|
LIFE ISSUES NO. 1628
March of Dimes. It's been 25 years since the right-to-life
movement began to boycott the March of Dimes. Back then it
was because that organization sponsored and pushed the technique
of mid-trimester amniocentesis in order to diagnose handicapped
children in the womb, and then 90% to 95% of them were killed.
With up's and down's, that boycott has been retained over
the years, but the reasons for it have slowly changed. Amniocentesis,
or the testing of the fluid in the bag of waters around the
baby, has moved from being an experimental technique to one
that is used routinely around the country.
Until I left the presidency of the National Right to Life
Committee in 1991, I had been what Washingtonians call "the
spear-carrier" on this issue for the pro-life movement.
As I was leaving the presidency, I asked the March of Dimes
to send me a printout of all the grants that they had made
for research in the previous three years. My hope was that,
by reviewing these in detail, we would find that there was
no longer a reason to boycott them - and I was personally
anxious to end that boycott. But, sadly, they refused to give
us access to these records, and so the boycott continued.
Two years ago, the initiative was taken up again - this time
by the Rev. Robert Fleischmann, the national director of WELS
Lutherans for Life. He once again requested a printout of
their grants - and this time they agreed. They sent him records
for two years, so he sent copies to a number of qualified
physicians. We each evaluated them and discovered several
projects that apparently used fetal tissue from aborted babies.
The MOD spokespeople said they did not think these were from
aborted babies, but refused Rev. Fleischmann's request that
the MOD add an official policy that they would refuse grants
for research projects involving the use of tissue from aborted
babies. So the end result was that he wrote an open letter
to the March of Dimes stating: "We would counsel the
pro-life movement to continue its boycott of the March of
Dimes." He would "encourage the pro-life and Christian
community to consider other avenues of charitable support,
such as the Michael Fund which does not in any way compromise
our values for the sanctity of human life."
In response, the MOD replied in a public letter. Rev. Fleischmann
asked if I would respond to it - and I did. I found the letter
quite inadequate, noted that its comparisons were faulty,
that it spoke of extraneous issues, and was, as I said, "a
mixture of some truths, some half-truths and some false statements."
I agreed with Rev. Fleischmann.
WELS Lutherans for Life has published these three letters
in a small booklet. I believe they constitute an authoritative
pro-life evaluation of the MOD today. If you are interested
in a copy, drop me a line. We'll send you one.
[10/01/97]
|