file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0321.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 21 October, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve or the assistant editor Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Is Abortion a Catholic Issue? By Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania All of us are joined in our conviction that abortion is a bad thing. And although many of us are Catholics, we are also joined in the conviction that abortion is not simply a Catholic concern. It's a catholic concern with the small c -- the concern of anyone who rejects the idea of human life as a disposable commodity. The concern of anyone with eyes to see, a mind to reason, and a heart to feel. It is not an arrogant boast, but a demographic fact that most Americans share this conviction. Anytime the question is put squarely to them, "Do you oppose abortion on demand?", more than two out of three Americans answer YES. Perhaps the most telling survey of all found that 78 percent of the people would outlaw 93 percent of all abortions -- all but the familiar hard cases. Even in the last election, in which all sides sought to shelve the issue of abortion, exit polls revealed its central importance in the minds of most voters. ...[D]espite 20 years of brainwashing, the American people have not been fooled. If the majority of the Americans support abortion, why have three of the last four presidential elections been won resoundingly by pro-life candidates? If my position is irrelevant, then so, I'm afraid, are the views of some 80-85 percent of the people of Pennsylvania and the United States. As I read the polls showing our continuing unease with abortion, nothing makes me more proud to call myself an American. Among the "herd of independent minds" who make up our opinion leaders, abortion may be taken as a mark of progress. But most Americans have not followed. In the abortion lobby's strange sense of the word, America has never been a "progressive" nation. For we know -- and this used to be the credo of my party -- that progress can never come by exploiting or sacrificing any one class of people. _Progress_ is a hollow word unless everyone is counted in and no one written off, especially the most weak and vulnerable among us. You cannot stifle this debate with a piece of paper. No edict, no federal mandate can put to rest the grave doubts of the American people. Legal abortion will never rest easy on this nation's conscience. It will continue to haunt the consciences of men and women everywhere. The plain facts of biology, the profound appeals of the heart, are far too unsettling ever to fade away... Just as the problem is an old one, so are the alternatives. One of these alternatives is accommodation with power, a pragmatic acceptance of "the facts." In the abortion question, this position is summed up in the familiar disavowal, "I'm personally opposed, but..." The hard facts -- so runs this view -- are against us. However, we might oppose it, abortion is a sad feature of modern life. Tolerance is the price we pay for living in a free, pluralistic society. For the Catholic politician to "impose" his moral views would be an act of theocratic arrogance, violating our democratic trust. The proper and prudent course it therefore to bring change by "persuasion, not coercion." Absent a "consensus," it is not the place of any politician to change our laws permitting abortion. I want to be careful here not to caricature this position. Some very honorable people hold it, and it is not my purpose to challenge their motives. Yet, as some politicians advance this view it does seem an evasion, a finesse rather than an honest argument. But that, so far as I am concerned, is the secret of their own individual hearts. Here I mean only to challenge the argument on its intellectual grounds. We can dispense easily with the charge of theocratic arrogance. That would certainly apply if we were trying to impose some uniquely Catholic stricture like church attendance or fast days on the general population. But the stricture to refrain from killing is not uniquely Catholic. And that, as a purely empirical assertion, is how nearly all people of all faiths at all times have regarded abortion -- as killing. Just listen, for example, to Frank Sussman, the lawyer who represented Missouri abortion clinics in _Webster_. "Neither side in this debate" -- he said -- "would ever disagree on the physiological facts. Both sides would agree as to when a heartbeat can first be detected. Both sides would agree as to when brain waves can first be detected. But when you try to place the emotional labels on what you call that collection of physiological facts, that is where people depart company." Or, for that matter, just listen to President Clinton speaking [February, 1993] in Chillicothe, Ohio: "Very few Americans believe that all abortions all the time are all right. Almost all Americans believe that abortions should be illegal when the children can live outside the mother's womb." By referring to the unborn as "children," the President was not making a theological claim; he was just putting all the physiological facts together. The same is true when we say abortion "kills." We don't say it in meanness. It's a unique kind of killing, for the motive may not be homicidal; it may be done in ignorance of what is actually occurring. We reserve a special compassion for women who find themselves contemplating abortion. But as an objective fact, this is what abortion is, and so mankind has always regarded it. Science history, philosophy, religion, and common intuition all speak with one voice in asserting the humanity of the unborn. Only our current laws say otherwise. [ Excerpted from a speech given at conference on abortion and public policy, hosted in March, 1993 by Saint Louis University. The complete text of this speech is available from the editor - ask for "CaseySpeaks93".] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) The Untold Story of Abortion and Breast Cancer The short story is that since the `70s or even the `60s there has been evidence that interrupted pregnancies predispose the mother to breast cancer later in life. Since the early `80s, there has been a substantial number of well-designed retrospective case control studies which have confirmed this effect and even quantified the relative risk. The relative risk is large: abortion of a first pregnancy leads to about a 50% increased risk of cancer later in life. Given that breast cancer is so common, this is a catastrophic increase in risk. The biological explanation for this is that during the first pregnancy, the breast changes into a milk-producing organ. During this change, formerly undifferentiated cells proliferate and then differentiate. The proliferation begins during the first trimester and the differentiation does not finish until late in the pregnancy. These proliferating undifferentiated cells are susceptible to mutagenesis, but after they have differentiated, they are much less susceptible. Interruption of a pregnancy either by miscarriage or abortion leaves large numbers of breast cells in the proliferating, undifferentiated and mutagenically susceptible state. These cells may later (and many do) turn into cancer cells. Abortion of later pregnancies also carries a risk, but it is smaller than the risk entailed in aborting the first pregnancy. (If i remember correctly, nearly half (50%) of all abortions in America are first-pregnancy abortions.) Dr. Brind believes that the additional breast cancer incidence is 40,000 to 50,000 cases PER YEAR. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Based on these facts, Scott Somerville, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association has has suggested a three-part strategy to shut down abortion clinics. The first step that involves direct action: notifying abortionists about this risk, providing them with documentation of the risks involved and informing them that they are liable to be subject to malpractice suits if they do not inform their clients of this risk. Follow this up by getting the counselors in front of the clinics to distribute the information, encouraging the women to ask the abortionist about it and finding out if the abortionist fulfilled his medical obligation to inform the women of the risk. It would be important to be prepared to file suit on behalf of women who have not been informed. The second step would be to file legislation based on this information - an `Anti-Cancer Act of 1994' which would include the following points: - Women seeking abortion *must* be informed of the breast cancer risk - A minor is incapable of informed consent to a cancer risk. Parental involvement is required. - All abortion providers must carry malpractice insurance to protect their patients who do contract breast cancer. There may also be a desire for legislation forbidding first-pregnancy abortions (which are the most dangerous) and/or mandating that abortionists to track down and inform all PAST patients of this risk and what measures to take (frequent breast examinations) to reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer. Once legislation of this type is filed, the media will notice it. Further, the public hearings will be catastrophic to the pro-abortion side, since they will not be able to refute the abundant evidence and will have to take a public stand AGAINST protecting women from this breast cancer threat if they want to save their clinics from losing many of their clients. Thirdly, it would be important to submit press releases to the local media detailing the risks and describing what the pro-life community is doing to protect the lives of women seeking _legal_ abortions. - Susan Weakland [for those interested, Scott Somerville has a 16 page, glossy, two-color brochure out entitled _Before You Choose: The Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer_. This is aimed at the "jury" of average non-medical readers. His favorite review to date comes from one 15-year-old pro-lifer, who called it "Dangerously excellent!" This is available for $5 for one copy, $15 for 10 copies, from AIM, PO Box 871, Purcellville, VA 22132.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Catholics For Free Choice - No Members Here Frances Kissling, the president of a 'Catholic' pro-abortion group, Catholics For Free Choice (CFFC) has spoken in the past about her group representing 'thousands of members nationwide.' In an August radio (WRKO) interview she recently acknowledged that her group is "not a membership organization" and that her organization has no members. As C.J. Doyle, director for the Massachusetts chapter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights commented, "We now have confirmation that Frances Kissling is the spokesman for nothing more than a well-funded letterhead." When questioned, Kissling confirmed that CFFC has received money from Hugh Hefner and _Playboy_ Magazine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Fall '93 College Pro-Life Convention Slated for Grove City Sponsored by the (Pennsylvania) Intercollegiate Federation for Life, the Fall '93 College ProLife Convention will be held at Grove City College (Western PA) on the weekend of October 15th-17th. Be prepared to attend practical college-student-oriented workshops, hear nationally-known pro-life speakers, learn what has worked on other campuses, meet new friends, and have a great time! All for only $16! The registration fee includes all meals, admission to speakers, convention materials, and housing. Early registrations are due Oct. 8th - the fee is $18 after that date and at the door. The confirmed speakers are Patricia Bainbridge on "Planned Parenthood"; Suzanne Rini, on "Fetal Experimentation"; Bob and Mary Irwin on picketing abortion- performing hospitals and clinics; and a speaker from Mom's House in Pittsburgh. Other activities include a letter-writing campaign, campus reports from all schools attending, workshops, a business meeting and free pro-life magazines and literature. For more information call Natalie White at (412) 458-2274, Charles Murphy at (215) 642-7555, Anna Marie Licameli at (908) 548-8478 or Brandon Satanek at (814)867-0751. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Help Wanted: Trying Lite the Fire at C.U.P. Hi! I am the president of the pro-life group at the California University of Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half south of Pittsburgh. Our pro-life group has not been doing very well unfortunately; One of our biggest problems is not having any transportation - We can't even go picketing because the bus gets into Pittsburgh too late *big sigh!* I am new to having pro-life connections on the net, and it would be nice to chat with other prolifers. I'd appreciate any email addresses, so if anyone wants to write, please contact me at . - Pete Walker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Reader Comments The Lakeberg Twins: Speaking of keeping one's nose out of somebody else's business - did anyone see the [29 July] story (on PrimeTime Live, I believe) of the Kentucky parents of Siamese twin daughters? Apparently the mother made the CHOICE of not aborting the babies, and was harrassed by pro-choicers over the phone for her decision. They accused her of causing the babies needless pain and suffering (they have to be separated in order for one to survive.) The parents CHOICE was to give the babies at least a CHANCE to live. 'Seems some pro-choicers can't handle it when the choice is for life.... - Mike Contento [ The case of the Lakeberg twins (baby girls sharing one heart and one liver) Made big news recently. According to UPI, ultrasound tests in the 16th week of pregnancy revealed this trouble, prompting Dr. Jonathan Muraskas of Chicago's Loyola University Medical Center to recommend an abortion. The mother [parents] did not opt for one, and the girls were born. One of the girls died as a result of the operation which separated the two. Ed.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Reader Questions I am looking for info on any United Methodist Pro-life groups. If anyone have any more info, that would be appreciated. My fiance and I are going to be married in May in a UM church, and the only way we can justify it to ourselves is the idea of starting a pro-life group. - David Anderson [Congradulations, David! Ed.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Reader Responses Re: Medical Schools (v3n20) Talk to Dr Thomas Hilgers of Creighton University in Omaha. He's the country's leading researcher on Natural Family Planning (NFP), and an expert in fertility and infertility issues. Dr. Hilgers runs the Pope Paul VI Institute at Creighton, where he teaches in the Institute's program for certified NFP instructors. [Creighton University can be contacted at (800) 334-8794.] - Richard Chonak ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "It is in the best interests of a woman to have as much information as possible before having an abortion. [Michigan] State law already requires informed consent for breast cancer treatment - Abortion is certainly no less serious." - John Engler, Governor of Michigan +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - Excerpted from a speech given by Robert Casey, Democratic Governor of | | Pennsylvania, at conference on abortion and public policy, hosted in | | March, 1993 by Saint Louis Univ.. Governor Casey is currently recovering| | from a combined heart-liver transplant at the University Medical Center | | Pittsburgh. Governor Casey's speech appeared in the May-June "Lifelines"| | Newsletter of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation pp 10-12. PaPLF, 310 | | Genet St. Scranton, PA 18505 | | 2 - Based on a report by Dr. Joel Brind, a biologist at Baruch College, | | City University of New York, published in the February, 1993 issue of | | _Life Advocate_, the national Rescue news magazine [well worth the | | $25 annual subscription]. | | 3 - from an EP article in the October edition of _Expression_, v12 n7 p7. | | _Expression_ is published by the Sonshine Foundation. To subscribe call | | (412)921-1300. Many thanks to reader Nelson Caro. | | 4 - from _The Pro-Life Collegian_, Newsletter of the Intercollegiate | | Federation for Life, August-September 1993. Write IFL, PO Box 10664, | | State College PA 16805. $10 per year for students, $20 for non-students.| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.