Abortion doctor avoids death row, agrees to life in prison

Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell agreed today to serve two life sentences and waive his right to an appeal in order to avoid the possibility of being condemned to death.

Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder on Monday in the deaths of three babies who were born live and then killed by severing their spinal chords with scissors.

As part of the deal, Gosnell, 72, will serve two life sentences without the possibility of parole or the opportunity to appeal.

Prosecutors had sought the death penalty against Gosnell, but because of his advanced age it was deemed unlikely that he would live long enough for death penalty appeals which can last decades.

Gosnell is expected to be sentenced Wednesday. He will also be sentenced on a conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a female patient who was given a lethal dose of sedatives and pain killers in 2009.

The guilty verdicts came on Monday, the jury's 10th day of deliberations.

Gosnell was accused of performing late-term abortions on four babies who were born alive, but were then allegedly killed by Gosnell. He was cleared in the death of one of the infants.

For two months, the jury heard often grisly testimony, including from members of Gosnell's staff. Eight staffers have pleaded guilty to several crimes. Prosecutors said none of the staff were licensed nurses or doctors.

Gosnell ran the Women's Medical Society in West Philadelphia for decades until February 2010, when FBI agents raided his clinic looking for evidence of prescription drug dealing.

Instead they found, as reported in a nearly 300-page grand jury report released in 2011, a filthy, decrepit "house of horrors."

Blood was on the floor, the clinic reeked of urine and bags of fetal remains were stacked in freezers. The clinic was shut down and Gosnell's medical license was suspended after the raid.

Despite repeated complaints to state officials over the years -- as well as 46 lawsuits filed against Gosnell -- investigators said in the report that state regulators had conducted five inspections since the clinic had opened in 1979.

The grand jury report in the case said there had been hundreds of "snippings," in which live babies were born and then killed.

"Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered. ... The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that 'snipping,'" the report alleged.

The report also said that many of the women patients were infected with sexually transmitted diseases from contaminated instruments, had suffered from botched procedures or had been given overdoses of dangerous drugs.

Also Read

View the original article here

Supreme Court agrees to hear Michigan affirmative action case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider a Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public college admissions.

The consideration of race in the admissions process, aimed at correcting past racial discrimination, is deeply unpopular in conservative circles.

In November, a sharply divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning the practice, approved by voters in Michigan, imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The state challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court.

The Michigan law bans preferential treatment toward any candidates in public university admissions.

The high court is simultaneously considering a case on whether colleges and universities can continue to give special preference to minority candidates in admissions policies, in a case involving the University of Texas. A ruling in that case, Fisher v. University of Texas, is expected imminently and will come no later than the end of June.

That the court agreed to hear the Michigan case before deciding the Texas case is unusual. The court's normal practice is to wait until it has issued a ruling before agreeing to hear another case on a related issue. This may mean that the court is struggling to decide the Texas case, or that the ruling could be coming as soon as this week.

A district court judge upheld the state law in the Michigan case, but a three-judge panel of the appeals court struck it down in 2011. The full appeals court reheard the case the following year and struck the law down on a 8-7 vote.

The majority of the appeals court said the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does more than guarantee equal treatment under the law. It also prevents laws from being passed that change the political process to impose extra burdens on minorities, the court said.

"ON ITS HEAD"

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, wrote in the state's brief seeking the high court's review that the appeals court had adopted a theory that has been rejected by other courts in striking down a law that 58 percent of voters approved.

"Entrance to our great colleges and universities must be based upon merit, and I remain optimistic moving forward in our fight for equality, fairness and rule of law at our nation's highest court," Schuette added.

The challengers to the law are split into two groups.

One group, including the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said it wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case even though the group won at the appeals court level. The issue is one of "surpassing national importance" that warrants the Supreme Court's attention, attorney George Washington wrote in a court filing.

In a statement, Washington said the law's supporters "are creating a new form of separate and unequal in a nation that will soon be majority minority," a reference to the growth in the United States of the minority population.

The other group, consisting of prospective college students, said there was no need for the justices to review the case because the 6th Circuit had applied court precedents correctly. Their attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.

In Monday's brief order announcing that the Supreme Court will hear the Michigan case, the court noted that Justice Elena Kagan is recused, meaning there is a possibility of a 4-4 split. Kagan is a former solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

Oral argument and a decision are expected in the court's next term, which runs from October 2013 to June 2014.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-682.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

Venezuela opposition agrees Capriles to run for presidency-sources

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's opposition parties have unanimously agreed with centrist state governor Henrique Capriles that he will run in an upcoming presidential election following the death of Hugo Chavez, party sources said on Wednesday.

Capriles lost to Chavez in an election last year, and will face off against Chavez's preferred successor, Nicolas Maduro.

(Reporting by Marianna Parraga and Ana Isabel Martinez; Editing by Sandra Maler)

View the original article here