LIFE DIGEST: Georgia woman jailed for forging girl’s abortion notification

By Tom Strode - Jun 17, 2008 - 1

A Georgia woman has been sentenced to a year in jail after pressuring her son’s teen-age girlfriend to have an abortion, forging a letter of parental notification and paying for the procedure.

Cindi Cook, 44, received the sentence, which is the maximum for a misdemeanor, from a judge in DeKalb County in early June after being found guilty of custody interference and of a violation of the state’s parental notice law, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported June 12. She “searched for a clinic that did not require a parent to be present,” said county solicitor general Robert James, before forging the letter and paying for the abortion at Northside Women’s Clinic in Chamblee, Ga., according to the newspaper.

Cook’s son and his girlfriend were both 16 when the abortion was performed in May 2007, the newspaper reported.

The girl’s parents released a written statement after the sentencing: “The actions of both Cindi Cook and the Northside Women’s Clinic have affected our daughter’s life with much pain this past year because of the loss of her baby. They took away our right to be there and help our daughter during a time when she needed us most.”

The girl and her parents were not named by The Journal-Constitution because she was a minor when the crime took place.

DeKalb County is investigating whether the abortion clinic broke state law, James told the newspaper. Under Georgia’s parental notification requirement, a parent is to be notified by telephone or certified mail if he will not be present for the abortion, The Journal-Constitution reported.

The case is an example of the coercive nature of many abortions, said a leader of a network of people harmed by abortion.

“Abortion clinics will not voluntarily ask girls or women if they’re being coerced into ending their children’s lives,” said Georgette Forney, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. “Abortion clinics are in business to make money and the more abortions they perform, the richer everyone involved becomes, everyone, that is, except the woman who’s just had her life shattered and the baby who’s just had his life ended.”

Advances with non-embryonic stem cells continue

Reports of successes in treatments with non-embryonic stem cells continue to mount.

The accounts are especially gratifying to pro-life advocates who oppose embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). In such experiments, the extraction of stem cells from an embryo results in the destruction of the tiny human being. Though ESCR has been highly touted, it has yet to produce a successful therapy in human beings and has been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals.

Research using stem cells from non-embryonic sources, however, does not require harm to the donor and has produced treatments for at least 73 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research.

Recent reports of non-embryonic stem cell advances include:

  • Six patients who were blind from chemical burns or a rare genetic disease experienced largely restored vision after receiving stem cell transplants from donors in research at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, The Telegraph reported June 13.
  • Stem cells taken from the noses of patients with Parkinson’s and injected into the brains of rats with the disease’s symptoms produced dramatic improvements in the animals, according to a study at Griffith University in Australia. The transplants did not result in any tumors, unlike a similar experiment with embryonic stem cells, PhysOrg.com reported.
  • Researchers at the University of Minnesota and the school’s Children’s Hospital have used stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood to develop a new treatment for a fatal genetic skin disease, according to PhysOrg.com. Doctors have seen hopeful results after treating Nate Liao, 2, from New Jersey, with stem cells from his healthy brother in an effort to cure recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) and plan to include other RDEB patients in the clinical trial.

Michigan, Ohio governors veto pro-life bills

Governors of two Midwest states recently vetoed pro-life bills.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed June 13 a measure to prohibit partial-birth abortions. On June 12, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland used a line-item veto to remove a ban on funds for human cloning from an economic stimulus bill. Both governors are Democrats.

It was the second time Granholm has vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortion, which involves the killing of a nearly totally delivered baby usually in at least the fifth month of pregnancy. As typically performed, the procedure begins with the feet-first delivery of an intact baby until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors before inserting a catheter into the opening and suctioning out the brain, killing the baby. The technique provides for easier removal of the baby’s head.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on the partial-birth method.

Mike Gonidakis, executive director of Ohio Right to Life, said in a written release about Strickland’s veto, “By vetoing a ban on using taxpayer funds for human cloning, Ted Strickland has demonstrated that he supports treating human life as a commodity. Most Ohioans don’t share Governor Strickland’s cavalier disregard for the value of human life and they should not be forced to pay for its creation, exploitation and destruction in cloning research.”

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Cloning, Stem-Cell Research, Science, Bioethics

1 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Jun 19th, 2008, at 2:47pm, marc truhn wrote:

First of all she did not force Renae to have the abortion. She wanted to have the abortion. Secondly Cindi’s son Mitch was not 16 at the time but 18. I want to know why he was not charged with statutory rape. Another thing this girl is not all messed up shes pregnant again and is getting married. Also Cindi did not pay for the abortion nor did she drive her to the clinic her son did. When she signed this paper she was sick in bed and her son brought the paper in and said “ Mom would you sign this paper for school.” So she was tricked into this by her son, which I would like to point out has not been punished at all./

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com