Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Court rulings’ Category

US MDDS expert Michio Hirano

Around the world, millions are holding their breath during this crucial two day period for baby Charlie Gard, still on life-support in a London hospital, despite the hospital’s strong opposition.

Charlie is being examined onsite Monday by Michio Hirano, a neurologist at Columbia University Medical Center, who is a world-renowned expert in myopathies and other neuromuscular diseases similar to Charlie’s devastating problems, and at least one other outside physician.

Dr. Hirano is meeting with Charlie’s current immediate care team and other specialists, including a doctor from the Vatican children’s hospital.  According to the Daily Mail, the two doctors “will examine Charlie and will have access to his notes and clinical data, including medical images.” Another story suggests a third doctor, from Spain, will also take part in the evaluation.

As reported this morning in the Times/the Brief, “there is still a chance for a mediated settlement” in the legal proceeding surrounding Charlie, because Mr. Justice Francis of the UK High Court said Friday,

that if all parties agreed on Charlie being transferred to the U.S. for treatment, ‘I will agree it with you.’ ”

The problem, obviously, is in the “all” part. It is almost inconceivable that the hospital which has held Charlie virtually hostage will agree to allow him to travel to the U.S. (See below.)

It would appear that the transfer out of London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) for alternative treatment  (sought since January by Charlie’s parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates) can only happen if the original judge now rehearing the matter–Justice Nicholas Francis–becomes convinced:

  1. that a multi-disciplinary panel agrees that recent scientific developments merit a new look at Charlie’s situation, and
  2. GOSH clinicians change their mind that Charlie is in an irredeemable condition, unworthy of experimental therapy.

Charlie Gard has MDDS

That is why, at this moment, a uniquely qualified New York scientist, Dr. Michio Hirano, is in London evaluating Charlie, who has MDDS (Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome). After thirty years of studying this condition, the Harvard-trained Dr. Hirano has pioneered an oral additive that mitigates the MDDS deficiency in which every cell of the body cannot process and replenish essential energy.

In testimony given Thursday via videoconferencing, Dr. Hirano said there was an “11% to 56% chance of clinically meaningful improvement” in muscular function with the proposed treatment and that he expected a “small but significant” improvement in Charlie’s brain function.

According to the Times’ report, Dr. Hirano is meeting today with the GOSH team treating Charlie,  “and possibly two other specialists – one from the Pope’s pediatric hospital in Rome and one from Barcelona.”

Dr. Hirano was given GOSH privileges and ushered onsite through the back door this morning, reports the Daily Mail. A meeting with all clinicians and Charlie’s mother will take place either today or tomorrow.

The High Court will then rule on Charlie’s case on or about July 25, ironically ten days before Charlie’s first birthday.

PARENTS’ UPHILL BATTLE
GOSH is a children’s hospital whose slogan is “the child first and always.” Here are some excerpts from the website’s updated statement on the Charlie Gard matter.  None of them suggest they are open to releasing Charlie.

  • Our doctors have explored every medical treatment, including experimental nucleoside therapies.
  • Independent medical experts agreed with our clinical team that this treatment would be unjustified.
  • [we’re] bound by the ruling of the High Court which expressly forbids us from transferring Charlie for nucleoside therapy anywhere…
  • The ruling also states that it is in Charlie’s best interests for artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, and for his clinicians to provide him with palliative care only.

Officially, GOSH has not changed its mind about the “futility” of treating Charlie. Its own staff admittedly had considered using Dr. Hirano’s nucleoside bypass therapy on their own premises for Charlie, but reversed course in January, after what they said was a 17 day occurrence of epileptic seizures that left him irreversibly brain-damaged.

Expert testimony last Friday, however, raised doubts that there was MRI confirmation of that. Justice Francis ruled that if Charlie’s parents agreed, another scan could be taken this past weekend.

Also on Friday, Charlie’s parents exploded with frustration in court when the hospital said they should be excluded from this week’s make-or-break physician meetings. The Daily Mail recounts that, after GOSH attorney Katie Gollop said clinicians may not be able to “speak freely” with the couple present, Chris Gard shouted, ”’He’s our son!”

Justice Francis initially agreed with Gollop, but then was persuaded by the argument from the parents’ attorney,

“that it would be unfair for the baby’s mother to be excluded while Great Ormond Street doctors – with their ‘incredibly entrenched view’ of Charlie’s fate – were allowed in.”

The judge granted permission for Connie to attend the meeting with her promise not to “disrupt” the experts’ debate.

Atty Butler-Cole

What continually astounds followers of this saga is how Charlie’s admirable parents are at the mercy of the government, and are denied decision-making rights. Chris and Connie believe strongly that they should be their son’s voice in court proceedings deciding his fate.

Instead, as examined in the Telegraph, Charlie’s “voice” in these adversarial proceedings is a guardian represented by a publicly-appointed attorney with “what looks like a profound conflict of interest.”  The attorney,  whose role is to protect Charlie’s “best interests” in court, has been Victoria Butler-Cole, chairman of Britain’s Compassion in Dying, the sister body of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. This disturbs the Gard family, according to the Telegraph’s inside source.

Against unprecedented adversity, Chris and Connie have fought to secure “just a chance” for Charlie to get the pioneering MDDS oral treatment from Dr. Hirano. Today, against all odds, that result is closer than ever.

Read Full Post »

Charlie Gard’s parents, fighting to remove him from London hospital

UPDATE, July 14: Judge announces today he’ll rule July 25, following results from Columbia Univ. neurology prof. Michio Hirano, who will examine Charlie July 17&18 in London hospital.

A decision whether London parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, will be allowed to leave the country to obtain experimental treatment for their rapidly failing son Charlie  will be held off at least another day or two after a hearing this afternoon in the UK High Court of Justice Nicholas Francis.

That hearing was not without fireworks and a dramatic exit by the parents who vehemently insisted their views had been misrepresented by Justice Francis.

No final court ruling is expected for days, for at least two reasons:

1)   further measurement of Charlie’s head–to verify/repudiate brain loss– was ordered to be provided tomorrow. The hospital is insisting that there has been no growth in the size of Charlie’s skull over the past three months since Judge Francis gave the hospital permission to disconnect Charlie’s ventilator. The parents say flatly that is not so.

2)   an interdisciplinary panel is now to be convened immediately to attempt to bridge the gap between what the hospital is contending and what the parents and other outside experts on their side are saying.

UK Justice Francis

Charlie is very ill. He has an exceptionally rare and debilitating chromosomal condition –encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS)–in which his cells cannot replenish essential energy. However a natural compound, orally administered, has shown some success as a treatment in the United States. Chris and Connie have been working feverishly since January to get their son to the U.S. to receive that alternative treatment.

New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center and one other unnamed medical facility have offered to treat Charlie, either as an inpatient or by shipping the experimental nucleoside therapy drug to London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). But GOSH insists that the therapy has only worked on a variant of Charlie’s condition and would be pointless, if not also painful to the eleven month old child.

COURT VOLATILITY
Justice Francis emphasized going in that Thursday’s  proceeding was focused solely on new medical developments relevant to Charlie’s current status.

GOSH had requested the hearing after British Prime Minister Theresa May told Parliament she was confident the hospital would not ignore new developments. GOSH subsequently acted to request this hearing after receiving two letters – one from seven doctors and another from an attorney representing Charlie’s parents – claiming the chances of the treatment being successful were higher than previously thought.

Grant Armstrong, the parents’ lawyer in today’s hearing, presented testimony from medical experts that the chances were between 90 and 100% that the treatment being sought in the U.S. could “cross the blood-brain barrier” with as much as a 60% chance of Charlie experiencing muscular improvement, and “meaningful brain recovery.”

Fireworks erupted two hours into the hearing, however, when the judge referenced previous comments to the effect that Charlie’s parents would not want their son to continue living in his current condition were there no prospect of improvement.

According to press accounts, (the Guardian, CNN and AP) Chris Gard punched a table, and Connie exclaimed,

I never said that! We said he’s not in suffering and in pain. If he was we wouldn’t be up here fighting for that.

The judge attempted to clarify that one or the other of the parents had said it, but the couple abruptly left the courtroom. “I thought this [hearing] was supposed to be independent [impartial],” Chris said,

The hearing broke for lunch shortly afterwards and Charlie’s parents subsequently returned.  Justice Francis apologized for the earlier conflict, assuring them that the transcript of what they said has been found and they won’t be misquoted. What exactly he meant by that–for example whether he was retreating from what he had said–was not clear.

OVERSEAS EXPERT REBUTTAL
Questioning of the United States professor of neurology and specialist in mitochondrial disease took place via separate audio and video links. (Under Supreme Court order, none of the medical specialists are named.)

As tweeted by Sky News reporter, Jim Old who was in the courtroom, the unidentified expert said this treatment was the compassionate option. A model using mice genetically altered to match Charlie’s exact genes wouldn’t be available for at least six months.

The expert also pointed to the results so far as showing five out of nine patients with a nearly identical condition were able to reduce the amount of time they spent on a ventilator by eight hours a day or more, and that one patient was weaned off the ventilator altogether.

He  also called into question GOSH’s assertion that Charlie had brain damage, saying that MRI and EEG scans indicated “disorganization of brain activity but that does not necessarily indicate structural damage”.

Ultimately,this U.S. professor rebutted the assessment put to the court in the past that the chances of improving Charlie’s condition were “vanishingly small.”

After some long consultations among the attorneys, the judge announced the need for a multi-disciplinary meeting to take place “in a matter of days” in an attempt to hammer out a “consensus” opinion on how to proceed.

Friday’s court session is set for 2 pm to assess how close both parties are to arranging that meeting.

Fox & Friends with Charlie Gard spox

PARENTS’ ORDEAL CONTINUES
Gard family spokesman, Alisdair Seton Marsden, relayed that Connie and Chris are working under trying conditions “just to give Charlie a chance”…they feel strongly that, “if he’s still fighting, we’re still fighting.”

According to an interview on Fox & Friends this morning with Mr. Marsden, the special compound that Charlie’s parents want him to receive would merely be added to his feeding tube and medical advisors expect a 2-8 week timeline for seeing results. “It’s an additive found in corn flakes, how controversial can that be?” remarked the interviewer.

Mr. Marsden expressed the couple’s deep gratitude for the U.S. hospital offers of aid and the support from President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence. He revealed that an Air Ambulance had been ready for weeks to usher the family overseas and that the new petition in support of Charlie (citizenGO.org) was racing toward one million signatures.

Read Full Post »

Charlie & dad in hospital

After months of competing British headlines over the now international  battle to save baby Charlie Gard’s life, today’s UK Express  may clinch the title: “Donald Trump to roast Theresa May on the heartbreaking Charlie Gard situation’ at G20.”

The Express reports that President Trump has scheduled an hour long appointment with Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, during the time that world leaders assemble for the G2- world summit in Hamburg, Germany.

Thomas Hunt reported, “Although the reasons for the meeting have not officially been disclosed, the insider suggested the hour–long meeting, which will occur during the G20 summit in Hamburg, will center on the desperately ill 11–month–old boy. The source added the US President is said to have ‘a very good understanding of the whole case’.”
 
The same White House source told the Daily Mail last night
“The President is deeply moved by the heartbreaking situation facing Charlie Gard and his parents. Although the President himself has not spoken to the family, members of the administration, assisted by British officials, have done so. As a father and grandfather, President Trump understands the limitless love one has for a child and he wishes to be helpful to Charlie Gard and his family, as does Pope Francis and millions of families worldwide….he is willing to provide assistance should they need any.”

Prime Minister May faces seemingly ironclad rulings from three UK Courts  (The High Court, Appeal Court, and Supreme Court) and the European Court of Human Rights,  all sanctioning the removal of Charlie’s life support. It would appear they have not given her any wriggle-room when they insist Charlie’s “best interests” dictate he must die at the hospital.  Now.

His parents vehemently disagree and refuse to give up. Chris Gard and Connie Yates have waged a relentless battle against institutional power. Eleven-month-old Charlie has a rare and debilitating chromosomal condition in which his cells cannot replenish essential energy. A natural compound, orally administered, has shown some success as a treatment in the United States.
Going viral: I am Charlie Gard

Going viral: I am Charlie Gard

GLOBAL SOLIDARITY FOR CHARLIE
Last week, after all courts opposed life for Charlie, his death seemed imminent.  A weak promise not to rush the process from the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London met with a tidal wave of global solidarity for Charlie’s parents, including viral posts of multi-language “I am Charlie Gard” arm bracelets.

Various public protests and peaceful demonstrations  are increasing. Tonight Liverpool city landmarks are decked out in blue lights for Charlie.

Responding to Charlie’s plight, Pope Francis and President Trump tweeted encouragement to the Gard family.  Connie Yates responded in return, “The support from the Pope and the President has given us hope. They are traditional men who believe in the family.”

Other nations are said to be lobbying on Charlie’s behalf. The Daily Mail’s Martin Robinson reported “Yesterday it emerged the White House has been phoning the family and also the office of Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. And the international tug-of-love over Charlie intensified as Italy also urged Britain to help save him. The Italian Foreign Minister personally lobbied his counterpart Boris Johnson in a phone call between Rome and London.”

But Johnson rebuffed an offer from the Rome children’s hospital to have Charlie transferred there. Many Twitter users are urging President Trump to send his private plane to rescue Charlie. Get that baby on a jet and give him asylum!” said one.

And we know that the President reads tweets.

Read Full Post »

Ten month old Charlie Gard is very sick, but he has two awesome champions–his mom, Connie, and dad, Chris, without whom he most certainly would be dead.

Charlie is not only in the unenviable position of being on life-support against the fierce opposition of his London hospital, he is also now at the center of a developing “battle royale” between the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the British court system

At stake are three essential rights for Charlie: to be kept alive, to not be imprisoned [in the hospital] without cause, and to have his health care governed by his parents. These rights are expressed, respectively, by Articles 2, 5, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The UK Courts, however, have defended what seems indefensible:

  • that a hospital can hold a child hostage and overrule a decision by parents to obtain treatment elsewhere; and
  • that a hospital can determine that death is in the “best interests” of a child.

Further complicating matters is the current UK position on BREXIT (the decision to leave the EU) and decades of legal chafing over British laws and “human rights” rulings  that have been overturned by the ECHR.

Here is just one illustration of the swirling controversy. A hearing Monday in the chambers of the UK Supreme Court was to decide whether the ECHR instruction to keep Charlie on life support would– or even could– be followed.

The panel of three Supreme Court Justices (Hale, Kerr, and Wilson) expressed deep frustration. They said, “By granting a stay, even of short duration, we would in some sense be complicit in directing a course of action which is contrary to Charlie’s best interests.” 

In short, preserving Charlie’s life was not in Charlie’s best interest.

It was then pointed out that if the UK Supreme Court refused ECHR’s instruction to maintain Charlie’s life-support, Britain could be guilty of a violation that would remove them from membership in ECHR.

Thus the UK Supreme Court’s hand was forced. It issued instructions that it would not —yet—be lawful to shut off Charlie’s life support.

But whereas the ECHR said life-support should be continued indefinitely until they issue an expedited ruling, the UK Supreme Court did set a finite shut off date–July 10.

DRAMA DETAILED
Charlie is a virtual prisoner of the London Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), but it didn’t begin that way.

In October 2016, at two months of age, he was brought to GOSH and diagnosed there with a progressively debilitating genetic condition called Mitochondrial Depletion Syndrome, or MDS. (see explanatory video)  The condition is almost always fatal and has no proven cure.

Two families of children with MDS gave moral support to Charlie’s parents, as reported in the UK Express. Brit Peter Smith strongly advocated a pioneering oral medication, called nucleoside bypass therapy, which has helped his own son Maxwell.

Americans Arthur and Olga Estopian have been in constant contact with Charlie’s parents, urging that Charlie get the same bypass treatment which also saved the life of their son, Arturito. (read more here)

What has not been well publicized is that after Charlie’s diagnosis, GOSH doctors themselves were open to providing the bypass medication– if their ethics board approved. (see here) GOSH recognized the new therapy as having shown some success in reversing many of the effects of MDS in sixteen patients in the United States.

Attorney Gollop

HOSPITAL BECOMES HOSTILE
GOSH attorney Katharine Gollop has testified that sometime after Christmas, GOSH reversed course about the experimental medication. They determined Charlie had suffered “irreversible brain damage” and “any chance for amelioration for his condition had now gone.”

Connie claims the MRI did not back that up, but by January GOSH wanted to pull the plug on baby Charlie’s ventilator, with the ominous decree that, “every day that passed was a day not in Charlie’s best interests.”

That remains the hospital’s mantra, as repeated in several court venues. GOSH believes Charlie must be in pain and no cure exists to defend his being kept alive. To them, Charlie is literally better off dead.

Not so for Charlie’s parents, who understand it is unlikely their son will be cured, but who disagree their son is in pain. They initiated a public plea to help get him out of GOSH and to the U.S. for treatment provided by “experts” at a “reputable hospital,” according to Connie. Over 110,000 petitions were sent to the UK government in favor of “Charlie’s fight” as the campaign is called, and over 83,000 individuals worldwide made donations to create a fund of $1.78 million for the overseas trip.

When Connie and Chris went to court, the first judge, Judge Nicholas Francis, backed GOSH’s death sentence. Then the British Court of Appeal and Supreme Court backed up Justice Francis’ ruling. It was at that point that the ECHR took the extraordinary step of accepting the parents’ appeal in the interests of preventing “irreparable harm.”

As reported Monday in the SUN , Connie protests the unreasonableness of blocking Charlie from getting his last chance at help:

“…we are being blocked by one team of doctors to go to another team of doctors… other children have had this [medication], it’s natural compounds that all of us produce, it’s not harmful.

UK courts have painted themselves in a legal corner. Reason is against them, the public is against them and now the ECHR has pounced on their authority.

Thanks in large measure to his steadfast parents, the plug has not been pulled on Charlie Gard—yet.

Read Full Post »

Baby Charlie Gard’s parents feel he is a hostage in hospital, backed by courts

The British Supreme Court delivered devastating news today: they will not hold an emergency hearing to overturn a death verdict for baby Charlie Gard.

The top court reaffirmed lower court rulings from April and May that Charlie’s parents cannot remove him from a London hospital, and that life-sustaining measures be stopped so the ten month old boy might “die with dignity.”

BBC legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg, tweeted that GOSH must not withdraw life-support before 5pm Friday to allow time to make an appeal to European Court of Human Rights.

Rozenberg

Rozenberg reported that Lady Hale, one of three Supreme Court justices reviewing Charlie’s legal appeal this past week, “says parents can’t insist on treatment that’s not in (the) child’s interests.”

The Independent reported that Charlie’s mother “broke down in tears, shouting: ‘How could they do this to us?’ as she was led from the court by lawyers.”

Charlie is being ravaged by a rare, genetically-caused disease (mitochondrial depletion syndrome), detected when he was 2 months old. An alternative “nucleoside bypass” oral therapy is on trial in the U.S. Charlie’s parents decided they wanted that option.

In a valiant attempt to be able to leave the country with Charlie, his  parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, have  battled three courts and the famed Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) where Charlie is on a ventilator.

An MRI in January when the baby was five months old detected no structural brain damage. But in February GOSH wanted Charlie’s life support to end and, moreover, prohibited his removal from the hospital.

 “FUTILITY POLICY” BEATS PARENTS’ RIGHTS
Social media proves that the public is outraged at the hubris of the courts in this matter.  This is the same public that raised $1.5 million dollars in a GoFundMe campaign created by Charlie’s parents to fly him overseas for treatment.

In the April Court of Appeal ruling, Charlie was referred to as having “an awful existence.” The Court opined, “[P]arents may lose their objectivity and be willing to try anything” and insisted that the new bypass therapy was “not viable.”

The Court of Appeal rejected the various arguments of Charlie’s lead attorney, Richard Gordon, that the court had no standing to uphold GOSH against parental authority because Charlie was under no threat of “significant harm” from his parents.

The Court nonetheless insists that it is their duty to make a “best interests” assessment which included whether:

  • the treatment causes pain,
  • the medical condition itself is a severe burden, and
  • it is Impossible to derive benefit from continued life.

“Benefit from continued life” and “severe burden” are undefined terms yet they are the lynch pin of the claim the courts are using to end Charlie’s life. His parents do not believe he is in pain, and they have promised not to inflict any. Their rational medical decision has been crushed by the courts’ haughty claim to be the ultimate arbiter of the value in “continued life.”

Back in 2014, another British hospital had forbidden parents from taking the child out of hospital for a new treatment. (read more here) Britain actually arrested (and later released) the parents who took their ailing child out of the country for a successful cancer therapy that Britain is only now this year beginning to offer.

The therapy worked, young Ashya King is alive and well, yet British courts have not learned their lesson.

And Charlie Gard and his parents are paying the ultimate price.

Thousands are anxiously following this drama and praying that the European Court of Human Rights will play a heroic part in it. Stay tuned.

Read Full Post »

Charlie Gard with parents

Days after Kansas achieved a landmark law for parents’ decision-making authority governing hospitalized children, another baby and his parents are losing their fight with a London hospital to bring their ailing son to the U.S. for treatment.

On April 7, Kansas’ Gov. Sam Brownback signed “Simon’s Law,” to insure parents can reject hospital DNR (do not resuscitate) orders for their children. The law was instigated by the parents of Simon Crosier– an infant denied the right to live by a hospital DNR — based on bias against Simon’s life-limiting condition, Trisomy 18.

Simon Crosier

During consideration of the bill, and despite documented evidence to the contrary, there were plenty of denials that hospitals would ever overcall parents’ wishes on treatment to preserve life.

Yet consider this currently-unfolding tragic scenario as reported by the BBC and other UK media.

Connie Yates and Chris Gard’s eight-months-old son, Charlie, has been in Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) hospital since October for treatment of a rare condition that causes progressive muscle weakness. Charlie is believed to be one of only 16 known babies ever to have had this mitochondrial-depletion disease.

As reported by the BBC April 3, there was “no evidence that he is in pain on a regular basis.”

Charlie’s parents have now raised over 1.3 million pounds through a “GoFund Me” campaign to be able to bring Charlie to the U.S. for pioneering treatment called nucleoside therapy.

Ms. Yates said, “the support and phenomenal kindness of countless people has been a source of strength.”

“We just want to have our chance. It would never be a cure but it could help him live. If it saves him, amazing. I want to save others. Even if Charlie doesn’t make it through this, I don’t ever want another mum and their child to go through this.”

But the London hospital won’t let them remove Charlie, concluding there is no “accepted cure.”

The parents took legal action but the High Court sided with the hospital on April 11. The BBC headline was dire, “Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic condition against his parents’ wishes.”

The language used to officially overcall the rights of parents uses now-all-too-familiar terms.

  • The GOSH attorney argued that “world-renowned” experts agreed the child should not be given long-term life support as his “quality of life” is “so poor.”
  • UK doctors have insisted there is no “accepted cure” and Charlie should be allowed to “die with dignity.”
  • The attorney appointed to represent Charlie, said proposed treatment in the U.S. was “purely experimental” and continuing his life support would only “prolong the process of dying”.

Justice Francis

High Court Justice Nicholas Francis of the Family division made the fateful ruling that Charlie be moved from life-support to a palliative care regime and be allowed to “die with dignity.” And even after Justice Francis admitted that experimentation might benefit medical science, he asserted it could not “benefit” Charlie.

Justice Francis had seen Charlie at GOSH, and said it has been his “sad duty” to apply the law relating to disagreements between parents and hospitals. He expressed his “complete conviction” that it was in the “best interests” of the child to let him “slip away.”

But this was no mere settlement about what GOSH could or should provide.

This is an imprimatur on whether a child with a life-limiting condition, once admitted to a hospital, can leave!

On Tuesday, April 25, in the House of Commons, MP Ruth Cadbury spoke up for the plight of her constituents, Charlie’s parents. She urged the justice secretary to use “any powers to intervene…to do the right thing.”

MP Cadbury

The plea was immediately rejected.

Charlie’s parents, Chris and Connie, “are devastated” by the decision, and have until Tuesday, May 2, to file an appeal, said their attorney, Laura Hobey-Hamsher.  “They are struggling to understand why the court has not at least given Charlie the chance of treatment in America.”

The neurologist who would oversee the experimental treatment had testified to the court that while Charlie was in the “terminal stage” of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.

That notwithstanding, the hospital refuses to discharge Charlie and the High Court has decreed Charlie move to “a palliative regime.”

Tragically, British hospitals and government have ruled that Charlie Gard must die.

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterThe Kansas Supreme Court announced Wednesday that they have scheduled oral arguments for 9a.m. March 16, on the matter of a blocked ban on dismemberment abortions.

It’s been 11 months since the Kansas Supreme Court was asked to review two lower court decisions upholding a temporary injunction against the first-in-the nation Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, passed in April 2015.

The first state court decision was made by Shawnee District Judge Larry Hendricks, ruling in favor of a father /daughter abortion duo, Herb Hodes & Traci Nauser, who had already sued two other state pro-life laws. The second ruling was a split decision from the state Court of Appeals, which settled nothing. While this matter proceeds, all three Hodes/Nauser lawsuits are on hold.

The case before the Kansas Supreme Court is more than just a ruling on one method of abortion because the

legal attack needs the Court to declare a state right to abortion, one more broad and extreme that that created by Roe v Wade.

As described by one appellate court justice, G. Gordon Atcheson, the newly asserted state abortion right would undermine the Kansas pro-life protective laws currently allowable under Roe v Wade.

Kansans for Life agrees with State Attorney General, Derek Schmidt, that there is no such thing as a state constitutional right to abortion.

When adopted in 1859, the Kansas Constitution did not state, nor intend to create, a ‘right’ to abortion. In fact, in that same year, just before the adoption of the Constitution, the Kansas state legislature passed a law making it a crime to kill an unborn child by abortion. This law was in effect for over 100 years.

The Kansas Attorney General urged last February that the injunction be dropped, but the Court bided its time, during which, five justices up for retention election in November narrowly retained their seats. Only one justice had the support of pro-lifers.

The Lawrence Journal World described the issue of the March hearing as a legal challenge over a “law banning a certain type of abortion procedure commonly used in second-trimester abortions, a procedure that abortion opponents call ‘dismemberment abortions.’”

The AP Wire service was more clear when reporting that the case revolves around “a 2015 law that bans doctors from using forceps, tongs or other medical implements to dismember a fetus in the womb to complete an abortion.”

The legal matter is not whether the state legislature’s dismemberment ban was justified, but on the argument that abortion advocates will likely win at trial, when they can assert  a Court ratified state right to abortion as fundamental to women’s liberty interest.

Planned Parenthood had this pat comment yesterday, “We’re hopeful the court will see this for what it is, which is politicians attempting to practice medicine and endangering women in the process.”

Pro-lifers are hoping the Court sees what is always very much overlooked in these reports — the innocent, fully-formed little human beings facing a torturous and unjustifiable death.

What are  the “liberty interests” of those little boys and girls?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »