Notorious abortionist Steven Brigham back in court

By Dave Andrusko

Abortionist Steven Brigham

Abortionist Steven Brigham

It’s been a real bad week for the usual suspects who insist–insist!–that abortionist Kermit Gosnell was an “outlier,” a man whose outrageous conduct could only be performed by what pro-abortionists called “renegades.” Here’s just one example.

Today abortionist Steven Brigham–the owner of a 25+year track record of “trouble with medical boards, regulators, the IRS, landlords, creditors, and criminal prosecutors,” according to Marie McCullough of the Philadelphia Inquirer–will appear in state Superior Court in Essex County, New Jersey to explain why he did not respond to a subpoena from the Attorney General’s Office regarding whether he still operated the eight abortion clinics Brigham said he had transferred to obstetrician-gynecologist Vikram Kaji.


When last we wrote about Brigham, who has lost medical licenses in five states, The New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners had taken away his license because Brigham would start late-term abortions in New Jersey and finish them a day or two later in Maryland. One woman almost died.

Under state law Brigham had to divest himself of the eight abortion clinics he owns in New Jersey (which make up most of his “American Women’s Services”). As he fought the Board’s ruling, Brigham said he had transferred them to Kaji, a man with a highly suspect history of his own, most prominently for sexually abusing patients

But Kaji testified at a N.J. Board of Medical Examiners’ hearing that he did not own those abortion facilities and that Brigham continued to “run the show.” This despite his signature on a purported transfer document. (“Regulators have charged Kaji with abetting a fraud and are seeking to suspend or revoke his license,” according to McCullough.)

And to its credit, on April 22, an investigator from the state’s Division of Consumer Affairs made an unannounced visit to the abortion clinic in Hamilton. At that point, Kaji denied ownership, an assertion he both reaffirmed and reiterated in more detail a month later.

As is always the case with Brigham, the wheels of justice grind incredibly slow. According to McCullough

In June, not long after Kaji denied ownership, N.J. Deputy Attorney General Bindi Merchant emailed subpoenas for the corporate records to Gorrell [the attorney for Brigham and Kaji], who agreed to have Brigham provide them, according to legal filings.

Three months later – after Merchant sent more requests that Gorrell deferred or did not reply to – she still had no documents, so she asked the Superior Court of New Jersey to intervene.

Late last month, Judge Walter Koprowski ordered Brigham to appear Wednesday to explain why he should not supply the requested documents within five days, and not be held in contempt for ignoring the subpoenas.

Other reporting says Merchant made nine inquiries. Which brings us to today.

As NRL News Today has reported, Brigham lost his New Jersey license for his bi-state abortion practice in which he would induce “fetal demise” in New Jersey but deliver the dead baby in Maryland.

Brigham’s Voorhees, NJ abortion clinic was not licensed or equipped to perform late-term abortions.

“In addition,” as McCullough wrote, “New Jersey requires that such risky surgeries be performed by an obstetrician-gynecologist, and Brigham, a general practitioner, was not credentialed to do them.”

This all came to a head over five years ago when an 18-year-old woman, 21½ weeks pregnant, almost died following an abortion begun n New Jersey.

The brutal irony in the 79-year-old Kaji ostensibly assuming ownership was impossible to miss. Citing public records, Susan Livio of the New Jersey Star Ledger wrote

In May 2013, an investigation revealed “numerous alleged deficiencies and board violations” in his role as medical director. After admitting he had suffered a mild stroke affecting his memory and eyesight, the board required he undergo a “neuropsychological evaluation, and any other medical or diagnostic testing and monitoring which may be required to evaluate whether (his) continued practice may jeopardize the public’s safety and welfare,” according to the board’s order.