Setback for Illinois Parental Notice Law
Posted by Matt Yonke, March 3rd, 2008
Federal Judge David Coar, of NOW v. Scheidler fame, ruled Friday that the Parental Notice of Abortion Act was still not ready to be enforced. The law, passed in 1995, was initially held up due to Coar's insistence that the provisions for judicial bypass were not expressed clearly enough. He felt that unless the procedures for obtaining judicial bypass were crystal clear and dangerously easy, the law might keep some competent minors from getting their abortions because of bureaucratic red tape.
Well red tape is exactly what ensued. This law, which Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society Pro-Life Law Center in Chicago described as "…defensible, constitutional law", has been held up for well over a decade over details. Judge Coar placed an injunction on the law until the Illinois Supreme Court spelled out the procedures and then we waited.
First it was the wait for the Illinois Supreme Court to spell out the judicial bypass procedures, then in was the wait for Judge Coar to approve them. He was urged to do so by Attorney General Lisa Madigan last summer and has been sitting on the case ever since.
Now his honor has declared that the procedures passed by the Illinois Supreme Court are "contradictory and incomplete" and he still refuses to lift the injunction. Madigan's office has said they are reviewing the case now and considering all options, including appeal.
35 states have laws similar to Illinois's. They have been tried at the Supreme Court and found constitutional. 80% of Illinoisans support this law. There is absolutely no reason to wait any longer. This law needs to be enforced before more young women incur the emotional and physical pain of abortion without their parents' knowledge.
ACTION ITEM: Ask Attorney General Madigan to appeal
Contact Attorney General Lisa Madigan and let her know that Judge Coar's decision must be appealed and this law enforced as soon as possible. E-mail her office here or call one of the numbers below:
- Lisa Madigan's main office in Springfield: 217-782-1090
- Lisa Madigan's Chicago office: 312-814-3000
Read more in Sunday's Tribune article here.
I work with Judge Coar on a regular basis. He has proven himself time and again to be a wise and honorable man. If he believes the judicial bypass is unreasonable and improperly written, it more than likely is.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
{removed on request by admin}
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Administrator,
Here is my final draft. I cut out a lot of the fat. Can you please remove my previous post. Thank you.
My name is Paul Usher. I live in Illinois. I am a parent of six children ages 1 through 16. The state of Illinois expects me to "exercise reasonable control" over my children. I do not mind that at all. I agree that parents should have responsibilty for their children’s actions and for the welfare of their children. And the state acknowledged this when they passed the Illinois Parental Notification Act of 1995.
According to the Act which was unanimously passed by the Illinois General Assembly:
“The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long?lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long?range consequences.
Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.”
I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in this Act. It is my understanding that parents in 34 other states have been afforded this protection for their children and that the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed these types of laws constitutional. I am disgusted that this law has been on the books now for thirteen years in Illinois and has still not been enforced.
I do not trust these privately run abortion clinics that Planned Parenthood is opening up all over the place. They have virtually no governmental oversight, because they claim “reproductive privacy” about the abortions they perform. They are not open and honest in conducting their business. They have a record of hiding their intentions from the townspeople when opening new abortion clinics. In fact, Planned Parenthood Executive Steve Trombley has been on the record as stating he hid the opening of the new facility in Aurora from the residents, because he did not want them interfering with the building process.
I also know that the Aurora City Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution asking you to please give them an enforceable Parental Notification Act. These girls are not even at the age of legal consent for sex in our state. It is our government’s duty to enforce this law and give parents a way to maintain oversight of their unemancipated minors. Please reply and let me know what you intend to do to correct this travesty of justice.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Student:
"Wise and honorable men", don't do what Judge Coar just did.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Paul2,
I've removed your post #2 as you requested, but we will not always do so. Also, the rule of thumb with the web is that once something is posted, it is always going to be around. Search engines are constantly probing web sites and caching the results.
While it is easy to respond quickly to posts, I recommend taking time to think through what you are writing, knowing that people from all walks of life and belief systems can potentially read the posts.
God Bless,
Roger
March 4th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Kathi: "Wise and honorable men", don't do what Judge Coar just did.
**********
He did his job. Simply because "you" disagree with the decision does not mean that he is not "wise and honorable." If you actually took the time to review past decisions made by Judge Coar, you would find that he is a rather conservative judge — in fact, far more conservative than I am comfortable with. Regardless, although I frequently disagree with his decisions, I don't think it fair to assault his character.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I think the best thing to do now is to be patient and pray. But if you thimk this is terrible, just wait until you see the HB-5615, the 'reproductive justice and access act.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Right. Just like he did his job in 1998 when he entered judgment against my father and other pro-life defendants in the NOW v. Scheidler RICO case.
And then the Supreme Court did their job in 2003 when they overturned that judgment 8-1, and again in 2006 8-0. During oral arguments on that second trip to the high court, no less an abortion supporter than Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized Coar's jury instruction, which made it impossible to determine upon precisely which predicate acts the jury based their verdict.
This is the same David Coar who forbade Henry Hyde to be identified as a Congressman to the jury (while allowing a military officer testifying for the plaintiff's to be identified as such), and allowed anonymous witnesses to give perjured testimony.
I say nothing of Judge Coar's character, but I am not impressed with his abilities as a jurist.
The 1995 Parental Notification of Abortion Act is constitutional— even pro-choice A.G. Lisa Madigan has said so. Coar's decision is baffling even in light of his track record on NOW v. Scheidler. But if Madigan does the right thing and appeals, it will be overturned—if not in the Seventh Circuit, then in the Supreme Court.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Does anybody know where I can get a copy of Judge Coar's recent opinion for denying the enforcement of the IPNOAA of 1995? I tried to get it form NDIL's web site but I have been unsuccessful. They had create a PACER account to get access to the electronic filings but when I went to look at the filings the site said it was monitored and access was only allowed for "Official Court Business".
Also, can anybody help with a link to the Illinois Supreme Courts most recent opinion where they amended the judicial bypass rules per Judeg Coar's request? thx
March 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Paul2,
If you're comfortable giving me your e-mail address, I would be happy to e-mail you a copy. I have a PACER account.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Eric Scheidler: "This is the same David Coar who….allowed anonymous witnesses to give perjured testimony."
In what case?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Student Said:
NOW v. Scheidler
March 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Eric,
Although you provided a link (as did Matt), I pulled both of the cases so I could read the Opinions firsthand. I prefer that to another's interpretation — I also do this when cases are reported in the Tribune so please don't take it as a personal slight. For those interested, the full text of the 2003 Opinion can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1118.pdf
and the 2006 Opinion can be found at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1244.pdf
I saw nothing in either case about allowing "anonymous witnesses to give perjured testimony." Can you give me a citation to back that up? This does not sound like Judge Coar to me.
In the case you cited, the Court stated, "Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act’s scope. Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense. It did intend to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in what the Act refers to as robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies)." Basically the Court found in your favor because there was no "robbery or extortion."
However, the Court also stated, "…in 1994, Congress enacted a specific statute aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation, thereby suggesting it did not believe that the Hobbs Act already addressed that activity. See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(3) (imposing criminal liability on anyone who “intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services”)." So, if my understanding is correct, it was this litigation that gave us the FACE law. Right?
I was somewhat surprised to read, "Likewise, petitioners' counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients' conduct were CRIMINAL." (emphasis mine) (2003 Opinion, Page 9)
If criminal conduct occurred (which was, apparently, acknowledged by your attorney) why didn't the State bring charges…..or did they?
March 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Oh joy. I signed up and now I have access to all the court opinions out there. This could keep me up late.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Is there something I'm doing that cause my comments to be held for "Moderator Review" prior to posting?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Student, the criminal activity that was acknowledged was trespass (see the footnote). I know that Operation Rescue used to barricade themselves in front of clinics and that those who did were arrested and prosecuted. I don't know whether or not the PLAL employed similar tactics.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Anon,
I must have missed that footnote, but will go back and check it out. Thanks!
March 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Student: I'm not sure exactly why you're comment got held for moderation—probably something to do with the links therein. I approved it the moment I receive the moderation alert.
The appeal of the district court verdict was based on matters of law. The perjury was uncovered during our own investigation following the verdict, but since we won on that basis there was no need to address the perjury issue in court.
However, if you're really interested, you can learn more about the phony charges of violence from the trial in this document [PDF] prepared by our attorneys and shared with the press. World magazine did a cover story on the perjury issue in October 2002.
But let me clarify: I am not accusing Judge Coar of having knowingly allowed perjury in his courtroom.
But it took place there, as did other problems with the trial which he did allow. But this isn't the time to rehash all that. Point is, we've seen Judge Coar get it wrong before.
Congress enacted FACE during the period of the NOW v. Scheidler litigation. I don't know if there was any connection.
Student, it is impossible to say. There is no way to know which particular acts the jury based its finding on—as Ginsberg noted—so there is no way to know if any state brought charges regarding those particular acts.
But it should be emphasized that my father never admitted to any acts of violence, for the simple reason that he is innocent of them. We're talking about trespass here—in the long tradition of American civil disobedience.
He was found guilty on a few ocassions of trespass, and those instances were among those brought up by the plaintiffs at trial. What the jury thought about them we don't know.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
d3cdab02b028…
d3cdab02b028bee20543…
May 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm