file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0311.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 11 May, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This Pro-Life 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 (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Pro-Life Group Buys Ex-abortion Clinic Chattanooga Women's Clinic, the only abortion clinic in Chattanooga Tennessee, was purchased in a bankruptcy court on April 30th. The ProLife Majority Coalition which bought the 8,600 sq. ft. property for $294,000 raised the money in seven days, entirely through word-of mouth advertising and individual donations. Apparently the clinic had been in operation up to that time. Virginia Land, the clinic director who was put out of business by the sale, responded that she and other abortion supporters are not dissuaded. They expect to lease a new property in a few weeks. But for now, women who wish to abort will need to drive two hours to access the abortuaries in Nashville, Knoxville, Atlanta GA, or Birmingham AL. Needless to say, the AP report quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review devoted a paragraph to quote Land commenting how the closing of her clinic "puts a burden on poor women who can't afford [it]." Only private abortionists will be available in Chattanooga until Land and her backers can find a new place to conduct their business and win back their market share. The AP report also included a two-year old picture of the building, showing vandalism that had been done to it. I guess they didn't want a picture showing the present sign which reads "In memorial of the babies who have died from abortion in Chattanooga." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Pennsylvania Fights Back On May 17th, lawyers for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania asked the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals to order Judge Daniel Huyett III of U.S. Eastern District Court to let Pennsylvania's embattled 1991 law take effect. They are seeking a federal court order to force Huyett to allow the state's abortion law to go into effect immediately. This action follow the May 12 decision, where Huyett ruled in accord with the opponents of the Pennsylvania statute [Planned Parenthood etc.] that based on the criteria set forth in the 1992 Casey decision, a new trial was indeed warranted. Huyett's ruling was deemed 'unprecedented', and has further delayed the state's abortion statute from taking effect. Lawyers for the state (not surprisingly) argue that the new standards were based on the Pennsylvania law itself when it was considered by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1992, and therefore the matter has already been decided. "There is no question that this Court (U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals) and the Supreme Court decided that the challenged provisions of the Abortion Control Act are constitutional," the state argued in its filing. Aside from criticizing Huyett's reasoning, the state appeal said that it was not Huyett's "business to second-guess the Supreme Court" and that "The issue was not left open for (Judge Huyett) to decide." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) MAD Act before Congress - Legislative Alert Pennsylvanians for Human Life [a part of National Right to Life] recently sent out an I received an "Urgent Legislative Alert." It seems that the U. S. House of Representatives will consider the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) soon. Tom Foley, Speaker of the House, wants to have the bill considered under a closed rule, in effect not allowing any amendments OR DEBATE on the floor of the House when this bill comes up. We have to contact our Representatives and ask them to vote against the "closed rule" and FOCA. PHL said to contact your Representatives ASAP, and convey this message (either using these or your own words): "Please vote against any effort to invoke a 'closed rule' on the FOCA (HR 25). A 'gag rule' should not be used to prevent amendments to FOCA allowing for parental consent, restrictions on late-term abortions, and other regulations supported by overwhelming majorities of the American people." Personally, I am ambivalent concerning amendments to FOCA. Such amendments may make the bill more palatable to Congressmen in both Houses who would otherwise vote down the bill. On the other hand, I know that abortion was legalized in NY state through an anti-abortion legislator who, in the midst of a debate on legalizing abortion, introduced a bill so extreme that he thought/hoped it would be voted down. To his (and many other's) dismay, the bill was approved. - Nelson Caro ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Clinton Moves: RU-486 to be Licensed in US The French pharmaceutical Roussel-Uclaf agreed on April 20th to license RU 486 to a group which will seek approval to sell it in the United States. This agreement means the lengthy drug approval process for the abortion pill can now begin. Previously, Roussel-Uclaf has refused to be involved in marketing or manufacture of RU 486 in the United States, but the agreement will enable another company to make the product under the license. "With the encouragement of the U.S. government, Roussel-Uclaf has agreed to license RU 486 to the Population Council for distribution in the United States," said a Food and Drug Administration spokesman. The arrangement allows the Population Council,a private family planning group, to conduct clinical trials of the drug in the United States and eventually to apply for FDA approval of RU 486. The new drug approval process requires masses of data on safety and effectiveness. Up to 2,000 women could get the drug in clinical trials, although it still could be several years before the drug becomes widely available. Needless to say, abortion advocates see RU 486 as a revolutionary advance in fertility control, claiming that it offers women a safer, easier, less traumatic and much more private way to abort a pregnancy. This understanding ignores the fact that an International Inquiry Commission on RU-486 convened in Paris (1), the proper use of RU-486 involves, not a simple administration of pills, but a potential 6 or 7 visits to the physician or clinic: a) confirming the pregnancy and taking RU-486 under supervision; b) spending 12 hours in the hospital for prostaglandin injections; c) expulsion of the fetus with resultant hemorrhage and discomfort in 80% of cases; d) repeat prostaglandin injections in 20% of patients; e) surgical abortion on those in whom both drugs are ineffective; f) ultrasound examination several days later to be sure all parts of the unborn child have been expelled; g) in 5-10% of cases another hospital admission to control and treat hemorrhage. Bleeding occurs in over 90% of women taking RU-486. Excessive hemorrhage may lead to the need for transfusion and/or D & C. This is far from private, and even in the best of circumstances it is arguable that is less traumatic than a surgical abortion. The real issue of safety centers on the necessity of using prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are highly active compounds with marked cardiovascular actions requiring close supervision. A statement prepared by a joint committee of the French Republic signed by the Director of General Health, the Director of Hospitals and the Director of Pharmacy and Medicine(2) requests that whenever prostaglandins are given, cardiopulmonary resuscitation equipment and electro- cardiographic machines be at standby, a defibrillator be available, calcium channel blockers be drawn up in a syringe and vital signs be monitored over a period of several hours. The statement was sent to all physicians and hospitals in France following a fatal cardiac reaction to prostaglandins in a woman who had received the drug after RU-486. It is difficult to sustain the notion of safety against the background of such warnings. So far, RU-486 has been approved for marketing only in Britain and France. Richard Glasow, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee accused the FDA of "promoting a strong, radical, pro-abortion position by encouraging the importation and marketing of RU 486." He also commented that "Pro-life citizens will hold...the Clinton administration responsible for bringing this deadly drug into the U.S.." (1) Dunham S: International Inquiry Commission Condemns RU-486. _Wanderer_ 125:9, 1992. (2) The French Republic. French Officials Warn on Use of RU-486. _Child & Family_ 21:102, 1992. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Wanted: Pro-Life Opinions A researcher at Purdue University is currently seeking pro-life subjects to answer a 13-page (600 lines email) survey on attitudes, opinions, and activities related to the pro-life movement. The aim of the project is to develop a portrait of the pro-life movement that is fair, accurate, and empirically sound. All responses will be held confidential and will be made anonymous prior to reporting. If you would be willing to participate in this research effort, please email Kerry directly at KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET or KSTE@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. - Kerry Stephenson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Reader Questions Adoption help wanted: I was recently introduced to a couple that is very interested in adopting a baby. they told me that because they're now in their 40s the State [California] is giving them a hard time about adopting. I also told them about Birthright, about which they questioned me concerning the need for them to be Christian parents. I told them I didn't think that was a prerequisite, but didn't really know, so they're going to check out the office to which I have taken a friend, which just happens to be near where they live. My last suggestion was to put an ad in The Daily Californian (the local free paper that's read by Cal. students), but they told me that there are laws preventing advertising their willingness to adopt. Any ideas on how best to advise these folks would be most gratefully considered. Responses can be sent directly to me at (bourne@uclink.berkeley.edu). - Nicola Bourne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Reader Responses Media Bias: v3n10 This information is too late for people to use it in response to the Dr. Gunn murder, but it might be useful in future events. If the media is giving you the run-around, take out a full-page ad in prominent newspapers. They MUST print a paid-for ad, no matter what their feelings on the subject. [For more on this, look for a debate on this subject in v3n12] I'm not sure that you can do the same for radio or magazines, but it might be something that pro-life organizations might want to look into. Just a tidbit of information, - Marissa Ratcliff -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Response the Pensacola Murder: v3n10 Mark's letter to the Prolife News last month is unfortunate. As I understood his comments, Mark was arguing that we should perhaps excuse or overlook Michael Griffin's action because he was acting by feeling rather than by intelligence, and pleading that we put the incident behind us because it is devisive. This incident can not be simply put behind us. Its impact is too far reaching and devastating to the prolife cause. To excuse Michael Griffin's action is an invitation to anarchy, which is perhaps the worst possible of all social conditions. With anarchy, there are no laws at all. No standards of behavior that we can rely upon for the protection of anyone. It then ceases to be meaningful for us in the prolife movement to seek any legal change what so ever to protect innocent unborn babies. Certainly, the opposition is not going to put this action behind them. They are going to exploit it for every possible rhetorical advantage that they can. We are not currently in a state of war. If we were than the laws of war would apply. At this time we must abide by the laws of peace which mandate that we act in a non-violent manner. - Bob Roesser ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Goodbyes Well, the year is almost over, and so is my time here at Bucknell. My account will expire, so to speak, sometime in June. It's been great to just have someone a few seconds away on e-mail who can find answers to questions that I may have, and who is willing to help. I think the e-mail newsletter is a great thing, and I hope to have an e-mail address next year so I can continue getting it. Best wishes! - Lynn Firstine Keep fighting the good fight, and God bless you all. - Roberta Taylor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "For the time that there is a disruption in the availability of easy abortions,, we know that children will live." - Patricia Lindley, exective board member of the ProLife Majority Coalition, commenting on the purchase of the only abortion clinic in Chattanooga, Tennessee. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - Based on a Pittsburgh Tribune Review (AP) article from Wed. May 19, p.A5| | 2 - A followup to v3n10 "Will the Real US Supreme Court Please Stand Up?" | | Based on a Harrisburg UPI report, May 18(?) 1993. Many thanks to reader| | Sean Smith for the information. | | 4 - Loosely based on a Washington, DC (UPI) article dated April 20th, 1993 | | and Medical-Moral Newsletter 29:9 Nov. 1992 Ayd Medical Communications, | | 1130 E. Cold Spring Lane. Baltimore, MD 21239. Many thanks to readers | | Sean Smith and Bob Tatz. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.