Making excuses for death is becoming quite common for abortion supporters. After 18-year-old Holly Patterson died in California from complications caused by the dangerous abortion drug RU-486, Eric Schaff, chairman of the National Abortion Federation, had this consoling thought, “Aspirin causes more deaths than RU-486.” What Mr. Schaff means is that Holly was expendable in defense of the “right-to-choose” RU-486 for abortion. If anyone died because of aspirin, they were certainly not 18 years old and in good health, but I have never even seen a news article about any deaths from aspirin, with the possible exception of stories about accidental or suicidal overdoses.

Now both the FDA and the California Department of Public Health are investigating the case and the parties involved, including the Planned Parenthood office that provided the RU-486.  Evidence seems to indicate that protocols established for use of RU-486 were not correctly followed.  These shortcuts in procedure may have contributed to the circumstances leading to Holly’s death. Could this case lead the FDA to withdraw approval of this dangerous drug?

In Illinois, the Department of Public Health just released the statistics on Illinois abortions for 2002. The 2002 total of 46,945 abortions is less than a one percent increase over the 2001 total of 46,546 abortions.  Given the apparent inaccuracies in compiling abortion statistics, this change does not appear significant as any indication of a trend in either direction. But Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, claims the lack of a large rise in the number of abortions points to the effective use of contraception. This claim ignores the national trend of decreasing abortions and the study reported in the April issue of Adolescent and Family Health that demonstrated a connection between greater abstinence among teens and the decreasing abortion rate. Sutherland’s claim implies that we should be pleased that the abortion rate has not increased substantially. Actually, since they are the largest abortion provider in the nation, Planned Parenthood wants to see the abortion rate rise. Otherwise, they are losing revenue.

In fact, the most important point about the abortion rate in Illlinois is the lack of abortion regulations in Illinois law. Unfortunately, Illinois does not have either a parental notification law or informed consent for women law in effect.  Since passage of such laws has been shown to reduce abortion rates in other states by as much as one third, failure to pass these bills in Illinois has allowed the abortion rate to continue at relatively the same level while many other states are experiencing decreasing abortion rates.

In a case almost too hard to believe, Cook County State’s Attorney Dick Devine recently asked the Illinois Supreme Court to reexamine a November 2002 appeals court decision that overturned two prior convictions of Elizabeth Ehlert for the murder of her newborn baby girl. Ehlert was convicted for delivering her baby at home, killing her, and throwing her in a garbage bag in a creek. The court said the infant’s cry Ehlert’s boyfriend heard at delivery “may have occurred before complete separation from the mother, and therefore it is not sufficient to prove live birth.” The appeals court accepted this legal rational based on a 183-year-old Illinois law that says the baby must be completely separated from the mother before it is an independent life. “If Elizabeth Ehlert’s murder conviction is wiped out, Illinois’ courts will have provided homicidal mothers a how-to guide for getting away with killing their babies,” said a prosecutor, quoted in the Sept. 17 issue of the Daily Herald.

This horrific case provides another reason for the urgency of passing legislation in Illinois that defines a born alive infant as a legal person. Abortion supporters have opposed and blocked this Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois legislature for the past three years. It was originally introduced to address the live birth abortion procedure brought to light because of nurse Jill Stanek’s testimony about this procedure being used at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. The bill defines a baby who “breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut” as a legal person, regardless of the circumstances of birth. What excuse do abortion supporters give for opposing this bill? They say such decisions should be made between the doctor and female patient. Translated, this means they want the woman’s choice of abortion to guarantee a dead baby.

What is the bottom line? An excuse will be found to justify the death of any baby or any mother when the cause of death is abortion. Individual women and children are always expendable to protect the “right-to-choose”. Who really has concern for any woman and her baby? You can only find true concern for them among defenders of life from conception to natural death. These “anti-abortion zealots” (as portrayed by the media) can be found in various Pro-Life, Right-to-Life, and Respect-for-Life organizations. Which choice appeals to you – the defenders of death or the defenders of life?