Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 26, 2006 

You can’t fool Mother Nature

I am sure you know the old phrase, “You can’t fool Mother Nature.”   When it comes to human lives, another similar point is that violation of the natural law has consequences.  Recent reports indicate that the Culture of Death is claiming more victims because of ongoing violations of the natural law in our modernist culture. 

Artificial procreation was recently connected with two more complications.  Norwegian research has found that pregnancies resulting from implantation of artificially-created embryos carry at least five times the risk for a dangerous complication of pregnancy known as placenta praevia, where the placenta attaches over the mother's cervix, impairing the child's likelihood of a natural birth, and raising the risk for bleeding in pregnancy, miscarriage, and premature delivery. 

The second complication was the case of five children fathered by the same sperm donor who have inherited a rare and often fatal disease called severe congenital neutropenia from him.  This disease occurs in only about one child in five million, but was discovered in four families with affected children who came to the same doctor within one year.  The families had seven children, including three sets of twins, from the same donor. All but two children carried an identical strain of the disease.  Congenital neutropenia results in a missing white blood cell, leaving the children vulnerable to infections and leukemia.  Daily injections with a drug called Neupogen can help the children resist infections, but it does not protect from leukemia and costs $200 per day.

Physician assisted suicide is taking its toll beyond just the patients who request it.  A new study from Europe shows that the psychological effects of "helping patients to die" can be severe for doctors participating in euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS). The report by the group Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation (PCCEF) gleans data from a number of sources: articles in independent medical journals, legislative investigations and the public press.  The study found that doctors are being profoundly and adversely affected, being shocked by the suddenness of the death, being caught up in the patient's drive for assisted suicide, having a sense of powerlessness, and feeling isolated.  The study’s author concludes, "Many doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences."  Even a leader of Holland's euthanasia movement is quoted saying, "You will never get accustomed to killing somebody.  We are not trained to kill.  With euthanasia, your nightmare comes true."  One doctor said that he worried that legalization would limit clinical options offered to patients by doctors who grow to rely upon euthanasia as a quick fix.  Dr. Zylicz observed, "This is my biggest concern in providing euthanasia and setting a norm of euthanasia in medicine: that it will inhibit the development of our learning from patients, because we will solve everything with euthanasia."

Fast forward to Oregon, now with over eight years since physician assisted suicide was legalized.  Is there a connection with Oregon’s alarming rate of suicide among the elderly?  Since legalization, rates of non-physician assisted suicide in the state have outstripped the national elder suicide rate, with about 100 Oregonians aged 65 or older taking their own lives annually.  In a commentary on Oregon’s investigation into the disproportionately high rate of suicide among the state’s elderly, Wesley Smith points out that a state that has legalized physician-assisted suicide should not be surprised at an overall increase in suicide rates.  Smith noted that despairing people recognize the implicit approval of suicide reflected in Oregon law and may think, “If it’s okay for the cancer patient, why not also for me?”   Oregon officials want to educate doctors and nurses to recognize symptoms of depression in their elderly patients in an attempt to reduce elder suicides.  They need to apply those same principles to people who ask for assisted suicide, because most of them are also suffering from depression.

And when it comes to fooling Mother Nature, certainly condoms don’t work.  The First Lady of Kenya, Lucy Kibaki, spoke to Kenyan schoolgirls recently to warn them that sexual abstinence before marriage, not condoms, was essential to preserving their lives and futures.  In speeches to high school girls she urged them not to be duped into using the condom, which she linked to the spread of the AIDS epidemic that has sent millions of Kenyans and other Africans to an early grave.  "Fellow citizens, this gadget called the condom … is causing the spread of AIDS in this country", Mrs. Kibaki said.   Of course, her comments generated howls from the pushers of condoms, who advertise their failed solution under the label of “safe sex.”

Whether the issue be human intervention in God’s plan for procreation, artificially bringing life to an unnatural end, or attempting to play outside the moral norms for human sexuality, these violations of the natural law will produce undesirable, but unavoidable consequences.  These human “solutions” are almost certain to create more problems than they are attempting to solve.  Life only gets more complicated when humans decide they know better than what God has written in the owner’s manual.  It’s called the Bible. 

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 23, 2006 

“Reproductive health care” is disguised bigotry against the poor

In the worldview conveyed by the mainstream media, promoters of the right to “reproductive health care” (a code phrase that includes abortion) are identified as the protectors of women’s health.   The Pro-Life community’s rejection of abortion, opposition to abortifacient contraceptives, concern that “safe sex” is not safe, and promotion of abstinence-only programs for teenagers gets Pro-Life activists labeled as dangerous to women’s health and even as responsible for more abortions and sexually-transmitted diseases simply because Pro-Lifers disagree with “comprehensive sex education” and question the effectiveness of condoms.  This contrast suggests ideology is controlling what passes for science in today's world.  

Real world evidence demonstrates that promoters of “reproductive health care” are definitely not protecting women’s health.  Have you heard any of them express concern about unethical and unsafe abortionists?  In just the last 13 months abortionists in five states have had their medical licenses suspended or revoked.  The latest case occurred in Alabama where the state health department has suspended the medical license of the Summit Medical Center, the abortionist, and a nurse for highly questionable and unsafe medical practices involving RU-486.  This dangerous drug was being given to women much further into their pregnancies than intended for RU-486 abortions.  Beyond that, RU-486 was being administered by a nurse when state law requires that its use be directed by a doctor.

Of course, the safety of RU-486 is seriously questioned, but you can count on the defenders of “reproductive health care” to assure everyone that RU-486 is safe.  They question whether the infections that have now killed seven women after using RU-486 were actually unrelated to the abortions attempted using the drug.  When scientific evidence suggests that a connection does exist between use of the RU-486 regimen and these infections, RU-486 supporters simply ignore the evidence because it is not politically correct.  And they accuse Pro-Lifers of having ideology-driven agendas!

Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe" in Roe v. Wade, sent a four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.  Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population." He suggested Clinton could "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws and “persuading” them not to have babies. Weddington added, "I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people.  Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that.  The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies."

Does he think that China is “persuading” their citizens not to have babies when they use forced abortions and sterilizations, overwhelming fines, and destruction of homes as the means of persuasion?  Apparently so, because abortion supporters never criticize these abuses of human rights in China.  Instead, they applaud China's population control successes.

Do abortion supporters consider Weddington's concept racist bigotry?  Apparently not!   Those who claim to be the defenders of the poor should be outraged by this bigoted, elitist concept.  But they are currently too preoccupied with accusing promoters of English as our national language of being racist.  The evidence suggests they are not serious about either protecting women’s health or helping poor people.  Their fight for “reproductive rights” is actually intended to help eliminate the poor people to whom they want to grant those “rights.”  That is exactly the racist concept that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had in mind.

[Read Weddington's bigoted letter in its entirety:  Weddington Letter to Clinton]
(The document was discovered among Clinton’s presidential papers by Judicial Watch)

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 16, 2006 

Evidence from Planned Parenthood's statements on sex education

A question was raised about the evidence that I presented to show the intent of Planned Parenthood’s push for “comprehensive sex education.”  I offered three quotes that demonstrate Planned Parenthood’s intent to motivate teenagers to become sexually active.

Since more evidence is desired, let’s review a series of quotes that demonstrate a pattern of encouraging teenage sexual activity that spans more than 50 years.  Here we go.

“[Adults should] help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.    By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.” Dr. Lena Levine, Planned Parenthood Federation of America seminar, May 1953

“Sex with victims is always wrong.  Sex without is always right.” 1977 Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain brochure

“Many people believe that sex relations are right only when they are married. Others decide to have sex outside of marriage. This is a personal choice.”   “Sex Facts”, Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, 1977

“If this is a girl you’ve just met and she agrees [to have sex], you’re in the clear provided that she’s old enough to have some sense.” 1977 Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain brochure

“Sex is fun, and joyful, and courting is fun, and joyful, and it comes in all types of styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure.” 1981 Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain brochure

“We’ve got to be more concerned about preventing teen pregnancies than we are about stopping sexual relationships.”  Faye Wattleton, president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, October 17, 1986

“The only question is: What’s right for you?” 1993 Planned Parenthood Federation of America brochure

“The solution [to negative early sexual experience] … is to teach young people how to experience sexual pleasure, instead of teaching them to not have sex.” Summer 1996 Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada newsletter

“It is irresponsible and flat-out immoral not to teach young people how to use [condoms] …” Karen Pearl, interim president, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, February 10, 2005

The pattern established by Planned Parenthood over more than 50 years is obvious.  Regardless of what they may say about abstinence, when they talk to teenagers, they intend to discredit abstinence and encourage sexual activity.  Their entire line of business depends on it.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 9, 2006 

ACOG pushing emergency contraception is neither scientific nor healthy

In the name of science and women’s health, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has declared a campaign to motivate every woman to obtain emergency contraception so she has it available in case “accidents happen.”  ACOG states that emergency contraception is “an essential treatment method for protecting and safeguarding their reproductive health.”  Apparently, women who get pregnant are considered by ACOG to have a disease, since they imply that pregnant women have lost their reproductive health.  And I thought reproduction was supposed to bring healthy babies into this world.

Why are the doctors whose practice is to assist in delivery of babies trying to reduce their future business?  They say that emergency contraception “has the potential to prevent at least half of unintended pregnancies in the US (or about 3 million pregnancies annually) and reduce the number of abortions in the US by 50%.”  Was this potential established in a scientific manner?  Absolutely, not!  It was simply a quote taken from Planned Parenthood’s unfounded claims about emergency contraception.  In the real world where availability of emergency contraception has been assured by allowing sales over-the-counter (e.g. Sweden and the United Kingdom) pregnancy and abortion rates, especially among teenagers, have actually increased and sexually transmitted diseases are now described as an epidemic.

Results like that are always ignored with excuses that blame the user.  For example, the teens did not do things correctly because they did not receive enough sex education, or it was still too difficult to obtain emergency contraception when they needed it, or they did not know how to use a condom.  It is time to stop blaming the user and start blaming the product.  Emergency contraception, and birth control in general, do not work.   As ACOG mentioned, “over half (53%) of the women who have unplanned pregnancies are using some method of contraception.”   This statistic points to contraceptive failure, not user failure.  Reliance on contraception will eventually lead to pregnancy because most birth control methods are only 75-93% reliable in actual use.  For example, emergency contraception is only 89% reliable under ideal conditions.

Does ACOG suggest that users should assume contraception will fail and take emergency contraception in the morning, just to make sure they don’t get pregnant?  Of course, that would ignore the fact that studies to evaluate the potential health risks of emergency contraception were based on one-time use.  The idea was that it would only be needed for an emergency.  Since the dosage in emergency contraception is at least 4-5 times the dosage of standard contraceptives, frequent use must raise serious health issues for most women.  Many women find the side effects of standard contraceptives to be unacceptable, and that does not even consider the potential long-term health issues such as increased risk of breast cancer and blood clots.  Beyond that, the so-called extensive research on the safety of emergency contraception did not even evaluate usage by teenagers so any health effects on growing teenagers are completely unknown.   How is this lack of research either scientific or beneficial to women’s health?

As Ann Scheidler stated in response to the ACOG press release, “The suggestion that all women of child-bearing age should have a prescription at the ready for 'emergency contraception' is an insult.  The nation's OB/Gyn's are acting as if fertility is a virus and that women need to treat it as an illness rather than a healthy condition.”  Maybe it is time for midwives to step forward and put ACOG’s members out of business, since ACOG members apparently have no respect for the medical service they claim to practice.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 5, 2006 

Sex Education Bait and Switch

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 2, 2006 

Futile care “ethicists” push involuntary euthanasia

What a change a few days can make!   No, I am not talking about the weather.   I am referring to the case of Andrea Clark, a patient at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Houston, Texas.  On April 19th the hospital ethics committee there decided that Andrea’s life was futile so she should be removed from a respirator, and all medical treatments should be stopped. 

Even though Andrea is mentally alert, communicates by moving her lips and blinking her eyes, wants to live, and has the full support of her family, the hospital ethics committee decided further care was futile.  Andrea, 54, developed bleeding on her brain after open-heart surgery and needs the respirator to breath.  Although she suffered damage to her motor functions, her mental capacity was not affected.

On May 2nd Andrea received a new doctor who is not planning to give up on her medical care and treatment, reported her sister Melanie Childers.  “Not only is my sister not going to be put to death by St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, but it also looks like she is recovering from her heart surgery, finally,” Melanie said.  She also mentioned that Dr. Matthew Lentz has told the family that Andrea will be able to get off of blood pressure raising drugs she has been on for months, and he is cutting in half the amount of pain medications she is on. That will allow Andrea to better interact with her family.

Jerri Ward, the attorney for Andrea's family, stated, “St. Luke's is doing the right thing in this case now.  The physician team met with the new attending [physician] and it went well.  The team is on board and the medical futility procedure has been stopped.”  This change in direction was certainly vital for Andrea!  It is most fortunate that her family was fighting for her right to life and found a physician who was willing to make another assessment of her case.

But why should patients’ lives be threatened by a medical facility that is supposed to provide them a means for recovery?  Unfortunately, a Texas law gives hospitals the power to decide if a patient’s life is “worth” maintaining so officials at St. Luke’s Hospital are legally able to remove Andrea’s respirator against the expressed wishes of herself and her family.  If the hospital ethics committee decides to withdraw care, the family has just 10 days to find another treatment center.  How many patients have already died through lack of support from family members or no opportunity to get the opinion of another physician?  

Bob Kafka, a disability rights activist with Not Dead Yet, observed “I have come to the conclusion that the essence of any futility law embraces involuntary euthanasia.  The ability of a doctor to overrule both the patient and their surrogate in withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is in violation of the principle of patient autonomy.”  Kafka says the Texas law can't be improved but should be thrown out entirely.

Newsline Archive

IRLC Home Page