If you entered on this page, please begin reading the article on Page 1.

So the ACLU was ignoring the plight of Kentucky women and instead putting its efforts behind unsavory abortionists such as Ronachai Banchongmanie and Samuel G. Eubanks Jr..

The third beneficiary of the ACLU's magnanimity is abortionist Ernest W. Marshall. Surely the ACLU was going to make sure that at least one decent fellow was plaintiff on a suit they put their money, resources, and reputation into, right?

Right. And the path to personal fulfillment really is a matter of choosing the right toothpaste.

We can look at Marshall in the context of a suit filed on behalf of a 16-year-old Indiana girl I'll call "Kitty."

Upon learning that Kitty was pregnant, her mother, "Mrs. King," took Kitty to a doctor. That doctor diagnosed an "abnormality of the cervix and womb such that if an abortion were to be performed that it would present a physical threat to the health of the daughter, and could possibly result in the death of the daughter." Even if Kitty survived the abortion, the doctor said, she could end up never able to bear children.

Mrs. King learned that Kitty had contacted her natural father, who lived in another state, and with his help was trying to arrange an abortion.

Mrs. King sought a restraining order, issued May 14, 1986, to prevent the abortion. This restraining order was sent to "Delbert Culp, Executive Director of the Defendant Planned Parenthood of Central Indiana." Culp instructed his staff to notify him if Kitty came to the facility.

Later that day, Kitty did show up at the clinic, and met with Culp and another defendant, Rhonda Gerson. They told Kitty "in spite of the restraining order, that she could obtain an abortion in other states bordering Indiana." Mrs. King noted that neither Culp nor Gerson "discussed with [Kitty] the underlying medical allegations... nor questioned her about her medical condition upon which the [restraining] Order was based."

Instead, Culp and Gerson contacted EMW Women's Surgical Center of Louisville, Kentucky, and arranged for them to perform an abortion on Kitty against her mother's express wishes, against medical advice, and against a restraining order.

Planned Parenthood did not relay to EMW any information about Kitty's medical condition, or her doctor's concerns about her life and health.

On May 15, Mrs. King learned about these arrangements. On May 16, she had an additional copy of the restraining order served on Gerson. Mrs. King's attorney contacted Culp, requesting information that would allow Kitty's mother to contact the abortion facility and forward the medical information from Kitty's physician. "Culp refused."

At no point did anybody involved in arranging the abortion contact Mrs. King or Kitty's doctor. Culp told Kitty that the restraining order "did not prevent Planned Parenthood from doing what he arranged and that Planned Parenthood was not bound by local laws and Courts."

On May 17, the abortion was performed as scheduled by our good friend, Earnest G. Marshall. Kitty suffered post-abortion sepsis, and was admitted to the hospital by her doctor -- the one who warned that this sort of thing might happen if some foolhardy abortionist tinkered with Kitty's reproductive tract.

Mrs. King's lawyer said, "Planned Parenthood Association of Central Indiana, Inc., Delbert Culp and Rhonda Gerson, improperly and unlawfully interjected themselves between the common law relationship of parent and child...violated the letter, spirit and intention of the Temporary Restraining Orders." "[T]he life, health and future well being of ...[Kitty]...were endangered, and in fact ...[Kitty]...suffered appreciable pain and suffering, physical injury, high fever, cramps, nausea, vomiting, ... the full extent of the physical harm done to said [Kitty]...may not be known for some years."

A court later dismissed the restraining order on the grounds that there were some technical flaws in the wording, and that Indiana law does grant non-custodial parents to consent to minors' abortions over the objections of the custodial parent. The court also held that by forbidding Planned Parenthood to tell Kitty how to weasel around the laws and restraining orders, the restraining order violated free speech.

As for Marshall, he said that he'd found no abnormalities when examining Kitty, and that "It would not have made any difference to my procedure or evaluation if I had been told about the allegation in the Temporary Restraining Order regarding an abnormality of [Kitty's] womb or cervix." Marshall also said that the fact that the abortion did in fact harm Kitty -- she was, after all, hospitalized for sepsis, a potentially lethal complication --was of no concern to him.

Kitty herself later filed suit against Planned Parenthood, alleging that Gerson urged the abortion on her because of her youth and immaturity. Kitty said that "The Defendants actively and aggressively encouraged the Plaintiff to obtain an abortion." She said that they contacted her father to assure him that Kitty's mother would never have to know about the abortion, that it could be passed off as a miscarriage. Kitty also asserted that had she been fully appraised of the risks she never would have undergone the abortion.

Given the choice of who to stand behind -- Kitty and her mother and women like them, or the abortionist who sent Kitty home with a potentially fatal complication -- the ACLU chose to ignore Kitty and back the abortionist.

And given a chance to defend their decision, the ACLU has declined to respond.

Previous articles

Like this link graphic? Click here to learn how to add it to your web page.