By Susan Michelle Tyrell
There are a couple types of people who won’t take no for an answer — 2-year-olds, for example. They don’t always understand mommy’s “no.” Sometimes really aggressive dates fall in that category, too. And then there are abortionists.
Last week, a judge in Birmingham, AL finally put a stop to the loophole shenanigans of abortion matriarch Diane Derzis and her co-conspirator, abortionist Bruce E. Norman, in keeping the New Woman All Women abortion clinic running despite repeated orders to close.
Now Norman’s attorney is saying the judge is wrong about the law and needs a math lesson so that Norman can keep killing babies.
According to Al.com, the abortionist’s attorney is planning to file a motion to help keep the abortion clinic open. Attorney Scott Morro said:
“The resolve is to try to stay open. As it stands right now, we are going to file a motion to reconsider. We think we can clear up some of the fuzzy math.”
As we reported a few days ago, Norman attempted to appease the judge and justify running the illegal clinic by appealing to a technicality. Judge Joseph Boohaker wrote, “Dr. Norman testified he was aware he could not perform over 30 such procedures in any given month and that he had not performed more than 30 procedures in any month since he had been in operation.”
Clearly, from the testimony, the judge was aware of what Norman was attempting to explain. The Court asked Norman:
About how many terminations do you perform each day that you’re there?
Norman: It varies. It’s generally less than I would think probably 12-14 a day. It’s a lot less than I did last week, I think I only [did] eight or nine.
The order says:
“At another point in his testimony in regard to the number of abortions performed at the Birmingham Facility, Dr. Norman testified that he was aware that he could not perform over 30 such procedures in any given month and that he had not performed more than 30 procedures in any month since he had been in operation. The document then repeats his testimony on the math.”
The question-and-answer session with Norman:
Court: And the criteria for a doctor’s office as it relates to the performing of terminates of pregnancy, what is your knowledge about how many terminations you can do per month in a calendar year?
Norman: My understanding is that it must be less than 30 per months.
Court: And you’ve certainly complied with that in each and every month that you’ve been operating as a doctor’s office; is that correct?
Norman: Yes, I have. (pp. 8-9 of court order)
After listening to the abortionist interpret the law, Judge Boohaker, whose career is based on being entrusted to interpret the law, then made his ruling.
“The sole evidence before the Court in regard to the number of abortion procedures performed at the Birmingham Facility is the testimony of Bruce E. Norman who is the owner or proprietor of the said Birmingham Facility, and who actually performs all of the abortions at the said Facility.” The judge then recounts the statistical calculations of Norman against the reality of the law, calling Norman’s reasoning “contradictory.” The judge concludes, “The court can only conclude that Dr. Norman’s reckoning that he performs less than 30 abortion procedures per month is based upon a mistaken belief that bi-weekly is the same as semi-monthly, and for 10 months of the year that reckoning is clearly correct. However, for two months every year this clearly is not the case.”
Apparently, realizing that a judge whose job is interpreting the law had ruled the math incorrect isn’t enough for the abortionist and his attorney, who have decided that his ruling was wrong
The attorney said [at al.com]:
“We feel like if we stop using the referral system – which we already have – and show the judge that the number is under 30 every month, then we comply.”
The thing Morro seems to conveniently forget is that that is exactly what he just tried to do with Boohaker the first time – and it was ruled invalid.
Al.Com reports: “Morro said he wasn’t sure when he would file the motion to reconsider. Such a motion is different than an appeal because it goes back to the same judge whereas an appeal would go to another court.”
The question one needs to ask is why Norman and his attorney think that the judge would revisit his own ruling with the same evidence and decide he just did the math wrong. Boohaker’s 21-page order is clear and coherent, and it outlines in detail why the justification from the abortionist was incorrect.
A judge is considered an expert in legal interpretation. The very idea that the same judge would grant a motion to change his own ruling is a bit bizarre. It sounds like the abortionist’s attorney is in his business for the same reason the abortion industry clearly exists – to take money, no matter the reason.
As an OB/GYN, Norman would be better suited to go and serve women instead of giving his attorney wads of cash to file a motion to the same judge who just ruled the math bad.
There is some fuzzy math here, but it’s not Judge Boohaker’s.
Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org