Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Oct 21 2016

Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Scalia Amendment”

untitled-1In this government of the people, by the people, for the people, the United States Supreme Court shall be without the power to abridge, alter or amend the legislative power granted exclusively to Congress pursuant to Article I Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

The constitutionality of any federal law passed by the Congress shall be determined by the peoples’ representatives in the Congress themselves, subject only to the veto power of the President. A law so passed and signed by the President is then a valid constitutional law, there being no power under the Constitution given to the United States Supreme Court or lesser courts to “interpret” that law so as to amend, alter or abridge the law. Any authority of the United States Supreme Court or lesser courts to interpret the constitutionality of a law, federal or state, is hereby canceled.

As an unelected politically appointed body*, the United States Supreme Court and lesser federal courts are not empowered to revise state or federal laws. The United States Supreme Court and lesser federal courts shall also be without power to abridge, alter or amend the authority of the states to govern their citizens pursuant to the power to do so conferred by the Ninth (9th) and Tenth (10th) Amendments to the Constitution.

When a state law conflicts with a federal law of the same nature, the federal law shall govern.
Click Here To Download PDF of Full Proposed Amendment.

Comments Off on Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Scalia Amendment”

Feb 25 2016

Newsletter – March 2016




Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

The funeral Mass for Justice Scalia held at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. (largest Basilica in North America) was packed to overflowing on Saturday, February the 20th.  As with all great men, even their detractors come to pay their respects.

Without knowing he was doing so at the time, Justice Scalia left us with a parting critique on his Court and its threat to American democracy. He did so in the dissent he wrote in the Obergefell case (homosexual marriage case) on June 26, 2015. He began with these words.

“I join the Chief Justice’s opinion in full.  I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

He continues:

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

He returns to his earlier point for emphasis:

”A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

In the next paragraph, he picks this theme up again.

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

He adds:

“But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Justice Scalia was one to choose his words carefully. He used the term “judicial putsch”.  Webster’s defines “putsch” as “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.”

Unless Justice Scalia’s words are heeded (and you will want to read through his entire dissent which is enclosed) the death knell for American democracy has been sounded by him and could just as well have been added to the funeral Mass.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

P.S. Justice Scalia, of course, knew that he would not change his brethren on the Court by lecturing them.  He was issuing a clarion call to all of us in the nation to stand against this.

In this government of, by and for the people there is a way and perhaps the only way to bring about the change Justice Scalia has called for – a CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT.

Justice Scalia in truth has given us a modern day update on what were the prophetic words of Thomas Jefferson when he spoke out as President against John Marshall’s self-proclaimed power for the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution (see back of the enclosed proposed constitutional amendment which could just as well be renamed the SCALIA AMENDMENT).

As President of the United States Thomas Jefferson stated in 1803:

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.  It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Justice Scalia in his dissent echoes Jefferson’s use of the word oligarchy when he refers to an “unelected committee of nine”.

Abraham Lincoln echoed the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address:

“If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court… the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers…”

Justice Scalia echoes both Jefferson and Lincoln in his dissent:

”This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

The need for a constitutional amendment to be aptly termed the “Scalia Amendment” needs to be a part of the political debates this election year.

Comments Off on Newsletter – March 2016

Feb 25 2016

Supreme Court of the United States




Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574














on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

June 26, 2015

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.[1] Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.[2]

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”[3] denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,[4] prohibiting the free exercise of religion,[5] abridging the freedom of speech,[6] infringing the right to keep and bear arms,[7] authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,[8] and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”[9] can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[10]

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[11]

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.[12] We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.[13] That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”[14] One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”[15] The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”[16] Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.[17]

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers [18] who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans[19]), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.[20] They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,[21] cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.[22] Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”[23] (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”[24] (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”[25] (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”[26] With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.


1  Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, p. 14.

2  Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 15–17).

3  U. S. Const., Art. I, §10.

4  Art. IV, §1.

5  Amdt. 1.

6  Ibid.

7  Amdt. 2.

8  Amdt. 4.

9  Amdt. 10.

10  United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).

12  See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8).

13  Ante, at 10.

14  Ante, at 11.

15  Ibid.

16  Ante, at 10–11.

17  Ante, at 12–18.

18  The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14–571 and 14–574, pp. 1–5.

19  See Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015).

20  Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003).

21  Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (Alito, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7).

22  If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

23  Ante, at 13.

24  Ante, at 19.

25  Ibid.

26  The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).

Comments Off on Supreme Court of the United States

Nov 28 2015

Supplement – November 2015





Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,


Our nation and indeed the world, longs for victory over our common enemy: ISIS.  King David, long ago, wrote a psalm of praise for victory over enemies: Psalm 9.  The pastors of our churches need to take it up at this time and preach it in their homilies and sermons to their congregations.


But before “victory” must first come the battle.  As battle-worn as America is these past 14 years since 9/11 2001, the battle is not over yet.  Indeed, a new phase has begun in this war of terror.  We need the God of Heaven’s Armies on our side.  How do we do that?  King David and others told us.  Moses had learned and taught the lesson.


God is an all-loving, all-forgiving God, but His patience is tried when we cast Him aside for other gods.  He is a jealous God and rightfully and righteously so!  Moses and King David would be among the first to tell us that God sometimes punishes his people, whom He loves, by allowing their enemies to overrun their camps and to scale the walls of their cities fine (the twin towers).  There are examples in scripture where God even raises up a fierce, merciless enemy to punish His people who have turned their back upon Him and have begun to embrace as a people, as a nation, those things which are abominable to Him.


It is one thing when individuals sin against God and commit that which is abomination.  It becomes quite another thing when the King (or in a democracy, the President) of a nation champions that which is an abomination to God (the killing of preborn children; homosexuality) and appoints members to the nation’s high court (in the U.S. our Supreme Court) to memorialize immorality and the breaking of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (abortion) in the law.


On June 26, 2015 our own nation’s high court sought to make sodomy a sacrament.  They sought to elevate it to the altars of the people’s houses of worship.  Sin is sin in the eyes of God.  The desire to change that on the part of the King with an edict of the courts cannot and does not change that. But it’s the same old story, God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.


Billy Graham spoke to the nation from the Washington National Cathedral three days following 9/11 at the invitation of President Bush.  His words were appropriate then and have become urgent today.  (Click here to view a portion of Billy Graham’s speech.)


On June 26, 2015, (the Supreme Court’s legalization of ‘homosexual marriage’) the stench of the sin that this nation is permitting and even fostering reached high heaven.


Not one of our governors has had the courage to stand against this.  Only a few humble court clerks.  They know it’s wrong and even if it costs them their job, they refuse to issue ‘marriage’ licenses for that which is not a marriage, but which only makes a mockery of God’s holy institution of matrimony.


Psalm 9 is King David’s psalm of praise for victory over enemies.  It is God and God alone that gives the true victory.  American needs a national ‘Day of Prayer and Remembrance’, calling for a spiritual renewal in our land and asking God for forgiveness.   This President will not call for it. The governors need to step forward and have the courage to do so.  They need to borrow a page from the statesman Ronald Reagan who, before he took his oath of office for his second term, let it be known that his mother’s Bible, upon which he would place his hand, would be opened to Second Chronicles 7:14 because he believed it was a message to our nation at that time.





Yours very sincerely and respectfully,


R. Martin Palmer


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Supplement – November 2015

Oct 17 2015

Newsletter – October 2015




Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

Albert Einstein said there are only two things that might be infinite: the universe and human stupidity.  And, he confessed, he wasn’t sure about the universe.

Imagine 300 million people allowing themselves to be ruled by one unelected man!  On June 26, 2015, one man – Justice Kennedy – was the tiebreaking swing vote that legalized homosexual marriage.  His judgment was called into question by Four members of the Supreme Court, including Chief Judge Roberts, saying it was the craziest thing they ever heard.  Four other judges said it would be the best thing since sliced bread, making a toss up between the good guys and the bad guys, depending upon which side you’re on.

Our forefathers did not intend the Supreme Court to be the “Supreme Deity” with authority to change the moral order of the nation, and yet one unelected man has swung the vote of an oligarchy of 9 unelected judges (not the people’s elected representatives). Human stupidity and cowardice allows it.

Thomas Jefferson, who was neither stupid, nor a coward, predicted that the Supreme Court would eventually become an OLIGARCHY if the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison (by which the court contrived sole power to “interpret” the Constitution) was allowed to stand. It did and it has.  As Jefferson predicted, “INTERPRETATION” has given the court the thoroughfare on which to accelerate and expand it’s power until today we see it has Crowned itself as the “Supreme Being”.

So what’s the solution: The solution is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to divest the court of their self-proclaimed power to “interpret” the Constitution.  One has been proposed and may be found at  Click on the icon “Thomas Jefferson Amendment.”


Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

Attorney at Law, Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court since October 1977


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – October 2015

Sep 02 2015

Newsletter – September 2015



Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

If we are to remain fully human, our nation needs to purge the horrors committed by Planned Parenthood.  We need to start by defunding Planned Parenthood. Governors are proving to have more courage than the Congress.

Dee Becker, whom you all know as a great stalwart for Life, has written the enclosed letter to her Governor which she shared with us.  You may wish to write a similar letter to your own Governor. We need to challenge them to take action immediately against these unconscionable acts of Planned Parenthood.

The states of Arkansas and Utah recently joined Alabama, Louisiana and New Hampshire in defunding Planned Parenthood.  Twelve other states have opened “investigations” into defunding Planned Parenthood. Both the U.S. Congress and the states need to defund it while any investigation is pending, otherwise “investigations” are simply stalling tactics for Governors and members of Congress without courage. We need to be asking the question “Would our Governors and elected Representatives have us first launch an “investigation” into whether or not we should vote for them and take polls or would they have us vote for them simply because we believe in them?  Do they believe in the right, and do they have the courage to act on the right and stand against the wrong?  Or do they want to have ‘investigations’ while they are waiting for the polls to come in or for the uproar to die out?”

The Obama Administration is threatening to cut off Medicaid funding to states whose Governors act to defund Planned Parenthood.  Several years ago, Texas defunded Planned Parenthood.  At the time, the Obama Administration threatened to cut off Medicaid funding to the state.  Governor Perry responded by having the state of Texas itself fund Medicaid.  The Governors need to borrow a page from Governor Rick Perry’s book and act immediately while directing their state Attorney General to challenge the Obama Administration in court (Yes, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court) on the unconstitutionality of the current Administration threatening to use Medicaid funding as a political tool.

The Alabama State Finance and Taxation General Fund Committee recently approved a bill to make selling aborted babies’ body parts a class B felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison, under Alabama state law.  A twelve to one vote on the proposed bill sent it to the full state Senate.  We will want to watch to see if this passes in Alabama and more states need to follow this example.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer


P.S.  In a last ditch effort to win favor for continued funding, Planned Parenthood is saying that they provide other health services to women.  We need to share with our Governors and Representatives the enclosed story of a college co-ed whose parents misdirected her to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care when she discovered she was pregnant. Read her story and see what happened.


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Woman Recalls Planned Parenthood Visit:

“They Said They Don’t Have Doctors for Pregnant Women”

When the fifth Planned Parenthood video was released, America got a startling peek inside the Houston Planned Parenthood “mega-center.”

But for a young woman named Addison, it was a second look.

The building, which resembles a cash register, has a whole floor devoted to surgical abortions, which we now see also houses a fetal parts procurement center. But since Planned Parenthood tries to present itself as a women’s health center, that’s how Addison ended up there – a decision she says she still regrets today – even though she stood up to them when they repeatedly suggested she abort her baby.

At the age of 17, just four years ago, Addison was a freshman at the University of Houston, which is near this Planned Parenthood. Her pregnancy that October was a shock, and she was further surprised when she found out Planned Parenthood wouldn’t help her – because she wanted to keep her baby.

Addison’s parents, five hours away and uninformed about the true nature of Planned Parenthood, innocently suggested she go there for an official pregnancy test and prenatal help. She was uninsured, due to her dad’s changing employment, and her parents had always heard the rhetoric that Planned Parenthood was there to help uninsured women and provide them with a full range of their health care needs. Abortion was never an option they considered.

Addison and her fiancé headed to the Houston Planned Parenthood for a blood test. There were no freebies for uninsured Addison here; her fiancé had to pay $70 for the test. “They told me the charge first thing,” she says. But that wasn’t the part that drove her off.

They sat in the waiting room for two hours, and when they called her, they wouldn’t allow her fiancé go back with her for the test, despite the fact that she was uncomfortable and hated needles. So while he sat waiting, Addison was taken to a back room, then to an exam room where she waited another hour before a Planned Parenthood employee came in. That employee proceeded to ask her questions about how many sexual partners she had, about her sexual relationship with her fiancé, and other personal things. Then she asked Addison the magic question: “Do you want to have an abortion if you’re pregnant?” When Addison told her no, the woman replied, “Well, you are only seventeen. You really need to make sure you’re ready for parenting and consider abortion.” Addison was only there for a pregnancy test and prenatal care and was opposed to abortion.

When Planned Parenthood later called to confirm Addison was pregnant, the staffer said, “We know you said you didn’t want an abortion in your visit today, but we wanted to make sure that is still the case?” Addison says, “I said I did not want an abortion and hung up.”

But she called back for prenatal help anyway:

The same day I called them and told them that I had a blood test and it confirmed pregnancy, and I needed to see if I could see a doctor about prenatal care, and what I could and couldn’t do [to] keep the baby healthy.

They then told me that unless I had a sexually transmitted disease or wanted an abortion that they could no longer help me. I said “So y’all do not help pregnant women?” They told me no, that they didn’t have doctors for pregnant women.

Addison says she discovered that the six-story building that advertised itself as a women’s health center and claimed to care for poor women was really there for abortion, STD treatment and birth control. She says she thought to herself, “I thought this was Planned Parenthood, not once-you’re-pregnant-we-can’t-help-you.”

Eventually, she ended up at a hospital with cramps, and found out she was 10 weeks along instead of the four she had estimated, but her baby didn’t make it; Addison had a miscarriage.

Addison’s eyes are now opened to the nature of Planned Parenthood as an organization:

I think normal people have a misconstrued view of what [Planned Parenthood] is. I am 100% against abortion. I have seen so many people struggle to get pregnant and think adoption is an amazing thing. I wouldn’t give my child up because I have my fiancé and family to help, but if I didn’t, adoption would be an option.

Addison was one of the women the abortion powerhouse claims to exist to help, but she was charged full price for the blood test she received (despite being uninsured), and she was sent away when she didn’t want to consider abortion, an option offered to her several times over the course of her short relationship with Planned Parenthood. To Addison, the “women’s health care” claims listed on the many Planned Parenthood websites really mean “we’ll examine you, give you birth control, and kill your baby if it fails.”

Today, Addison is 21. She and her fiancé are married with a 6-month old son. But when the fifth undercover Planned Parenthood video was released, the pain and anger came back to her in a flash. She still wonders if, had she been able to get prenatal care, she might have sustained her pregnancy. While she will never know that for certain, the idea haunts her.

Throughout her pregnancy with her son, she was amazed by the care and compassion of her own OB/GYN, and she says she learned so much about how to care for her body and keep her baby healthy—something she asked Planned Parenthood to help her do the first time around. “I had no idea what you even needed back then and no idea how I could get that help,” she says.

To her, the fetal parts revelations coming from that same clinic – Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast – make sense to her. She says:

No wonder they wanted to abort my baby. They could charge me for an abortion and make money selling its body parts.

Addison learned the hard way that Planned Parenthood wasn’t about affordable women’s healthcare. She’s just thankful she didn’t let Planned Parenthood talk her into aborting her child.

LifeNews Note:  Susan Michelle Tyrrell writes for Live Action News.


Congress Must Defund Planned Parenthood Immediately


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

CLICK HERE to view Ms. Dee Becker’s (Charter Member and Vice President, March for Life, Washington, D.C.) letter to the Governor of Delaware regarding the responsibility of defunding of Planned Parenthood.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

We are made in the image of God

We are not made for spare parts



Comments Off on Newsletter – September 2015

Aug 20 2015



The legalization of abortion by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 (with a 7-2 vote in the court case of Roe vs. Wade) removed restrictions on the practice of abortions.  This law was based on the presumption that it was unconstitutional to restrict abortions because such modern advances in medicine provided a relatively “safe” procedure for women receiving an abortion.  They decided that regulating abortions would be unconstitutional, and the Justices declared that abortions were a “service” to women’s health.  This decision was reached 42 years ago.  Some 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year, so what do we know today with regard to abortion being a “safe procedure” for women?

Perhaps you are aware of some of the physical dangers to women undergoing an abortion.  Are you aware that there are over one hundred potential risks associated with abortion?  There is no dispute in the fact that there are greater risk increases to women during abortion with each passing week of gestation, but women at all stages of pregnancy and following the abortion procedure are subject to minor risks, i.e. minor infections, bleeding, fevers, chronic abdominal pain, gastrointestinal disturbances and vomiting.  Some of the more major concerns that are likely not to be discussed or checked post abortion are: blood clots, incomplete abortions, excessive bleeding or hemorrhaging, serious infection, injury to the cervix and other organs, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, renal failure, metabolic disorder, shock, missed ectopic pregnancy, ripping or perforation of the uterus and death.

The fifth leading cause of maternal death in the U.S. is a result of abortions, but in fact, most related deaths are not officially reported as being a result of abortion.  There is even more veiled information on problems that occur after abortion


Breast Cancer

As early as April of 1957, the first published report of the link between abortions and breast cancer was published.  (See the following links for more information)

Since the Justices legalized abortion 42 years ago based on relative safety for women, breast cancer among woman who have aborted has increased 50%.  Why do we not have more public awareness on this information?   Why is the U.S. National Cancer Institute down-playing this information on their website, as well as the American Cancer Society, despite the fact that there have been studies concluding the link between abortion and breast cancer?  Perhaps the answer is very simple, political pressures by pro-choice politicians do not want these findings to be spread by the media because of the likely affect it will have on the legality of abortion, which more importantly, will impact the donations made to U.S. politicians from the U.S. abortion industry.

Cervical, Ovarian and Liver Cancer

These cancers occur for the same reason as breast cancer.  The increase in cervical, ovarian and liver (and breast) cancer are due to the negative impact and disruptive changes in a woman’s normal hormone balance when pregnant.  Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, articulates similar sentiments about organizations in the United States who attempt to sweep the link between abortion and breast cancer under the rug.  “The failure of the leaders of U.S. cancer ‘charities’ and leftist women’s groups to blow the whistle about the [abortion-breast cancer] link shows what frauds they are,” said Malec. She said, regardless of the fact that they present their agenda as a call for improving “women’s health” through “safe abortion,” activists promoting abortion around the world would “rather see millions die of breast cancer before they’d admit abortion raises risk.”  Malec also references a number of other studies conducted in India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka that come to the same conclusion.  Studies also indicate that there are other significant long-term physical impacts of abortion on women, including major issues in future pregnancies and greater risk of other cancers such as cervical, ovarian, and liver.


Long-term complications can be due to immediate complications from abortion resulting in sterility.  Sterility is even more of a risk when women, at the time of abortion, are infected with a venereal disease.  (See

Placenta Previa

This refers to complications due to abnormal development of the placenta.  Possible uterine damage during abortion causes this abnormal development which is life threatening to mother and wanted child alike.  (See

Premature Births

During an abortion, the cervix will be opened artificially.  When stretching the cervical muscle to abort a baby, the cervical muscle can be torn.  Following abortion, a woman’s wanted pregnancy, could be affected by the cervix opening prematurely because the cervix muscle remained weakened from the tear during the abortion, causing delivery of the baby before its full development.

Perforation of the Uterus

Most often this complication will not be diagnosed or treated after abortion.  Only laparoscopic visualization will detect a uterine perforation.  Difficulties may occur in later pregnancies, with the possibility of a hysterectomy, for women who have suffered a uterine perforation.

  1. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 161:406-408, August 1989; M. White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 129:623 (1977). D. Grimes, et al., “Prevention of uterine perforation During Curettage Abortion,” JAMA, 251:2108-2111 (1984); D. Grimes, et al.,”Local versus General Anesthesia: Which is Safer For Performing Suction Abortions?” Am. J. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135:1030 (1979).

Ectopic Pregnancy

It is known that abortion significantly increases the rate of ectopic future pregnancies and are life threatening, as well as resulting in reduction of fertility., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion”, American Journal of Public Health (1982), vol.72,p253; C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115(6):879-887 (1982)

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID)

PID is life threatening and can increase risk of ectopic pregnancies.  It is important that prior to abortions screening is done for infections and treatment provided.

  1. Radberg, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatis in Relation to Infections Following First Trimester Abortions,” Acta Obstricia Gynoecological (Supp. 93), 54:478 (1980); L. Westergaard, “Significance of Cervical Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Post-abortal Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 60(3):322-325, (1982); M. Chacko, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatosis Infection in Sexually Active Adolescents: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” Pediatrics, 73(6), (1984); M. Barbacci, et al., “Post- Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668-690, (1986); S. Duthrie, et al., “Morbidity After Termination of Pregnancy in First-Trimester,” Genitourinary Medicine 63(3):182-187, (1987).

Handicapped Newborns in Later Pregnancies

We have looked at risks from abortion due to cervical and uterine damage, and that they may cause premature delivery in later pregnancies as well as complications during labor and abnormal development of the placenta.  These issues are the leading causes of a woman’s future babies being born with handicaps.

Hogue, Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review”, Family Planning Perspectives (May-June 1983),vol.15, no.3.. Jacobsson B, Hagberg G, Hagberg B, Ladfors L, Niklasson A, Hagberg A. Cerebral Palsy in preterm infants: a population-based case-control study of antenatal and intrapartal risk factors. Acta Paediatrica 2002;91:946-951. Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost consequences of induced abortion as an attributable risk for preterm birth and informed consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-939.



In addition to these physical complications with abortion, we need to be informed regarding Post Abortion Syndrome.  For decades there has been medical evidence that after abortion there are substantial psychological risks.  Again, these difficulties are not given the discussion and follow up necessary to make a woman prepared and aware of these possibilities prior to abortion.

The following are recognized Post Abortion Syndrome symptoms:

  • Guilt, according to the dictionary, is a feeling of having committed wrong or having failed in an obligation. Although women acknowledge that an abortion was their choice, this life changing decision can be made without thought or understanding of the feelings and emotions that will follow.  Most women are making decisions to abort too quickly due to their perceived “undesirable circumstances” and they feel pressured to find a quick solution to their pregnancy.  Women expect to feel relief after an abortion, but fail to realize the emotions of loss and failure that can follow, which are devastating and relentless.
  • Experiencing a psychotic disorder – This can occur within two weeks of an abortion and is characterized as a short break from reality for the post abortion woman, requiring psychiatric care.
  • Women may have disturbing and recurring thoughts reliving memories or having nightmares centered around thoughts of their damaged and lost aborted babies.
  • Anxiety and feelings of loss at the anniversary of the aborted babies due date and/or abortion date.
  • Women may be irrationally fixated on having another pregnancy to replace the aborted baby.
  • Possible bonding disruption may occur (over or under-bonding with current and/or future children).
  • Depression leading to possible suicide; increased risk of alcohol abuse which can lead to violent behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, job loss, and, abortion can be linked to higher drug abuse with the same negative outcomes as alcohol use. (Elliot Institute) Other self-destructive and abusive behaviors can include eating disorders, failure to maintain good health, increased promiscuity and involvement in abusive relationships.  “Abortion is Four Times Deadlier than Childbirth.” Elliot Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-7348. Healing After Abortion by Teri k. Reisser, M.S., M.F.T. and Paul C. Reisser, M.D., 2002


Please CLICK here for additional information from Focus on the Family on Post Abortion Syndrome.


The biggest misconception about legalizing abortions, and the most dangerous assumption made by the Justices 42 years ago in the ruling of Roe vs. Wade is that abortions are now safe.  Women believe that they will be in capable hands with the abortionist, in clean sterile environments and that after the abortion there will remain only relief.  However, we have tried to point out a few of the physical and psychological risks involved that can result in devastating complications both immediately after an abortion and/or in the future.  These are very real concerns surrounding damage that can occur to women who abort.    The Justices have made a serious error in judgment, thinking that abortion is “safe for women,” and now there is more than enough proof to the contrary.  What can we do?  We need to re-evaluate our abortion policy in light of these important facts.  If indeed 42 years ago abortion was believed to be safe for women due to medical advancements, we have obtained a good deal more data and research in our current day that proves otherwise.  It is time to re-word our national abortion policy to state that abortions are not safe to women’s health and, therefore, abortion regulations are constitutional and must be reinstated for the protection of women’s health “services!!!”


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.


May 06 2015

3 Parent Embryo


Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

The Obama Administration is on the fast track to approve “Three Parent In Vitro Fertilization” (TPIVF) for our nation. They are doing this NOT by having their liberal sympathizers propose legislation in the Congress. They are NOT even doing this by submitting the question to the National Institute of Health which back in 1994 was given the question of human embryo experimentation by the Clinton administration. NIH held public hearings as they are required to do. The hearings were open. The proceedings were transcribed and printed in the Federal Register as is required by law .

We brought suit to halt human embryo experimentation in 1994 and with an Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the suit effectively held it at bay for the balance of the Clinton administration until President Bush took off ice and issued an executive order prohibiting human embryo experimentation with a narrowly circumscribed exception that he outlined in his speech to the nation on August 9, 2001. As we know, when President Obama was elected, he immediately issued his own executive order; countermanding President Bush’s and giving the green light for human embryo experimentation to go forward.

In pressing to go forward with three parent human embryos and hence three parent children, the administration is cleverly bypassing both the Congress and NIH and has handed the question off instead to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . We think of the FDA as ordinarily approving the safety of a new antibiotic or drug. The FDA has itself turned to something called the “Institute of Medicine” (IOM) for an “ethics opinion” on 3 parent embryos. The IOM is an independent non-profit organization that works outside of the federal government and ” THE Goo WHO GAVE us LIFE GAVE us LIBERTY AT THE SAME TIME” … THOMAS JEFFERSON. Therefore is not required to publish its proceedings in the Federal Register . Congress reads the Federal Register, but none of this is showing up in the Federal Register. How many members of the Congress even know what’s going on? Most of the hearings held by the Institute of Medicine are closed sessions and when they are open, they choose ahead of time who will be allowed to speak.

Karen Betts in our office has been doing her best to ascertain what’s going on at these sessions held by the Institute of Medicine . Enclosed is a very informative memo she’s written me on this. Karen also ran across a blog by Chelsea Zimmerman, a very astute writer and editor for some Catholic publications , which is enclosed for your edification. One can view a video and agenda of the meetings of the Institute of Medicine at:

For more information contact Michael Berrios, 202-334-3494, Keck Center, 500 Fifth St., NW, Washington DC 20001, Email:

The next meeting of the IOM is scheduled for May 19 at 10 am. One hour will be allowed for public comment. Anyone wishing to sign up may, but they will receive only 3 minutes apiece. And the two remaining meetings after that are closed to the public. In truth, they don’t want public input. In truth, they’ve made up their minds ahead of time. In truth, they are only pretending that there is a well thought out and balanced decision making process here. Transparency has had the drawstring of the blackout curtains pulled around it. Congress needs to be informed and this matter taken out of the hands of the FDA and taken up by the Congress itself as representatives of the people where it properly belongs.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

Please Click Here To Download Entire PDF

Comments Off on 3 Parent Embryo

Apr 01 2015

Newsletter – April 2015



Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child:

The DVD we sent you last month was a video that plays in your DVD video player. Since I indicated it was of Father Stevens singing, “Prayer for the Preborn Child,” some of you mistakenly thought it was a CD like you can play in your car CD player. It is not. It’s a video. I sent a copy to Father Stevens and when I later spoke with him, he very humbly said, “I had forgotten about that.”  He, of course, had given his permission to send it around and his statement to me after viewing it himself was, “I hope it becomes the theme song of the pro-life movement.”

Click Here to watch Father Clifford Stevens sing the Anthem, Prayer for the Preborn Child

Click Here to download the words to the Anthem, Prayer for the Preborn Child

Winston Churchill spoke for all of England and the free world when he stood stalwartly and heroically against Hitler and the Nazi party and all that they stood for, including their desire to “perfect the race.” Ironically, England has now become the first country in the world to take a step down this same misguided and treacherous path of “perfecting the race.”  Britain has approved legislation allowing for the conception of in vitro children by combining the eggs of two mothers, then fertilized by the sperm of one father.  The baby born from this has no single mother genetically, but rather two mothers and, in truth, is divorced from each one.

The Commandment says, “Honor thy father and thy mother,  that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”  (Exodus 20:12)  The word “mother” is singular, not plural.  What is being proposed is against the natural order and in contravention of the Commandment.

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, put it well when he said:

“To put it simply, our children have the right to be procreated, not produced. They have the right to come into the world in the personal, love-giving embrace of their parents, not in the cold and impersonal glass world of test tube or Petri dish.  They have the right to be uniquely, exclusively and directly related to the mother and father who bring them into the world.  IVF ignores all of these rights of the child.”

Speaking of the IVF procedure that combines the eggs of two women, Father Pacholczyk continues:

“In the mitochondrial swapping scheme, it is significant that not just the mitochondria are “swapped” but actually all the other structures of the cell come from the second woman’s egg, including the mitochondria.  In summary then, we are not actually “repairing” a defective egg, but constructing a new, alternative and clearly different egg out of the contributions from two separate women.  The final egg produced really belongs to neither woman, so that the technological manipulations introduce a fissure between any child conceived from the engineered egg and both “mothers.”  The child becomes “distanced” or “orphaned” from both women involved in the process.”

Like so much of devilish mischief, it’s initially presented to us in a sugar-coated way. The “sugar-coating” here that sold it to the British legislature is that it can ostensibly be used to correct genetic diseases and maladies.  The wealthy will be able to afford it.  Next, they’ll want not just to correct things, but to add things. They will want their child to be beautiful or handsome; of a certain intelligence; of a certain athletic ability; of a certain color of hair and eyes, etc.  If this technology had been available to Hitler and the Nazi’s, who knows where it would have led?  Who knows where it could lead today in the hands of some dictatorial leader in some other nation of the world?  The civilized world must stand against this!

Dr. Jerome Lejeune put it well when he said,  “Technology is cumulative; wisdom is not.”  Dr. Lejeune continued, “So now we must choose, and we need something which would tell us in every case what to do; some touchstone that would tell us what is good and what is evil.  There is a phrase. You know it.  If the politicians remember it, they can always make honest laws.  If the technicians do not forget it, technology will remain an honest servant to humanity; but if both of them forget it, then you would have to deal with a very denatured biology and there would be A VERY DIM FUTURE FOR MANKIND!”

“This phrase – you know it – it judges everything forever.”  It simply says, “As you have done unto the least of these, you did it unto me.”

Yours Very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

P.S.  Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard.  He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA and serves as the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.  See

Click Here to download our Newsletter in PDF format

Click here to stay up-to-date on news and announcements from NAAPC.

Comments Off on Newsletter – April 2015

May 17 2010

A Symphony of the Preborn Child

Published by under Featured,Uncategorized

Dr. Jerome Lejeune

An epoch-making trial took place in Maryville, Tennessee in August of 1989. Judge W. Dale Young of the Blount County Circuit Court was called upon to decide a case of first impression in the world. Continue Reading »


No responses yet

  • Suggested Videos

    Professor LeJeune speaks at the Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, DC.