and listened
to hundreds of women who shared the practical needs that
were not met when their own support networks let them
down. These unmet needs had directly led to their abor-
tion “choice” and helped to write the strategic plan that
formed the Nurturing Network.

App. 22

CONCLUSION:

There have been other times in history when a solution
initially considered to be helpful or at least useful was
eventually exposed as being dangerous and even harmful.
It requires a certain humility, honesty «ad open minded-
ness to admit when a judgment must change in light of
new and more compelling facts. This is what the women
whose painful experiences are captured in the attached
testimonies are calling for today.

The simple but profound truth is that abortion has not
turned out to be the private, painless, safe solution that
many had hoped it would be. Yes, it is quicker and seem-
ingly less complex than alternative solutions. It surely is
final. But the living testimonies of TNN clients reveals
that this procedure, often sought in haste and without a
full understanding of the emotional risks, has inflicted
profound and lasting harm a generation of women. Their
voices say better than anyone else ever could: Women
deserve better than abortion. It is time for this tragedy to
end.

I need only to reflect upon the thousands of women whom
I have had the privilege of serving since founding the
Nurturing Network to say with conviction that the binding
of deep wounds end the healing of broken hearts is an
intensely intimate and time-consuming process. In a
society that prides itself on finding quick fixes and expedi-
ent solutions to any inconvenience or problem, it is under-
standable that we would seek a short cut to solve the crisis
of an unplanned pregnancy. But time and experience
reveal that no fast solution exists without causing pro-
found and lasting harm to both the mother and the child.

App. 23

The simple truth is that there is no efficient or effective
substitute for what my two decades of experience tells me
every woman in crisis yearns for most of all: Love and
practical compassion. She does not seek our hand-washing
absolutions or an easy means of hiding or “getting rid of
her problem”. A generation of women now courageously
stands ready to teli us of a sobering reality: Abortion does
not heal, it harms. It silences a beating heart... and breaks
a mother’s too.

ADDENDUM: FROM TNN CLIENT FILES
HEARTBREAKING:

TNN counsels thousands of post-abortive, grieving women.
Here are several actual examples in each client’s own
words:

SARAH: TNN Valentine Card 2004

“I was not able to carry through with my pregnancy. I
wanted to say, ‘No,” but couldn’t gather the strength given
the extreme pressures. I am completely overwhelmed with
grief and depression beyond anything that I can describe.
If only I had know about your Nurturing Network a month
ago. I can’t forget how exposed and humiliated I felt lying
on that table. The pain, sense of loss and crippling night-
mares just won't let up. I can’t work and have lost my job.
I have lost everything! Will there ever be peace for some-
one like me?”

TRACEY: “Heart to Heart” Newsletter, Mother’s
Day 1992

I read about your organization in Ligourian and it is as
though a prayer was answered. I am twenty-eight and

App. 24 —~

gave birth to a son September 29, 1991. Since then I have
been looking for an — outlet for my intense feelings and
need to help someone else by sharing my personal experi-
ence in not going through with an abortion.

_ I was raped (the acquaintance variety) and have endured
all of the post-traumatic syndrome symptoms. The father
of the baby threatened to “throw me down the stairs” to
get rid of ‘it” when I told him I thought I was pregnant. I
went to a clinic to find out for sure if I was pregnant and
told their counselor what had happened to me. She as-
sumed that I wouldn’t want to keep the baby due to the
situation and scheduled my appointment.

I drove directly to the father of the baby’s apartment and
on the way there, the light looked different. The sky was
brighter. the clouds bigger and fuller, the sun more vivid
than I remembered. I was slowly waking up from my
shock and realizing I had a baby inside me... . something I
had-wanted since I was nine years old. I had been in a
relationship where the man couldn't have children and it
nearly ruined us because I wanted children so badly, and
here I was planning to get rid of one. I desperately wanted
this man to marry me out of a sense of obligation as a
father. After six hours of unsuccessful pleading, I left and
planned to run my truck off a cliff.

Having been thoroughly humiliated and insulted. I turned
to the man I left a year earlier (and still loved) and he
helped me for the weeks and months it took to decide the
fate of my child. He said to me. “We'll find a way. We'll
make it work:” Hearing these words gave me strength and
hope. and I’ve learned what a real father is. He’s a man
who fights for your life, makes life possible, and loves you
in spite of everything.

App. 25

I was lucky I know ... not everyone has someone to turn
to like your Network. But the point is the same, if you
open yourself to the possibility of this incredible love that
a child generates, people and things open up for you.

We have a beautiful, héalthy, energetic. tranquil boy and
there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think about what
I almost did. Well, that is pretty much it. I would like to be
able to share this and the rest of my experiences so that
maybe someone in a similar situation can benefit sooner,
and not go through the agony and torture I did. I would
very much like to volunteer as an inspirational counselor
and perhaps offer my services as an artist in some way.
Please find a place for me as this would mean the world to
me.

My son. Henry. has been on my lap for much of this letter
and at three months, thinks he can type! Thank you for
letting me share my story with you. Please call if I can be
of help right away. Again, thank you for your organization.
I wish I had known about you sooner.

JOANN: “Heart to Heart” Newsletter, Thanksgiv-
ing 1992

“In December, I lived through what today is so glibly
referred to in the press as ‘date rape.’ Two weeks later I
graduated with honors with a freshly minted MBA ...
only to have my dreams shattered. Any course of action,
other than abortion, would have meant total abandonment
by my family. When I asked for support, the aggressor
accused me of ‘emotional’ rape and then abandoned me. I
have kept this secret to myself until now.

App. 26

Last fall I had surgery for ovarian cancer and am now
unable to have children. When I die I will leave no legacy.
Had I known about the Nurturing Network, I would have
carried the child to term and my story would have had a
happy ending. If I encounter someone in the future whom
you may be able to help, I will tell them about your Net-
work. If only I had known...”

TONI: “Heart to Heart Newsletter,” Mother’s Day
1993

“Ten years ago, Toni, married and a mother of two, found
herself facing an unintended pregnancy. A baby simply did
not fit into her career plans nor into her family’s work
schedule. Seeking the advice of her obstetrician, Toni was
assured that an “early pregnancy termination” was the
best alternative and that he had never heard of anyone
having any adverse effects from this procedure. Tony [sic]
chose to abort her baby and struggled with this decision
for many years. Through painful years of grieving and
professional counseling she now shares her heartache and
hopes with Mary:

My wish is that I had known about The Nurturing Net-
work. It would have taken so little to convince me to have
our child. On this Mother’s Day, I urge other abortion
victims to come forth with their heartbreaking stories in
the hopes of bringing an end to this national tragedy. I
want to assure you that there is no need to suffer in
silence anymore. Compassion, understanding and support
is available and is only a phone call away.”

App. 27

JANE: TNN Valentine Card 1995

“When I found out that I was pregnant, I felt frightened
and trapped. I felt that if I continued my pregnancy, I
risked humiliating my family whom I love dearly. The
thought of my boyfriend leaving me and the knowing looks
of my friends at work was beyond anything that I could
bear.

Deciding to end my pregnancy was the loneliest moment of
my life. I knew then that this ‘choice’ would bring a sad-
ness that would never leave me. A day doesn’t go by that I
don’t think of what I lost. Perhaps it would help me to heal
if I could encourage someone else who is feeling as desper-
ate as I did. Please keep up the work you are doing! I only
wish I’d known about you sooner.”

MARGARET: TNN Valentine Card 1997

“Many years have passed since I was 23, frightened,
unemployed and facing the stark reality of an unplanned
pregnancy alone. I felt trapped with no idea of where to
turn knowing that my family would be deeply humiliated
and angry beyond words. I made the desperate choice to
abort my son because I could think of no other way to go
forward.

The pain of that choice will forever haunt me in the quiet
moments of every day. Just last week I learned about your
Network. If I could help even one mother who is feeling as
desperate as I was, I would be so grateful.”

JANET: TNN Valentine Card 1998

“On February 7, 1995, I had an abortion. One week ago, I
picked up my sister’s issue of Today’s Christian Woman. As

App. 28

I was flipping through the pages, I ran across your article
and cried throughout the whole reading. I wish this article
was put on every corner and available at every place that
provides abortion. If only I had known about your Net-
work, my baby could have been saved. I miss my baby so
much. I think I understand how God is helping me to heal.
I think He wants me to do something like you are doing.
How can I help someone else avoid this pain and loneli-
ness?”

KIM: TNN Valentine Card 1999

“Several years ago, I had a second trimester abortion. My
uterus was punctured and emotionally I was devastated.
Years of grief have taken their toll on me. I only wish I had
known about the Nurturing Network back then. I am
pregnant again and after many calls you are the only place
that has given me hope. What a comfort it is to know there
is an organization such as yours. I know that as I work
through the practical needs of my pregnancy with your
kind staff, I will be able to deal with the emotional wounds
still scarring my heart.”

MARTHA: TNN Valentine Card 2001

“Many years have passed since my senior year in college
when I felt deserted by almost everyone important to me
and made the desperate choice to abort my child. I could
think of no other way to go forward. The fear that haunted
me then was not being able to finish my education and
fulfill my dream to become a teacher. The fear that haunts
me now in the quiet of each day is that no matter what I
accomplish professionally, I will never hear my child’s
voice or laughter. I can only hope that at least one mother

App. 29

who may be feeling as alone and trapped as I was will read
my letter. I am living proof that your work is needed.”

App. 30

THE HEALTH RISKS OF ABORTION
PANEL PRESENTATION FOR FAMILY RESEARCH
COUNCIL BUILDING A CULTURE OF LIFE

Offered by Mary Cunningham Agee
President & Founder
The Nurturing Network
April 2002

“If only I had known.” This is the haunting lament that I
hear almost daily on the toll free crisis hotline of the
Nurturing Network. Since founding this charitable organi-
zation almost twenty years ago, I have been invited by
literally thousands of frightened, wounded women to
understand the painful circumstances of their troubled
lives. Let me assure you that they do not call to express
satisfaction in their “reproductive freedom” to terminate
the life of their unborn child. They call desperately seeking
immediate, practical assistance in order to avoid an
abortion procedure which almost half of our clients have
already experienced in a prior pregnancy.

This is why the Nurturing Network was founded: to
provide all of the practical support a mother in crisis needs
in order to choose life for her unborn child. Our 32,000
member resources are located in all 50 states and in 27
foreign countries. We offer individually tailored solutions
that include medical, emotional, financial, educational,
employment and residenfial assistance to any woman
whose own support network has let her down. I am happy
to share that we have had the indescribable joy of assist-
ing almost 15,000 mothers and children. Their personal
stories and courageous testimonies are what have contrib-
uted to the insights that I am sharing with you today.

App. 31

I must admit, therefore, that my perspective on the topic
of abortion is about as detached or philosophical as that of
a medic on the front line of an active combat zone.

I have come to know this topic up close and in living color
through the tragic life stories of women who believed the
marketing rhetoric about this allegedly sate [sic] and easy
procedure. And yet, almost all of them would tell you that
if they could erase just one decision in their lives, it would
be the irreversible one that ended the life of their unborn
child. Their grief is difficult to capture here in a few words
because it is always tinged with a sense of having been
betrayed. These women consistently describe the panic
and loneliness that sets in when those whom she has
trusted create fatal trade-offs between their role in her life
and her child. How can she help but feel tricked and
manipulated by boyfriends, parents, friends and employ-
ers who conveniently wash their hands of her maternal
needs and choose to describe her unborn child as an
inconvenience and even a threat. None of these accom-
plices, of course, will ever live out the permanent conse-
quences of an abortion decision the way she will and so her
sense of abandonment and isolation is profound.

While I am tempted to fill our time together with poignant
anecdotes from our client files, I believe that an objective
review of a few facts might be just as persuasive. The data
that I am about to share has not been gleaned from biased
sources, but rather, from medical and social scientists with
no ax to grind. Their rather startling research findings
only confirm what our common sense and the clients of the
Nurturing Network have said for years: Abortion is far
from being a safe procedure. It was, after all, this false
assumption about the safety of this procedure that led the
United States Supreme Court in to strike down every

App. 32

federal, state and local law regulating its practice. The
premise of their decision was that the advances of modern
medicine had removed the need for any regulation of the
procedure since it was now “relatively safe.”

Clearly, the facts no longer support this assumption and,
in fact, expose the glaring error at the root of our country’s
national policy toward abortion. The following data shows
that abortion is actually dangerous to the health of women
— both physically and psychologically — and, therefore,
should be at least regulated if not outright prohibited.

The data that I am about to share was made readily
available in a report generated by the Elliot Institute.
While I cannot include all of the findings listed on their
web site, I would like to acknowledge them for providing
such well-documented statistical information. I will be
drawing heavily upon this for the statistical part of my
presentation.

National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women
who undergo this procedure suffer from immediate compli-
cations. (1) Over one hundred different complications have
been associated with induced abortion. “Minor” complica-
tions include: infections, bleeding, fevers, chronic abdomi-
nal pain, gastro-intestinal disturbances, vomiting, and Rh
Sensitization. The nine most common “major” coinplica-
tions are infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping
or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications,
convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury and endotoxic
shock. (2) Can you imagine what an honest warning label
might read like for such a procedure?!

While the immediate complications of abortion are usually
treatable, these complications frequently lead to even more
serious long-term reproductive damage.. For example, one

App. 33

common outcome of abortion related infections is sterility.
Researchers have reported that as many as 5% of aborted
women are left inadvertently sterile. (3)The risk of steril-
ity is even greater for women who are infected with a
venereal disease at the time of an abortion.(4)

In addition to the risk of sterility, women who acquire
post-abortal infections are five to eight times more likely
to experience ectopic pregnancies.(5) In fact, between 1970
and 1983, the rate of ectopic pregnancies in the U.S. has
risen four-fold! (6) It is worth noting that 12% of all
maternal deaths are due to ectopic pregnancy. (7) And
other countries who have legalized abortion have also seen
the same dramatic rise in ectopic pregnancies. (8)

Cervical damage is another leading cause of long term
complications following abortion. According to one hospital
study, 12.5% of first trimester abortions required stitching
for cervical lacerations. (9) Another study found that
lacerations occurred in 22% of aborted women. (10) And
women under the age of 17 have been found to face twice
the normal risk of suffering cervical damage. (11)

Whether microscopic or macroscopic in nature, the cervical
damage which results during abortion frequently results
in a permanent weakening of the cervix. This weakening
may result in an “incompetent cervix”, a serious medical
condition in any pregnancy that often results in miscar-
riage or premature birth. According to one study, symp-
- toms related to cervical incompetence were found among
75% of women who undergo forced dilation for abortion.
(12)

To put this risk in context, cervical damage from previ-
ously induced abortions significantly increases the risk of
miscarriage, premature birth and complications of labor

App. 34

during later pregnancies by 300 to 500%! (13) The repro-
ductive risks of abortion are especially acute for women
who abort their first pregnancy. A major study of first
pregnancy abortions found that almost half, or 48%, of
women experienced abortion-related complications in later
pregnancies. Women in this group experienced 2.3 miscar-
riages for every one live birth. (14) And another researcher
found that among teenagers who aborted their first
pregnancies, 66% subsequently experienced miscarriages
or premature birth of their second pregnancy. (15)

When this risk of increased pregnancy loss is projected on
the population as a whole, it is estimated that aborted
women lose 100,000 “wanted” babies each year due to
latent abortion morbidity. (16) In addition, premature
births, complications of labor, and abnormal development
of the placenta all can result from latent abortion morbid-
ity and each are leading causes of handicaps among
newborns. (17) Considering premature deliveries alone, it
is estimated that latent abortion morbidity results in 3000
cases of acquired cerebral palsy among newborns each
year. (18) And, finally, since these pregnancy problems
pose a threat to the health of the mothers too, women who
have had abortions face a 58% greater risk of dying during
a later pregnancy. (19)

There are similar shocking statistics that expose the
serious psychological risks associated with abortion. Since
this topic has been assigned to Dean Gladys Sweeney, I
will not cover this topic in my remarks. But I cannot
conclude my thoughts without at least stating that the
emotional scars of this decidedly unsafe procedure -are
every bit as devastating as the physical ones we have just
discussed.

App. 35

It is my hope that by sharing this data, you will be moved
to inform others who are at risk for an abortion procedure.
It is a cruel and unconscionable for any of us to remain
silent in the face of new scientific evidence that undenia-
bly points to the health risks of this procedure for women.
It is time for those in a position of policy-making power to
correct the errors of the past and protect the next genera-
tion of women from further exploitation and damage.

Thank you.

Footnotes: 1. Frank, et al, “Induced Abortion Operations
and Their Early Sequelae”, Journal of the Royal College of
General Practitioners (April 1985), vol 35, no 73, pp 175-
180. 2. Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chi-
cago: Loyola University Press, 1987). 3. Wynn and Wynn,
“Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born
Subsequently”, British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973),
and Foundation for Education and Research in Child
Bearing (London, 1972) 4. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and
Answers, (Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1985). 5.
Chun, et al. Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent
Reproductive Function and Pregnancy Outcome, Univer-
sity of Hawaii (Honolulu, 1981) 6. Atrash, et. Al., “Ectopic
Pregnancy in the U.S., 1970-1983” MMRW, Center for
Disease Control, vol.35, no. 2ss9.29ss. 7. “Annual Ectopic
Totals Rose Steadily in 1970’s But Mortality Fell”, Family
Planning Perspectives (1983) vol,15,p.85. 8. Hilgers, “The
Medical Hazards of Legally Induced Abortion,” in Hilgers
and Horan, eds, Abortion and Social Justice (New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1972). 9. Wilke, Handbook on Abortion,
(Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1979). 10. “Abortion in
Hawaii”, Family Planning Perspectives (Winter 1973) 5(1):
Table 5. i1. Schulz, et. Al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical
Injury During Suction Curettage Abortion”, The Lancet

App. 36

(May 28, 1983),pp 1182-1184. 12. Wren, “Cervical Incom-
petence — Aetiology and Management”, Medical Journal of
Australia (December 29, 1973), vol 60. 13. Harlap and
Davies, “Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion: Complications
and Outcome of Pregnancy and Labor”, American Journal
of Epidemiology (1975). Vol 102, no.3; Hogue, “Impact of
Abortion on Subsequent Fecundity”, Clinics in Obstetrics
and Gynecology (March 1986), col.13,no.1. 14. Lembrych,
“Fertility Problems Following Aborted First Pregnancy”,
eds. Hilgers, et al., New Perspectives on Human Abortion
(Frederick, MD.: University Publications of America,
1981). 15. Russel, “Sexual Activity and Its Consequences
in the Teenager”, Clinics in Ob&Gyn, (Dec 1974). Voll,
no.3, pp 683-698. 16. Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No
More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987). 17. Hogue,
Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion
on Future Childbearing: A Review”, Family Planning
Perspectives (May-June 1983), col.15, no.3. 18. Reardon,
Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola Univer-
sity Press, 1987). 19. Reardon,

Mary Cunningham Agee, President and Founder

To reach our Communication and Development Office
please feel free to contact us at:

The Nurturing Network

PO Box 1489

White Salmon, WA 98672

800-TNN-4MOM 509-493-4026 (Phone) 509-493-4027 (Fax)
tnn@nurturingnetwork.org

Home
Need Help? | | Who We Are | | Whom We Serve { | What's
New!

App. 37

Articles and Speeches | | College Network | | Women of
Courage

Founder’s Profile | | Culture of Life | | What is Clustering?
Contacting Us | | Sisters of Life | | Make A Donation | |
Suggestion Box

All contents © 1998, The Nurturing Network
Last updated Tuesday, November 19, 2002

App. 38

Parts of the following are excerpted from an essay written
by Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D., President cf Heartbeat Interna-
tional, published in Back to the Drawing Board: The
Future of the Pro-Life Movement, Teresa R. Wagner, ed.,
(South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2003).

Pregnancy Help Centers: Prevention, Crisis
Intervention, Healing: Putting It All Together
by Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D.

The burgeoning numbers and types of alternatives to
abortion services and affiliating organizations also tell
much about our response to the devastating effects of
abortion. The first printed (i.e. mimeographed) directory of
contact names and semi-organized centers in the United
States contained about 75 entries. The most recent Heart-
beat Internationa: Directory contains 3,471 entries in the
U.S. Approximately 2,026 are pregnancy centers (about
479 of which have added medical services), and about 80%
of those are members of one or more of 9 affiliating organi-
zations: Baptists for Life, Grand Rapids, MI; Birthright,
Atlanta, GA; Care Net, Sterling, VA; Christian Life Re-
sources, Milwaukee, WI; Heartbeat International, Colum-
bus, OH; International Life Services, Los Angeles, CA;
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Freder-
icksburg, VA; National Life Center, Woodbury, NJ; and
Save-A-Life, Birmingham, AL.

The rest of the entries consist of 507 professional sccial
service agencies, such as Catholic Charities, also known
for providing alternatives to abortion; 319 Christian
maternity homes; 166 non-profit, Christian adoption
agencies; 27 hotlines; and 54 independent post abortion
programs (the vast majority are housed within pregnancy
centers). °

App. 39

The History of our Network

The types of organizations reflect our response to the
women, girls, and families who have been coming to us for
help for over 30 years. In the late 60’s and 70’s we pre-
sumed these women were in short term crisis. Now we
recognize them as the walking wounded who need much
more than simple crisis intervention.

The birth of pregnancy centers in the U.S. was not a result
of Roe v. Wade but of the earlier movement to liberalize
abortion laws state by state. Concerned people realized
that with the carefully crafted message that abortion was
sometimes the reluctant, humane, even loving choice;
some women would be influenced to abort their babies
unless they had help and support. The work was generally
seen as service, a humanitarian effort, an outreach of one
caring individual to another, although the motive was
from deeply held religious values and beliefs.

The first formal alternatives to abortion service organiza-
tion was Birthright, founded in Canada in 1968.’ Centers
using the Birthright name soon spread to the United
States. A strict Charter, established in 1971, is still fol-
lowed by all Birthrights. Their vision was that you could
not save the baby without “saving” (or serving) the mother,
and vice versa.

A similar woman-and-baby-centered vision was held by
the Alternatives to Abortion, formed in 1971 (now known
as Heartbeat International) in the United States." The
founders established a loose federation of independent
organizations that could network with and learn from each
other. This seemed right for the entrepreneurial United
States, where a variety of small organizations had already
sprung up, starting in the late 60’s, from California to New

App. 40

York, some operating out of pro-life doctors’ offices,
churches, or even homes.

While AAI often called itself the “service arm of the pro-
life movement,” they and Birthright considered themselves
quite distinct from Right to Life, the lobbying and educa-
tional arm. Their role was primarily “crisis intervention.”
Once the woman knew she had a friend and could be
connected, by referral, to a variety of services in the
community (medical care, housing, material aid, and social
services), the presumption was that their work had been a
“success.” The mother was safe, and therefore the baby
would be safe.

By the 1980’s and certainly in the 1990’s, as abortions
continued and affected not only women but everyone
connected with them, as the culture became more accept-
ing of “sex for recreation,” as sexually transmitted diseases
surged and AIDS emerged, as marriage declined and the
disintegration of the two-parent family continued, the
“disconnect” between the original theory and reality
became evident.” In response, new values and visions
within the pregnancy center movement emerged.

The Baby-Centered Vision: The first influence was the
baby-centered approach. It soon brought centers, in
general, into disrepute, but eventually led to a movement
from within toward real credibility. In the late 1970's,
perhaps due to frustration that the lobbying and educa-
tional branch had not passed a Human Life Amendment
and abortion numbers were skyrocketing, a more pro-
active influence came into the pregnancy center move-
ment. Centers were urged to advertise alongside abortion
clinics in the yellow pages (the phone book indexes re-
ferred readers to the same headings, such as Clinics and

App. 41

Birth Control Information, for both abortion services and
abortion alternatives), show slides to clients of fetal
development and aborted babies, and, in general, use
every possible method to save the baby at risk for abor-
tion. A small number of “Problem Pregnancy Centers”
influenced by this approach emerged.”

In 1987, an orchestrated effort by Planned Parenthood
resulted in television and magazine exposés on these
centers. Stories, written by undercover reporters posing as
clients and using hidden cameras and tape recorders,
ironically faulted the centers for not being totally “up
front” and transparent.”

Congressional hearings were held, but pregnancy centers
were forbidden from testifying in their own defense, so, in
the public arena, pregnancy centers had a “black eye.”
Many involved in centers felt the embarrassment and
shame, and supporters began to wonder if their own center
was operating unethically. Centers began to be suspicious
of each other. The boomerang effect even caused some to
think they needed to “warn” potential clients, in ads and
on the phone, of their pro-life values. Client numbers
decreased in many areas.

The attacks resulted not in the end of pregnancy help
centers, the intention of our opponents, but eveniually in
strengthening of the centers. In 1993, NIFLA, the Na-
tional Institute of Family and Life Advocates, was founded
specifically to provide legal education and training to help
centers become more professional and protect themselves
from frivolous tort claims (such as assault and battery for
touching a client without her permission), and NIFLA
spearheaded the development of the first insurance
program to protect centers for “counselor liability.””

App. 42

The Medical Vision: Some centers in California had been
accused of “practicing medicine without a license” for
providing urine pregnancy tests, and pro-choice word-
smiths began to label all centers “fake clinics.” Meanwhile,
‘in the medical field, ultrasound was emerging as a new
diagnostic tool for pregnancy. NIFLA soon envisioned real
clinics not only doing pregnancy testing but also using
ultrasound to diagnose pregnancy, and pioneered a medi-
cal model for centers either licensed by the state or work-
ing under the license of a private physician. The potential
of ultrasound to help abortion-vulnerable mothers bond
with their babies was clear.

More and more centers today are adding ultrasound
services for abortion-vulnerable clients. True to their
entrepreneurial nature, centers are taking the original
model even further, with some adding STD testing, pap
smears, natural family planning, prenatal care, birthing
centers, and even well baby care. Some are becoming
“hub” medical clinics and encouraging other centers to
refer clients to them for ultrasound and other medical
services. As we partner with doctors, nurses, and other
medical personnel to bring a more pro-life and holistic
approach to the care of women, we are beginning to see a
ripple effect influencing the medical community.

Ironically, the original baby-centered approach, that
provided ammunition to discredit centers, eventually led
to more professionalism and credibility. Ironically too, our
opponents certainly hoped to eliminate all baby pictures.
Instead, still pictures have been replaced by images of
“live action” ultrasound provided by licensed medical
personnel that alluws women not only to have an accurate
diagnosis of pregnancy at a very early stage (thereby

App. 43

helping their decision-making process), but also to bond
with their babies in utero.

In the early 1980’s, Evangelical Christians came into the
pro-life service movement in large numbers, and they were
a “breath of fresh air” to those who had been carrying the
ball since the late 60’s. Christian Action Council (CAC)
had been formed in 1975, primarily as a pro-life educa-
tional and lobbying organization, and it soon saw the need
for pregnancy centers. Their first pregnancy center was
opened in 1980. In 1984, CAC launched Sanctity of Hu-
man Life Sunday on the Sunday closest to January 22, in
an effort to educate and motivate Evangelical churches
nationwide. The service arm of this organization eventu-
ally took priority, the education and lobbying arm of CAC
was eliminated, and CAC was renamed Care Net in 1994,
to emphasize their network of renamed Pregnancy Care
Centers.

The value of the work of pregnancy centers as Christian
ministries has been enhanced by the involvement of Focus
on the Family, which, in the 1990’s, developed a program
to support pregnancy centers with educational materials
and a ministry office.

The Healing Vision: In the early 70’s, we had begun to
see clients who had already had one or more abortion and
were thinking of another, and we had begun to be ap-
proached by post abortive women who wanted to help
other women avoid the tragic mistakes they had ‘made.
The term “post abortion syndrome” had not yet even been
coined. When we consulted professional counselors for
help, they either denied that abortion had any ill effects or
they cautioned us, as volunteers and nonprofessionals, not

7

App. 44

to get involved for fear that post abortive women might
become suicidal.

Early attempts were made in some AAI centers to create
post abortion programs that were “nondenominational and
nonsectarian.”

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_1263%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.