Press Release
                Ruling stands that allows physicians to
            give false information to a pregnant woman

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an important abortion case in which a woman asked
her physician if “it was a baby in there” and was told, "Don’t be stupid, it’s just blood."

“The Court’s rejection is disappointing and disturbing because it allows a physician to give a
pregnant woman false and misleading information,” said Linda Schlueter, President of the
Trinity Legal Center (TLC), which filed an amicus brief with the Court in the case, A
cuna v.

“Allowing a physician to tell a woman that her baby is ‘just blood’ is outrageous,” said Caron
Strong, Director of the Women’s Council on Abortion for TLC. “This type of lie causes women,
at a very vulnerable and stressful time, to make a decision with long-lasting, devastating
effects,” said Strong, who has experienced the harm and regret of abortion. “This shows the
importance of voting and Supreme Court appointments,” she said.

The Acuna case was an appeal of the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that a physician who
has a “different scientific, moral, or philosophical viewpoint cannot be compelled” to provide
information concerning the humanity of the baby when a woman asks.

“This shouldn’t be about what a physician believes,” said Schlueter. “Even a physician who
does not believe that an unborn child is a human being, at the very least, could provide factual
information about the characteristics of baby.” The science of human life is well-established. At
6-8 weeks, brain activity can be recorded and the heart is beating. Every baby has uniquely
individual DNA at conception that has never existed before and will never exist again.

After deciding to have an abortion, based on false information she was given, Rosa Acuna
began hemorrhaging. An emergency room nurse told her that parts of her “baby” had been left
inside of her, leaving her traumatized and devastated.

TLC’s amicus brief provides important information to the Supreme Court regarding abortion. In
its 2007 ruling on partial birth abortion, the Court, citing an amides brief written by Schlueter,
acknowledged -- for the first time -- the harmful effects of abortion. However, the Court stated it
lacked “reliable data” concerning those effects. TLC’s brief in Acuna provided the data the
Court said it lacked in the form of extensive scientific research by Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a
leading national expert on the psychological effects of abortion.

TLC’s brief represented Sandra Cano, the “Doe” of
Doe v. Bolton; Alveda King, the niece of
Dr. Martin Luther King, and other post-abortive women who have experienced the horrendous
harm of abortion; and, the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNS.


“Allowing a
physician to tell a
woman that her
baby is ‘just blood’
is outrageous. ...

This shows the
importance of voting
and Supreme Court

Caron Strong