| Rosa Acuna was examined by her physician, had an ultrasound, and was told she was 6-8 weeks pregnant. When she asked if it was a “baby in there,” she was told, “don’t be stupid, it’s only blood.” Following an abortion, Rosa experienced bleeding and was admitted to a hospital. When she asked a nurse what had happened, she was told that “the doctor left parts of the baby inside of you.” At this point, Rosa realized it was a baby. Subsequently, her mental health deteriorated, and she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Rosa filed a lawsuit, and both the district and appellate courts agreed that she should have been fully informed, including being told that she was carrying a human being. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the abortionist was under no obligation to give her the information she had asked about – that she was carrying a baby! Citing the 35-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling, the court reasoned that the abortionist is not compelled to provide this information because there are “different scientific, moral, or philosophical viewpoint on the issue of when life begins.” We believe the New Jersey Supreme Court is wrong. Dramatic changes in science and medicine since 1973 provide evidence as to the humanity of the unborn baby, such as ultrasound that shows fetal development and DNA. To be fully informed, it is essential for women to have this information. |
| Questions? Contact Us |
| The Facts of the Case |
| What is an amicus brief? |
the New Jersey State Supreme Court stands, allowing an abortionist to provide false and misleading information to a pregnant woman regarding the life she carries within her. This decline does not mean the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the New Jersey ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule of the merits of the case. The Trinity Legal Center filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Alveda King (neice of Martin Luther King, Jr.), Caron Strong, Director of our Women's Council on Abortion, and other women hurt by abortion. The brief also represented Sandra Cano, who was "Mary Doe" in the Doe v. Bolton case. Sandra never wanted, sought, or had an abortion, and she wants to see an end to abortion. Read Brief Read Press Release |
| An amicus brief, also called a friend of the court brief, allows individuals or organizations that are not part of the case to present to a perspective and provide evidence that might not otherwise be available to the court. In 2007, the United States Supreme Court cited an amicus brief written by Linda Schlueter representing Sandra Cano, who was "Mary Doe" in the Doe v. Bolton case, and 180 women hurt by abortion. It was the only brief of 50 cited by the Court in the partial birth abortion case, Carhart v. Gonzales. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| The Trinity Legal Center is a nonprofit organization To learn more, click here |
| "We believe the New Jersey Supreme Court is wrong." |
| The Acuna Case |