John Jalsevac

Undercover sting: Late-term abortionist offers 28-week abortion for $10k, makes up reason

John Jalsevac
John Jalsevac

July 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Want to abort your 28-week-old unborn child? It’ll cost you only $10,000. And don’t worry, no reason is necessary. The abortionist will simply make one up.

At least, that’s what notorious late-term abortionist James Scott Pendergraft indicated when contacted by a pro-life activist posing as the mother of a girl interested in getting an abortion.

Several undercover calls by Operation Rescue staff made to Pendergraft in the past eight months have revealed more details about the shady, internet-based late-term abortion business that Pendergraft, who is currently serving his fourth career suspension, operates from latetermabortion.net.

(Read Operation Rescue’s complete undercover investigation here).

Pendergraft, who is perhaps best known for being hit with a $37.7 million judgment last year after his negligence left a baby maimed after a botched abortion, is the owner of five Florida abortion clinics, which he continues to operate despite the fact that he has no active medical license in any state. But he also uses latetermabortion.net to recruit women for extremely lucrative late-term abortions that are illegal in his home state.

These abortions are conducted under an arrangement of questionable legality with abortionist Harold O. Alexander in his facility in Maryland, where late-term abortions are legal. Alexander himself has been charged with violations of the Maryland Medical Practice Act, including “sexual boundary” violations, botched abortions, shoddy or non-existent record keeping, and prescribing of Viagra and other drugs to himself and non-patients.

The pro-life organization reports that while the details remain sketchy, it appears that while Pendergraft does the bulk of the work of recruiting the women, the actual abortions are committed by Alexander. For his part, Pendergraft will typically fly up from his Florida home on as little as a day’s notice to be present.

According to Pendergraft’s own website, the abortions are committed by “intra-cardiac injection” – in other words, lethal injection in to the baby’s heart. Operation Rescue also reports that there are indications that in some cases Pendergraft and Alexander will not complete the abortions, but instead simply send the women off to their own physicians or a hospital for the dead baby to be removed, adding to the already significant safety concerns of this type of abortion.

But the shoddy practices of the late-term abortion business don’t end there, as Operation Rescue learned from several undercover phone calls placed to Pendergraft.

Undercover sting

On December 7, Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue called the abortionist posing as the mother of a 19-year old college student who had concealed her pregnancy from her parents and wanted to abort a 28-week pregnancy because she broke up with her boyfriend.

According to the recorded conversation, Pendergraft offered to meet Sullenger in the DC area the following day at the cost of $10,000 for a 28-week abortion. When Sullenger expressed shock at the price, he quickly reduced it to $8,500.

Pendergraft also indicated that his would be a “fetal anomaly” abortion, even though he was never told there was anything wrong with the pregnancy. When asked, he admitted he would not be doing the abortion himself and that the entire abortion would be done at the “DC area” clinic.

In another call, on November 8, 2011, Troy Newman posed as the husband of a woman seeking a late-term abortion due to fetal anomaly. During that conversation, Pendergraft instructed Newman to wire $6,000 cash to his personal account at a Bank of America in Florida.

Pendergraft indicated that the abortion-bound couple would be met and escorted to the clandestine late-term intracardiac injection clinic where Pendergraft would see them. He refused to disclose the location of the clinic or the name of the licensed physician who would be doing the procedure until he received electronic confirmation that the wire transfer was safely in his Florida bank account.

In another conversation recorded in June of this year, Pendergraft seemed to put up a pretense of attempting to establish a medical basis for a very late-term abortion. Once the caller indicated that her boyfriend was in jail, Pendergraft discussed her anxiety over the situation as an adequate mental health basis to justify the abortion. He then proceeded to tell the caller the next step in the scheduling process.

“Pendergraft is charging women exorbitant prices for late-term abortions. He says the process is ‘not inexpensive’ but does not list his fees, perhaps because he is more than willing to haggle over the abortion price in order to ensure the customer does not take her business elsewhere,” said Troy Newman. “This is not about helping women. It is about helping his bank account, and making a political statement about late-term abortions at the expense of women’s lives and health. It’s frankly despicable.”

Complaint filed

Following their undercover calls, Operation Rescue filed two separate complaints with the Maryland Board of Physicians in December, 2011, against Pendergraft and Alexander, demanding a full investigation.

“We didn’t say anything about our discoveries publicly in order to give the Maryland investigators an opportunity to catch these men red-handed,” said Newman. “We did not want to tip Pendergraft off and have him cover his tracks.”

In the meantime the pro-life organization continued to call Pendergraft from time to time. Recordings of those calls were forwarded to the board as well.

Operation Rescue is encouraging pro-lifers to contact the Maryland Board of Physicians to urge them to take action against Pendergraft and Alexander.

Read the complete Operation Rescue sting here.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook