| Life Issues Connector: July 2000 |
“Life of the Mother”
Is it Needed in Legislation?
J.C. Willke, MD
To the overwhelming majority of activists
in the pro-life movement, a life of the mother exception is a given in
proposed laws against abortion. Prior to Roe v. Wade, almost every
state had this exception, and there was no concerted action to remove
it by churches or other groups. However, there is and has been a consistent
minority opinion held by some of the most sincere and highly motivated
pro-life people that this exception is not needed. In this brief space,
allow me to explain why, even though I don't think it's needed; nevertheless,
it is needed.
First, let me call your attention to a recent
report from Ireland. Over a decade, three major hospitals in Dublin report
the delivery of 223,000 babies with only two maternal deaths, deaths that
abortion would not have prevented. The head of Obstetrics stated that
he saw no reason to ever do an abortion because the life of a mother was
threatened. This is a remarkable achievement, and a medically legitimate
one. In my travels I have rarely been given a clinical history that indicates
to me that an induced abortion done for life-saving reasons was in fact
necessary.
Emergency Premature Delivery
We must first exempt cases of necessary premature
delivery, which sometimes is confused with abortion. Let's take the two
most common problems that necessitate this – 1) toxemia of pregnancy
and 2) severe diabetic crisis. In both of these cases there can come a
time when, if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, it is quite possible
that the mother will die and take her baby with her. In such cases, by
reputable obstetric judgment, the uterus must be emptied, and this will
resolve the maternal problem. What's important to recognize here is that
these occur in the third trimester of pregnancy when the baby is usually
well enough developed to be able to survive. In this case, separation
of the baby from the mother is an emergency measure to stop the maternal
deterioration. It does deliver a
premature baby, who usually will survive,
but who would inevitably die if allowed to stay inside of the mother.
We do not list this type of an activity as an abortion. This is clearly
an emergency premature delivery, and the goal is to save both of them.
Let's not confuse the issue.
Induced Abortion
I've been a knowledgeable physician in this
area for 52 years. When I was in training, we were given a number of reasons
for “therapeutic abortion,” that is an abortion to save her
life. I have watched through the years as, one by one, it was shown that
these were not necessary or no longer necessary to save her life. Many
became quite treatable, and in a couple of cases it was shown to be more
dangerous to abort than to allow her pregnancy to continue.
In a Third World culture where good medical
care is not available, there are so many things that can jeopardize a
woman's life and health that it is extremely difficult to make a judgment
in this area. Accordingly, let's look at this in a fairly typical, sophisticated,
medical climate in the Western world. Here we ask, “Is there a maternal
condition that necessitates induced surgical abortion of the developing
baby?” I speak of conditions where there is a reasonable certitude
that if the induced abortion is not done, the mother will die. Commenting
on this, I can only say that I don't think such a case exists today.
Assuming that this is true, it would then
seem that we would not need the “life of the mother” clause
in a statute forbidding abortion. However, there is another major consideration.
Mother or Baby?
The classic case here is a tubal or ectopic
pregnancy. This occurs when the embryonic baby, instead of planting in
the nutrient lining of the womb, rather, plants in the thin wall of the
fallopian tube. As this new occupant sinks his roots into the wall and
begins to grow, left alone, this causes a rupture of the tube, internal
hemorrhage into her abdomen, death of the embryonic baby and sometimes
also death of the mother. Planting in the tube is simply incompatible
with further development of the child. Medical management of this has
always been emergency surgery, removal of the damaged tube, blood transfusions
if needed, etc. In this case, the baby was already dead, or if not, was
in a position of absolutely guaranteed imminent demise. The tube, which
was damaged is removed. On some occasions, there was yet a living embryonic
baby inside of the tube, but, with removal of the tube, death occurred
quickly. The ethical reasoning here has always been consistent in every
religious and ethical judgment. Yes, the procedure did cause the death
of this baby, but the reason for doing the surgery was to save the mother's
life. The death of the baby was not directly intended; rather, it was
an unfortunate, secondary effect. In theology this is known as primary
and secondary effect. You desire the primary, and you reluctantly accept
the secondary. So, in ethical terms, this is truly not an induced abortion.
Modern scientific developments have complicated
this relatively straightforward ethical issue. We now have ultrasound
and in many, if not most of these situations, the diagnosis is now made
before rupture of the tube. We now have laparoscopes, which are easily
inserted into the abdominal cavity. Through it, the surgeon can locate
the lump in the tube. It is then relatively easy to incise the lump and
suck out the contents (the live baby). How does one evaluate this?
From a purely medical viewpoint, such a procedure
is the least mutilating to the mother. She does not sacrifice a tube,
as it may heal over and be able to transport another embryonic baby to
the uterus. She does not undergo the post-operative pain and complications
of an abdominal operation. It is less expensive, and she may leave the
hospital the next day. These are clearly positives. But there are negatives
– for this is now not an indirect, but a direct assault upon a living
human being. This, in fact, is what some would consider a direct suction
abortion, however, done within the abdomen. This is a direct killing of
this embryonic child. Even so, left alone, with nature taking its course,
we would have the tragic result of a tubal rupture and the loss of one
or possibly even both of these lives. Obviously, if this tiny embryo could
be transplanted from its present “pathologic location” into
a uterus, that would be morally required, but such technology is not available
to us yet. While the above is held out by most as the procedure of choice,
at the least it is troubling, and to many sincere ethicians it is highly
questionable.
Another example would be that the mother
has developed a cancer. It is judged that she must have treatment –
radiation, chemotherapy, etc. If she does not, she might proceed to a
fatal ending. However, if she does, the treatment might kill her baby.
The ethician approaches this again as a primary and secondary effect.
Yes, she may have the cancer treatment because the primary effort here
is to cure the cancer and save her life. Secondarily, the child may be
harmed, or even killed, but that is an unfortunate and non-willed result.
I scrubbed in on a case during my training
where a gunshot wound of the lower abdomen had carried away part of the
wall of a woman's uterus. During surgery, it was found that there was
still a living embryonic baby comfortably ensconced in the remaining part
of her uterus. Clearly, the life-saving procedure was to remove the uterus.
Just as clearly, in removing it that tiny life was lost. This offers no
ethical dilemma. The necessary surgery was the primary need. The secondary
loss of this new life was not willed, but an unfortunate, unavoidable
result.
Conclusion
Why labor with the above concerns? Some would say that these
cases are not abortions because the intent is not to abort. However, lawmakers
don't all look at it this way. To the lawmaker, this woman could have died.
This procedure saved her life and “killed the baby.” To most lawmakers
and judges, this is killing the baby to save the mother. However indirect
that demise may be, this procedure terminated that tiny life, and the law
sees it as no different from an “abortion”.
So, when making laws to stop abortions, it
certainly would be unanimously agreed that treatment of the above conditions
should not be forbidden. In the world of law, the reasoning of moral theologians
on the primary intent of the action takes a second place to the pragmatic
actuality of causing the death of the baby. This pragmatic actuality says
that there must be an exception in the law forbidding abortion –
an exception that allows for saving the life of the mother.
Finally, one bit of semantics. An exception
to “save her life” has been interpreted to allow abortion to
prevent a threatened suicide. This is a perversion of the wording. Nevertheless,
the Supreme Court in Ireland used it effectively a few years ago. Accordingly,
our legal advice, going back almost 30 years, has been to prefer the wording,
“to prevent the death of the mother.” If we use this phrase,
it cannot be misinterpreted to justify abortion for a suicide threat.
We should add to this, “while doing
everything possible to save them both.”
While I do not think that in modern medical
practice there ever exists a need to do a surgical abortion to save the
life of the mother, nevertheless in passing laws there needs to be a clause
permitting abortion “to prevent the death of the mother, while doing
everything possible to save them both.”
Life Issues Today
with Dr. J. C. Willke
Coat Hangers Never Happened
Some time ago I read a letter to the editor
in the Wall Street Journal. It was awful. I sent a counter letter
and happily, the paper published it as the lead letter.
Here it is:
In her letter, Ellen Schneider speaks of
“women so desperate they would allow coat hangers to be inserted
into themselves by back-alley doctors....which often resulted in loss
of life for the mother.” Such a wild statement requires a factual
answer.
As President of the National Right to Life
Committee during the decade of the 80's, as a world traveler and author
of books in 28 languages, I've been lecturing in this field for three
decades. During this time, in front of audiences too numerous to mention,
I have frequently asked that anyone in the audience who can document a
coat hanger abortion to please come to me with that information. In 30
years, I have not had a single person bring me details of such a case.
It is my firm conviction that the entire concept of using a coat hanger
is a totally fallacious construct of pro-abortion supporters. Illegal
abortions certainly occurred. Contrary to popular opinion, however, only
a very few of them were fatal. If any readers know of a confirmed coat
hanger incident, please write me.
Prior to legalization of abortion, pro-abortion
supporters commonly claimed that there were one million illegal abortions,
resulting in 5,000 – 10,000 women dying each year. This claim was
made yet one year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973.
Official government statistics that have stood the test of time, however,
report only a total of 39 women dying in the entire United States from
illegal abortions during the year 1972. In that same year, 25 more women
died from legal abortions. It is obvious that the frequently told stories
of zillions of women dying, of hospital beds overflowing, etc., are completely
without factual foundation.
Let's look at the late 1950's. Those were
the supposed bad old days. All abortions were illegal, and illegal abortionists
were alleged to be busy. But in the July 1960 edition of the American
Journal of Public Health, there was an article by Dr. Mary Calderone,
founder of the Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS)
and medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in which
she stated, “ninety percent of illegal abortions are being done by
physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they're
still physicians, trained as such...they must do a pretty good job if
the death rate is as low as it is. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal,
is in the main, no longer dangerous because it is being done well by physicians.”
Let's hope Ms. Schneider gets her facts straight
the next time she writes.
End of my letter.
Several months have passed since this letter
to the editor was published in the Wall Street Journal. I requested
that readers write me to confirm any stories of coat hanger abortions
they know of. To date I have not received a single letter.
I rest my case.
Graphic Pictures – Help or Hindrance?
Many of you are familiar with the graphic
pictures depicting aborted, dismembered babies. They can leave the most
seasoned pro-life advocate sick inside. Do these pictures have a place
in the pro-life movement? Are they effective in changing the hearts and
minds of people who otherwise would support or participate in abortion
– or are they counterproductive? Do they make more enemies than converts
for unborn babies?
Such pictures have a 30-year tradition of
effectiveness when used before an audience as part of a full presentation
and following pictures and facts of fetal development. In this case, however,
we must consider huge pictures standing alone.
Recently, Life Issues Institute teamed up
with the Cincinnati Right to Life Education Foundation to try to find
answers to some of these questions when the University of Cincinnati (UC)
was selected by a pro-life organization to display graphic pictures on
its campus. The event was called the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP)
and was conducted by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Located in a central commons area, about
20 pictures measuring 6' by 13' displayed moments in history of human
genocide, including graphic depictions of the holocaust and victims of
racist lynching. These were compared with the genocide of abortion, portraying
equally graphic pictures of dismembered babies. Signage warned approaching
students and faculty of the display ahead.
No faint-of-heart pro-life advocate would
take such a provocative, in-your-face presentation to an American university,
which is often a bastion of radical pro-abortion feminism. Most institutions
of higher learning proudly espouse the First Amendment right to free speech.
However, it's a different story when pro-lifers come to town. Some faculty
members sent e-mail correspondence to the entire student body opposing
GAP's presence. In addition, in this case there were four very negative
pieces published in the campus newspaper “warning” students
of their display, but there were no evenhanded or positive commentaries.
Is this an atmosphere where graphic pictures can change hearts and minds?
Or are these well-meaning pro-life activists pouring gasoline on an open
flame?
To get an unbiased analysis of the effect
of such graphic pictures on a university campus, we searched for a sound
venue to measure its success. We called upon the services of a respected
and experienced polling firm to measure the pro-life opinion of UC students
before and after the GAP event. We caution that these results are preliminary
findings. There should be an ongoing research project to more fully determine
the net effectiveness of this type of pro-life education.
Going in, we anticipated that GAP would have
a larger impact on male students than female. The reason, we thought,
would be that male students would react more positively to the graphic
nature of the pictures. The research results indicate otherwise, pointing
to a much higher impact on women under 25 years of age than men.
The results show that there was a shift from
a consistent pro-abortion position toward the broad middle undecided group
among this category of female students. The overall shift demonstrated
a decrease in pro-abortion attitudes and a net increase in pro-life attitudes.
Another finding was that a majority of the students were aware of the
GAP event either by seeing it or from reading or hearing about it.
Is Life Issues Institute ready to jettison
other pro-life education programs in favor of this technique? No, it is
too early to endorse this method without doing more research. However,
based on these initial findings, we would be ill- advised to outright
dismiss such a graphic approach. We are encouraging the organizers of
GAP to build on what we've found so as to more accurately measure its
effect. If future research confirms our early findings, this method must
be evaluated in a new and serious light.
We also want to stress that there are many
effective ways to protect unborn babies and their parents from abortion.
For example, there are nearly 4,000 women help centers across the nation
that deal directly with women facing unexpected pregnancies. Their track
record is unmatched in saving lives, while sparing the parents the often-devastating
effect of abortion. The medical and factual approach to pro-life education
has long proven highly effective in changing hearts and minds on abortion.
The pro-life movement is a patchwork quilt of organizations with the ability
to reach a wide variety of constituencies. We should never be in a position
of criticizing any legal and peaceful approach that has proven successful
in helping to end abortion. That would be divisive and counterproductive
to the mission – not to mention factually inaccurate.
The GAP demonstration occurred the day after
Life Issues Institute concluded a three-month saturation television ad
buy for the greater Cincinnati area. (Read more about that in this issue
of Connector.) How did the graphic approach compare with a very
different style of pro-life persuasion through TV ads? The GAP polling
research showed that the TV ads were twice as effective as the GAP event
in positively impacting women under 25.
In summary, we are cautiously optimistic
that the GAP approach may be another available tool to the pro-life movement
in protecting unborn life. We strongly urge that the follow-up research
be done.
Reaching Hearts and Minds Through Media
What if you could help to stop the terrible
destruction of abortion and create a consensus for Life? What if you could
educate people about the current tragedy of legalized abortion for only
a penny per person? These questions were asked to prospective supporters
of a saturated television ad campaign in the greater Cincinnati, Ohio
area.
The program, called Reaching Hearts and
Minds Through Media, had three primary goals:
• Change attitudes on the abortion issue.
• Offer alternatives to abortion, through
a 1-800 number, to women and girls experiencing an unexpected pregnancy.
• Save babies' lives by reducing the
number of abortions.
Life Issues Institute enlisted the services
of The Caring Foundation, which researched and developed the television
ads that were used. Considerable time, effort and money had been invested
in producing specific ads that would reach a targeted segment of society.
The Caring Foundation has developed a highly professional package that
is complete in taking the program from start to finish.
The targeted audience consisted of women
in their childbearing years between the ages of 18 and 44. As a result,
the ads were aired on programs most likely watched by women in this age
bracket, i.e., Oprah, soap operas, sit-coms, etc. A professional
agency selected which programs on major television networks would be most
effective. The average targeted woman saw the ads a minimum of 25 times.
Prior to airing the ads, professional polling
was done to measure the level of pro-life sentiment in the area. The Caring
Foundation has organized the airing of their ads in many major metropolitan
cities. Cincinnati's pre-polling demonstrated that it was the most pro-life
city in the nation. According to the Caring Foundation's judgment, this
is due, in large part, to the decades-long work of Dr. and Mrs. Willke,
stalwarts of pro-life education throughout the nation and the world. In
addition, Cincinnati has a large number of effective crisis pregnancy
centers serving the needs of the community, which have made a measurable
impact.
As a result of this research, two ads were
selected for airing – one showed a woman who used to be pro-abortion
until she had a baby of her own. Then she realized that “all this
baby was trying to do was make it, just make it.” The ad ended with
her saying, “Think about it.” The second ad showed a woman pacing
the floor at night unable to sleep, mourning the loss of her baby from
abortion. The woman laments that she was never told of the negative effect
abortion would have on her life.
The ads ran from the middle of January through
the first half of April. During the campaign a total of 860 telephone
calls were generated into crisis pregnancy centers. This volume of calls
was extremely high for a market this size. This indicates an apparent
need to follow up with an ad campaign that will educate pregnant women
of the alternatives to abortion and facilitate connecting them to assistance.
At the conclusion of the ad campaign, post-polling
was done to determine the net effect of the ads. Consistent pro-life attitudes
increased as much as 6%, depending upon the geographic area researched.
As a result, Cincinnati remains the most pro-life city in the nation,
even ahead of heavily Catholic New Orleans, which has also aired the ads.
The Caring Foundation's inclusive package
of professional ad placement team, researchers, and thoroughly investigated
and scrutinized television commercials, made for a winning combination
to reach hearts and minds and save babies' lives while protecting their
parents from the often devastating effects of abortion. Please contact
The Caring Foundation if you would like to explore the possibility of
doing an effective television ad campaign. Administrative Office: 612
E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO 65101-3324. Phone (573) 634-4350.
Partial Birth Abortion – an Accurate
Description
We are all aware of the semantic gymnastics
used by the liberal press when describing Partial Birth Abortion. They
bend over backwards obscuring what actually happens. We cannot control
much of that. What we can control is our own description of this procedure,
and sadly, I have seen many varieties and some biologic misinformation
fairly common in descriptions by pro-life sources. Accordingly, let me
offer a fairly detailed description of this procedure.
This takes two days of preparation, during
which time repeated dehydrated sticks of seaweed are placed in the woman's
cervix. These swell up as they hydrate and slowly stretch open the mouth
of the womb. After 48 hours she is put on the table. The abortionist then
reaches through the birth canal, through the cervix and into the uterus
with a grasping forceps. He secures a leg and pulls the leg down and out
into the air. Returning with the forceps, he finds the second leg, grabs
it and pulls it down, also externally through the vagina. He has now converted
the intrauterine fetal baby into a breech presentation. These are difficult
for us to deliver at full term because it's like delivering an ice cream
cone point first – the bigger parts come last. In a normal delivery
the head comes first, stretching the way and the rest of the body follows
easily.
The abortionist will now put traction on
the two legs and deliver the hips and body into the air, which then hangs
up at the shoulders with both arms internally pinned alongside the head.
Now he must reach up with his finger and engage one of the arms, flexing
the elbow and shoulder as he sweeps this arm down and out into the air,
delivering it and the shoulder. Returning, he does the same with the other
arm and shoulder. Now he tugs on the child a bit more so that the entire
body is delivered, leaving only the head, which is now through the cervix,
lying in the birth canal.
Delivery of the head at 5 or 6 months offers
no great problem, for it is still quite small. With one more pull, he
could easily deliver the child's head, but that would defeat the contract.
The contract is to supply a dead baby. He then turns the child's body
so that the nose is facing the mother's tailbone. At this stage this baby
is kicking, moving its arms and has likely urinated. Now the abortionist,
with two fingers, retracts the vaginal ring at the base of the skull,
and then plunges a scissors into the base of the skull. This injures or
severs the spinal cord and results in instant decerebrate rigidity, that
is, a spastic arching of the back and spastic extension of all four extremities.
He then spreads the blades of the scissors and threads a large bore catheter
between them and up into the skull. Attaching this to a powerful suction,
and he sucks out the brains. This kills the baby and with one more gentle
pull, he delivers the head.
Almost universally I have read that the brains
are sucked out “in order to collapse the skull so that it may be
delivered.” This is simply incorrect. This is not done to collapse
the skull. This is done to kill the baby.
Another biologic falsehood has to do with
various ways of describing where the head is or where parts of the body
are. Certainly the cervix is fully dilated to allow the head to pass through.
Very probably the head has passed through the cervix by the time this
infanticide occurs. Certainly, the head lies in the vagina, the external
birth canal. We must emphasize that the entire body of the baby is out
in the air, that the arms and legs are waving and that urination frequently
occurs.
I might note the happening, at times, of
what is called an “oops” delivery. This is when he has delivered
all of the child except the head and is preparing to kill him, when the
mother gives one big push and the head pops out. Now he has a living child
in his arms, and he says, “Oops.”
I offer this detailed description, as the
descriptions we read and hear are typically, factually inaccurate.
The author, Dr. Willke, is a retired family
physician with over 40 years of clinical experience.
|
LIFE ISSUES INSTITUTE
ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF BRADLEY MATTES AS A SPEAKER FOR YOUR
UPCOMING PRO-LIFE EVENTS.
An international lecturer,
Mr. Mattes draws on over 25 years of pro-life experience to present
information on a wide range of life issue topics. Please contact
our office for more information and scheduling. Life Issues Institute,
1721 W Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45239. Phone (513) 729-3600.
E-mail lifeissues@aol.com
|
From the Executive Director
Bradley Mattes
Some Good News About RU 486
The latest information from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) on RU 486 (mifepristone) is very encouraging.
Let me give you an update.
Last February the FDA said that it would
approve the sale of RU 486 once the makers of this human pesticide met
some final requirements, however, they were never identified. Recently,
details of the proposed FDA requirements were released to pro-abortion
advocates involved in promoting the chemical abortion drug.
The restrictions have pro-abortion activists
frightfully anxious about the future of their abortion panacea. Vicki
Saporta, Executive Director of the National Abortion Federation, said,
“The FDA is considering placing so many restrictions on doctors who
want to use the drug that few will be interested in using it.” Gloria
Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest
single abortion provider in the nation, said, “...mifepristone could
be approved by the agency [FDA] but never really be on the market.”
It's likely that the pro-life movement collectively responds to these
statements with a big “Amen, sisters!”
The FDA has proposed that only abortionists
already trained in surgical abortions would be allowed to administer mifepristone.
A subtle but important change from “practitioner” to “physician”
eliminates nurse-practitioners from administering the drug. The abortion
industry has long been bemoaning the fact that the pool of abortionists
is steadily shrinking and that this new chemical abortion process would
provide cover for physicians and other medical caregivers who could be
seduced into the business of killing unborn babies.
Another proposed restriction would require
that abortionists must have hospital admitting privileges within an hour's
travel time in the event of life-threatening complications. Abortionists
would also have to be trained to read sonograms and licensed in how to
administer the drug.
Further, the FDA is requiring a registry
of abortionists who prescribe mifepristone. “The FDA appeared to
be interested in being able to track the use of the drug from the factory
to the office and to the patient,” said Paul Blumenthal, Medical
Director of Maryland's Planned Parenthood affiliate.
Danco Laboratories is a private company handling
the manufacturing and distribution of this death drug. A spokesperson
said that the FDA has until September 30 to approve RU 486. These latest
proposals may severely impact
the financial potential of mifepristone.
It is unknown whether Danco's investors will have a change of heart as
a result of this recent development.
The abortion industry's response is that
these restrictions are excessive and unnecessary. However, in 1996 the
FDA's panel of medical experts reviewed the data and recommended that
RU 486 be approved with some concerns noted. The FDA's proposed restrictions
simply reflect the panel's legitimate concerns.
The FDA may be demonstrating a basic concern
for the physical well being of women who take this drug. FDA eyebrows
probably raised when they were informed that an Iowa physician in favor
of legalized abortion reported treating a woman who took RU 486/prostiglandin
in the Des Moines trials and lost about half her blood volume. He saved
her life by emergency surgery and a transfusion. Planned Parenthood of
Des Moines tried to cover up this horrible incident by claiming in the
press that there had been “no complications.”
Perhaps FDA officials read that none other
than Dr. Edwardo Sakiz, then president of Roussel Uclaf (where RU 486
began), said, “...this [RU 486] is an appalling psychological ordeal.”
Then again, it could be that women with any
of the following 20 conditions or diseases were excluded from the US trial
on mifepristone: under 18 years of age, more than 35 years of age, smoked
over 10 cigarettes a day and had another cardiovascular risk factor, liver
disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease, adrenal disease, cardiovascular
disease, blood clots, hypertension, anemia, insulin-dependent diabetes,
known allergy to prostaglandins, using an intrauterine device (IUD), breast-feeding,
receiving anticoagulation therapy, receiving long-term cortisone therapy,
infection or masses in female organs, ectopic pregnancies or had signs
that they might abort spontaneously.
Those promoting RU 486 told the FDA in July
1996 that it will be used on women who would have been barred from the
US trial. For example, there will be no restrictions on age or smokers.
FDA officials would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not know how unrestricted
the abortion industry already is. Maybe they think giving unfettered RU
486 to the abortion industry would be like putting a drunk behind the
wheel of a school bus full of children.
I'm greatly encouraged the FDA is demonstrating
that women's health and well being might not totally be pushed aside for
a political agenda after all. Stay tuned.
STATES EXCHANGE
A Positive Pro-Life Message to Millions
Would you like to get a positive, pro-life
message to millions of drivers each day in your state? Florida is well
on its way with a special edition of a license plate that reads “Choose
Life.” The bright yellow plate includes a crayon drawing of a boy
and girl.
To get the plate, Florida residents will
pay an extra $22.00 upon registration, of which $20.00 goes to the county
where the tag is purchased. The money is given to any not-for-profit,
nongovernmental agency not involved with abortion. These organizations
must offer their services free to pay the expenses of any woman with an
unexpected pregnancy. The funds will help cover adoption expenses.
Florida currently makes 40 such specialty
plates available, which promote interests like universities, sports teams,
the arts, veterans, environmental interests and scouting. They have raised
from $1,725 to over $2 million to date for special-interest groups.
An organization called Choose Life, Inc.
was founded to promote the idea in Florida. A bill was introduced in the
state legislature, which received bipartisan support and was passed by
a large margin. Pro-life Governor Jeb Bush then signed the legislation
into law.
Radical pro-abortion activists filed a lawsuit
against the state to stop the plate. Two suits were filed – one on
the federal level, the other on the state level. The federal suit was
dismissed. The state of Florida and pro-life advocates are optimistic
that the second suit will also be dismissed. The plates have already been
produced and are waiting to be used.
Choose Life, Inc. will make their design, experience and information
available to anyone who requests it, free of charge. For more information
please contact Russ Amerling, Choose Life, Inc., PO Box 830152, Ocala,
FL 34483. Phone (352) 624-2854. Fax (352) 624-2978. Or visit their web
site at www.chosse-life.org
|
