Skip to content
Home » News » Communique – Mar. 2, 2001

Communique – Mar. 2, 2001

in this issue:

american bar association: PROTECTING PEOPLE OR RIGHTS?
hoosiers, take note: VALPARIASO UNIVERSITY 
morning-after abortion pills: VIRGINIA
selective reduction: META ANALYSIS
stem cell research: ROBERGE
zinger: PEOPLE
reflection for prayer: BALDWIN OF CANTERBURY

abortion access project

DIFFERENCES IN ABORTION TECHNIQUES: A two-sided card has been developed by the abortion industry that spells out the differences between an RU 486 regimen and the morning-after pill. RU 486, described as “the abortion pill” is “taken to end a pregnancy in the first seven to nine weeks.” The morning-after pill “can prevent unintended pregnancy up to 72 hours after a woman has had unprotected sex.”

COMMENT: The problem is that the morning-after pill (actually four pills) does abort a human being, an individual human embryo whose specific DNA and personhood is established at fertilization, not at the discretion of the mythmakers in the reproductive rights movement. Abortion is abortion is abortion.

(Reading: “What’s the Difference,” Abortion Action Project)

american bar association

PROTECTING PEOPLE OR RIGHTS? The House of Delegates, the American Bar Association’s policy-making arm, considered policy positions at its midyear meeting in San Diego.

By a vote of 376-47, the delegates rejected a resolution calling for the enactment of laws that protect human life at all stages (including after conception) from intentional acts of harm or termination. There were two ways the delegates could have addressed this resolution–to find that it was not germane for the organization to take the position, or to reject the substance of the position. The delegates dealt with the substance of the resolution in rejecting it. First, the relevant rules committee determined that the resolution “falls within the purpose of the association” (that is, it is germane). Second, all the comments in opposition to the resolution dealt with support of the ABA’s earlier positions favoring abortion and an individual’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment.

(Reading: Report from Richard Collier, Esq., 2/21/01)

hoosiers, take note

VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY: Students will host Pastor Russ Saltzman on April 26, at 7 pm. Pastor Saltzman is an articulate defender of life. For details contact “>Prof. Gilbert Meilander.

morning-after abortion pills

VIRGINIA: The legislature failed to enact a bill that would place the morning-after pill in the realm of “over the counter” medications. The state house and senate deadlocked over the issue of a parental notification clause in the bill.

COMMENT: The argument is that the availability would curtail the number of abortions. This is patently false, of course, since the pills act to end the life of a human embryo prior to the time of implantation, thus causing abortion. One newspaper reports that the measure was “hailed by family planning activists and many abortion foes as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies.”

(Reading: “Va. Senate OK’s ‘Morning-after’ Pill,” Associated Press, 2/21/01; “Va. Emergency Birth Control Bill Falters,” Washington Post, 2/23/01; for accurate clinical facts see “Morning After Pill“)


CONSCIENCE CLAUSE: Pharmacists are becoming increasingly aware of the abortion-provision aspect of their business. More and more of them are seeking protection under conscience clause provisions in the law, or they are working to instate such laws. The following sites are helpful and are recommended by Pharmacists for Life International and Karen Brauer:

selective reduction

META ANALYSIS: Researchers studied a decade of data collected on multifetal pregnancy reduction, more than 3,500 cases. Experience over time has improved the outcome of those pregnancies reduced by one or two babies, so that only twins are carried to term.

(Reading: “Improvement in Outcomes of Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction with Increased Experience,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1/01, pp. 97-103, abstracts are available, full texts by paid subscription only)

stem cell research

ROBERGE: Biology professor Lawrence Roberge has communicated to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson in opposition to destructive research on embryonic persons. To review his comments, see “Urgent! Return to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ban“.


PEOPLE: A spokesman for the British Medical Association, commenting on the approval of human cloning in Britain, said, “carefully controlled, responsible embryo research has the potential to be of benefit to thousands of people with serious medical conditions.”

COMMENT: He failed to point out that embryonic people would die first.

(Reading: “British Bill on Human Embryo Clones Gains,” New York Times, 12/20/00; for current updates in human cloning in Britain, visit the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

reflection for prayer

The Lord knows the thoughts and intentions of our hearts. Without a doubt, every one of them is know to him, while we know only those which he lets us read by the grace of discernment.