Illinois Right to Life Committee
OCTOBER 2005
October, 2005 Pro-Life News (see articles below): 10/28/05 Impact of Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme
Court 10/21/05 Planned Parenthood Express targets suburban teens 10/18/05 Living wills are about death, not life 10/12/05 Where
does embryonic stem cell research really lead us? 10/07/05 Assuring skeptics on hospice use of morphine overdoses 10/04/05 Armed
(with morphine) and dangerous
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, October 28, 2005 Impact of Harriet
Miers nomination to the Supreme Court After Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the Supreme Court,
Senator Trent Lott commented, “Let's move on. In a month, who will remember the name Harriet
Miers?” I am not sure it is that simple,
but I do think we are fortunate that Miers withdrew.
A news article on October 26th revealed comments that Miers made in two
speeches in 1993. Her quotes raised serious
concerns about her views on applying the Constitution as written. In July of 1993, Miers gave a speech entitled, "Women and Courage." She offered glowing praise for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ascension to the Supreme Court and Janet Reno's appointment as the first female attorney general. Not many conservatives were excited by either fact. According to the Washington Post, Miers, "also showed sympathy for feminist causes, urging her audience to support female candidates. She recited a list of national and state female leaders, including Gloria Steinem and then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. A few months before, Miers addressed the Executive Women of Dallas. Here is what she said about abortion: “The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.” Many people, including myself, who had been giving Miers the benefit of the doubt found these comments enough to end any possibility of supporting her nomination. The impact of this new information apparently was the final step that led to her withdrawal on October 27th. Hopefully, President Bush will now nominate someone who will truly reflect the judicial philosophy to avoid legislating from the bench while demonstrating strong knowledge of Constitutional law. If he does nominate such a qualified person, maybe Miers will be forgotten in a month. However, with all the negative commentary that was generated in response to the Miers nomination, I fear that many people who do not follow politics closely will have heard just enough to think that their vote for President Bush in 2004 did not count because he did not get this Supreme Court nomination right. If that impression stays with them, they may not vote in 2006. Maybe if the Democrats raise enough objections to the next nominee, these hard-to-interest voters will be forced to notice the noise the Democrats create so they actually learn that Bush fixed his mistake. We must pray that he gets it right this time so that possibility exists.
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, October 21, 2005 Planned Parenthood Express targets
suburban teens Planned Parenthood made the news again. This time it was not another case where they were accused of breaking the law. The Star Newspaper delivered in Orland Park, Illinois gave Planned Parenthood a front-page story on the opening of Planned Parenthood Express in Orland Park. Steve Trombley of Chicago area Planned Parenthood is quoted saying that they plan to open one express location each year for the next six years. If that does happen, there will be a total of nine “express” locations scattered throughout the Chicago suburbs. What is the “express” referring to in Planned Parenthood express? “Express health centers aim to make access to birth control more convenient, saving clients' time and money by forgoing a full gynecological exam,” explained Mr. Trombley. "Since birth control methods are so safe, a full exam is not needed before a woman can start using them," he added. What Trombley did not reveal is the half-price special they offer 12-17 year-old children for all of these birth control methods. Get them hooked now to produce the big-ticket item payoff later when they need to be referred to one of Planned Parenthood’s downtown locations for an abortion. The younger they get started, the more abortions Planned Parenthood will be able to sell. Planned Parenthood web sites from other parts of the nation left me with the impression that half price is standard pricing for 12-17 year olds nationwide. I wonder what price they charge 11-year-olds? Apparently, Chicago is in the early wave of Planned Parenthood’s outreach to the suburbs for more abortion business. I checked the Internet and was only able to locate a total of 24 “express” locations nationwide, and 19 of those are located in California. Beyond the three in Chicago area, one each exists in Oregon and Vermont. So Chicago is on the bleeding edge of Planned Parenthood’s latest plan to generate more abortion business. Planned Parenthood did not get to be the largest abortion provider in the nation because their birth control options worked. By providing this “express” access in the Chicago suburbs, they know they will increase demand for their premium product, abortion. If abortions were reduced, Planned Parenthood would have a big financial problem so they know from experience that selling birth control options leads to selling more abortions. If they can get just the schools to cooperate by teaching “comprehensive” sex education, they envision the students will start coming into Planned Parenthood Express in droves to get their birth control methods. It must work just about as well as getting them hooked on cigarettes did. Now that selling cigarettes to teens is illegal, students can save their cigarette money to pay for birth control methods and abortion, when birth control fails.
Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, October 18, 2005 Living wills
are about death, not life We knew the push for living wills based on the Terri Schiavo case would be dangerous to people who took the bait. Recently, some cases are coming to light that confirm our fears about the dangers of living wills. A living will has nothing to do with living, but everything to do with dying. A living will is claimed to
be a mechanism for preventing unwanted medical treatment, so-called heroic medical
measures or resuscitation in the event of a healthcare catastrophe. No
one wants to consider that their perspective might change after they experience a
healthcare catastrophe. The will to live is
strong, regardless of what someone else perceives our quality of life to be. The organization Not Dead Yet understands this
fact. They are fighting to maintain respect
for the rights of disabled people and recognize the threat to these rights from a
“quality of life” mindset that decides to deny medical services based on the futile care
theory. Another case out of Florida should establish the serious risk that
living wills and futile care theory have on disabled patients. Late in 2004, Hanford Pinette was admitted through
emergency to a hospital in Orlando, Florida after suffering congestive heart failure. He was placed on a ventilator and a dialysis
machine. Doctors informed his wife Alice that
his condition was “not likely to improve”.
Then, they informed her that they intended to “follow his living
will” and remove the provisions of ventilation and dialysis. Mrs. Pinette objected because
‘Hank’ was alert and oriented, there was no prognosis tendered that could
determine his death was eminent, he spoke (sporadically, but he managed), and he responded
physically to her directions and touch. He
was fighting for his life. By her accounts,
he simply wasn’t ready to die. The hospital actually petitioned the circuit
courts for the authority to remove Hanford Pinette’s provisions of ventilation and
dialysis, over the objections of his named surrogate (his wife Alice) and as a means of
“enforcing his living will”. They
won, and those medically necessary treatments were taken away from him. After two hours of struggling for air, Hanford
Pinette – a nondying, cognizant and alert man - succumbed and was pronounced dead. The hospital’s deadly application of his
living will overcame even Hank’s stated intention to have his own wife make his
medical decisions. Supporters of the living will claim that modern technology has allowed the artificial extension of life in violation of human dignity. Is the artificial extension of life through modern technology really the issue? Then why is it that the issue is almost always feeding tubes and ventilators? Why are organ transplants and cancer treatments never the focus of these debates? Judgments are made about when it is appropriate to use modern technology such as organ transplants, apparently with very limited controversy. Removal of feeding tubes and ventilators is the agenda of the “right to die” movement. Their claims of oppressive technology do not stand up to scrutiny.
Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, October 12, 2005 Where does embryonic stem cell
research really lead us? Recent reports about potential alternative sources of stem cells that
have capabilities similar or identical to embryonic stem cells would seem to be valuable
for embryonic stem cell researchers. Why has
there been so little interest expressed by these researchers? Dr. Robert P. George, a member of the President's
Council on Bioethics, has a theory on the reason why.
He presented his explanation in the October 3rd issue of The Weekly
Standard. Dr. George wrote in "Fetal Attraction" that
the long-term goal of many of the embryonic stem cell experimenters may be "to create
an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative
medicine and organ transplantation." These researchers don't openly call for
scavenging unborn children for their body parts. This
is not the way they think they can win support in the court of public opinion. Instead, they dismiss adult stem cell advances and
tout the promised benefits of stem cells taken from embryonic humans, while pushing their
research with animals toward the day of fetal farms and artificial wombs to grow them. Dr. George supported his theory by pointing out that informed observers know that embryonic stem cells cannot be used in therapies because of their tendency to generate dangerous tumors. However, recent studies show that the problem of tumor formation does not exist in cells taken from cows, mice, and other mammals when embryos have been implanted and extracted after several weeks or months of development. In other words, once the cells are differentiated to become more like adult stem cells, they have real therapeutic potential, but that potential lies precisely in the practice of fetus farming. Because the developmental process stabilizes cells, it is likely true that stem cells, tissues, and organs harvested from human beings at, say, 16 or 18 weeks or later could be used in the treatment of diseases. Dr George goes on to suggest that the need to protect human life is very real. If we cannot ban human cloning outright, then we
need to ban the initiation of any pregnancy (whether in a human uterus or artificial womb)
for purposes other than the live birth of a child. Another
possible approach would be to add to the safeguards already in the U.S. Code on fetal
tissue, stating that it is unlawful for anyone to use such tissue when the person knows
that the pregnancy was initiated in order to produce this tissue. Potential negatives from controversy over Miers nomination The nomination of Harriet
Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court continues to generate commentary, both pro and con. I think that the information revealed on October
12th by James Dobson is very relevant to all the expressions of concern about why
President Bush did not pick someone better known. Dobson
revealed that several appeals court judges desired by Pro-Life advocates had declined to
be considered because they were not willing to endure the brutal confirmation process. Additionally, many suggested candidates were
excluded because President Bush wanted to nominate a woman.
If we are willing to accept this information as factual, it indicates that
some of the people touted as more qualified actually declined to consider the nomination
while others were eliminated because they were not women. Maybe the issue that
should be focused on is how the Democrats conduct the confirmation process rather than on
how the Republicans are never willing to stand up for their values. I do know that I value the opinion of the American Center for Law and Justice, Focus on the Family, and National Right to Life. They have all endorsed Harriet Miers as a solid choice. I think the more vocal opposition, without producing any substantive examples on which to base concern (I have seen none yet), is very counterproductive. These messages are creating a serious risk that people who do not pay much attention except near elections will decide that Bush has betrayed us, even when it becomes proven that he has not (via cases to be heard in the current Supreme Court session). They will remember the well-covered charges that Bush has betrayed us and never learn that these charges were not true. Then they will stay home in the next election because they have decided they can make no difference. I personally think this is rapidly becoming our greatest risk of losing our ability to continue the positive advances that we have been making in recent years. The ongoing outright criticism of Bush and Miers could be setting us up for serious damage in the 2006 election cycle.
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, October 7, 2005 Assuring skeptics on hospice use
of morphine overdoses As reflected in a response I
received to my last newsline, some of you may be skeptical that hospice could be killing
people. I appreciate your skepticism about
the possibility of nurses using morphine overdoses to kill hospice patients. I was
at that same point less than a year ago. Then I got a call from a nurse who wanted
to share with me that exact fact. A week later I got a call from another nurse who
had the same information to report. Then I started to investigate
on my own. I was helped when two people I know, one who volunteers at a hospice,
decided to attend a conference on hospice that was held in the Chicago area last Spring.
They were shocked at what they learned at the conference (sponsored by Hospice
Foundation of America). It was very clear to both of them, and further confirmed in
handout materials they received, that hastening death was being proclaimed as both
compassionate and normal procedure for hospice. One could only conclude that the
unstated purpose of the conference was an attempt to convince hesitant medical
professionals and hospice volunteers that hastening death is both compassionate and
preferred treatment. This conclusion was fully
confirmed by a book that these women each received a copy of at the conference. The
book is called Living With Grief: Ethical Dilemmas at the End of Life, published
by Hospice Foundation of America. One of them gave me her copy of this book, and
I read it from cover to cover. The book endorses assisted suicide as
practiced in Oregon and clearly suggests that equivalent laws should be
passed in every other state. Hastening death "by terminal sedation, by
delivering pain relief sufficient to cause death by incidentally suppressing breathing, or
by withdrawing nutrition and hydration" are endorsed as "practiced and approved
in many ways in contemporary terminal care." Of course, the second
approach described is a morphine overdose. I have received additional
calls from people who witnessed occurrences of this practice, including most recently
Bruce. I have also had communication either by phone or email with at least 6-8
people so far who are involved in what can be described as the anti-euthanasia movement.
They have all confirmed that it is a known fact (at least to them; it wasn't to me
yet, but it is fast becoming so) that these practices are being openly used in hospice.
Does that mean they are being
used in every hospice? No. I have talked to a number of people who know
people or their relatives who have recently been under hospice care and have continued to
live for a number of months or even still. Those hospices do not use these
procedures to hasten death (because when hospices do use these practices, patients are
often dead in 3 to 5 days after entering hospice care). How many hasten death versus
how many do not? It's very difficult to know, but hospice leadership organizations
including Hospice Foundation of America, National Hospice and Palliative Care
Organization, and others are pushing hospices in that direction. I also received another response. When her husband needed hospice care, Angie was already knowledgeable about morphine because her husband had needed it for pain control for two years. When hospice got involved nine days before her husband died, Angie was given a schedule for morphine every 2-4 hours, but Angie only gave her husband morphine once per day until the last two days when she gave two and then three doses, but never anything even approaching 6-12 doses per day. Angie wrote, “He was never uncomfortable, was coherent to his last breath, and telling his family he loved God and wanted to be with Jesus.” Her family never allowed him to be left alone with a hospice nurse. Other families are not as fortunate. In many cases the family members are innocently giving the morphine per the hospice schedule that hastens death without realizing what is happening until it is too late, or never knowing the truth.
Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, October 4, 2005 Armed (with morphine) and
dangerous Bruce called me on September 29th. He heard our message about the Patient Self-Protection Document on WIND 560AM. He called because he thought he should obtain a copy for his mother. The background that led him to that conclusion is most disturbing. He witnessed his father being killed by a hospice nurse using an overdose of morphine. The nurse who came to his father’s house to provide hospice care actually tried to get Bruce’s mother to give the morphine, but she refused. So the nurse gave the overdose of morphine herself. Bruce said his father was not even in pain. Having pain would have been the justification for giving some morphine so there was no justification for any morphine at all. That experience seems like more than enough for Bruce to decide that his mother needs to complete a Patient Self-Protection Document. But there is even more that Bruce is concerned about. It turns out that Bruce’s sister is a hospice nurse. She actually thinks that she is doing the compassionate thing when she overdoses hospice patients on morphine. She even told her mother about providing morphine to the children of a 93-year-old man so they could relieve his suffering whenever that might be necessary. For now, he still drives and gets along just fine. He happens to be a friend of Bruce’s mother. How might she let him know that his own children are armed with morphine and dangerous if he develops medical problems? Bruce’s mother has told his sister that she should leave her job as a hospice nurse “because she is killing people.” How does she face the knowledge that her daughter is ready to end her life if she gets too inconvenient? She is legally blind and deaf, but she is still able to take care of most her needs. Her daughter suggested she should consider hospice, and she replied that a nursing home would do just fine. This hospice nurse was working at a hospice in the Elgin area. It would seem that such a hospice may already be using euthanasia as a standard part of their hospice care with Bruce's sister as one of their willing agents to perform the deed. Bruce made an observation based on his experience with his sister. He said she never came home at breaks during college, but if someone had an ailing animal to be put to sleep, she would come right home to take care of it. Now she apparently thinks human beings should get the same treatment. Bruce thinks she is quite happy with her job, even though she is dealing with death, and people near death, all the time. He observed that hospice work could easily attract people who think like his sister. The hospice situation I just described is quite outrageous, but what is happening in the Netherlands might even top it. The Dutch government is ready to issue rules that will allow euthanasia of “terminally ill” newborns. You can be certain that “terminally ill” will be applied to disabled newborns as well. While they are changing rules, they will also reduce the age for personal consent to be euthanized from 16 years old to 12 years old. They do not need to wait for people to get old and consider hospice to kill them in the Netherlands. Any age will do!
|