September 29, 1997

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision was a bad decision. Worse, it spawned more bad decisions. One of those was Doe vs. Gomez, decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1995.

As tragic as it is that the Minnesota court ruled the state must pay for abortions for women enrolled in Medicaid, the state and federally funded health care program for the poor, the case illustrates how far askance of the law itself attorneys, elected officials and the courts will go to protect the so-called right to terminate the life of unborn babies.

This lawsuit began when the New York based Center for Reproductive Rights brought an action against Linda Gomez, the Minnesota Commissioner of Health, on behalf of Jane Doe, whom they identified as a poor woman seeking an abortion because of rape. Under Minnesota's 17-year old statute, Medicaid funds could not be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's physical life was in jeopardy. When rape or incest are considerations, the statute requires that the cases be reported to the police within 48 hours of the event.

Jane Doe stipulated in her complaint that she failed to report her "rape" to the police at any time. Worse yet, when Minnesota Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey III, whose office was charged with defending the statute, tried to depose Doe, she had disappeared. This would have normally resulted in a motion to dismiss the case since a non-entity cannot sue in a court of law. Instead, Mr. Humphrey's staff told the court they would accept the affidavit of Jane Doe because they believed it to be true and besides, they said if they could not find Ms. Doe, there would be others to come forward. And there were other affidavits on file, none of which, incidentally, used the plaintiff's real name.

Affidavits must be notarized by a person whose job it is to verify the signature of the person so testifying. The fact is that Jane Doe, and all the other aliases used in the plaintiff's claim, were not the real names of any of the plaintiffs, a fact which seemed unimportant to the court since none of them were deposed anyway.

Two of those who signed affidavits apparently did so while in New York, not in the Twin Cities. One of them performed a real miracle by signing the affidavit in New York the same day she supposedly was having her abortion in St. Paul, Minnesota. These are poor women on Medicaid and it seems highly unlikely the young lady would sign an affidavit and then fly to St. Paul for a state-paid abortion.

Yet, Mr. Humphrey accepted the word of these anonymous plaintiffs because be believed them.

Mr. Humphrey also, in some bizarre act of imagination, stipulated to the Court that the Minnesota State Constitution contains the right to elective abortion. In fact, he wrote to an executive at Meadowbrook Clinic, one of a handful of abortion providers in the Twin Cities, prior to adjudication of the case, and informed this person that the state's case would agree that Minnesota's Constitution provides this right. It doesn't. Not only is there no explicit right to abortion in the Minnesota Constitution, there has never been a Supreme Court case in which the issue has been decided.

As an additional ironic twist, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, in whose county this case had been filed, flip-flopped and took the plaintiff's position. We taxpayers always assumed the country attorney would take the position of the state, not the plaintiff.

In his advocacy for the plaintiff, Freeman stated that poor women had a right to a paid abortion as a matter of equal protection. His sordid logic centered on the fact that Medicaid pays for pre-natal, post-natal and well-baby care, and since these are all related to "potential" life and actual life (in the case where a mother actually lets her child live), Freeman thinks killing the nascent life still in the womb should be treated the same as delivering a child and helping to care for it after birth.

Lastly, the erstwhile Chief Justice of Minnesota's Supreme Court, Alexander "Sandy" Keith, wrote the decision for the court despite the fact that, before he was nominated for the Supreme Court, he visited with Minnesota Planned Parenthood personnel to receive their blessing on his nomination. Planned Parenthood, of course, stood to gain ten of thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidized abortions.

Minnesota's abortion industry has had, for many years, a fund to pay for abortions for poor women paid for by abortion providers and their community supporters. Even if there was a Jane Doe, she was never refused an abortion because there was no money to pay.

A case as flawed as was this one which resulted in overturning long-standing statutory law sends chills down the spine of those who belief in our judicial system. Above all else, our courts are supposed to be free of political influence. Instead, the case was decided on a series of lies.

Fearing that some day, Americans might actually elect a president willing to stack the United States Supreme Court with jurists who believe in the constitution, who would overturn Roe vs. Wade and all the other bad case law dealing with abortion, the pro-abortionists are using this preemptive strategy to establish the legal right to abortion for everyone at the state level. And they just might succeed.

A movement built on the principle that one human being has the right to determine life and death for another, is a movement of the basest kind of lie, a lie which must be perpetuated each day as long as Americans tolerate the destruction of little children still in the womb.

Lies in Court Spends Tax Dollars on Abortion

Author - Speaker - teacher