How Much is a Woman’s Life Worth? In Michigan, Only $10,000

Operation Rescue declares abortionist Hodari a “Public Menace” and demands meaningful discipline for his reckless conduct.

Detroit, MI – Abortionist Alberto Hodari has been fined $10,000 by the State of Michigan for the 2003 abortion death of Regina Johnson. The consent order, which recently became public, was issued on March 4, 2009, over five years after Ms. Johnson’s death.

“Now we know what a woman’s life is worth in the State of Michigan once she walks into an abortion clinic,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “This paltry fine has reduced Ms. Johnson’s life to that of chattel. Animals are bought and sold for more than this.”

In exchange for the consent agreement, counts of negligence and incompetence against Hodari were dismissed, leaving only the charge that his conduct constituted a “lack of good moral character.”

“Hodari was given a slap on the wrist for his part in Regina Johnson’s death, even though he has been involved in the deaths of at least three additional women since 2004,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “The Board’s finding that his conduct lacks ‘good moral character’ is a gross understatement. The man is a public menace. ”

Hodari has had other problems with the law. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered illegally dumped private medical records in open dumpsters behind several of Hodari’s Detroit-area abortion clinics. He was charged with 12 counts of illegal record dumping, but another agreement allowed him to plead “no contest” to a single count, for which he remains on probation.

More shocking was the discovery of the bodies of aborted babies that had been illegally dumped in the same trash receptacles. Hodari was never charged with any crime related to the dumping of human remains. The babies were later given a proper burial.

One of Hodari’s former patients came forward in February, 2009, and told of her traumatic forced abortion when she was 16-years old. She has since filed a formal complaint against Hodari with the health board in Michigan.

But Hodari appears to be so confident that he is above the law that he has given interviews and speeches bragging about his appalling abortion practices. He says that he believes abortionists have a “license to lie.”

“In addition to his part in four abortion deaths, Hodari has openly admitted that he purposely places women’s lives and health at risk. The fact that he is still allowed to continue his reckless behavior is inexcusable,” said Newman. “The Health Department’s coddling of Hodari completely unacceptable. We plan to formally demand that they take meaningful disciplinary action before he kills anyone else.”

DOCUMENTS: Complaint, Consent Order

  • This is a terrible injustice and one that cries for the public to demand that the justices who issued this fine be replaced. A person gets more than $10,000 if his/her coffee is too hot at McDonald’s. What kind of a message is being sent about the value of life?

  • scott huminski


    Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

    In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

    A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

    Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

    See also,

    Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

    See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

    Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
    It appears she gave this imprisoned man the same bogus one page opinion that I got.

    — Scott Huminski
    (202) 239-1252