by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• Notorious abortionist Stephen Brigham has opened an abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Brigham’s presence has pushed other abortion providers to send an alert to the state.

  The new clinic, Integrity Family Health, is on Bustleton Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia. The state Department of Health did an initial inspection and issued a permit, called a registration, eight weeks ago, then added the facility to its online list of abortion clinics in the Keystone State.

  The new clinic’s connections to Brigham are circumstantial but were enough to concern some longtime critics of his operations – in this case, other abortion providers….

  Then they called the toll-free number for Brigham’s multistate abortion company, American Women’s Services, and found that appointments were being made for Integrity Family Health. They also got Integrity’s prices, directions, and heard a recorded abortion-counseling message.

  Then they alerted state health officials.

• A district court judge has issued a temporary stay on Iowa’s rule which prevents abortionist from prescribed chemical abortions thru a webcam:

  Polk County District Judge Karen Romano ordered a temporary stay on a rule passed by the Iowa Board of Medicine, which effectively would ban use of the first-in-the-nation video-conferencing system. The medical board said its rule was based on concern for patient safety. But Planned Parenthood supporters said the rule was a political attempt to limit rural women’s access to legal abortions….

  The stay means the system may continue to be used while the issues are argued more extensively in court, which could take months.

• Wendy Davis really is an Abortion Barbie.  Read how she tried to sue a local paper for libel after losing an election.  Remember that Davis got a law degree in 1993:

  In 2000, nearly four years after her loss, Texas’ 5th Court of Appeals rejected Davis’ claim that she was libeled by the Star-Telegram during her 1996 campaign for city council. Rubbing salt in the wound, the court wrote in its 3-0 decision that they “cannot conclude a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the statements as defamatory.”

  Ouch.