Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Pro-life Doctors Movement and South Korea’s Abortion Ban

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) South Korea’s highest court upheld that country’s 59-year abortion ban last week, amidst a surge of pro-life activism led by former abortionists. On Wednesday the government reversed a decision that would have lifted the prescription requirement for emergency contraception.

The Associated Press’ brief report on the court ruling, picked up by several major media outlets, omitted mention the pro-life influence in South Korea, pointing only to government concern over Korea’s low birthrate.

What dramatically changed dynamics in Korea was that the government, which had for decades encouraged doctors to perform abortion as a means of population control to foster economic growth, expressed official support for a pro-life doctor’s group. Because of that, “the political terrain of abortion politics in South Korea is changing drastically,” researcher Young-Gyung Paik said.

Young-Gyung’s 2012 paper showed that pro-life activism, long marginalized as “religiously driven,” suddenly gained prominence: “It was only after the formation of the group of doctors called ‘Pro-life Doctors’ in 2009 that the contentious issue of abortion started to gain public attention in South Korea.” “In [the doctors’] opinion, the South Korea’s low fertility rate has originated from its high abortion rate, which, in turn, was the result of the immoral and profit-oriented conducts of Korean medical doctors,” Young-Gyung found.

Whereas Korean media painted the pro-life activism as a “war between doctors,” Young-Gyung’s extensive interviews with both sides found it was fostered by the development of neo-natal medical technologies, decreased interest in embryonic stem cell research, the rise of disability activism, as well as concern about depopulation.

According to a paper by the Pro-life Doctor’s Association, the winners from the court’s decision are Korea’s women. “Most abortions used to be easily performed because doctors or women undergoing abortions were not prosecuted even though abortion was illegal,” the paper said. Even after the country had become economically successful, the “trend of encouraging abortion was prevalent in our society and as a result, women used to be compelled by social pressure to undergo abortion.”

“I bought into the government’s argument that it was OK to do this,” Shim Sang-duk told the Los Angeles Times in 2010. The doctor received death threats and took a significant pay cut after abandoning the practice of abortion. “[I thought] it was good for the country. It boosted the economy,” said Shim, who founded the Korean Gynecological Physicians’ Association to encourage other doctors to stop performing abortions and call on the government to enforce the law’s penalties.

An eight-judge panel needed six votes in to declare the law unconstitutional but only got four, which has spurred hot debate in the Korean media, a spokesman for the doctor’s association told the Friday Fax. An opinion piece in The Korea Times Thursday criticized the government on its decision not to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter as bowing to “doctors and religious groups.”

In 2010 a midwife who helped perform an abortion at 6 weeks gestation went on trial and then challenged the law’s constitutionality, especially the law’s maximum two-year jail term for medical practitioners. The constitutional court argued that a lighter punishment would only make abortion more rampant, Radio Australia reported.

Abortion has been illegal in South Korea with exceptions for rape, incest or severe genetic disorders since 1953, but the law has been routinely flouted.

Kwak Seung-jun, chairman of the Presidential Council for Future & Vision, told reporters in 2010: “There are few people who realize abortion is illegal. We must work to create a mood where abortion is discouraged.”

Susan Yoshihara is Senior Vice President for Research at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). Her article was first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM.

Follow-Up News About Iranian Pastor Nadarkhani

According to more recent news sources, Pastor Nadarkhani’s death sentence was annulled on Sunday. The Iranian Supreme Court sent the case back to the pastor’s home town and asked the pastor to repent, meaning to renounce his Christian faith.

Christian and human right organizations believe Pastor Nadarkhani is still in danger of losing his life. Even his lawyer was arrested for working with the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights. (See articles by the Christian Post and the Christian Telegraph, and on FarsiNet).

Pastor Nadarkhani’s letter issued in October 2010. Click here to read.

How to help Pator Nadarkhani, visit the website Prisoner Alert.

Citing President’s Christian & Muslim Heritage, Rutherford Institute Calls on Obama to Intervene in Execution of Christian Pastor in Iran

John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, has called on President Obama to intervene in the impending execution of Youcef Nadarkhani, a Christian pastor in Iran who was convicted of apostasy. In a letter to President Obama, which was copied to the Iranian ambassador, members of Congress and other key dignitaries, Whitehead urged the president to demand that Iran abide by its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its own Constitution, which provides that “no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.”

The Rutherford Institute’s letter on behalf of Youcef Nadarkhani is available at www.rutherford.org.

“If citizens in Iran cannot depend upon the protections of the most basic human rights provided in their own Constitution, then we must offer them the solace of a watching world that is willing to intervene politically,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“Surely we cannot stand silently by as this man of faith is martyred. Youcef’s imminent execution presents the United States with an opportunity, and, I submit, a duty, as a beacon of liberty, to interpose its influence and authority on behalf of such inalienable human rights as are inherently beyond legitimate government sanction.”

According to reports by the Assyrian International News Agency, Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was convicted of apostasy after protesting the government’s decision to teach Christian schoolchildren–including Youcef’s own 8- and 6-year-old sons–about Islam. Over the course of the past two years Youcef has spent in prison, he has allegedly suffered various forms of inhumane and irregular punishment, including a denial of access to his attorney, the arrest of his wife, threats to place his two sons in the custody of Muslim families, and the administration of drugs in an attempt to force him to recant his religious faith. Youcef’s sentence to be executed by hanging was recently upheld by the Iranian Supreme Court. It is reported that the death sentence may be carried out at any given time without advance notice. Youcef will likely be ordered once again to recant his faith, and if he refuses, he will be executed immediately.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Restoring Constitutional Governanace in America?

On 1 December 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following orders:

Case 10-446

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Case 10-560

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Both cases were controversies involving subject matter critical to the primary governmental functions and intent of law set forth in the Constitution for the United States.

Kerchner was defending his individual Right to a President that is a natural born citizen.

Schulz was defending his individual Right to a government that does not give or lend public funds to private corporations for definitively private purposes (i.e., the $700 billion AIG and TARP financial bailouts), a power not inherent in the People, much less transferable or granted by the People to the Government.

The Judicial Article III of the Constitution guarantees Kerchner and Schulz that the merits of their cases would be heard by the independent, federal courts (“the judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ..”).

However, the lower courts violated Article III, summarily dismissing the cases for “lack of standing,” on the (erroneous) ground that because the injuries to Kerchner and Schulz were no different from the injuries suffered by the rest of the people in the country, neither Schulz nor Kerchner’s Petitions to cure constitutional torts could proceed. By dismissing the cases on “lack of standing”, the courts essentially suggest that Kerchner and Schulz should have directed their Grievances to Congress – as if the issues raised were political questions and America was a pure democracy with rights granted by the will of the majority, rather than a Republic with unalienable, individual, Natural Rights, guaranteed by written Constitutions, enforceable through an independent Judiciary.

Kerchner and Schulz had Petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overrule and reverse the “no standing” rulings of the lower courts and send the cases back to the lower courts for a hearing on the merits of the constitutional challenges. In denying both Petitions for Certiorari and avoiding a judicial examination of the merits for no other discernable reason than political eagerness, the Supreme Court added a ruthless sneer to the Grievances.

About all that can be said about the Kerchner and Schulz cases is we can add “presidential eligibility” and “corporate welfare” to the dung heap of other desecrations of our sacred Charters of Freedom, including but by no means limited to violations of the war, money, taxes, privacy, property, immigration, petition and sovereignty clauses — all of which have been the subject of repeated Petitions and court challenges that have been either ignored by government officials or tersely dismissed by abuses of one judicial doctrine or another.

Unfortunately, this leaves us – the People – with but one irrefutable conclusion: the Constitution is NOT now serving any meaningful purpose. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man and whim. The Constitution has become a mere menu of words, phrases and ideas which the government may choose to define or ignore at its sole will and discretion.

The way the system is working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. Ignoring Article V’s prescriptions for orderly change, our elected and appointed officials are now doing whatever they think best, literally unrestrained by either the written words of the Law itself or the intent behind those words – i.e., the set of principles, prohibitions and mandates proclaimed to govern them – the Constitution for the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Rather than three independent, co-equal branches of a highly-limited federal Government, each designed to be a check and balance on the other two, keeping them in their constitutional places, with the People possessing the ultimate Power, we now suffer the branches cooperating in decisions to deny the People their creator-endowed, unalienable Rights to life, Liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.


The following question is for those among us who know that the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the government and is all that stands between the People and oppression, who know what the Constitution has to say about such current events as war, money, taxes, privacy, property, illegal immigration, and sovereignty.

What should a free People do when faced with the realization that their Constitution is being dishonored and disobeyed by their elected officials and judges, and that their creator-endowed Rights have been whittled away by elected servants who are taking over the house that the Founding Fathers designed “with reliance upon Divine Providence”?

We The People Foundation wants to hold a Liberty Summit in January for an open discussion with opinion leaders and others passionate about the Constitution about how to restore constitutional governance. It is hoped the Summit results in a plan of action agreeable to all.

To learn more, visit We the People Foundation webiste.

High School Valedictorean Denied Student-Initiated Free Speech Right

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case of a Nevada girl whose religious freedom was harshly denied right in the middle of delivering her 2006 public-school valedictorian speech. This is an alarming push backwards for religious freedom. We have a Supreme Court ruling from 1992 (Lee v. Weisman) that protected religious messages and prayers of students, including at graduation ceremonies, as long as they are student-initiated.

A press release by the Rutherford Institute states school officials stopped her speech “after she began speaking about the part her Christian beliefs played in her success in life. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had asked the Court to hear the case of Brittany McComb, charging that school officials violated McComb’s free speech rights and engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they censored her speech because of its Christian content.”

The harsh rejection of Christianity and basic religious freedom is the 11th reason to remove your children and grandchildren from the government school system, according to family advocates at SaveCalifornia.com. (See Reasons 1-10 at their special website RescueYourChild.com.)

Philip Berg Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is “NOT” qualified to be President Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced on October 25 that he is appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States – the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world – then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

For more information about Berg’s continuing case against Obama, go to his website www.obamacrimes.com.

Ohio Democrats Seeks Ohio Supreme Court’s Help to Violate Voter Law

Democrats in public office have a problem with abiding by our laws. When they cannot get laws passed (that is if they even try to get laws passed) by consent of the governed by means of their representatives, they seek the court’s assistance in making them by judicial fiat. This is what Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is doing ion behalf of Gov. Strickland and the Democratic Party.

The Plain Dealer reported that Brunner is attempting to make it possible for citizens to vote and the same time of their registration. Ohio law requires a 30-day period must pass before new registrants may vote. The reason is to give county and state officials time to verify registrant information like their driver’s license or identification card. She and her Democrat backers are seeking to discard the law through the courts.

“On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don’t match records in other government databases.”

Why did the Court of Appeals agree with the Republicans? The Court found the current means of screening eligible voter insufficient to prevent voter fraud.

Ohio’s Democrat officials do not have a problem with the likelihood of voter fraud. They are more concerned about 200,000 registrants whose driver’s license and social security records do not match government’s records. I have had my social security information not match the government’s records. It took a few days to get the problem resolved. But, Democrats wants all of us to feel tolerant towards those people and let them vote anyway. We should not disenfranchise those who might vote for Obama. Who cares about the possibility that they maybe among those enlisted by ACORN to get out and vote.

Democrats do not care about voter disenfranchisement. If that were the case, they would have attempted to pass legislation that changed voter law. Instead, Democrats seek to employ their famous Roe v Wade tactic–making law by law breaking judges. Obama agrees with those judges that saw the right of women to kill their babies in public places like clinics and hospitals as a fundamental privacy right guaranteed by Constitutional law. The problem is the privacy rights stated in the Constitution has nothing to do with sex or killing the unborn. The same principle applies here. The laws exist to prevent fraud and injustice. The laws were not meant to be violated by public officials, political vote seekers, or anyone else. They exist because some people have in the past and will likely do so in the future, especially if they believe they can get away with it. Ohio Democrats continue their practice of creating tolerance and unconstitutional rights for breaking laws in order to achieve their goals. In this case, their effort is to give Obama a better chance of winning the election.

I can hear some Democrats saying something like this: Well, so do Republicans. Do you remember Blackwell? Yes. I also remember Republicans creating redistricting law that gave their candidates a more favorable chance at winning elections in some districts. They did not blatantly seek to break the law by using the courts. They simply remade legitimate law. They actually did something Democrats often do not: They honored the rule of law, and representative of Ohioans not courts makes our laws.

Source: The Plain Dealer October 16, 2008