Often, civil libertarians, and even occasionally Christian Conservatives, praise the WatchTower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses for what those ignoramuses erroneously characterize as the Cult's decades-long fight to expand religious and other civil rights/liberties in American society. (Erroneous because JWs could care less about expanding rights/liberties for anyone but themselves. JWs look forward to "Armageddon", when Jesus Christ returns to destroy everyone but the JWs.) Despite the self-serving intentions of the WatchTower Cult, BUT-FOR its' many courtroom victories over the decades, other religious minorities such as Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Pagans, and other heathens would not be able to exercise their "freedom of religion" in America's classrooms, government buildings, and elsewhere. Today, even children and ignorant adults who are not Jehovah's Witnesses frequently refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and/or stand in respect for a performance of the National Anthem.

Over the decades, the WatchTower Cult has shared ideals, goals, and legal precedents with other groups which have common legal causes, interests, and goals. Opening the way for Jehovah's Witnesses to reject blood transfusions opens the way for other life-saving medical procedures to be refused by all others "Right-to-die" and "assisted suicide" advocates (Kingdom Hall funeral) share common legal arguments with the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

The continued legal fight for unfettered abortion shares some of the same arguments as does the continuing blood transfusions issues as such relate to "unborn children", or as the WatchTower Cult's Legal Department prefers to label them when arguing such court cases -- "fetuses". Legal precedents have been shared by abortionists and Jehovah's Witnesses, alike. The milestone abortion legalization decision, ROE v. WADE (1973), was not an isolated legal decision that jumped up out of nowhere. No, ROE "stood on the backs" of many predecessors, just as subsequent pro-abortion court decisions have stood on the back of ROE. ROE'spredecessors had to slowly chip away at many entrenched ideas found in prior legal precedent. The rights of adult females had to take priority over the rights of their unborn children. Unborn children had to be devalued. Unborn children were not even children, or even babies. They first had to become "fetuses". They had to become "its". [Trivia lovers might be interested to know that "Jane Roe", the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, had been reared in the Jehovah's Witnesses.]
For those pregnant Jehovah's Witnesses whom courts were requiring to accept blood transfusions medically necessary to preserve the health and/or life of their unborn children, it was essential that those unborn children stopped being considered as living, breathing "humans", or "babies", or 'infants", or "children", or "boys" and "girls". Those globs of human tissue instead had to become "fetuses". Then, liberal judges with no souls could more easily determine that a Jehovah's Witness Mother owed that glob of tissue no duty to preserve its life. (That attitude will change quickly if and when a doctor or hospital is at fault for causing the harm. See below.) One can't help but wonder how often attorneys from the WatchTower Cult assisted some of these other groups with their own causes in order to establish precedents which would further the WatchTower Cult's own legal goals.
Note carefully the selected verbiage of this previously distributed "DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE" form once provided to all Jehovah's Witnesses: (Accenting ours.)
(9) [This paragraph applies only to pregnant women.] In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 860 (1992), the Supreme Court confirmed that "viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on therapeutic abortions." Thus, since I have the right to abort my pregnancy before viability I necessarily have the lesser right to refuse blood transfusions before viability. In addition, even if my fetus is viable, the Supreme Court has said that mothers cannot be exposed to increased medical risks for the sake of their fetuses and that the state's interest in the potential life of the fetus is insufficient to override the mother's interest in preserving her own health. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 768-71 (1986); see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992). Also, in the cases of In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235 (D.C. 1990), and In re Doe, 632 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. App. Ct.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1198 (1994), refusals of treatment by women with viable fetuses were upheld. Although both of these cases involved Caesarean sections, as a matter of principle and logic they show that it is the pregnant woman who should decide what is to be done to herself and her fetus. Therefore, I demand that my refusal of blood and choice of alternative nonblood management be followed and that my doctors manage my care and the care of my fetus without transfused blood.

******************                 ******************

IN RE TINA A. HARRELL, IN RE HARRELL FETUS, and TINA ANN HARRELL v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL were all related 1996 Florida trial and appellate court cases. In May 1995, Tina Ann Harrell, a 34 year-old African-American Jehovah's Witness, was twenty-two weeks pregnant when doctors at St. Mary's Hospital discovered a life-threatening blood condition which could rapidly deteriorate and place both her life and the life of the "fetus" in jeopardy. When Tina A. Harrell and husband Russell R. Harrell, age 41, objected to any blood transfusions for herself or her "fetus", officials at St. Mary's Hospital petitioned a local court for authorization to administer blood transfusions to Tina Harrell IF AND WHEN such became medically required to protect Tina Harrell's unborn child. Authorization also was sought to administer transfusions to the child if such became necessary to protect its life after it was born. At an emergency hearing, where the Harrells did not have the opportunity to summon an attorney, the Hospital's request was granted. The child was prematurely delivered by caesarean section, but died two days later. Supposedly, no blood transfusions were given to Tina Harrell or to the child. The unnamed "fetus" was survived by sisters Kizzie Harrell and Latisha Harrell.

An appeal was LED BY THE WATCHTOWER CULT'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT, and was supported by the ACLU's"Reproductive Freedom Project". The Court of Appeal of Florida accepted the appeal despite the fact that this case was "moot", and that the court had no issues to decide. Instead, the Court of Appeal of Florida wanted to express its AGREEMENT WITH THE WATCHTOWER CULT AND THE ACLU that the Supreme Court of Florida had already ruled back in the 1993 DUBREUIL case that Florida hospitals no longer had the legal right to challenge the decision of any competent adult Jehovah's Witness to decide to commit backdoor suicide. Florida hospitals now may ONLY notify the local District Attorney of that situation. It is then up to that District Attorney to decide whether or not the State of Florida will seek court intervention.

Notably, at the HARRELL emergency hearing, officials at St. Mary's Hospital testified that the local District Attorney previously had informed them that he would no longer pursue such cases, and that the hospital should pursue such cases themselves if they so desired. INTERESTINGLY, when that allegation became public, that local District Attorney denied the hospital's allegation.

What about the African-American Jehovah's Witness Family whom the WatchTower Cult and ACLU had championed? What kind of "citizens" were they?

FLORIDA v. RUSSELL R. HARRELL and ANTHONY HARRELL was a 1977-78 Florida conviction of Russell Harrell for "battery on a police officer". Prison sentence unknown. In October 1977, 19 year-old Anthony Harrell was paroled after being charged with drug possession and second-degree murder. To celebrate, the two Harrell Brothers went to drink at a rough Rivera Beach bar, which eventually summoned police to remove the trouble-making Russell Harrell after he allegedly threatened to kill one of the managers. Russell Harrell and Anthony Harrell attacked the two responding police officers. Anthony Harrell wrestled one officer's pistol from him, shot him in the shoulder, but missed the second officer whom Russell Harrell was beating and kicking. The second officer managed to wound Anthony Harrell in the leg before the two Harrell Brothers escaped and fled to the home of a relative in Delray Beach. The two Harrell Brothers surrendered the following day after being so convinced by their JW? Mother. Anthony Harrell ultimately was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of battery on a police officer, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Unknown what happened to Anthony Harrell's first prosecution.

******************               ******************


Despite the FACT that Jehovah's Witnesses will not hesitate to permit themselves or their children to die as MARTYRS for the WatchTower Cult, hospitals and doctors have gradually learned over the decades that the WatchTower Cult also encourages the surviving families to SUE for MEGA-BUCKS if a hospital or doctor makes even the slightest mis-step while treating the JW Parent or child. This legal strategy serves multiple purposes for the WatchTower Cult. First, this practice keeps hospitals and doctors completely terrorized of Jehovah's Witness Patients such that hospitals and doctors are scared to death not to conform with WatchTower Cult beliefs and practices. Second, every time a Jehovah's Witness Patient settles or wins such a medical malpractice case, Jehovah's Witness Patients appear to the naive general public to be VICTIMS of uncooperative -- even biased and discriminatory -- hospitals and doctors, with a resulting softening of the public image of Jehovah's Witnesses as being suicide-seeking cult martyrs.


JOAN MCCLAIN BRUMFIELD v. LEDON LANGSTON MD was a 1997-2004 MISSISSIPPI appellate court decision. An older African-American Jehovah's Witness named Joan M. Brumfield sued her 1989 obstetrician, Dr. LeDon Langston, formedical malpractice on behalf of her son, Cody Charles Brumfield, who was born in May 1989 with an under-developed right arm with nerve damage caused when Cody Brumfield's shoulders lodged behind Joan Brumfield's pelvis during delivery. The Brumfields alleged that Cody's injuries were due to Langston's negligence of continuing the vaginal delivery, instead of switching to a caesarean section. Part of Joan Brumfield's contentions were that Cody Brumfield should have been delivered by caesarean delivery due to her OBESITY, DIABETES, and HBP, as well as the nearly 10 POUNDS size of Cody C. Brumfield.

Dr. Langston testified that C-Section delivery was a last resort measure. This was especially so in Joan Brumfield's case due to Brumfield's having signed documents by which she detailed that her faith as a Jehovah's Witness forbid the possibility of her receiving a blood transfusion under any circumstance, even if necessary to save her life.

On all trial issues, the jury returned a verdict for Dr. Langston. Joan Brumfield filed a motion for JNOV or, alternatively, for new trial. The circuit court denied Brumfield's motions. On appeal, the Mississippi appellate court affirmed.


LESLIE APONTE, JODEE VIERA, and JOSEPH VIERA v. MCNAMEE ET AL as a 1997-2007 medical malpractice lawsuit in which the plaintiffs were awarded $948,692.00 in economic damages and $1,500,000.00 in noneconomic damages by a Connecticut jury in March 2005. McNamee was an obstetrician working with the practice group of Associated Women's Health Specialists. McNamee attended to Leslie Aponte during her pregnancy, beginning in November 1994, and ending in May 1995, and during the early stages of her labor on May 25, 1995. McNamee left during the second stage of Aponte's labor and thereafter was unavailable. Cohen, another obstetrician affiliated with Associated Women's Health Specialists, attended to Aponte during the final stages of labor and delivery. During that delivery, an obstetrical emergency occurred, known as shoulder dystocia, wherein the infant's head delivers, but partly retracts because the baby's shoulders become lodged, requiring delivery of the child within minutes to avoid risk of neurological injury or death. As a result of the shoulder dystocia during her birth, Jodee Viera, sustained an injury to her brachial plexis, a network of nerves in the neck, leaving her with a permanent injury affecting her upper left extremities. The plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit in August 1997.

The appellate court opinion makes no mention that Leslie Aponte was a Jehovah's Witness at the pertinent times of this case, nor does it make any mention that blood transfusions were an issue at any time during the delivery. HOWEVER, that does not necessarily mean that those issues did not arise during the delivery or during the jury trial. A March 2005 newspaper article covering that trial stated:

... McNamee managed the delivery and should have done a Caesarean section instead of allowing a vaginal delivery. [Plaintiffs' attorney] said Aponte asked Dr. McNamee to give her a Caesarean section but he didn't. "Dr. McNamee was managing the delivery and should have done the Caesarean section ... He was managing it throughout the day. His position was he blamed the failure of the baby to be delivered on the mother. He took the position that she wasn't trying hard enough. He didn't do any investigation that the baby might be too big, and that a condition of the baby being too big, known as macrosomia, is a major risk factor for shoulder dystocia (stuck shoulders). She got stuck behind the pelvic bones and wasn't breathing."

[Defendant's attorney] countered that McNamee made a professional decision against performing a Caesarean section because it's a potentially dangerous procedure that was unnecessary for Aponte. "You don't perform a Caesarean section just like that. ... It has to be done with careful consideration of the risks and benefits." [Defendant's attorney] instead blamed Aponte for failing to cooperate with McNamee. "She refused to participate in the delivery. She refused to push".

A 2015 media article about the following MURDER states that Leslie Aponte was "a practicing Jehovah's Witness" during Nicholas Aponte's early years in high school. Do the math!!!


CONNECTICUT v. NICHOLAS APONTE, CONNECTICUT v. MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, and CONNECTICUT v. JASON CASIANO. On a hot August evening in 1995, in Waterbury, Connecticut, Nick Aponte, age 17, his brother Miguel Rodriguez, age 14, and their cousin, Jason Casiano, age 16, sat on Leslie Aponte's front porch drinking malt liquor and playing spades. At some point the three teenagers and a fourth 15 year-old friend began to plan an armed robbery. They drove to a nearby SUBWAY sandwich shop in North Haven, where they "cased" the store for a hour until closing time -- and until 28 year-old manager David Horan was alone. Aponte, Casiano, and Rodriguez all went inside and proceeded to "stick-up" Horan. When Horan explained that there was no cash left in the register, and that he did not know the combination to the store's safe, Casiano shot Horan once in the face, and twice in his torso -- killing Horan. Casiano plea bargained to 50 years in prison without parole. Rodriguez testified against Aponte in exchange for a 14 year prison sentence, but was paroled after serving 7 years. Nick Aponte went to trial and was sentenced to 38 years in prison without the possibility of parole.


CONNECTICUT v. LESLIE RODRIGUEZ AKA LESLIE APONTE. In June 1996, LESLIE APONTE a/k/a LESLIE RODRIGUEZ, was charged with Conspiracy to commit first-degree Murder and Risk of Injury to a Minor. The Prosecutor alleged that Leslie Rodriguez knew about the robbery before it occurred, and that Leslie Aponte knew that her sons and nephew were armed with a firearm. Leslie Aponte-Rodriguez pleaded "not guilty". Outcome unknown.


RONALD A. HARRISON v. LOUISIANA PATIENTS COMPENSATION FUND ET AL was a 2002 Louisiana appellate court decision. This appeal was from a medical malpractice court case, in which an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Ronald A. Harrison Sr. had been awarded more than $450,000.00 for the deaths of his wife, Doris Harrison, and newborn son, Avery Doyle Harrison.

Notably, Ronald Harrison, only age 59, died in December 2002, and Doris Harrison was not even mentioned in his obituary. Harrison was survived by 8 children and 10 siblings, and predeceased by several more. (Apparently, the Harrisons were single-handedly responsible for populating the entire parish, not to mention an entire family ran Kingdom Hall.) Ronald Harrison also had remarried a second JW Wife named Marie Helen Cherubin, and had relocated to Alabama.

Doris Harrison had been a prenatal patient of Dr. Richard Smith. Harrison had informed Dr. Smith that she and her husband were Jehovah's Witnesses and would not consent to any blood products to be used at the time of the delivery of their child. Harrison was admitted to Meadowcrest Hospital in labor on September 22, 1989. Dr. Smith was called by the nurse on the delivery unit 30 minutes after the patient arrived, but he did not immediately proceed to the hospital. At 9:45 a.m., Mrs. Harrison's fetal heart monitor ceased reflecting a heartbeat for her unborn child, and the nursing staff asked Dr. Wayne Grundmeyer to deliver the baby. At 9:53 a.m., Dr. Grundmeyer opened the patient and delivered a male infant with the umbilical cord tightly wrapped around his neck. Dr. Grundmeyer had begun to close the patient when Dr. Smith arrived and took over.
At that point, Dr. Smith determined it was necessary to perform further surgery on Mrs. Harrison's uterus. While the surgery was being performed, Ronald and Doris Harrison both vehemently refused the use of any blood and/or blood products.After the surgery, Harrison's condition began to worsen and she eventually died. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be anemia and hypovolemia, which is a decrease in the amount of circulating blood. The newborn baby died on October, 14, 1989, 21 days following his birth, from complications resulting from the umbilical cord that was wrapped around his neck.

Thereafter, Ronald Harrison filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the two doctors. In May 1994, Ronald Harrison settled with all three defendants for $40,000.00 for the death of the newborn. Harrison also settled with Dr. Smith's insurance company for Smith's policy limit of $100,000.00 for the death of Doris Harrison.

In the state of Louisiana, there was a Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund, which was established by law to provide a maximum of $500,000.00 per victim to claimants who can prove damages as a result of medical malpractice. Ronald Harrison, thereafter, went after an additional $860,000.00 (plus interest, costs, etc.) through the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund.
Between 1994 and 2001, the parties contested over details of the settlement agreement and Louisiana state law. In the settlement agreement, Harrison had reserved his rights against the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund for further compensation. Harrison maintained that the Insurer's $100,000.00 settlement payment was an admission of liability per state law, which would bar the Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund from disputing liability. However, the Fund argued that the release agreement stated that the payment was "not an admission of liability or negligence", and that Harrison should have to prove liability at trial.
In 2001, a trial court agreed with Ronald Harrison, and awarded him $440,000.00. The issues surrounding Harrison's claim regarding the newborn were somewhat different, but after what happened regarding the Doris Harrison claim, the claim regarding the newborn was subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount. However, the Fund appealed the $440,000.00 judgment. On appeal, PCF asserted that it was manifestly erroneous for the trial court to exclude all evidence of liability; that it was erroneous for the trial court to exclude evidence regarding consent forms releasing Dr. Smith from all liability for damages related to the refusal of Doris and Ronald Harrison to accept blood products, and that it was erroneous for the trial court to exclude evidence of comparative fault of the Harrisons, and to reduce damages proportionately.
The PCF argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of victim fault, specifically, medical consent forms signed by Mr. and Mrs. Harrison. The Harrisons were of the Jehovah's Witness faith, and in September of 1989, Doris Harrison signed a "Refusal to Permit Blood Transfusion", requesting that no blood or blood derivatives be administered to her. Mr. Harrison also signed such a form. The PCF argues that such forms, which purported to release the physician and hospital from liability, are contracts and thus Dr. Smith was released from all liability related to the refusal to accept blood. The PCF also argued that the court erred in not considering the comparative fault of the Harrisons, who continued to refuse transfusions while at the hospital, after Mrs. Harrison's surgery. The PCF argued that the Harrisons were clearly aware of the significance of their refusal to accept a blood transfusion, and urged that this was victim fault and the direct cause of Mrs. Harrison's death. 
This appellate court ruled against PCF on all of its contentions, and in favor of Ronald Harrison, stating in part:
"As we view the evidence of record, there is no question but that Mrs. Harrison died due to a lack of blood, and this fact does not appear to have been put at issue; neither is there any question that both Mr. and Mrs. Harrison refused any blood replacement or transfusion. ... ... ...
"... the PCF is yet again attempting to wrest itself out of its statutorily imposed liability. At least insofar as the PCF is concerned, liability has been admitted, and the only contested issue is the amount of the victim's damages.

"In its judgment of October 17, 2001, the trial court found that the settling [doctor] was one hundred per cent at fault for Mrs. Harrison's death, stating that there was no secondary harm to consider. Under the facts and evidence presented, the secondary harm to which the judgment refers can only be "victim fault." It is clear from the record that the trial court had before it the issue and evidence of the various releases, and considered and rejected that defense by finding the health care provider completely at fault. Considering all the evidence in the records before us, we find no error in that determination."


BENTA VESELY and JAMES VESELY v. OBGYN, FHP INTERNATIONAL, ET AL was a 1986-93 Utah court case. In 1993, Thomas Vesely and Benta Vesely, and their six-year-old son, James Vesely, of Park City, Utah, were awarded the largest medical malpractice verdict in Utah's history --$8,100,000.00. James Vesely had been born with permanent brain damagein 1986 after Benta Vesley's uterus ruptured during an attempted vaginal delivery, which forced an emergency cesarean delivery. The delayed delivery resulted in oxygen deprivation to James Vesely.

Per media reports, the Veselyes had claimed, and the UTAH JURY had believed, that the the HMO had forced Benta Vesely to accept an unqualified doctor, who should have planned a cesarean delivery instead of a vaginal delivery. CURIOUSLY, the Veselyes alleged during the trial that the OBGYN had not known about Benta Vesely's previous 1982 cesarean delivery which had involved the cutting of her upper uterine muscles. (Such C-sections reportedly result in a 30 percent chance of a ruptured uterus if the woman goes into labor with a subsequent pregnancy.) HOWEVER, the OBGYN testified that not only had he known about Benta Vesely's previous cesarean, but that he had REPEATEDLY encouraged Benta Vesely to have a cesarean delivery. However, Benta Vesely was a Jehovah's Witness who refused to consent to blood transfusions -- which routinely are needed during cesarean deliveries. (The defense likely failed to inquire how the blood transfusion issue had been handled during Benta Vesely's 1982 cesarean.)


IN RE BARBARA ANN MOSBY and PURNELL C. MOSBY and MICHAEL HENRY MOSBY v. ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER were related 1991-94 Maryland court cases. In March 1991, an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Barbara A. Mosby, age 42, went to Baltimore's St. Joseph Medical Center's Emergency Room presenting intense abdominal pains. Doctors performed a variety of tests but didn't diagnose the problem until a sonogram three days into her hospital stay revealed a tubal pregnancy. Due to having had a tubal ligation in 1989, doctors had pushed the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy further down the list of possibilities as the cause of Mosby's problems.

Doctors then informed Barbara Mosby and Purnell Mosby that she would need blood transfusions during the surgery to treat Mosby's ruptured tubal pregnancy. The Mosbys refused to consent to the necessary blood transfusions due to their WatchTower Cult beliefs. Hospital officials then sought court intervention. During a hearing conducted at the hospital, the lowbrow local Baltimore judge ruled that Mosby's doctors would be forced to ignore their best medical training and decisions and perform surgery on Mosby without benefit of transfusions. Barbara Ann Mosby died slowly from blood loss five days after that surgery -- defaulting on her parental obligations to 28 month-old Michael Henry Mosby, whom was reared by his eventual new JW Mother, Delores Phillips Mosby.

Soon thereafter, Purnell Mosby filed a medical malpractice claim against the hospital and doctors despite their having been judicially forced to perform a surgery in a 19th century manner that breached their medical training and best practices. Even the Mosby Family's attorney later stated to reporters that, "I was skeptical about undertaking Mr. Mosby's representation because it became evident that Barbara Mosby assumed the risk of her death by refusing to accept blood." However, that was before the WatchTower Cult's Legal Department gave that Baltimore attorney a lesson on Jehovah's Witnesses and the kowtowing American judicial system, and provided that attorney with the legal argument that BUT-FOR the delayed diagnosis, Mosby would not have needed blood transfusions.

In November 1994, the Mosbys were approached with a $225,000.00 PAYOFF, which they chose to accept rather than go to arbitration. It was later disclosed that the insurance company for St. Joseph Medical Center had cut a deal with the insurance companies representing the multiple doctors whom had treated Barbara Mosby during her 10 day stay at the hospital. The insurance companies representing the non-defendant doctors had agreed to pay $200,000.00 of the settlement to keep from being later subrogated by the hospital.

The local Baltimore WatchTower Cult representative, Dr. Ronald Broadwater -- himself a "doctor" whom later appeared at the settlement hearing on behalf of the Mosbys -- stated to reporters regarding Barbara Mosby, "I think she was courageous, strong, She felt that she was going to live, and she had kept her integrity to God. If she didn't live, she would certainly be back soon in the resurrection."

MARYLAND v. MICHAEL HENRY MOSBY and MICHAEL HENRY MOSBY MURDER-SUICIDE. African-American Michael H. Mosby was reared by Purnell Mosby and his second JW Wife, Delores J. Mosby. Mike Mosby was baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in July 2004. Around 2007, Mike Mosby married Ruby Johnson Mosby, whom was nearly four years older than him. In June 2008, Michael Mosby, age 19, was arrested on assault charges in Baltimore. Only a few days later, Purnell C. Mosby reported to Baltimore Police that Ruby Johnson Mosby had been "missing" that weekend -- apparently not showing up for field service on Saturday morning, nor at the Sunday meeting. Purnell Mosby met police Sunday night at his son and daughter-in-law's home which was revealed to be the scene of a MURDER-SUICIDE. Indications were that Ruby Mosby, age 23, had been stabbed to death sometime Saturday, while Mike Mosby committed suicide sometime on Sunday.


HOWARD RANDOLPH v. CITY OF NEW YORK was a 1986 New York appellate court decision. African-Americans Howard Randolph and Bessie Randolph were married in July 1963. Between 1963 and 1974, Bessie Randolph underwent at least two miscarriages and gave birth, all by Caesarean section, to three male children. Sometime late in 1974, Mrs. Randolph again became pregnant. Throughout the period of this pregnancy, Mrs. Randolph received prenatal care from Dr. Michael R. Cehelsky, who was an obstetrician-gynecologist, at the Upper Manhattan Medical Group (Upper Manhattan), which is located in New York County.
Prior to the time that Bessie Randolph entered the Hospital to deliver, by Caesarean section, her fourth child, and to be sterilized by a tubal ligation, Dr. Cehelsky specifically informed her that on occasion, in connection with a Caesarean section, blood transfusions were often necessary to save the woman's life. It is undisputed that, in response to this statement of Dr. Cehelsky, Mrs. Randolph competently and unequivocally advised him that, in view of the fact that she was a Jehovah's Witness, blood transfusions were not to be administered to her under any circumstances.

Subsequently, on July 16, 1975, Bessie Randolph was admitted to Sydenham Hospital, located in New York County, as Dr. Cehelsky's private patient. In 1975 the City owned Sydenham and Health and Hospitals operated, maintained and controlled it. A notation appears in Sydenham's admission records that Mrs. Randolph was a Jehovah's Witness and did not wish to receive a blood transfusion. Although specifics are unknown, Bessie Randolph did in fact experience a life-threatening amount of blood during the procedures, and the hospital and doctors did in fact honor Randolph's request that no blood transfusions be administered to save her life. Unfortunately, Randolph died as a result of blood loss. Thereafter, Howard Randolph, as administrator of her estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple parties. A NYC jury awarded the estate $1,250,000.00. NYC, the hospital, and the doctors all appealed given that Bessie Randolph had been forewarned of the possibility that blood transfusions might be necessary to save her life, and with informed consent, she refused to give them that option. Outcome of appeal is unknown. What are hospitals and doctors to do? They get sued if they give the JW a transfusion. They get sued if they don't give the JW a transfusion.

*******************                 *******************                 ********************

IN RE AVIZ JALYN BEAL was a 1996 Missouri court decision. In November 1996, a 34-weeks pregnant, 40 year old African-American Jehovah's Witness named Bettye Joyce Beal fell at her Washington Park, Missouri, home. The fall caused Betty Joyce Beal to hemorrhage internally, PLUS caused an abruption of the placenta -- an interruption of the baby's blood and oxygen supply. Beal was taken to Belleville Memorial Hospital, where Bettye Beal and her recent second husband, Roger Beal, refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for either herself or their yet-to-be born child. Eventually, 103 minutes later, Aviz Jalyn Beal was delivered via an emergency caesarean section, but stop breathing at some point, and was placed on life support. It took Bettye Beal twelve more hours to slowly bleed to death. Belleville Memorial Hospital failed to administer needed blood transfusions to the newborn baby, or seek court intervention to do so. Instead, Aviz Beal was transferred to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. There, officials at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital sought and obtained court authorization to administer blood transfusions to the newborn baby. About 33 hours after delivery, Aviz Beal joined his mother on the list of WatchTower martyrs. Unfortunately, the newborn had no voice in that decision. Bettye Brock Beal threw away her career as a special-education teacher, and left both an adult daughter and a son still in junior high school from her previous "Brock" marriage.

Roger Beal proclaimed to reporters, "The baby was not going to eat blood. His mother wouldn't have had it any other way. ... Who is to stop God from having his way? My wife died a hero's death, faithful to Jehovah God." Roger Beal further reported that he, Bettye Beal's mother, and Bettye Beal's two children had all had the opportunity to hold Aviz Beal, and tell the newborn "Hello", "Goodbye", and "We will see you again in Paradise". Interestingly, a week or so later, Roger Beal invited a reporter into the couple's home where that reporter noted that an empty cradle sat in the corner of the Beals' dining room. A card in the cradle read, "The Handiwork of God".

A month later, a local reporter interviewed Todd Arthur Hofmeister, R.N., who was a Jehovah's Witness then employed by local Barnes-Jewish Hospital to help it establish its' bloodless surgery center. Todd A. Hofmeister recited the WatchTower Cult's proof texts used to prohibit the "eating of blood". The scientific/medical genius Todd Hofmeister further explained, "No matter whether you eat blood or take it in through a vein, it's being used for nutritional purposes."

A spokesman for the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn, N.Y., the headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses, said that Betty Joyce Beal "obviously was a very religious woman and dedicated and was looking long range at everlasting life. We will take every medical step short of a blood transfusion.We view a forced blood transfusion as the equivalent of being raped."


UNINVESTIGATED DEATH OF NON-JW MINEL KINARD KOEHLER and KOEHLER v. KOEHLER. In April 1992, a 19 year-old Non-JW Mother of two infant daughters, named Minel K. Koehler, was permitted to bleed to death by two Wisconsin hospitals whose administrators seemingly failed to fully investigate Minel Koehler's background. Minel Koehler wasRECENTLY DIVORCED, and was merely "studying" to become a Jehovah's Witness. Those two major life events probably were NOT coincidental. Interestingly, Minel Koehler, of Iowa City, Iowa, had only recently begun living with the Jehovah's Witness Couple who were "studying" with Koehler, James A. Hadar, age 45, and Bonnie Hadar, age 43, at their Coralville, Iowa home. (The then residence of Minel Koehler's two infant daughters, Jennesa Koehler and Christina Koehler, is unknown.)

On a Saturday in April 1992, Minel Koehler was riding with the Hadars to a WatchTower Assembly being held in Janesville, Wisconsin, when the FOUR MONTHS PREGNANT, RECENTLY DIVORCED Minel Koehler became ill near Beloit, Wisconsin. The Hadars took Minel Koehler to Beloit Memorial Hospital, where Koehler suffered a miscarriage and continued hemorrhaging. After Minel Koehler refused blood transfusions, she was air-flighted to St. Luke's Medical Center, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There, after 2+ days of ineffective "non-blood" treatments, 19 year-old Minel K. Koehler, was permitted to DIE by hospital administrators and staff -- apparently without contacting Minel Koehler's step-father and mother, David Schroder and Diana Schroder, also of Coralville, Iowa, any other family members, OR the mysterious recent father of Koehler's four-month-old mis-carried child.

Interestingly, while James Hadar refused to speak publicly regarding Minel Koehler's pregnancy or other medical matters, the WatchTower Society rushed in Spokesperson, Marvin Krueger, from Janesville, Wisconsin, to bullshit the media. Marvin Kruegar told one reporter that the JW religion did not require members to refuse blood transfusions. "Each individual has their own conscience. Each one has to make their own decision," stated Marvin Krueger.
IN RE BABY DOE was a 1980s New York case. Limited details. Exact date unknown. Sometime in the 1980s, a Jehovah's Witness female was admitted to a NYC hospital in active labor in the ninth month -- a full-term pregnancy. As the delivery proceeded it became apparent that the baby was in a breech position -- one of the baby's feet was actually hanging out. When the JW female was asked to consent to the needed Caesarean, she refused because the hospital also wanted consent to administer a transfusion if such became necessary. The hospital eventually was forced to seek court intervention. It is unclear how far along the court intervention proceeded. The JW possibly gave consent after a judge started to intervene.
IN THE MATTER OF JERMAINE ANTOINE FOOTMAN was a June 1987 Florida court decision. In early June 1987, an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Darlene Footman, age 25, of Riviera Beach, Florida, delivered her SIXTH child, Jermaine A. Footman, via emergency caesarean section at Good Samaritan Hospital after it was discovered that the placental barrier between mother and child had broken down, and the mother`s body had drained the baby of its blood. Three blood transfusions were required simply to keep the newborn alive. Although Darlene Footman had refused to give consent for those life-saving blood transfusions, her non-JW husband, Joey T. Footman, Sr. (researchers should be careful not to confuse the lengthy criminal records of Joey Sr. and Joey Jr.), had provided consent. However, Jermaine Footman was semi-comatose; was on a respirator; and would eventually require additional blood transfusions.
In her hospital room, her Jehovah's Witness "friends" had given Darlene Footman a WatchTower Society publication. Reading from the religious booklet, Darlene stated that for members of her faith, it was as important to abstain from blood as from adultery or fornication. Footman believed that if the baby had a transfusion, he will not be resurrected to eternal salvation when he dies. Shortly, Joey Footman informed doctors that he will NOT consent to any more blood transfusions. "My husband just panicked [previously]," Darlene Footman states. "He agrees with me now.
Joey Footman's withdrawn consent forced West Palm Beach's Good Samaritan Hospital to petition a local court for permission to administer future life-saving transfusions. Doctors testified that the now two-week old infant lost much of his blood due to complications at birth. The hospital had tried to respect the mother's wishes, using other fluids to increase the baby's blood volume. Now, though, nothing but an infusion of new blood would keep the baby alive. The petition was granted. In gratitude, Darlene Footman said she would not fight any further if a judge decides that the doctors are right. "The baby is in their hands then," she said. "There's nothing I can do about it." Unknown whether Jermaine Footman survived this (or later) ordeal.
Readers should be aware that over the years there have been a number of American hospitals whose "liberal" administration has secretly and quietly cooperated with Jehovah's Witnesses in their refusal to accept necessary life-saving blood transfusions by failing to seek judicial intervention and allowing their patient(s) to die -- first for JW Adults, before American courts agreed that JW Adults could refuse blood transfusions, and then later, JW Children, who receive protection from American courts ONLY in those instances when Hospitals initiate judicial intervention.
Obviously, it is extremely difficult to uncover such cases from media articles, but after reviewing hundreds of these cases, one develops a sense for such. Although we have no proof that such occurred in the following scenario, we recommend that those interested in this specific subtopic review the following scenario thoroughly.
On October 16, 1982, the Fredericksburg, Virginia newspaper, The Free Lance-Star, published what we believe to be a WatchTower Society promoted TOP FRONT PAGE article on the blood transfusion issue, which was entitled, SHE FOUGHT ODDS IN ACT OF FAITH. The subjects of the article were Keith E. Comer, Sr. and Carolyn P. Comer, then of Stafford, Virginia. The article included a large photograph of a smiling Carolyn Comer. The verbiage of this article sounds as if it were written by the Public Relations office of the WatchTower Society, i.e., "full recovery", "owes her life to her faith", "survival nothing short of a miracle", "hope to other Jehovah's Witnesses", etc.
Notably, this article barely even mentions the DEATH of the Comers' newborn twins, and then does so merely as an aside. The article simply states, "the infants died of complications shortly after birth", and then jumps back into telling the story of Carolyn Comer's miraculous recovery by complying with WatchTower dictates, despite Comer's supposedly losing 90% of her blood.
Read in between the lines regarding how Comer's complications had been fully anticipated, and how the Comers had filled in both her Fredericksburg OB-GYN and officials at the Medical College of Virginia regarding the Comers' WatchTower beliefs. It is even admitted that Comer's later transfer and flight to Chicago's Michael Reese Hospital had already been prearranged pending the need. (Carolyn Comer arrived at Chicago's Michael Reese Hospital in less than 12 hours after delivery of her twins in Richmond, Virginia.)
I have zero proof, but it is this editor's personal opinion that the DEAL already had been cut well in advance. Not only would Carolyn Comer not receive any blood transfusions at Medical College of Virginia, but neither would her two children. And, they ended up DEAD!; And despite the fact that this WatchTower PR newspaper article states that the twins died "shortly after birth", IN FACT, the twins were delivered at 7:30 A.M. on a Wednesday morning, and one twin did not die until sometime on Thursday, and the second twin did not die until sometime on Friday. That is NOT "shortly after birth". Why were the lives of those newborn twins treated so insignificantly by the writer of this newspaper article?
IN THE MATTER OF CHERYL CHANDLER was a 1986 California court decision. Sherrie Chandler, who had been experiencing obstetrical problems and bleeding, was admitted to Sacramento's Sutter Memorial Hospital. Sherrie Chandler was informed that blood transfusions would be required to save her life, and the life of her unborn child. Estranged from her husband, Cheryl Chandler refused, claiming that she was studying to become a Jehovah's Witness, and that she held the views of the WatchTower Society that the Bible forbids accepting blood transfusions. Concerned with potential liability which might arise in the event Chandler or her unborn child were to die or suffer disability, particularly due to the marital estrangement, the Hospital sought a restraining order to force Chandler to consent to receive blood transfusions to keep her and the unborn child alive. A Sacramento Superior Court judge granted the hospital's request. Noting that Sheryl Chandler could legally refuse to accept blood transfusions if only her own life was at risk, the judge held that Sherrie Chandler could not make that choice given that her decision also placed her unborn child at risk. Unknown if this decision was appealed. If not, the reason would be interesting, because an appellate court would have likely overruled this judge. Fetuses don't count, and the WatchTower Cult and Jehovah's Witnesses helped set that legal precedent.

IN THE MATTER OF JANET J. GIRARD was a 1986 Florida court decision. In March 1986, Janet J. Girard, age 20, of West Palm Beach, Florida, possibly then a recent Jehovah's Witness Convert, who was 27 weeks pregnant, was admitted to West Palm Beach's St. Mary's Hospital with severe bleeding. Doctors informed Janet Girard that they possibly would need to administer blood transfusions if she went into premature labor, and the baby's health was threatened. Janet Girard refused to consent to blood transfusions either for herself or her child. In anticipation of a possible emergency, the hospital petitioned a local court to authorize lifesaving blood or blood products for Janet Girard OR for her baby. The court granted the hospital's petition -- including authorizing blood transfusions for Janet Girard if the life or safety of her "unborn child" became imperiled. Curiously, Janet J. Girard checked out of St. Marys two days later. The hospital simply stated that she was "discharged in good health." Husband, Donald Girard, refused comment. It is anyone's guess whether local physician Oscar Kelley, a Jehovah's Witness, was advising the Girards. 
APPLICATION OF BROWARD GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER was a 1986 Florida court decision. In April 1986, a pregnant 15 year old Jehovah's Witnesses high school student was admitted to Broward General Medical Center suffering from anemia. The doctors recommended delivery by cesarean section. The doctors also requested consent to administer blood transfusions to the mother and/or the baby as might be needed to save the life of either. However, the high school sophomore's deep WatchTower beliefs would not allow her to consent to something that the Bible forbade. The Hospital petitioned a local court for authorization to administer life-saving blood transfusions as medically required by either the mother or the yet to be born baby. The petition was granted. A healthy baby boy was delivered, and the young mother also recovered nicely.
In April 1986, doctors and administrators at Florida's Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center apparently allowed a 2-months pregnant Jehovah's Witness to refuse blood transfusions and die without even attempting to obtain a court order to protect the "fetus". Bridget Virginia Warner, 21, was seriously injured in a single-car accident, in which she experienced a punctured lung, ruptured liver, damaged kidney and chest injuries. Bridget Warner signed a statement refusing blood transfusions, and her JW Husband, both of her JW Parents, and her JW in-laws, all supported her decision to refuse blood transfusions. Doctors attempted surgery without the benefit of blood transfusions, but Bridget Warner and her unborn child both died only a few hours thereafter. Warner's Jehovah's Witness husband of nine months, Steven Warner, later commented on her death: ''We just stuck by what the Bible said, with the hope of seeing her again in the resurrection, at a time when things will be different in the world."
IN RE APPLICATION OF JAMAICA HOSPITAL was a 1985 New York trial court decision. "Santiago X", a DEVOUT Hispanic/Latino Jehovah's Witness, was the UNMARRIED MOTHER OF 10 CHILDREN. Santiago X was ONCE AGAIN 18 weeks pregnant, and was a patient in the ICU of Jamaica Hospital. Santiago X's condition was critical, because of bleeding from esphogeal varices. Her hemoglobin reading was far below normal, as was her hematocrit. She was in danger of dying without a blood transfusion, but she refused because of her religious belief. Her only next of kin was a sister who could not be contacted. The "non-viable fetus" was at that time in mortal danger as a result of her own dangerous condition.
The Hospital contacted a local judge, who skipped a dinner engagement to come to the Hospital and hold an emergency hearing regarding the Hospital's petition for authorization to administer a blood transfusion to Santiago X in order to save her life and the life of her unborn child (aka "fetus"). The judge granted the Hospital's request, stating in part:
If her life were the only one involved here, the court would not interfere. ...While I recognize that the fetus in this case is not yet viable, and that the state's interest in protecting its life would be less than "compelling" in the context of the abortion cases, this is not such a case. In this case, the state has a highly significant interest in protecting the life of a mid-term fetus, which outweighs the patient's right to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds. ...

An additional basis for ordering the transfusion may exist in the patient's responsibility to her living minor children but this was not considered in view of the sparseness of the record on that point and the decisive nature of the interests of the unborn fetus.
For the purposes of this proceeding, therefore, the fetus can be regarded as a human being, to whom the court stands in parens patriae, and whom the court has an obligation to protect.
I therefore appointed Dr. Capiello as special guardian of the unborn child and ordered him to exercise his discretion to do all that in his medical judgment was necessary to save its life, including the transfusion of blood into the mother.


The highest court of this State has made it clear that the State has a vital interest in the welfare of children, an interest that will override even the parents' most fervently held religious beliefs ... . The parent, however, may not deprive a child of lifesaving treatment, however well intentioned ... . Even when the parents' decision to decline necessary treatment is based on constitutional grounds, such as religious beliefs, it must yield to the State's interests, asparens patriae, in protecting the health and welfare of the child ... . Of course it is not for the courts to determine the most 'effective' treatment when the parents have chosen among reasonable alternatives ... . But the courts may not permit a parent to deny a child all treatment for a condition which threatens his life ... . The case of a child who may bleed to death because of the parents' refusal to authorize a blood transfusion presents the classic example ... . Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that the hospital and attending physicians be authorized to give blood transfusions as medically indicated above. ... ...

We start with the premise that every adult of sound mind has the right to determine what happens to his own body. This means that we have the individual right to refuse unwanted medical treatment ... . Therefore, absent some overriding State interest, blood transfusions should not be ordered in the face of a patient's religious objections ... .

Mrs. Paddock is an adult obviously of sound mind and deep religious conviction. Yet she is asking the hospital and her doctors not simply to withhold blood transfusions; she wants them to undertake a surgical procedure which may well result in her loss of a life-threatening amount of blood. She wants the hospital and her doctors to take aggressive medical steps to insure a proper delivery, but does not want the medical personnel to correct a possible grave condition which may unavoidably be encountered in the process. This, it seems to me, puts the hospital and her doctors in an untenable position. It has been observed that "A hospital is not the patient's servant, subject to his orders. The hospital shares the physician's independence of judgment and responsibility for action, and to let a patient die runs counter to the reason for the hospital's existence." ... ...

When a patient puts her doctor in charge of a surgical procedure, she necessarily makes him responsible for the conduct of the operation. Every such grant of responsibility should be accompanied by authority sufficient to properly carry out the delegated responsibilities. Certainly if the medical personnel are requested to undertake a delivery which will entail incisions and this is known to the patient, the attending physicians must be permitted to stabilize the patient from the resulting loss of blood.

It is my judgment therefore that the attending physicians may continue to administer blood transfusions to Mrs. Paddock even after the moment of delivery as is necessary to stabilize her condition.

Mrs. Paddock freedom to direct the course of her own treatment shall be interdicted only in the postoperative period, and only for so long as is medically indicated to stabilize her condition.

There is an extremely interestingly point to be made about this case. Apparently, in 1985, Jehovah's Witness Elders had not yet been instructed NOT to mention to the media that JWs given court-ordered blood transfusions would NOT be "disfellowshipped". Elder Paul Travers went out of his way to inform a reporter that since Stacey Paddock was receiving a "court-ordered" blood transfusion, that she would not be "disfellowshipped, nor receive any other penalty, becasue in the eyes of the Elders, Paddock had NOT sinned, since she "officially" had stood on the side of NOT receiving a transfusion.
What is so interesting about this is that once some Judges started taking notice of the fact that a Jehovah's Witness would not be penalized by the WatchTower Society, so long as the "blame" for the transfusion could be laid at the feet of a Judge, then some Judges were more ready to authorize transfusions for adult JWs. Some Judges even mentioned this rationale in their decision, and the WatchTower Society also probably suspected other Judges were using the rationale, without mentioning such.
So, at some point, JW Elders apparently were instructed NOT to mention such to the media, or even to Judges, when testifying in transfusion hearings. In fact, some JW Elders will specifically "insinuate" to reporters, and possibly to Judges, that JWs consider "receiving a blood transfusion" to be a "sin". JW Elders play "word games" with non-JWs, who don't fully understand WatchTower rules.
SO, JUDGES and ATTORNEYS, despite the recent Law Journal article, which attempts to convince YOU that Jehovah's Witnesses consider it is a "sin" for a Jehovah's Witness to receive a court-ordered blood transfusion, such is NOT THE CASE. That author should be ashamed of herself -- either for intentionally promoting a falsehood, or for being too stupid to catch the deception of some lying representative of the JWs.
John Kotyra, an Elder at the Fairmount, New York Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses stated that once blood is removed from the body, it must be disposed of. "There is a sacredness of the blood. We have our own blood, and it's only ours. When the blood is let out of the body, it is never to be used again." We have the command in Leviticus that tells us to "abstain from blood." Leviticus 17:14 says "for the life of all flesh is its blood ... you must not eat the blood of any flesh for the life of all flesh is in its blood, and anyone who eats it shall be outlawed from his people," stated John Kotyra. Religious beliefs should overshadow the law, said Kotyra. Kotyra added that if someone dies because of such refusal, then "we have the resurrection. ...l am definitely behind the Paddocks. If the child and mother die, everlasting life will be granted."
JW Paul Travers added, "We, as Christians, are to keep ourselves from blood. There is no difference between eating it and transfusing it."


MERCY HOSPITAL v. ERNESTINE JACKSON was a 1985 Maryland appellate court decision. Limited details. Ernestine Jackson was admitted to Mercy Hospital on an emergency basis in February 1984. Jackson was 25+ weeks into her pregnancy, and was undergoing premature labor. Routine vaginal delivery would create serious and dangerous medical complications for both Jackson and her unborn child. The fetus was lying in the womb in an "oblique to transverse position," and the risk of a ruptured uterus was great, because Jackson had previously undergone a myomectomy, because of her having given birth prematurely during a prior "unsuccessful pregnancy" [unreported as to whether death of child was preventable, i.e. transfusion denied???]. Mercy recommended a caesarean section delivery. A cesarean delivery is a relatively safe and routine, albeit surgical, form of childbirth. The most serious drawback is that the mother inevitably loses a certain, but not predeterminable, quantity of blood.
It is not known whether Mercy Hospital was aware of such, but two days prior to being admitted at Mercy Hospital, Jackson had been admitted to the University of Maryland Hospital. However, when that hospital refused to perform a cesarean without the option of administering a blood transfusion if necessary, the Jacksons left and went to Mercy. 

Jackson and her husband were Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the tenets of that faith is that a believer may not, under any circumstances, receive blood transfusions. Mercy's medical staff counseled Jackson that there was a 40% - 50% chance that she would need a transfusion. If that need developed, and if there were no transfusion, the doctors told her that they thought it likely she would die during a Caesarean delivery. Jackson and her husband maintained their refusal to consent. They requested that the Caesarean delivery proceed without blood transfusions.

Mercy may have been new to this issue, but the Jacksons were not. Besides the confrontation at the University of Maryland Hospital, this same controversy likely occurred during Jackson's first "unsuccessful pregnancy" [maybe there was plenty of controversy during that one also.] Additionally, Jackson's Jehovah's Witness mother had also wrestled with a hospital over the blood transfusion issue during a surgery.

Mercy Hospital made oral petition to the court for authority to transfuse Jackson if medically necessary. Counsel was appointed for Jackson and court was convened at her bedside. However, the court refused to grant the petition. The Hospital then agreed to perform the cesarean section, and agreed to allow Jackson to die rather than administer necessary transfusions. Fortunately, Jackson's blood loss was not severe, and no transfusion would have been necessary. Both Jackson and child survived.

Uniquely, this time, the hospital appealed, subject to dismissal due to the "mootness" question. The appellate court allowed the appeal on the "repetition" possibility. Mercy Hospital claimed that Jackson's religious convictions were upheld to the detriment of the convictions of the hospital. Mercy Hospital is run by the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order that "is dedicated to the preservation of life and family through the provision of medical services." 

The judgment was affirmed; mainly because a transfusion would have only benefited Jackson, and would have been needed by her only after the baby was delivered. The child's life was supposedly not in danger with or without the transfusion. Jackson's parental obligation to her newborn infant was given little consideration. Mercy attempted twice more to be heard on this case, but neither appeal was fully considered due to "mootness". Interestingly, in one of those failed attempts by Mercy Hospital, Ernestine Jackson was represented by the ACLU.

IN THE MATTER OF LUZ TORRES was a 1984 Florida court decision. In May 1984, North Miami General Hospital petitioned a local court for authorization to administer blood transfusions to a 34-year-old Jehovah's Witness, named Luz Torres. A Dade Circuit Judge granted the hospital's emergency petition, ruling that there was an overriding state interest in ensuring the safety of the unborn child. Luz Torres, a typist for AT&T Communications, who has been a Jehovah's Witness for eight years, was in her eighth month of a complicated pregnancy, when she suddenly began to hemorrhage. Doctors told her she suffered from placenta previa, and that she and her unborn child could die if she did not receive a blood transfusion. Luz Torres' religion, however, forbids transfusions. When she refused her consent for the procedure, her doctors at North Miami General Hospital took her to court. Luz Torres stated to reporters "I'm sure the baby will be OK, though it may be born prematurely. ... Besides, I don't want someone's yucky blood. I can catch all sorts of diseases. Suppose they do give me a transfusion and I catch some weird disease, then the hospital would be responsible."
ON APPLICATION OF ERLANGER MEDICAL CENTER was a 1983 Tennessee court decision. In May 1983, an unidentified, unmarried, pregnant 16 year-old Jehovah's Witness had unidentified complications after giving birth, and needed life-saving blood transfusions. Prior to surgery, both the 16 year-old JW and her own JW Mother refused to give consent, and the Chattanooga hospital was forced to obtain court-ordered permission. Notably, in the operating room, the 16 year-old new mother changed her mind about the transfusions and gave her by-then unneeded verbal consent.
In 1981, the hero of "home birthers", Dr. George A. Wootan, then of Kingston, New York, had his medical license temporarily suspended. The state charged George Wootan with contributing to the deaths of an unborn fetus and a three-day-old infant, which Wootan obviously denied. Even three appellate court opinions relating to such do not provide any significant details regarding the state's charges. However, one brief comment from Wootan's pertaining to his license suspension has been included in books and news articles: "She was a Jehovah's Witness and wouldn't go to the hospital because of her religious beliefs. I couldn't force her - she's an adult.'' I have no idea whether that vague remark indicates the injury or death of a JW Mother, the birthed infant, both, or neither.
The 1980 death of a Jehovah's Witness named Anita Brown would make for a good case study. When Anita Brown died in June 1980, the media reports portrayed Brown as a hero who had survived cancer just long enough to give birth to a son named Gregory Paul Brown. The media reports stated that Brown "died of massive hemorrhaging caused by a tumor in her jaw", only 5 hours after giving birth. Those media reports stated that Brown "had refused chemotherapy for fear of endangering her unborn child". Brown's cancer surgeon, Ronald Lapin, even stated: "Essentially, Anita was giving her life for that of a child she had not yet [given birth]."
Those same media reports also mentioned that Anita Brown, who lived in Nevada, had battled cancer for several years. Brown had actually refused chemotherapy long before she married and conceived, because as a Jehovah's Witness, Anita Brown would not consent to the blood transfusions which typically went along with the chemotherapy. Rather than accept conventional cancer treatment, Brown had record of seeking non-conventional treatments, such as trips to Mexico for Laetrile treatment. 
The news reports further mentioned that Anita Brown had recently had surgery performed by Ron Lapin at Esperanza Intercommunity Hospital in Yorba Linda. Curiously, though, the Nevada resident had died at University of California-Irvine Medical Center, where only five hours earlier, she had prematurely delivered her son by cesarean section. Does anyone else suspect that the blood loss, which lead to Brown's death, actually was due to complications from the caesarean, rather than complications of a tumor in her jaw? Tom Brown, the truck driver from Nevada whom Anita Brown had married only about 18 months prior to her death "from cancer", stated: "She was positive, laughing and joking until the very end."


In the late 1970s, a pregnant Jehovah's Witness being treated at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco refused to consent to a blood transfusion which the hospital wanted to administer to her unborn fetus. The fetus died while doctors and attorneys were debating all the legalities involved in pursuing court intervention in such a scenario.


In Septmber 1977, an unidentified U. S. Marine sought and obtained court intervention to force his 8-months-pregnant wife, "who was under the influence of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses" in Beaumont, South Carolina, to accept a needed blood transfusion prior to the delivery of their unborn daughter via a planned caesarean delivery. The wife was near death even prior to delivery, and without the transfusion, neither she nor the unborn child would survive. The Overseer of that local JW congregation testified on the wife's behalf that death was preferred to the transfusion.


IN RE UNMARRIED PREGNANT JW and IN RE UNBORN BABY were related 1977 Michigan court cases. In March 1977, Protective Services for Children Division of the Genesee County Department of Social Services filed petitions for custody of BOTH an UNMARRIED 17 year-old African-American pregnant Jehovah's Witness and her unborn 28-week old unborn child. The court order authorized Hurley Medical Center officials and physicians to administer the blood transfusions and to perform any other procedures considered necessary to save the baby and its life-support system. The "mother" had been hospitalized due to a low blood count, and doctors had decided that an early c-section delivery would be best for both parties.


IN RE NEWBORN BABY WAITE was a 1977 Alabama court decision. Prior to delivery in March 1977, a young Jehovah's Witness couple, named Trent Waite and Peggy Waite, were informed that due to Rh factor issues their unborn daughter would need a blood exchange transfusion at birth in order to survive. The Waites refused to consent. As soon as Peggy Waite went into labor, Huntsville Hospital sought court intervention. A local judge placed guardianship of the newborn with Alabama's child welfare agency, and all necessary medical care was authorized at birth.


BROWARD MEDICAL CENTER v. LINDA OKONEWSKI was a 1977 Florida court decision. Limited details. Linda Okonewski was a twenty-one year old pregnant Jehovah's Witness. During the pregnancy, Rh factor issues between mother and child were discovered. Okonewski's obstetrician informed her that for her own safety, and the safety of the baby, that she should deliver via Caesarean section, which could possibly require a blood transfusion, if there was excessive blood loss. Okonewski informed the obstetrician and pediatrician that she would not consent to any blood transfusions for herself or her baby due to her WatchTower beliefs. 

Again, details are limited, but the Caesarean was apparently scheduled for September 1. However, Okonewski was a "no-show". The obstetrician had sought a court order to administer a transfusion if such became necessary during surgery. Also, the pediatrician of the unborn infant had sought a second court order in case an exchange transfusion was necessary for the infant due to existent RH problems. After a court hearing, both petitions were granted. Apparently, after learning about such, Okonewski fled the West Palm Beach area. At some point, the judge who issued the two court orders modified such so as to authorize all physicians and hospitals in the state of Florida to do the same in case Okonewski came to them. A summary of these terms was delivered to all medical facilities throughout the state by the various sheriffs in each locale.

However, Okonewski did not stay in Florida. She and her husband flew to Southern California, where Dr. Elliott Zaleznik was willing to both perform the Caesarean and agree that no blood transfusions would be given to Okonewski or her baby, even if such meant their deaths. Okonewski's interstate flight was reported by AP and published in newspapers throughout the United States. Thus, when she was admitted to a hospital in California, the Florida court was notified. The Florida court order was extended to the hospital in California, and a California judge announced that he intended to enforce the extended jurisdiction. When Mrs. Okonewski fled that California hospital, the order was extended to all California hospitals. She then checked back into the California hospital and had the baby by Caesarean section on September 6. Fortunately, no blood transfusion was needed during the Caesarean. The baby also did fine without an exchange or regular transfusion.

The question that was never addressed in this drama was who, on extremely short notice, arranged and financed the interstate flight and the doctor who agreed to allow her and the baby to die if necessary, etc. HMMMMM!!!! The media eventually discovered that the Okonewskis were receiving advice from West Palm Beach physician, Oscar Kelley, who also was a Jehovah's Witness.

IN RE PATRICIA BENTLEY was a 1974 Washington D.C. court decision which involved an UNMARRIED pregnant Jehovah's Witness named Patricia Bentley, age 30, who was a patient at Wash D.C. General Hospital. Patricia Bentley needed a caesarean section to deliver an overdue baby boy. However, doctors would only agree to perform a caesarean if Bentley would consent to a blood transfusion if such became necessary during the caesarean. Bentley not only refused, but stated that she would not only physically resist any attempt to give her a blood transfusion, but that she would escape from the hospital if she could. Notably, this presumably African-American female was surrounded by female relatives who were Jehovah's Witnesses. Bentley's JW Mother, Mildred Washington, even revealed to reporters that her own mother also had been a Jehovah's Witness -- before she DIED due to refusing a life-saving blood transfusion.

In a hearing in which Bentley, her unborn baby boy, and the hospital/doctors were all represented by counsel, the Superior Judge, Alfred Burka, ruled that the Hospital could not make consent to blood transfusions a condition of performing the caesarean. Doctors testified that there was practically no chance that the baby would not be delivered before any emergency would require a transfusion, while both the baby and the mother could lose their lives if a caesarean was not performed. Thus, the Judge ruled that the hospital would have to perform the caesarean without Bentley's consent to any necessary transfusions. Thankfully, the caesarean went without incident, and both mother and child survived.
IN RE BRENDA J. BLACKWELL was a 1973 Indiana court decision. In September 1973, a very pregnant Brenda Blackwell, then age 26, of Indianapolis, Indiana, began to hemorrhage such that doctors at Indiana University Hospital requested permission to perform life-saving blood transfusions if and when such were needed. Both Brenda J. Blackwell and her USPS employed husband, James D. Blackwell, refused to give their consent. Hospital officials were forced to seek judicial intervention, where James Blackwell was supported in his "no-blood" decision by three other Jehovah's Witness Ministers, including his brother Gregory T. Blackwell. A local judge was forced to interrupt his Labor Day holiday and grant medical custody to Blackwell's physician. Outcome unknown, but Brenda Blackwell lived a long life, and had two daughters and one son.
IN RE CONNIE REAVIS was a 1973 Oregon court decision. In December 1973, Connie Reavis, age 23, of Kelso, Washington, was scheduled to deliver her third child via caesarean, but she was refusing to consent to any blood transfusions per her WatchTower beliefs. In anticipation, Reavis' obstetrician and doctors at Emmanuel Hospital sought and obtained a court order for one or more transfusions to be administered at the time the caesarean was performed.
At the hearing, Connie Reavis threatened to do everything in her power to resist the administration of a transfusion if the judge so ordered. Husband, Thomas Reavis, threatened that the couple would flee the state, if the judge ordered the transfusion. The Judge was not intimidated by their threats, and probably gave them some warnings which never made the newspaper. However, to help the Reavis' keep kosher with the WatchTower Society, Judge Lent noted, "No one should adjudge her action as voluntary if she obeys the injunction of this court."
Judge Lent acknowledged that Reavis had the right to place her own life at risk, but he further reasoned that her right to her religious beliefs did not give her the right to place the life of her unborn child at risk, even if such meant that she had to accept a blood transfusion to protect that unborn child. Lent further noted:
"Upon arrival at the age of reason, this person to be may well accept or reject, in whole or part, the faith of his parents but must have that choice. So long as this society and its system of jurisprudence recognize the right of the individual to maintain his life and health inviolate from legal wrong by others, the state must act for those lacking physical capacity, and more importantly, [lacking] legal capacity, to act for themselves."
IN RE MARTINA WILSON was a 1973 Pennsylvania court decision. In February 1973, Martina Wilson, age 26, of Chester, Pennsylvania, was a very pregnant mother of three other children -- ages 2 to 6. Complications with this fourth pregnancy had resulted in a severely low blood count which threatened both her life and the life of the unborn child. However, per her WatchTower Cult beliefs, Martina Wilson refused to consent to the needed blood transfusions. Crozer-Chester Medical Center petitioned for and received authorization to perform needed testing and blood transfusions to save both lives.


IN RE NEWBORN ISLEY was a 1975 North Carolina court decision. Limited specifics. In September 1975, "child neglect" proceedings were initiated against Mr/Mrs Anthony Isley, of Reidsville, North Carolina, after they refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their newborn child. Mrs Anthony Isley showed up at an unidentified Winston-Salem area hospital several days prior to delivering Baby Isley suffering from pregnancy complications. Despite the doctors' best efforts to save the newborn, the baby died two days later.


IN RE VALERIE A. SOWELL was an April 1971 Pennsylvania court case which involved a pregnant Jehovah's Witness whom due to unspecified health problems was anticipated to possibly require a caesarean delivery. Both Valerie Sowell and her husband, Edward R. Sowell, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, refused to give consent for the administration of blood transfusions should such become necessary to save the life of the mother, or ensure the life and health of the child. Administrators at West Penn Hospital sought and obtained a court order which permitted the emergency administration of blood transfusions should such become necessary. Fortunately, Valerie Sowell successfully delivered a son, and no transfusions were necessary.

IN RE ROSA MARTELL was a 1969 New York court decision. In August 1969, an 8-months pregnant Jehovah's Witness, named Rosa Martell, and her JW Husband, Jose Martell, refused to allow Fordham Hospital to administer needed life-saving blood transfusions to protect Martell and her unborn child. Fordham Hospital was forced to seek and obtain court-ordered permission.
IN RE FETUS BROWN was a 1968 California court decision. In May 1968, a California doctor filed suit in juvenile court seeking authorization to force a blood transfusion on his Jehovah's Witness patient, Frances Brown, age 36, who was nearly seven months pregnant. The doctor claimed that due to Frances Brown's severely anemic condition that the fetus would likely die within a week or so, and that Frances Brown herself could possibly die within a month thereafter.
California juvenile court judge, Leopoldo G. Sanchez, denied the doctor's request -- ruling that the juvenile court had no authority in a case involving a "fetus" -- "which" essentially had no legal rights, and no legal rights which conflicted with those of its' host being. If HALF-WIT Leopoldo Sanchez had been so inclined to protect the life of the unborn child, Sanchez could have ruled in favor of "life", and forced Frances Brown to appeal his decision, which could not have occurred until after the transfusions had been administered, and likely after both Brown and her "fetus" were out of danger.
Who was Leopoldo Sanchez? Leo Sanchez was an INCOMPETENT TOKEN HISPANIC who held judicial office only because he was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HISPANIC who had somehow graduated from Law School and somehow managed to pass the Bar. Later, in 1972, after Leo Sanchez was appointed by JERRY BROWN to the Superior Court, Leopoldo Sanchez was also found to be CORRUPT. Sanchez was caught handing out SIGNED, otherwise BLANK, bail bond applications to HISPANIC bail bondsmen, who then used them to release HISPANICS of the bondsmen's own choosing, and who agreed to pay those bondsmen additional money for doing so. Hell, even the bail amounts were blank. The bondsmen filled in whatever bail amount they so desired. Was Sanchez prosecuted and imprisoned? What do you think happened to a liberal Democrat, Hispanic Judge in East L.A.? Sanchez was merely publicly reprimanded by the California Supreme Court. Thereafter, Sanchez became the Superior Court Judge whom every cited/arrested Hispanic in Los Angeles hoped they would appear before. Read more at Google.
No one should be SHOCKED. DEMOCRATS have done the same and similar CORRUPT political things FOR DECADES in every African-American and every Hispanic urban community across the United States. Is it any wonder that there are very few African-Americans and very few Hispanics who have even a basic understanding of right and wrong??? Why do people wonder why African-Americans and Hispanics repeatedly elect and re-elect CORRUPT politicians in cities like Washington D.C., Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. Its because those urban communities have grown to LOVE CORRUPTION.
JEFFERSON MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL v. EVELYN WONGUS was a 1966 Pennsylvania court decision in which the court ordered an expectant Jehovah's Witness Mother, named Evelyn Wongus, age 28, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to accept a blood transfusion needed to save the life of her unborn child. Rh factor incompatibility was causing the baby's red corpuscles to disintegrate, and transfusion of the baby after birth would be too late to save its life. The judge apparently refused to extend the order to any subsequent blood transfusions the mother might need specifically to save her own life during the planned caesarean delivery scheduled for one month later. Apparently, this was not the first time that Evelyn Wongus' religious beliefs had taxed the local court system. Wongus already had six other children. No husband was mentioned during the media coverage.
In September 1966, a 31 year-old, African-American, pregnant-with-her-SIXTH-child, Jehovah's Witness, named Pearline Williams, age 31, of Toledo, Ohio, chose backdoor suicide for herself and her unborn child rather than a life-saving blood transfusion to alleviate her "low hemoglobin" condition. JW Husband, Larry B. Williams, Sr., supported and encouraged his JW Wife's decision. The Williams unborn child, Elaine Williams, also was suffering from inadequate oxygen due to her mother's condition, so an emergency cesarean section was performed at Toledo's St. Vincent's Hospital immediately after the death of Pearline Williams. Elaine Williams died two days later due to the lack of oxygen suffered prior to birth. Apparently, administrators at the good Catholic St. Vincent's Hospital failed to seek court intervention on behalf of the mother or child. (See similar scenario above.)
IN THE MATTER OF BABY COFFEY was a 1965 Maryland court decision. In September 1965, a pregnant 32 year old Jehovah's Witness, named Meriam Coffey, refused blood transfusions needed to save her life and the life of her unborn child. A Baltimore hospital sought and received a court order to administer the needed transfusions. Meriam Coffey, who SUPPOSEDLY was separated from her husband at the time of this pregnancy, was suffering from a condition known as placenta previa. The court ordered the transfusions based on the need to protect the unborn child.
FITKIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. WILLIMINA ANDERSON was a 1964 New Jersey Supreme Court decision. Willimina Anderson, age 29, and notably NOT a U.S. citizen, was NOT yet a baptized Jehovah's Witness -- she simply was in the midst of the "studying" process. The pregnant Anderson suffered from hemorrhaging due to a condition called placenta praevia. Since there was a high likelihood that one or more blood transfusions would be necessary to save the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, and since both parents, JW Husband Stuart Anderson and Willimina Anderson, of Asbury Park, New Jersey, refused to consent to receive a blood transfusion per WatchTower Cult prohibitions, Memorial Hospital sought a court order in Anderson's eighth month to permission to administer transfusions to Anderson, if such became necessary to save her life, or the life of the baby. The trial court said it could not intervene in the case of an adult or with respect to an unborn child. The Hospital appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which reversed the lower court's decision. The NJSC held that a blood transfusion could be ordered if necessary to save the lives of the mother and her unborn son, stating in part:
We have no difficulty in so deciding with respect to the infant child. The more difficult question is whether an adult may be compelled to submit to such medical procedures when necessary to save his life. Here we think it is unnecessary to decide that question in broad terms because the welfare of the child and the mother are so intertwined and inseparable that it would be impracticable to attempt to distinguish between them with respect to the sundry factual patterns which may develop. The blood transfusions (including transfusions made necessary by the delivery) may be administered if necessary to save her life or the life of her child, as the physician in charge at the time may determine.
NOTABLY, neither of the New Jersey courts considered Willimina Anderson's parental obligations to her two infant sons, Scott Anderson, born in 1960, and Martin Anderson, born in 1961.

The WatchTower Society prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, but certiori was DENIED. Mitchell Anderson was successfully delivered via caesarean at Pasack Valley Hospital, but a life-saving blood transfusion was required for the one-month premature baby. Willimina Anderson lost so much blood that a transfusion was also required to save her life.

This Supreme Court of New Jersey decision drew the ire of abortionists, so-called civil libertarians, and other SCUMBAGS who were outraged that a state Supreme Court would place equal or more value on the life of an "unborn fetus" over the wishes of an adult female. WatchTower Cult President Nathan H. Knorr even provided this enlightening media soundbite, "Jehovah God does not change his law because seven men in New Jersey said a blood transfusion should be given to a mother if a doctor decided it was needed."

The Andersons were represented by WatchTower Society of Canada Lead Attorney, W. Glen How, who when the hospital's attorney stated at the hearing before the Supreme Court that it was his understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses did not find court-ordered transfusions objectionable, replied that, "We would not consider it a moral sin as far as the individual is concerned, but we would consider it just as objectionable as a rape."
In January 1962, a six-months pregnant Jehovah's Witness, named Tillie Diehl, age 26, of Quakerstown, Pennsylvania, was seriously injured in an automobile accident in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, when a carload of 8 Puerto Ricans smashed directly into an automobile being driven by Russell Diehl, age 36. According to the treating physician at Grandview Hospital, Tillie Diehl's injuries were survivable, but both Tillie Diehl and Russell Diehl refused to consent to a life-saving blood transfusion, and Tillie Diehl, along with her unborn child, died the next day -- leaving an unspecified number of surviving children. In the criminal trial in which the other driver was charged with involuntary manslaughter, the Judge quashed the charges after hearing the doctor's testimony.


NEW JERSEY CHILD WELFARE DEPT v. LOUIS BERTINATO and GLORIA BERTINATO was a 1961 New Jersey court decision. Jehovah's Witnesses Louis Bertinato and Gloria Bertinato were expecting their fourth child. Gloria Bertinato had a RH negative blood condition. This case was initiated by the state child welfare department on behalf of the yet unborn child based on the state's prior experiences with the Bertinatos.

IN RE BABY BERTINATO. In 1955, the Bertinatos' second child had needed a blood transfusion soon after birth, but citing their Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs the Bertinatos refused to consent. The state sought and was granted temporary custody and authorization to consent to medically required blood transfusions.

The Bertinatos then had a third child, which also needed an exchange blood transfusion. However, the Bertinatos somehow managed to avoid state intervention, and that child died before legal action could be taken.

Thus, the state decided not to wait until the fourth child was born before pursuing legal action. Two physicians, the Bertinatos' obstetrician and pediatrician, both testified at the hearing and established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, as a result of this blood condition of the mother, unless a blood transfusion was given the child soon after birth, the child would die, or even if there were the remote possibility of its surviving, it would be born physically or mentally deformed for life. They planned to induce early labor and perform the transfusion to reduce the severity of the baby's blood condition at birth. The Bertinatos' sole objection was intrusion on their religious freedom. The trial court granted the state's petition noting that waiting until the child was born was not practical or sensible given the circumstances. Pertinent excerpts:

There is no doubt of the defendants' good faith as to their religious principles; nor is there any doubt as to their being good and devoted parents, except in their refusal to consent to the transfusions.

Nevertheless, I have no difficulty in finding that, by their refusal to consent to the blood transfusions, defendants are neglecting to provide the child to be born with proper protection within the meaning of [New Jersey law]. ... ... ...

Since the blood transfusions are required in order for the child to live, the defendants' refusal to consent thereto constitutes "neglect to provide the child with proper protection" under the statute. Failure or refusal to take necessary steps to protect a child's life is obviously neglect of the child, even if the parents have not failed in their duty to the child in other respects and even if such failure or refusal is grounded on genuine religious beliefs. The parents' constitutional freedom of religion, although accorded the greatest possible respect, must bend to the paramount interest of the State to act in order to protect the welfare of a child and its right to survive. ... ...

Laws are made for the government of actions. While they cannot constitutionally interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may interfere with religious practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state -- here, the protection of the lives and health of its children. ...

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ... : 'The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. ... Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.' ... ... ...

Other courts have had no hesitancy in finding neglect and awarding custody to others, for the purpose of effecting blood transfusions, where parents of the same religious faith and beliefs as defendants have refused to consent to such transfusions for a child requiring the same. I am in complete accord with the reasoning and holdings of these cases. ... ... The present proceeding, however, presents an additional problem not involved in the foregoing cases. They were concerned with children already born. The instant matter was heard prior to the birth of the child. Does the fact that the child has not yet been born mean that [New Jersey law] is inapplicable and the court is without jurisdiction? I think not. ... ... ...


IN RE DANIEL JOSEPH SMOCK was a January 1960 Indiana court decision. Prior to the delivery of Danny Joe Smock in February 1960, at Indianapolis' Methodist Hospital, Richard Smock and Delores Smock, both age 28, of Clayton, Indiana, knew that their Rh factor incompatibility would likely required that their newborn son receive an exchange blood transfusion. Although the Smocks already had had two surviving children (can't help but wonder if prior to their conversion to the Cult), they had lost their first child due to Rh factor incompatibility, in 1951. Because the Smocks refused to provide the hospital and doctors with advanced consent to administer transfusions to their newborn, their doctors sought and ultimately attained court-authorization well in advance of the delivery. Interestingly, at that two-hour court hearing, the Presiding Minister at the Danville, Indiana Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, named John Hathaway, cast a curse on the court, stating that if the Judge ruled against the Smocks, "God judge you, the witnesses, and the attorneys". Three days after Daniel J. Smock was born, Danny received the life-saving exchange transfusion. 


IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA ARMSTRONG was a 1958 California court decision. In April 1958, Patricia Armstrong, a 19 year-old expectant mother, who already had one child, was operated on for a ruptured spleen at Downey Community Hospital. The surgery had to be performed without benefit of a blood transfusion due to the refusal of Patricia and her husband, Robert Armstrong, 20. Two days after the surgery, Patricia was in danger of dying from a severely low blood count. However, she and her husband, supported by his mother, two brothers, and Overseers from their Jehovah's Witness congregation, refused to consent to the life-saving transfusions.

At that point, Patricia Armstrong's own mother, Mrs. Michael Biggers of El Cajon, who was NOT a JW, had had enough and hired attorneys to petition a local court for authorization to administer life-saving blood transfusions to her daughter over the objections of the Jehovah's Witness In-laws. A local Los Angeles Judge rushed to the hospital and conducted an emergency hearing in which Armstrong was declared a ward of the court. Life-saving transfusions were ordered barely in time. The judge based his decision on concern for the unborn child. Reading from an affidavit submitted by one of Armstrong's doctors, the judge quoted: "Failure to accept the blood transfusion will result in severe abnormality to the unborn child and possibly affect the lives of both mother and child." While his pregnant wife laid in intensive care, listed in critical condition, pipefitter Robert Armstrong sobbed to reporters that the Judge had violated his wife's religious beliefs. Robert's mother, Elsie Finley, told reporters, "We're just trying to help our daughter. Pat didn't want a transfusion."


In September 1963, in Pocatello, Idaho, the local newspaper was following the story of a hospitalized, unidentified Jehovah's Witness Wife who was suffering with unspecified hemorrhaging at the local Bannock Memorial Hospital, while refusing to consent to needed blood transfusions. The newspaper eventually reported that JW Wife's Husband had appeared before a local court and requested that the Judge issue a court order authorizing blood transfusions for JW Wife. The local Judge refused to issue such an order -- presumably because JW Wife was a competent adult, and because Husband neither presented, nor did the Judge consider any possible parental or other legal obligations which might exceed JW Wife's constitutional right to choose to die.

Interestingly, the very next day, the newspaper retracted the previous day's report based on a statement made to them by the Presiding Minister of the Pocatello Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, named Francis N. Scharfen. Francis Scharfen revealed that JW Wife already had been successfully operated on by an unidentified new surgeon whom had agreed that no blood transfusions would be administered, and that JW Wife was now in stable condition. However, the DUMBASS Francis Scharfen could not leave well enough alone. Francis Scharfen further alleged that the newspaper's previous day's report that Husband had went before the local court seeking authorization for blood transfusions for JW Wife was INACCURATE. Francis Scharfen claimed that Husband actually had appeared before the Judge to seek a court order which would require JW Wife's primary physician/surgeon to violate his own personal and professional beliefs and go ahead and treat/operate on JW Wife without the use of blood transfusions.

DUMBASS Francis N. Scharfen was either too STUPID, or too IGNORANT, or BOTH, to understand that his last statement made this scenario appear even more outrageous to the general public than it already was. Francis Scharfen also was too stupid to understand that the general public easily could see that he had just LIED to the newspaper. While Husband may have been upset enough to request a court order forcing the original surgeon to operate without having transfusions as a safety backup, it is plain to see that Husband would have done so ONLY AFTER the Judge had denied his original request for a court order authorizing blood transfusions for JW Wife.

Readers have not spent enough time on our two websites if they do not understand that JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE THE BIGGEST LIARS IN THE WORLD, and the higher the position in the CULT that a JW holds, the bigger the LIAR they are!!! It is this FACT that essentially proves that the WatchTower Cult's real founder and sponsor is SATAN THE DEVIL, who continues to mentor the Cult's top leaders.


IN RE FETUS BROWN v. DARLENE BROWN was a 1997 Illinois state appellate court decision. WatchTower attorney Donald T. Ridley represented Darlene Brown, while a separate Illinois attorney filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the WatchTower Bible & Tract Society. In June 1996, then 26 years old Darlene Brown was approximately 35 weeks pregnant with her third child. Brown was admitted into Ingalls Memorial Hospital in Harvey, Illinois, to have a cystoscopy and then to remove a urethral mass. Brown did not discuss with Dr. Walsh that she was a Jehovah's Witness before the surgery.

During the surgery, Brown lost approximately 700 cubic centimeters of blood, so Dr. Walsh ordered three units of blood for transfusion. Once the blood arrived in the operating room, Brown, who was fully conscious and alert during the procedure, refused the blood, explaining that she was a Jehovah's Witness. The doctors believed Brown was competent to refuse the blood and they completed the surgery using other techniques to control her bleeding. By the end of the surgery, Brown had lost almost 1,500 cubic centimeters of blood.

After the surgery, Brown had a hemoglobin level of 4.4 grams per deciliter (9 to 11 or 12 grams per deciliter would be normal for a woman at this stage of pregnancy). Dr. Walsh explained that Brown's low hemoglobin level and the abrupt change in that level posed a significant, life-threatening risk both to Brown and to the fetus (a/k/a her unborn baby). After consulting with Brown and her husband, Lester Brown, as well as physicians at other hospitals, Dr. Walsh attempted to use alternative medical procedures, compatible with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, to raise Brown's hemoglobin level. Unfortunately, Brown's hemoglobin level continued to drop. Dr. Walsh spoke with numerous hematologists and oncologists. Dr. Walsh also spoke with a renowned researcher about other possible treatments. At the time of the hearing, it was Dr. Walsh's medical opinion that if Darlene Brown did not have a blood transfusion, her chances of survival, as well as those of the fetus, were only 5%. On June 28, 1996, the State filed a petition for adjudication of wardship and a motion for temporary custody of Baby Doe, a fetus. A hearing was held the same day. Although Brown contends that she was never served, the Browns were represented by counsel at the hearing and Lester Brown was present. The court began by appointing the public guardian of Cook County, over his objection, to represent the fetus (Fetus Brown). Next, uncertain as to jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court Act, the court found it inappropriate to proceed under the State's petition for adjudication of wardship. Thus, invoking the court's equitable powers, the State filed a "Petition for Hearing on Whether a Temporary Custodian can be Appointed to Consent to a Medical Procedure: To Wit Blood Transfusion." 

At the hearing, Dr. Walsh testified to the facts of Darlene Brown's condition as indicated above. Dr. Walsh also stated that, from the blood transfusion, Darlene Brown had a 1 in 1,000 risk of contracting hepatitis and a 1 in 5,000 or 10,000 risk of contracting HIV. Dr. Walsh explained that the blood transfusion was necessary, not to get blood to the fetus, but rather to get oxygen to the placenta via the mother's blood. Dr. Walsh explained that, while there were other methods of oxygenation, the problem was that the maternal blood was the only medium for transporting the oxygen to the placenta.

Kurt Johnson, the senior vice-president and chief operating officer of Ingalls Memorial Hospital, testified that he was prepared to accept temporary custody of the fetus in order to consent to the blood transfusion. The parties stipulated that, if called to testify, Lester Brown would confirm that Darlene Brown understood the risks to herself and the fetus if she did not accept the blood transfusion. The parties further stipulated that Lester Brown supported Darlene Brown's decision not to accept the blood transfusion. At the time of the hearing, the Browns had been married for two years and both worked to take care of Darlene's eight-year-old and three-year-old daughters. The parties also stipulated that, if anything happened to Darlene Brown, Lester would continue to take care of the two surviving children and both Darlene's and Lester's parents would be available for care and support of the children. The Browns then rested.

The trial court granted the State's petition and appointed the hospital administrator as "temporary custodian of Fetus Brown, with the right to consent to one or more blood transfusions for Darlene Brown, when advised of such necessity by any attending physician." Darlene Brown was transfused with six units of packed red blood cells beginning on the night of June 28 and continuing to approximately noon on June 29. Darlene Brown tried to prevent the administration of the transfusion; requiring the hospital to forcibly restrained and sedated her. On July 1, 1996, Darlene Brown delivered a healthy baby, and both baby and mother were later discharged from the hospital.

On July 8, 1996, the court held a status hearing, and discovering that all had ended well, the court vacated the temporary custody order, dismissed the State's petition, and closed the case. However, with the advice of the WatchTower Society Legal Department no doubt, Darlene and Lester Brown filed an appeal to challenge the previous circuit court's order appointing a temporary custodian for strong>the fetus with the ability to consent, on Darlene Brown's behalf, to a blood transfusion for the viable fetus. They wanted to make sure that an unborn fetus never again interfered with WatchTower doctrine, at least in the state of Illinois. This Illinois appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in appointing a temporary custodian for Fetus Brown, with the ability to consent on behalf of Darlene Brown to a blood transfusion for the viable fetus, stating in part:

"... While the factual issues are moot, the remaining legal issue satisfies the public policy exception to the Illinois mootness doctrine. ... The issue is a public one requiring authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officials, especially given the emergency and expedited nature of such proceedings. ...

"... on appeal, Darlene Brown challenges the propriety of the trial court's order appointing a temporary custodian to consent, on her behalf, to blood transfusions for the benefit of her viable fetus, Fetus Brown. Darlene Brown contends that, under federal and Illinois law, as a competent adult, she has an absolute right to refuse medical advice and treatment. In contrast, the State urges that its substantial interest in the viable fetus outweighs the minimal invasion presented by the blood transfusion. The public guardian also appeals, seeking guidance regarding its role as protector of fetal rights, ... ... ...

"... In Stallman, the court determined that a tort cause of action may not be maintained by a fetus against its mother for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries. ... In so deciding, the Stallman court reasoned that 'the law will not treat a fetus as an entity which is entirely separate from its mother. ... Moreover, the court stated that, in Illinois, a fetus cannot have rights superior to those of its mother. ... The court thus held that a pregnant woman owes no legally cognizable duty to her developing fetus. ...

"Following the reasoning of Stallman, the Baby Boy Doe court held that Illinois courts should not engage in a balancing of the maternal and fetal rights such that 'a woman's competent choice in refusing medical treatment as invasive as a cesarean section during her pregnancy must be honored, even in circumstances where the choice may be harmful to her fetus.' ... In reaching this decision, the Baby Boy Doe court applied the rationale of Stallman to determine: 'A woman's right to refuse invasive medical treatment, derived from her rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and religious liberty, is not diminished during pregnancy. The woman retains the same right to refuse invasive treatment, even of lifesaving or other beneficial nature, that she can exercise when she is not pregnant. The potential impact upon the fetus is not legally relevant; to the contrary, the Stallman court explicitly rejected the view that the woman's rights can be subordinated to fetal rights.'

"... the Baby Boy Doe court left open the question of whether blood transfusions, involving 'relatively noninvasive and risk-free' procedures, could permissibly be ordered in such a circumstance. ...

"... Darlene Brown urges that she holds an absolute right to refuse medical treatment grounded in Illinois common and statutory law, and based on the Illinois and United States Constitutions. Brown also argues that the Baby Boy Doe court's determination that blood transfusions are 'minimally invasive' is not a valid legal basis for divining when a patient's right to refuse treatment will be followed. Specifically, Brown argues that to qualify the patient's choice in refusing treatment undermines the patient's authority to make a competent treatment decision.

"Illinois recognizes a common law right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment. ... The right to refuse such treatment is based on the doctrine of informed consent, which requires physicians to obtain consent before performing any medical surgery or procedure upon a patient. ... The right to refuse treatment anticipates all forms of medical treatment, including life-saving and life-sustaining procedures ..., and includes the refusal of blood transfusions. ...

"The United States Supreme Court has stated that a person's interest in refusing medical treatment has constitutional underpinnings in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, ...(1990), the United States Supreme Court explained that a patient has a liberty interest in refusing medical treatment which must be balanced in a given case against the relevant State interests. ...

"The right to refuse medical treatment, however, is not absolute. ... The State may intervene in a given case if the State's interests outweigh the interests of the patient in refusing medical treatment. This is true whether the refusal is based on common law or constitutional principles. ...

"In this case, the circuit court considered the four state interests ... and determined: (1) the transfusion was necessary to preserve the life of Darlene and the fetus; ... (3) the State's interest in protecting third parties was strong because Darlene has two minor children, ages three and eight, who would be orphaned if she did not receive the transfusion; and (4) the transfusion procedure would be minimally invasive and could 'be administered without additional pain or intrusion because Darlene already had two intravenous sites.' ... ...

"... Lester Brown, the natural father of the three-year-old, supported Darlene's decision to refuse consent. While there is no evidence in the record regarding the eight-year-old's natural father, Lester Brown as well as his and Darlene's parents all were willing to help support both minor children. Thus, the State's interest in protecting the living minor children is not determinative. We therefore encounter the ultimate issue, the State's interest in protecting the viable fetus. In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court explained that the state maintains an 'important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... [and] the potentiality of human life.'... ... ...

"... while refusal to consent to a blood transfusion for an infant would constitute neglect ... without a determination by the Illinois legislature that a fetus is a minor for purposes of the Juvenile Court Act, we cannot separate the mother's valid treatment refusal from the potential adverse consequences to the viable fetus.

"Consequently, following the lead of Baby Boy Doe and Stallman, and in this case balancing the mother's right to refuse medical treatment against the State's substantial interest in the viable fetus, we hold that the State may not override a pregnant woman's competent treatment decision, including refusal of recommended invasive medical procedures, to potentially save the life of the viable fetus. We disagree with the Baby Boy Doe court's suggestion that a blood transfusion constitutes a 'relatively noninvasive and risk-free procedure' ..., and find that a blood transfusion is an invasive medical procedure that interrupts a competent adult's bodily integrity. We thus determine that the circuit court erred in ordering Brown to undergo the transfusion on behalf of the viable fetus. ... ...

"Although the public guardian is correct that Baby Boy Doe held that the mother's rights and the fetus' rights may not be balanced, this case did not involve such a balancing. Instead, the issue as framed in this case involved the mother's right to refuse medical treatment as considered against the State's interest in the viable fetus. The asserted legal interests did not require the public guardian's representation of the separate, putative interests of the viable fetus. Thus, the circuit court erred in appointing the public guardian to represent the interests of the viable fetus in this case. In conclusion, the circuit court erred in appointing a temporary custodian for Fetus Brown with the authority to consent to blood transfusions for Darlene Brown and erred in appointing the public guardian as guardian ad litem for Fetus Brown."



<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>