Life Insight

A Publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
Vol. 12, No. 3 May-June 2001
In This Issue...

Stemming the Tide of Misinformation

Chances are you've never heard of Melissa Holley. She's an American teenager whose spinal cord was severed in an auto accident last year, leaving her paraplegic. Today Melissa "has recovered significant motor function in her legs" and regained bladder control, following an injection of immune cells from her own blood into the damaged area of her spinal cord. She's not walking (yet), but the new treatment developed by Proneuron Biotechnologies in Israel marks a startling new advance in restoring function lost by a severe spinal cord injury.

That Melissa's astonishing progress was not front page news may be due to the fact that we're in the middle of a highly politicized debate over federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. With few exceptions, the national media have chosen sides with pro-funding forces. Reporters and columnists have all but ignored astounding research developments involving cells obtained without injury to the donor-- from, e.g., adult human tissue, umbilical cord blood, placentas, and even the brains of cadavers. At the same time they have trumpeted even modest advances using embryonic stem cells--as if cures were suddenly at hand for "incurable" conditions like diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's--and downplayed the negative scientific and ethical aspects of using these cells.

Examples of this media bias were detailed in May by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan, non-profit research organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific and social research in public policy debate.

One example STATS cited was a report that mouse embryonic stem cells had been programmed to secrete insulin, supposedly pointing to a cure for diabetes (Science, April 2001). This received wide and enthusiastic media coverage. But no mention was made of a much more significant development more than a year earlier, in which adult mouse pancreatic stem cells successfully reversed diabetes in the mice (Nature Medicine, March 2000).

And journalists neglected to mention that the mice receiving the embryonic stem cells still died from diabetes (a point which diabetics might find relevant). Nor has there been coverage of further developments here and abroad where ductal tissue from adult human pancreas has produced insulin-secreting islet buds in culture.

Unless you read science journals, you would not know that amazing advances in research using non-embryonic stem cells are occurring rapidly. A few examples:

Such discoveries mean that real cures for debilitating conditions are possible in the foreseeable future.

How many therapeutic successes can scientists point to using embryonic stem cells in clinical trials on humans? Zero. At a June 22 workshop, "Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine," sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, the chairman of the Institute's committee studying stem cell research, Bert Vogelstein, M.D. (professor of oncology and pathology and Johns Hopkins University), said all claims of therapeutic benefit from embryonic stem cell research are "conjectural." He added, "there is no experience with embryonic stem cells in humans, and very little in mice."

Marcus Grompe, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Oregon Health Sciences University concurred: "There is no evidence of therapeutic benefit from embryonic stem cells."

Why then have the national media, with few exceptions, talked only about advances with embryonic stem cells? Why have they been loathe to admit that embryos are something more than disposable clumps of cells? Maybe they fear that the precarious edifice of abortion rights could topple, and that the great god, Science, may be restrained by "conventional" and "outdated" morality.

The new morality, underlying many editorials, can be reduced to one commandment: The end justifies the means.

Of Lice and Supermen

Anna Quindlen, New York Times columnist, wore her utilitarian heart on her sleeve when she wrote: "It may be an oversimplification to say that real live loved ones trump the imagined unborn, that a cluster of undifferentiated cells due to be discarded anyway is a small price to pay for the health and welfare of millions. Or perhaps it is only a simple commonsensical truth."

She echoes Raskolnikov's rationale for killing an old pawnbroker: "Dozens of families [might be] saved. ... Take her money and with the help of it, devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. ... Besides, what value has the life of that sickly, stupid, ill-natured old woman [or undifferentiated "fertilized egg"] in a balance of existence?" (Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment).

Raskolnikov liked to think of himself as one of the "extraordinary men" who have the right to commit crimes in pursuit of their great ideas. But after killing the pawnbroker and her sister, he discovers that he was not a superman, just a "louse."

And history offers endless examples of what happens when groups of humans are treated as "less than humans," as objects for others' use and destruction.

The path we should walk is clear. We must resist efforts to kill. We must resist the justification of killing human embryos through appeals to the "greater good" of patients or society. And we should support important legislation like the "Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001," sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith, allocating $30 million for stem cell research from non-embryonic sources and creating a "cell donor bank" to serve researchers nationwide.

Over 24,000 people have signed a petition to President Bush on this issue, organized by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics (at www.stemcellresearch.org). In fact, why not sign up today? And let the White House know what you think.



Ship of Fools

From the beginning the idea seemed bizarre-- performing abortions on a converted fishing trawler outside the 12-mile limit of countries, like Ireland, where abortion is illegal. Anyone who has crossed the Irish Sea knows it's no duck pond. A haircut, dental cleaning, even applying mascara could be hazardous in its frequent rough swells ... but surgery! They had to be kidding. And, it turns out, they were.

The mid-June arrival in Dublin of "Sea Change" (as this converted fishing trawler has been dubbed)--without the requisite Dutch and Irish licenses to transport passengers, much less perform abortions and demonstrate having passed a Dutch medical inspection-- forced its sponsor, Women on Waves, to admit the "abortion ship" was mostly a publicity stunt. Ship spokesman, Joke van Kampen (no, really), told reporters: "What we are really here for is to get attention for the state that Irish women are in."

The "joke" was on investors, whose $117,000 stake has nearly run out (the trawler costs more than $1,000/day) and on the poor, desperate Irish women who thought they could get free or cheap abortions on board. Its medical director, Dutch doctor Rebecca Gomperts, explained to the NRC Handelsblad newspaper:

"If we perform 100 abortions each week during 10 months per year, each intervention will cost only 100 dollars to make the project self-supporting" and "If we can get enough donations we can do the interventions without charge."

Women on Waves claims that 250 Irishwomen signed up for abortions, many of whom cancelled flights and appointments with English abortionists. Perhaps the delay and disillusionment will prompt these poor souls to change their minds--all to the good. But it seems despicable to take advantage of their vulnerability and desperation just to make a political point and to "help rejuvenate a moribund Pro-Choice movement" in Ireland. (www.womenonwaves.net/ireland/events/ index.html).

Mother Jones reports that the "idea for Sea Change was born [their unfortunate phrase, not mine] while Gomperts served as a physician on Greenpeace's ship, the Rainbow Warrior. Greenpeace's ability to change public policy through direct actions convinced her that similar strategies could be used" against national laws defending human life before birth.

Apparently Dr. Gomperts saw no irony in applying tactics aimed at protecting sea life and opposing weapons of mass destruction to her new mission" destroying children's lives, one at a time.

Logistics do not appear well thought out. Dr. Gomperts has stated that she planned to follow Dutch law, which allows abortion up to 22 weeks' gestation, but also requires a five day waiting period between counseling and abortion. The abortion ship might remain at dock (quite expensive, if not impossible due to crowded docks) or in harbor (accessible by light craft) during the non-killing portions of its activities and take to sea only to do abortions. At this point, something gets lost in the translation. The Women on Waves web site explains:

"At sea pregnancies less than seven weeks can be treated with medication (mifepristone and misoprostol). Also during land-based activities only first trimester pregnancies can be treated because the risk for complications is negligible when done with vacuum aspiration in hygienic circumstances and performed by an experienced doctor. Should a complication arise, the 'A-Portable' [operating room-in-a-box] is outfitted such that all ensuing medical problems can be treated. ... Furthermore by training local medical professionals in the use of the abortion pill, techniques of vacuum aspiration and post-abortion care we will ensure that services delivered by the ship will continue to be available after it has departed" (emphasis added).

Does that mean they'll offer only "RU-486" abortions at sea (up to 7 weeks) and surgical--in the first trimester--only on land where abortion is legal but inaccessible? Or will they also perform surgical abortions on the high seas? In the Mother Jones interview, Gomperts talks of first trimester surgical abortions in open waters.

As horrifying as the prospect is for a woman to undergo a vacuum aspiration abortion on a trawler in rolling seas 12 miles off-shore (cervical lacerations are all too common on terra firma), picture enduring the nausea, vomiting, cramping, diarrhea and hemorrhaging that are the normal effects of RU-486 (mifepristone/ misoprostol) abortions, under those conditions.

The RU-486 regimen requires one visit for counseling, a second for administration of mifepristone, a third visit 48-hours later to be given misoprostol (after which the woman's vital signs must be observed for, generally, a minimum of four hours to deal with possible allergic reactions, hemorrhaging, precipitous drop in blood pressure causing cardiac arrest, etc.), and a fourth follow-up at 10-14 days to ensure there are no retained fetal parts, no infection and no other complications. That means a minimum of two trips to the ship at anchor and two trips into international waters, spread out over 18-22 days. And this is supposed to be a good thing for women?

Asked about plans following the Dublin fiasco, Dr. Gomperts was vague. The ship may sail back to the Netherlands for the missing licenses, returning to Ireland in July. Or it may sail to South America. Or Africa. Having done zero abortions in its first weeks of operation, without additional investment (and who knows--a World Health Organization representative called Gomperts a "reproductive pioneer" and there's more than one billionaire throwing good money into population control) the project seems dead in the water. Just where it should be.



The Lodestar Called Roe

Abortion advocates have become obsessed, literally, with Roe v. Wade. Like the paranoid who is obsessed with imagined threats to his well-being lurking around every corner, abortion advocates see threats to Roe v. Wade everywhere.

Abortion advocates would certainly join Senator Ted Kennedy in declaring abortion rights a "core constitutional value," thereby suggesting that it has a firm and solid hold on the allegiance of the American people in the same way, for example, that the core constitutional values of freedom of speech and religion have. Nevertheless, they then treat this core constitutional value as if it were some rare hothouse flower, one that must be protected from any number of imminent threats that will cause it to wilt and die. Dark forces everywhere are out to undermine Roe, forces even more insidious because they hide their true intent under the guise of pursuing apparently benign goals.

The latest embodiment of the dark forces threatening Roe is a group if illegal immigrant women seeking prenatal care for their unborn children.

According to the New York Times, a federal appeals court has ruled that pregnant women who are in the U.S. illegally have no right to prenatal care for their unborn children under Medicaid. However, the court also ruled that should the children of illegal immigrants be born here, they would then be entitled to Medicaid benefits for the first year of their lives.

Lawyers for the illegal immigrants argued that because children born in the United States are citizens (even if their mothers were here illegally), they are entitled to equal protection of the law. Therefore, the lawyers reasoned, such children could argue that it was unconstitutional to deny them prenatal care.

Elizabeth Benjamin, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society which helped argue the case, commented: "What's happening here is that there are little unborn U.S. citizen kids who as a result of this will not get vital prenatal care."

Martha Davies, legal director of the pro-abortion NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund said that "it just ends up harming innocent children and costing more in the long run."

But, too bad for these "innocent children" and "little unborn U.S. citizen kids"--according to Roe v. Wade, they have no right to life at all, much less a right to healthcare. According to the federal appeals court: "If, as Roe v. Wade instructs, a fetus lacks constitutional protection to assure it a right to be born, we see no basis for according it constitutional protection to assure it enhanced prospects of good health after birth."

As callous as this conclusion is towards the children, it is nonetheless what Roe dictates, showing just how badly that decision has distorted our law.

So lawyers for the pregnant women will appeal their case to the Supreme Court, right? Well, probably not--you see, that might threaten Roe.

As the New York Times further reports: "...Legal Aid lawyers said no decision had been made whether to appeal the case, in part because of the danger that such an appeal could allow the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade."

Well, we mustn't have that. Note that to even "reconsider" Roe, to question Roe, is a "danger." Prenatal care for children? What's that compared to the "danger" of questioning Roe?

Its important to note that the issue is not whether you think illegal immigrants should or should not be eligible for certain government benefits. The point is whether, in considering this and other questions of public policy, protection of Roe v. Wade should be the determining factor that guides our decision making. Should we reject any public policy option, and public good, solely because it may present a threat (however tenuous) to Roe v. Wade?

Legislation to ban partial birth abortion was overwhelmingly supported by the American people and enacted into law in thirty states. Nevertheless, abortion advocates convinced a pro-abortion majority of the Supreme Court that such a ban, on one very specific and very gruesome procedure, must not be allowed as it would threaten Roe. So the Court ruled that Roe requires that abortionists be allowed to partially deliver children before killing them.

Realizing that partial-birth abortion had brought the nation to the brink of legal infanticide, Congress proposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. It simply says that a fully born infant who survives an abortion attempt is to be given the same care as any other fully born human infant. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) characterized this bill as "another anti-choice assault" on "the basic tenets of Roe v. Wade." But of course! Reason enough to kill this bill. So now our law must hold, in the name of protecting Roe, that a whole class of fully born human beings can be left to die. Just providing basic care for these children might somehow undermine Roe, and we mustn't have that, even at the cost of their lives and our own humanity.

Congress also proposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, for the first time in federal law, recognized the unborn child as the second victim in a violent assault against the mother. In granting this recognition, the bill also gave women the right to seek justice for criminal assaults that result in the injury or death of their unborn children.

Women who lost their children to such assaults testified before Congress on the need to pass this law.

But abortion advocates dismissed their pleas. Even though the bill explicitly exempted abortion, abortion advocates opposed it as yet another assault on Roe. Should women have the right to pursue legal recourse against those who assault them and kill their unborn children? Of course not--not if granting women this right might in anyway threaten Roe!

And on and on. Even the Supreme Court's recent "medical marijuana" decision has been seen as a threat to Roe. One law professor characterized that decision, in which the Supreme Court held that under current federal law there was no medical exception to use marijuana, as "especially chilling for abortion rights" and one that provides "a virtual road map for eviscerating Roe v. Wade."

Never mind the convoluted reasoning that went into arriving at this conclusion. The point remains that Roe, for abortion advocates, has now become the legal alpha and omega for judging the worthiness of all public policy--even, apparently, our policy on controlled drugs!

Once upon a time, support for Roe v. Wade meant support for abortion. Of course, it still means that. But today it also means allowing certain forms of infanticide, limiting the rights of pregnant women who are victims of violent assault, and questioning whether some women should receive prenatal benefits.

So go ahead--try to enact policies to protect fully born infants, or provide prenatal care, or giving additional protection to pregnant women who are victims of assault, or even prevent marijuana abuse-- just make sure there is no conceivable way doing so will be a threat to Roe.


Life Insight*
is a publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
3211 Fourth Street, N.E.Washington, DC 20017-1194
Phone (202) 541-3070; Facsimile (202) 541-3054
Made possible through the generosity of
the Knights of Columbus

*The materials contained within are intended for use by the Catholic dioceses and organizations, and permission is not required for reproduction or use by them. All other uses must be authorized. For reprints, questions, or comments contact Susan E. Wills, at the above address.

Email us at prolife@usccb.org
Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.


Pro-Life Activities | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.