|
Cytotec and RU486
“When we elect our lawmakers in America, we
influence the moral character of this nation for better or for worse. When our laws permit violence against little
babies, incidents like the Columbine High School shootings are the logical outcome
…”
Rev. Frank Pavone, National Priests
for Life
|
The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism (Official Baltimore Catechism
Series No. 2) Revised Edition
Order
securely online
This Catechism retains the text of the Revised Baltimore Catechism,
Number 2, but adds abundant explanations to help children understand the difficult parts
of each lesson along with pictures to aid in understanding.
Intended for grades 6-8
Official
Baltimore Catechism Series No. 1
is also available
Click Here
| |
|
 |
You might have thought something on a par with Abraham Lincoln's
Emancipation Proclamation was delivered last Thursday, based on the reaction in certain
quarters to the FDA's decision to approve the abortion pill Mifepristone, popularly known
as RU-486, for widespread use in the United States. But this announcement is just a little
different…
|
President Clinton and his
potential Democratic successor cheered — after having pressured the FDA not to delay
this watershed decision. The Feminist Majority Foundation called the drug’s approval
"a total victory for the U.S. women. At long last, science trumps anti-abortion
politics and medical McCarthyism. If this medication was primarily for men, the French
developers would already have received a Nobel Prize in medicine."
Abortion, of course, has long been legal in the U.S., thanks to a privacy right
mysteriously read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. And despite the "safe,
legal, and rare" rhetoric of the master of doublespeak, Bill Clinton, the goal of
modern American politics appears to be to make it as convenient, easy, and private as
possible — to ensure the greatest choice.
And so here we are. The women's “health” issue of the year, perhaps of the
generation — and certainly the crowning glory of the reproductive-rights crowd —
is this little pill. And, of course, it's not a health issue at all.
To the contrary, as Princeton professor Robert P. George told me in an interview last
Thursday. “The only concern FDA officials and the Clinton administration ever had
about RU-486 was how to get its approval past a less than uniformly 'enlightened' public
without major political consequences,” he said. “Their strategy was, as it has
been so often for those in the pro-abortion vanguard, to 'spin' the issue as one having to
do with ‘women's health.’ Of course, elective abortion, by definition, does not
promote anybody's health, save the financial health of the abortion industry. Pregnancy is
not a disease. And abortion — chemical or surgical — is anything but a
‘cure.’ The goal of an abortion is the death of the developing human being.
Abortion is always, as the 'pro-choice' philosopher Ronald Dworkin candidly admits, 'a
choice for death.' RU-486 is simply a chemical method of killing — the Zyklon B of
the abortion industry.
What the FDA did last week was unprecedented. Further defining the meaning of life down,
along with the mission of the medical profession, the FDA chose to make legal a pill that
kills people. And worse, does so in a way that views life as a minor inconvenience, on the
level of a cramp. Among the better responses from politicians last week was House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay's statement: "By approving the dangerous RU-486 abortion pill,
President Clinton would have America believe that the act of terminating a child's life is
as simple as curing a headache. This is a deeply flawed decision."
For all the talk that this decision should not have been made in a political context, this
is very political. Religious people especially, deeply disturbed at the availability in
four week's time of this death pill, should do nothing less than rally together and send a
message this November. Although George W. Bush waffled on the subject during Tuesday
night’s debate in Boston, he is the only (electable) candidate capable of reviewing
and reversing this abhorrent decision by the FDA. When the Clinton administration began
eight years ago, its first act was to expand the reach of abortion for Americans. The
first act of the next administration should be to limit it.
Getting this decision reversed will be a challenge, especially given Bush’s obvious
desire not to make it a campaign issue. Sadly, the abortion industry will not have to make
much of an investment promoting their new pill combo, thanks to a compliant press that got
fast to work upon hearing the FDA announcement. One of the first "news" stories
on the approval of the pill read like a press release for the magic of chemical abortion:
"Woman Recounts Experience with RU-486," which ran in the Washington Post,
tells the story of "Amy," who discovered she was pregnant a year ago. The
36-year-old mother and laboratory worker "wanted to use RU-486 because she thought it
would give her a greater sense of control, allowing her to be home with her husband when
she would have the equivalent of a miscarriage."
Confident that a passive act of nature and an active choice to end her pregnancy are
one-in-the-same, Amy is quoted as saying that she is “comfortable” with the
decision she made, “glad” she had a medical abortion, and felt she made a
“morally right” decision.
For Amy, the abortion was a declaration of independence of sorts. “I felt like I was
carrying it out myself,” she said. “It probably was more comfortable [than a
surgical abortion], but then someone else is doing that to me, and I didn't want
that.”
Then, as if recommending a video or reviewing a movie, the Washington Post added
this bit of editorial gloss: “Amy's experience — both the surprise at how
difficult it was in some ways and the overall satisfaction — is typical. Since
clinical trials for RU-486 began in the United States in 1994, more than 10,000 American
women like Amy have used the drug for their abortions. Surveys have found that 88 percent
of those women felt their abortions were very or moderately satisfactory, and 95 percent
who used the drug in trials would recommend it to others.”
It's good of the Washington Post to flack for a drug company that is putting
women's lives in danger, not to mention all those who will never get to live because of
it.
If you didn't get to read Amy's story in the Post, maybe you caught the Reuters
wire story, which in its first sentence blamed “political battles and delays”
for keeping RU-486 off the U.S. market.
Those frivolous “political” battles had something to do with: a) that little
“life” issue and the lives ended by the pill; and b) that niggling statistic of
one-out-of-100 unsatisfied woman who winds up in the hospital after going home with the
pills.
On Thursday, the FDA made it legal for doctors everywhere to send their patients home with
a drug combination that will cause profuse bleeding and kill a baby two-to-five weeks old.
Not at all the “morning-after pill” that many media outlets are calling it,
RU-486 promises at-home abortions that will further erode the face of life as we
know it.
Let Amy feel she is morally right. A nation — which has already in polling expressed
reservations — ought to feel pretty lousy.
|
This Page last updated: Tuesday, October 31, 2000
3628 people have visited this page
|
