Pastor George Pearsons of Eagle Mountain International Church, which is in partnership with Kenneth Copeland Ministries, is speaking out about false accusations that the church is against vaccinations. In a blog post called “Let’s Clear the Air,” Pearsons lays out several talking points, in which he says:
Our church is not and has never been “anti-vaccination.”
We do not have an “anti-vaccination” policy.
In all our years of pastoring, we have never preached against vaccinations.
We have never advised anyone against a vaccination.
Pearsons also explains Kenneth Copeland’s position on receiving a vaccination. He reports Copeland as saying, “Pray over it with the same rules of faith and prayer that you use to pray over your food. Receive it with thanksgiving and sanctify it by the Word of God and prayer. Take advantage of what God has provided for you in Jesus’ Name.” Pearsons goes on to quote 1 Timothy 4:4-5, saying, “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.”
Parsons reports, “Recently, a visitor came to our church from an overseas missions trip and had contracted measles while there. After being tested, the lab notified the Tarrant CountyHealth Department who confirmed it as measles. The Health Department met with our leadership team the next day and advised us on how to handle the situation.
“That day, without hesitation, Pastor Terri and I immediately complied with all of their recommendations. We invited the Health Department to conduct a total of five vaccination clinics at our church. Vaccinations were made available at no cost to our daycare children, KCM employees and congregation members. We have continued to work with the Health Department throughout this time and deeply appreciate their assistance and guidance. We also appreciate our on-site Kenneth Copeland Ministries Medical Clinic staffed by an MD and CMA.
“And we are thankful for the efforts of all involved, from our prayer teams, to our clinic, to the Tarrant County Health Department. Their quick action helped to avert what could have affected many more families.”
The ban would have limited sales of full-sugar sodas to 16 ounces. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A New York state judge on Monday threw out a ban on large sugary drinks set to go into effect in New York City on Tuesday, calling the new regulation “arbitrary and capricious.”
Championed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a way to fight the city’s growing obesity epidemic, the new regulation was to limit the sale of sugary beverages including non-diet sodas, fruit drinks, sweetened teas and other high-calorie drinks to just 16 ounces.
But the American Beverage Association and other business groups representing bars, restaurants and bodegas had sued to stop the new law, arguing, in part, that it would create an uneven playing field for businesses. The law would have been enforced only on establishments regulated by the city’s Health Department, while stores like 7-Eleven, which is regulated as a market by the state of New York, would have been exempt.
“The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole,” Tingling continued. “The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule.”
Bloomberg had no immediate comment–according to his office, he’ll make a statement on the subject at 5:30pm ET. But Michael Cardozo, chief counsel for the Bloomberg administration, said the city would appeal the decision “as soon as possible.”
In his ruling, Tingling also criticized Bloomberg’s decision to implement the ban without a vote of the New York City Council. The regulation has been passed into law by a decree issued last September by the city’s Health Department. Bloomberg’s office had defended the regulation and its passage by arguing the mayor has a broad mandate to protect and improve the health of New York City residents.
But Tingling was skeptical of that defense, writing that “interpretation” of the law would give the mayor and the city’s Health Department the “authority to define, create, mandate and enforce (laws) limited only by its imagination.” The regulation, the justice wrote, “would create an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine. … It would eviscerate it.”
Tingling added: “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar-sweetened beverages.”
In a statement, Cardozo said he disagreed with the ruling. “We are confident the Board of Health’s decision will ultimately be upheld. This measure is part of the City’s multi-pronged effort to combat the growing obesity epidemic, which takes the lives of more than 5,000 New Yorkers every year,” he said. “We believe the Board of Health has the legal authority—and responsibility—to tackle its leading causes.”
“You can’t force people to do things, and that’s what today’s decision shows. You can’t tell people what to drink and where to drink it,” Greller said.
As the city prepared to enforce the so-called soda ban, many bars and restaurants complained city officials had not fully explained how the regulation would be enforced and what drinks were and were not allowed. Meanwhile, some businesses, including the coffee giant Starbucks, said they would not comply because of the pending lawsuit and their belief that most of their products were exempt.
But the ban wasn’t just unpopular with businesses. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 51 percent of New York City residents polled were opposed to the new regulation.
Chris Gindlesperger, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association, called the judge’s ruling a “sigh of relief.”
“With this ruling behind us, we look forward to collaborating with city leaders on solutions that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the people of New York City,” he said.
The same PhiladelphiaBoard of Health that ignored Gosnell’s House of Horrors is at it again! After ignoring several demands from local citizens and outraged pro-life civil rights leaders calling to end the terrors of abortion in their city, the Board of Health passed a new resolution on Friday, Feb. 15, 2013 calling for the federal government and the state of Pennsylvania to fund all abortions for poor women.
Haven’t they harmed enough women already? Now they want to go back for more killing.
They want you to forget that they turned a blind eye to Kermit Gosnell’s abortion killing center until the whistle blew so loudly in 2011 that they had to take action on Gosnell. The doctor’s abortion clinic was a filthy, foul-smelling “house of horrors” that was overlooked by regulators for years. Gosnell was finally charged with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them. At least one mother’s death by abortion has also been linked to Gosnell’s clinic.
According to Brenda Green, executive director of CHOICE, a nonprofit that connects the underinsured and uninsured with health services, The Pennsylvania Department of Health did nothing when they became aware of the death of Karnamaya Mongar a woman whose gruesome abortion at Gosnell’s hands resulted in the gruesome death of Ms. Mongar.
Ms. Green tried to report complaints from clients, but the health department wouldn’t accept complaints from a third party. Instead, the patients had to fill out a daunting five-page form, available only in English, that required them to reveal their identities upfront and be available to testify in Harrisburg. Even with CHOICE staffers there to help, only two women agreed to fill out the form, and both decided not to submit it. The Department of State and the Philadelphia Public Health Department also had ample warning of dire conditions and took no action.
Now this same process of ignoring the problems associated with abortionists in their town is prompting the Philadelphia Board of Health to go back and kill more babies, and put the health and livelihood of more mothers in jeopardy.
Hundreds of other babies likely died in the squalid clinic Gosnell ran from 1979 to 2010, Philadelphia District AttorneySeth Williams said at a news conference.
Even though Pennsylvania law prohibits abortion after 24 weeks except to save the life of the mother or avoid serious health risk to her, Gosnell was charged with murder, infanticide, conspiracy, abortion at 24 or more weeks and other charges. The Board of Health ignored these facts as long as they could. They want you to forget that they were in league with Gosnell’s deeds, guilty by association and by looking the other way.
In a nearly 300-page grand jury report filled with ghastly, stomach-turning detail, prosecutors said Pennsylvania regulators ignored complaints of barbaric conditions at Gosnell’s clinic, which catered to poor, immigrant and minority women in the city’s impoverished West Philadelphia section. Prosecutors called the gruesome Gosnell case a “complete regulatory collapse.” What do you call their audacity to push more abortions on poor women and their unsuspecting babies now? Definitely not hope.
“Pennsylvania is not a third-world country,” the district attorney’s office declared in the report. “There were several oversight agencies that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago.” Now in 2013, they want to abort more poor babies, and kill more mothers?
At least two women died from the procedures, while scores more were injured from perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, authorities said.
In a typical late-term abortion, the baby is chopped apart in the uterus and then removed in pieces. That is more common than the procedure opponents call “partial-birth abortion,” in which the baby is only partially extracted before being destroyed. Prosecutors said Gosnell instead delivered many of the babies alive.
He “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” District Attorney Seth Williams said.
Gosnell referred to the practice as “snipping,” prosecutors said.
Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but they said they couldn’t prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.
“These killings became so routine that no one could put an exact number on them,” the grand jury report said. “They were considered ‘standard procedure.’”
Authorities raided Gosnell’s clinic in search of controlled drug violations and stumbled upon “a house of horrors.” Bags and bottles holding aborted babies “were scattered throughout the building. There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose.
Prosecutors said the place reeked of cat urine because of the animals that were allowed to roam freely, instruments were not properly sterilized, and disposable medical supplies were used over and over.
White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, Williams said.
Few, if any, of the unconscious patients knew their babies had been born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were much further along, authorities said.
According to authorities, state regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him, and made just five annual inspections, most registered as satisfactory, since the clinic opened in 1979. The inspections stopped completely in 1993 because of what prosecutors said was the pro-abortion rights attitude that set in after Democratic Gov. Robert Casey, an abortion foe, left office.
Williams accused the state health department officials of “utter disregard” for the safety of women undergoing abortion, and said the testimony of agency officials “enraged” the grand jury. But he said he could find no criminal offenses with which they could be charged, in part because too much time had elapsed.
“These officials were far more protective of themselves when they testified before the grand jury. Even (Health Department) lawyers, including the chief counsel, brought private attorneys with them—presumably at government expense,” the report said.
The state’s reluctance to investigate, under several administrations, may stem partly from the sensitivity of the abortion debate, Williams said. Nonetheless, he called Gosnell’s case a clear case of murder.
“A doctor who, with scissors, cuts into the necks, severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention commits murder under the law,” he said. “Regardless of one’s feelings about abortion, whatever one’s beliefs, that is the law.”
Four clinic employees were also charged with murder, and five more, including Gosnell’s wife, Pearl, with conspiracy, drug-related and other crimes. All were arrested. Gosnell’s wife performed extremely late-term abortions on Sundays, the report said.
One of the murder charges against Gosnell involves a woman seeking an abortion, Karnamaya Mongar, who authorities said died in 2009 because she was given too much of the painkiller Demerol and other drugs.
Gosnell wasn’t at the clinic at the time. His staff administered the drugs repeatedly as they waited for him to arrive at night, as was his custom, the grand jury found.
The malpractice suits filed against Gosnell include one over the death of a 22-year-old Philadelphia woman, a mother of two, who died of a bloodstream infection and a perforated uterus in 2000. Gosnell sometimes sewed up such injuries without telling the women about the complications, prosecutors said.
It was indicated that Gosnell had previously insisted he was innocent of any crimes and predicted he would be acquitted if he was charged. After pressure was applied by leaders from across the nation, Philadelphia gatekeepers finally took some cursory action against Kermit Gosnell for running an abortion nightmare on the “poor side” of town.
It can only be expected that regulators will try to gloss over the Gosnell chapter and try a hard sell on abortions that are “safe, legal and rare.” Don’t buy the pitch. RECALL ABORTION!
Source: CHARISMA NEWS.
Alveda C. King is the daughter of the late slain civil rights activist the Rev. A.D. King, and niece of Martin Luther King Jr. She is also a civil rights and pro-life activist, as well as director of African American Outreach for Priests for Life. Click here to visit her blog.
JACKSON, Mississippi (Reuters) – Mississippi’s sole abortion clinic will have to close unless a federal judge halts a new state law requiring its physicians to obtain admitting privileges to local hospitals, according to a court motion filed on Wednesday.
The Jackson Women’s Health Organization renewed its request for a federal judge to prevent state officials from enforcing the law, which the clinic said was an unconstitutional attempt to ban abortionin Mississippi.
Mississippi, which had as many as 14 abortion providers in the early 1980s, has some of the country’s strictest abortion laws and one of the lowest abortion rates. It also has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the United States – more than 60 percent above the national average in 2010.
The law, which took effect on July 1, requires all abortion providers to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology and have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Advocates of the new law, including numerous state lawmakers, said it was designed to protect women’s health. But some also have expressed hope it will shutter the Mississippi clinic.
The clinic’s providers already are board-certified OB-GYNs, but the only one who had admitting privileges at the time of the law’s passage provides limited service at the clinic.
The two doctors who provide the majority of procedures were denied privileges after a months-long effort by the clinic to obtain them.
Clinic owner Diane Derzis told Reuters she sent applications on behalf of all the physicians to every hospital within a 30-mile (48-km) radius. All of the hospitals ultimately rejected the requests or refused to even consider them, she said.
“It is now clear that plaintiffs have no hope of being able to comply with the Admitting Privileges Requirement,” said the filing by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the clinic in court.
U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III in July allowed the law to take effect despite objections by the clinic and the Center for Reproductive Rights. The judge blocked the state from imposing any criminal or civil penalties on the clinic, its staff or its physicians during the application process.
The state Department of Health, tasked with enforcing the law, gave the clinic until January to comply.
“They’ve had ample time to become compliant,” said Republican state Representative Sam Mims, who sponsored the measure.
But he added: “The legislature doesn’t control what hospitals in the Jackson metro area do. They have their own committees and bylaws set up, and they have to make the best decisions.”
It was unclear when the judge might rule on the motion and when the clinic would have to close if it loses; the state Health Department also has an appeals process.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, based in the city of Jackson, has operated in the state for 17 years and has been Mississippi’s only clinic since 2002. Its closure would mean an end to elective abortion in the state and would force women to travel elsewhere for the procedure.
“This unconstitutional law has essentially handed over the fate of Mississippi women’s reproductive health care to hospital administrators,” said Michelle Movahed, staff attorney at the center.
“The dedicated staff and physicians at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization must be allowed to continue providing safe and legal abortion care without threat of closure,” she said.
BERLIN – German health authorities say the number of children that have fallen ill with vomiting and diarrhea after eating food from school cafeterias and daycare centres has risen from about 4,500 to 8,400.
Authorities in Berlin and the surrounding eastern German states reported the new gastroenteritiscases Saturday, while laboratory investigations to determine the exact cause of the outbreak were still under way.
Berlin’s health department says the sicknesses are moderate and most children recover within two days without requiring to be hospitalized.
In Saxony state, at least 16 cases of norovirus, a mostly food- or water-borne illness, were proven, according to German news agency dapd.
The government-affiliated Robert Koch Institute said Friday that all facilities where the illness occurred likely received food from a single supplier.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City passed the first U.S. ban of oversized sugary drinks on Thursday in its latest controversial step to reduce obesity and its deadly complications in a nation with a weight problem.
By an 8-0 vote with one abstention, the mayoral-appointed city health board outlawed sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces nearly everywhere they are sold, except groceries and convenience stores. Violators of the ban, which does not include diet sodas, face a $200 fine.
Opponents, who cast the issue as an infringement on personal freedom and called Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who proposed the ban in May, an overbearing nanny, vowed to continue their fight. They may go to court in the hopes of blocking or overturning the measure before it takes effect in March.
“It’s sad that the board wants to limit our choices,” Liz Berman, a business owner and chairwoman ofNew Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a beverage industry-sponsored group, said in a statement. “We are smart enough to make our own decisions about what to eat and drink.”
On Twitter, Bloomberg heralded the measure’s passage as “the single biggest step any gov’t has taken to curb #obesity. It will help save lives.”
Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said the measure was likely to be copied elsewhere in the nation – and even the world – as were the city’s restrictions on trans fats and smoking.
Farley recently said if the law results in “shrinking only one sugary drink per person every two weeks from 20 ounces to 16 ounces, New Yorkers could collectively prevent 2.3 million pounds gained per year. This would slow the obesity epidemic and prevent much needless illness.”
WILL OTHER CITIES FOLLOW?
Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said there was “quite a good chance” that other U.S. cities would once again follow New York’s lead and replicate the idea that triggered opponents’ outrage and doubts about the Bloomberg’s leadership.
“It doesn’t seem so crazy any more. You need somebody to go first,” Brownell told Reuters.
Claiming the ban will hurt small businesses, opponents cited a recent poll by the New York Times, which reported 60 percent of New Yorkers believe the ban is a bad idea.
But the Health Department said on Thursday that most of the extraordinary response it received to the initiative – 32,000 of nearly 39,000 oral and written comments – favored the restriction.
Board members rejected opponents’ claims that they merely rubber-stamped the latest Bloomberg initiative, saying they discussed the issue at length and felt obligated to take what board member Dr. Deepthiman Gowda, an internist who teaches at Columbia University, called “a small step but a bold step and an important one.”
Gowda and fellow board member Susan Klitzman, director of Hunter College’s Urban Public Health Program, said they worried that the city was becoming acclimatized to the problem of excess weight.
“I see the crisis every single day and I feel to not act would be criminal,” Klitzman said.
The board member who abstained from the vote, Dr. Sixto Caro, an internist, said he did so because he was not convinced a ban would make a difference in fighting obesity.
According to the most recently available data from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity rates among Americans continue to rise. The OECD projects more than two out of three people will be overweight or obese in some developed countries by 2020.
(Additional reporting by Lisa Baertlein; Writing by Barbara Goldberg; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Bill Trott)
Advocates on both sides of the issue faced off at a public hearing Tuesday in Queens.
Beverage companies, their advocacy groups and some consumers vehemently object to the ban. Aside from the obvious reason that it will cut into profits, they claim it will limit choice and amounts to “nanny state” policing of personal nutrition.
“While we feel the mayor has good intentions, his proposal seems arbitrary,” said Eliot Hoff, a spokesperson for New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a group that receives a portion of its funding from the National Beverage Association. “We believe that we can choose what we drink and how much we drink.”
Should the proposal be adopted, it would only apply to establishments under the supervision of the Department of Health, which includes restaurants and movie theaters but not grocery and convenience stores. So any business that receives a letter grade from the city could not sell super-sized drinks under the proposed rules — but the 7-11 or bodega right next door could continue to sell Big Gulps.
This did not sit well with many of the 100-plus people who attended the hearing, including most of the elected officials who spoke on behalf of their constituents. Even as he expressed admiration for the Mayor’s ongoing commitment to health, Daniel J. Halloran, councilman for the city’s 19th District in Queens, warned that small business owners would be unfairly penalized by the ban. He called the initiative “absolutely ridiculous, unenforceable and hypocritical.”
Others objected to consumers being forced to buy two smaller drinks at a higher cost if 16 ounces didn’t quench their thirst. This, they said, will stretch the already tight budgets of New Yorkers.
“Families who typically share one large drink will no longer be able to do so and will definitely wind up paying more,” said Hoff.
“For more than 100 years, the soda industry has had free reign and for many years it was not a problem because people mostly drank in moderation,” said Michael Jacobson, CSPI’s co-founder and executive director. “Now container sizes have jumped and the marketing of these drinks — especially to adolescents — has exploded to more than $2 billion a year.”
The current default container size for a soda is a 20-ounce bottle, more than triple the 6.5-ounce size that was once standard. And that’s tiny compared to McDonald’s 32-ounce serving, Burger King’s 42-ounce serving and the 54-ounce soda sold at Regal movie theaters.
When you factor in sports drinks, sweet teas, vitamin waters, and energy drinks, Jacobson and other health experts who attended the hearing say it’s no surprise the average person drinks 40 gallons of sweetened liquids per year.
“Adolescents consume twice the average amount, and there are some people who drink three times the average amount,” said Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Medical School. Willett said that sugary drinks are now the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet, and they offer no nutritional value. Therefore, he said, they’re appropriately the number one target in the fight against obesity.
The Bloomberg proposal has no precedent; this is the first time a U.S. city has so directly attempted to limit sugary-drink portions. Even the experts in support of the size limit say it’s impossible to predict whether it will help cut sugar and calorie consumption or make an impact on the percentage of obese New Yorkers.
However, Bloomberg and his supporters say the data are on their side. They point to the success of other ongoing initiatives such as the posting of calorie counts on menus and the trans-fat ban as models of how effective the super-size ban could be.
“If people shifted from one 20-ounce serving to a 16-ounce serving just once a week, this could potentially prevent an estimated 2.5 million pounds of weight per year,” Jacobson said.
A Mixed Bag of Data
Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for food policy and obesity at Yale University, cited research linking increasing portions of sugared beverages — as well as soup and foods such as macaroni and cheese, sandwiches, pasta, and potato chips — to a 25-50 percent increase in overall consumption. Worse, he said, liquid calories don’t create the same feeling of fullness as solid foods do, so consumers often don’t make up for the excess by cutting back at subsequent meals.
People also tend to consume food in the size the bag, a bottle or a box it comes in, a phenomenon known as unit bias. When packaging is larger, people consume more. With the steady growth in package sizing over the last few decades — especially soda bottles — this has consumers unconsciously eating more than they intend.
However, many obesity researchers say limiting drink sizes is a useless gesture that gives a false sense of accomplishment.
“It’s never been definitively shown that the obesity epidemic is due to drinks larger than 16 ounces,” said Nikhil Dhurandhar, an obesity researcher from Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana. He did not attend the hearings but is familiar with the Bloomberg plan.
He said there is no way to compartmentalize eating and that limiting or removing a single food from the diet is no guarantee it won’t be replaced by another source of calories.
“It’s like digging a hole in water. If you take away one thing, it’s likely to be replaced.”
Indeed, studies by the Centers for Disease Control have not indicated a definitive link between soda consumption and obesity. And a recent study published in the Journal of Behavior Nutrition and Physical Activity found that when schools eliminated unhealthy foods and beverages from campus, children did make healthier choices — but obesity rates didn’t decline and were no different from schools without such bans.
What’s Next for Sweet Beverages?
Regardless of where they stood on the issue, just about everyone who attended the hearing conceded that Bloomberg’s proposal was likely to pass when it comes up for vote this September by a panel of health experts handpicked by the mayor himself. If the rule is adopted, it will go into effect in March 2013. Establishments that violate size limits can be fined by up to $200 per violation.
In addition to the public health policy experts represented at the meeting, a slew of celebrities, including chef Jamie Oliver, filmmaker Spike Lee, and former president Bill Clinton have publically supported the Bloomberg initiative.
Still, some said the ban could be a slippery slope.
“What will they be telling me next,” councilman Halloran wondered. “What time I should go to bed? How many potato chips I can eat? How big my steak should be?”
The ruling will keep the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, open, even though two out of three of its abortionists have not received hospital privileges, at least until a preliminary injunction hearing set for July 11, 2012. A planned Health Department compliance inspection for today has been placed on hold.
Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, who originally came up with the idea of the legislation and worked with Mississippi groups to introduce the legislation, says Judge Jordan failed to consider the health and safety motivation for the passage of this law.
“He ignored or was ignorant of the injuries and other violations, including records falsification mean to cover his negligence, by JWHO abortionist ‘Dr. John Doe,’ who is actually Bruce Elliot Norman. In doing so, the judge has disregarded the health and safety of women who unwittingly submit to abortion by Norman under the false belief that his abortions are safe. The judge has prevented the state from applying a safety net for those women and left them vulnerable and at risk,” Newman says.
According to Newman, JWHO falsely calms that the hospital privilege requirement effectively bans abortion in Mississippi, but nothing could be further from the truth. Newman explains that the requirement simply limits abortion clinic licenses to those who can comply with minimum safety standards, which JWHO cannot. Keeping JWHO open without its compliance with the new law only serves to endanger women, he says.
Newman has evidence that indicates JWHO intentionally concealed the fact that Norman sent three abortion patients to the hospital on January 21, 2012 at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Ala. That incident, which was reported by pro-life activists, led to the discovery of 76 pages of violations, including the intentional falsification of medical records and logs, which led to the state order closure of the clinic and the order that owner Diane Derzis be banned from any affiliation with a new abortion business there.
“Because Derzis owns JWCO and employs Norman there as its primary abortion provider, it is clear that women are being placed in the same dire risk that caused Alabama to close their Birmingham operation,” Newman says. “We are preparing legal action to inform the judge of the truth that JWHO has tried to hide from him and to ensure that the new law goes into effect for the protection of vulnerable women.”