Ignoring Women's Health? A Pro-Life Response

The other day, I posted a short piece by Patrick Kelly from the Knights of Columbus that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The piece was timed to coincide with weekend Roe v. Wade commemorations, and it celebrated the magnificent contributions pregnancy resource centers have made toward promoting life and supporting pregnant women over the years – a compassionate, charitable work that predates the 1973 Supreme Court decision. 

In my public post, I included the following pull-quote from Kelly's article regarding the centers: 

The Guttmacher Institute...complains they are “typically staffed by volunteers and employees who lack medical training and licensure.” It’s a strange criticism from those for whom a “successful” medical procedure always ends in the death of a human being.

In response, a friend of mine made this (public) comment:

Of course, WSJ ignores the health of the women with that crack. I guess for them being pro life really does stop at birth - at which point they are pro chaos.

Here's what I wrote in reply.
_____________________ 

Hey, friend. Normally I wouldn't respond to comments I find offensive, but this one, really, is beyond the pale. 

To begin with, the article is by Patrick Kelly from the Knights of Columbus, not the WSJ editorial board. That's important because the K of C are directly and extensively involved in supporting and underwriting the good efforts of crisis pregnancy centers across the country (and around the world, I think). I'm a proud member of the Knights and happy to be associated with their charitable efforts.  

Second, and more importantly, if you actually spoke with anyone who was thoroughly pro-life or familiarized yourself with their work, you'd know that it's frankly silly to accuse them of ignoring women's health. "The people who work at these centers serve the whole person—medically, financially, emotionally and spiritually," Kelly writes in his piece. "That’s something no abortion clinic can do, and it helps explain why their numbers are dwindling while the number of pregnancy resource centers grows." By working tirelessly to provide pregnant moms with what they need to continue their pregnancies and care for their babies after delivery, crisis pregnancy centers are most definitely committed to maternal health as well as defending preborn life. 

Still, I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm guessing your comment is related to the myth that abortion is sometimes required to preserve a woman's health. That's a false notion that's rooted in a shortsighted ethical perspective. Consider this statement from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise..., AAPLOG believes in "treatment to save the mother’s life," including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT "abortion to save the mother’s life." We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.

Anyway, maybe that sounds like so much sophistry and ethical mumbo-jumbo, but you can hardly accuse those who embrace that stance of "ignoring" women's health. Pro-life people are just that: Pro-life. The baby's life. The mom's life. The life of the elderly, the infirm, the brain-injured. The poor, the marginalized, the incarcerated, the immigrant. "I have set before you life and death," God tells the Israelites, "therefore choose life" (Deut. 30.19). It's a command that pro-life folks (like me) try to embody and promote every day. Sometimes we do it well; sometimes not. Even so, we're always striving to foster a world in which killing is never required to solve problems. Never. 

So, please talk to some pro-life people. Hell, talk to me. I'll be happy to tell you how I see all this stuff. But, please, friend, don't accuse me and those who think like me of ignoring women's health just because we are opposed to killing babies in the womb. That's just foolishness.
____________________

Our Local Pro-Life Guardian Angel

Last Thursday night, St. Joseph County Right to Life held its 27th Annual Right to Life Benefit Dinner. "The event was a huge success," read a follow-up email from the organization, "raising funds that are critical in our continuing mission of sharing the sanctity of life through education, advocacy, outreach, and prayer." At the end of the evening, my son and I had the privilege of making the following fundraising pitch.
_________________________________________

It’s always a joy for me and my wife, Nancy, to come to this banquet every year, and tonight is a special joy because we have two of our kids – our youngest – with us for the first time: our son, Nicholas, and our daughter, Katharine. As if that weren’t enough, Nick and I also have this honor of coming up here together, father and son, to ask you for…money.

But before we get to money, we want to talk a minute about guardian angels.

We all know about guardian angels, and if you’re Catholic, you’ve been praying to your guardian angel since you were a tot – which means you’ve also probably taught your own tots the same guardian angel prayer that your parents taught you. “Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God’s love entrusts me here, ever this day be at my side, to light and guard, to rule and guide.”

But not just Catholics. Other Christian traditions acknowledge the role of personal heavenly guardians based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 18: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones,” he says. “For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” Jewish tradition incorporates a similar idea, and we read of an angel, Raphael, coming to the aid of the wayfarer Tobiah in the Book of Tobit.

OK, so we have guardian angels. What does that have to do with Right to Life and money? I’ll tell you. A week ago, I was in my car and the radio was on. At the top of the hour, the local news included a brief reference to Whole Woman’s Health Alliance getting the nod from an Indianapolis judge to proceed with their plans for a west-side chemical abortion center – bad news for the babies, bad news for the moms, bad news for the West Side and our entire community. But the bad news was balanced with a bit of hope: “If the Indiana Health Department doesn’t object,” the announcer said, “the order will become final on October 2.”

October 2nd – I perked up. Did you? For us Catholics, it’s the feast of the Guardian Angels – a high holy day in Catholic families with young kids. It’s the day we thank God for his provision in our lives as we celebrate the personal angelic companions he gave us – especially since we grown-ups probably don’t think about them much of the rest of the year.

But they’re always there, as the prayer says, enlightening us to truth, protecting us from harm, and guiding us forward. And that’s exactly the kind of work that St. Joseph County Right to Life has been doing since 1972 – a year before the passage of Roe v. Wade. Think of it: Even before abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, St. Joe County Right to Life was all set, in place, and ready to act as our community’s guardian angel on behalf of the preborn.

You can bet that’s what they’ll be doing between now and October 2nd with regards to that new abortion clinic. St. Joe County Right to Life will be educating, advocating, and leading the charge to stop that place from opening if at all possible. And all while they continue doing everything else they do in our community – some things visible, like the billboards for the Women’s Care Center, and some thing less visible and behind the scenes.

Yet, unlike our personal guardian angels, who are spirits and don’t need income, our communal, pro-life guardian angel does. St. Joe County Right to Life has expenses just like any other organization, and it relies on our contributions to make ends meet. So, please, on behalf of all those guarded by St. Joe County Right to Life, be as generous as you can.
_______________________________________

Public Comment: RU-486

The St. Joseph County Council met on Tuesday evening, December 5. During the public comment period at the close of the meeting, about 30 healthcare workers and concerned citizens spoke out against the possibility that a new facility would open in South Bend offering chemical abortion (RU-486). My contribution was a brief review of maternal physiological risks associated with this heinous practice.
____________________________________________

All medical interventions are accompanied by risk, and we accept those risks when they’re outweighed by the potential benefits. Even a simple Band-Aid can present the risk of injury for those with very fragile skin, or even an allergic reaction, but we don’t think about it too much because the risk is so small.

The same rule applies to medications – like a simple dose of Tylenol, that we take without much thought because the risks are so minimal. But we can be allergic to Tylenol and other drugs, or we can experience a variety of adverse reactions if those drugs interact with our bodies in unexpected ways.

Most drugs have been used and/or studied so long that their side effects and risks are well known. Such is the case with mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs that together make up RU-486, the chemical (or medical) abortion procedure under consideration tonight.

Among the side effects that women who take these drugs may experience are these:

• Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea
  
• Significant cramping and pelvic pain
  
• Insomnia, anxiety, and dizziness
  
• Headaches, along with back and leg pain

More serious complications, while uncommon, include the possibility of:

• Heavy bleeding, lasting day, weeks, and even months, and sometimes requiring blood transfusions
  
• Large uterine blood clots or even incomplete expulsion of fetal remains from the uterus
  
• Infection, including the possibility of sepsis (or whole body infection), which can be deadly
  
• Additional complications associated with an undetected ectopic (or tubal) pregnancy, which would be a medical emergency 

Proponents of medical abortion argue that these risks, even the serious ones, can be handled if and when they arise, but keep in mind that women only receive the first dose of the two-dose regimen in a clinical setting. She’ll return home after that – or, if she’s from out of town, to a motel room – to take that second drug, and then face any complications or problems on her own.

Consider, too, that these possible side effects and risks are grave enough that women must be warned about them and sign an informed consent before receiving the abortion drugs. Like I said, all medical interventions have risks, and we have to weigh risks against benefits.

But the risks associated with medical abortion are high, too high, even if you want to argue that abortion is a “benefit.” RU-486 is a dangerous regimen, and it has no place in our community.
___________________________

Dear #Pro-Choice

Dear pro-choice friend,

I got to my office this morning and discovered your message on my white board. I’m assuming you took the time to read the various postings on my door and drew the conclusion that I’m passionately pro-life – and you were right about that. It would’ve been hard to conclude otherwise, especially given the prominent “#DefundPlannedParenthood” sign right above the message board. So, for what it’s worth, I’m grateful that you did me the honor of standing there, scanning my signage, and giving it all some thought. That’s the beginning of dialogue. That’s what leads to increased mutual understanding and respect.

Unfortunately, your consideration of my evident pro-life position led you to opt for a less than respectful response. You could’ve left me a note asking for more information on why I’m against abortion. You could’ve come back during my posted office hours to introduce yourself and share with me your reasons for supporting abortion rights.

Instead, you snagged my dry-erase marker and wrote “#ProChoice” in big letters. Why? What were you hoping to accomplish? In a sense, what you did amounts to vandalism. Yes, it’s true that I invite folks to leave messages on my door by hanging the white board and marker there, but clearly your intent here was aggressive and so unwelcome. If I came across your door plastered with pro-abortion messages, how would you feel if I left a “#Pro-Life” scrawl there? Wouldn’t it make you mad? Wouldn’t you interpret it as a form of assault?

My initial reaction wasn’t anger, however, but mirth. I saw your message and laughed out loud – how ironic! You were declaring yourself (anonymously) to be on the side of choice, but you totally overrode my choice with regards to the kinds of messages I want to appear on my door.

But my mirth quickly turned into sadness. Here we are, you and me, at an institution of higher learning, and we totally missed an opportunity to expand our minds by learning from someone with whom we disagree. Frankly, I feel ripped off rather than offended. I’m bummed that you deprived us both of the chance to grow as human beings. I doubt I could’ve persuaded you to change your point of view, and I’m absolutely certain that you wouldn’t have changed mine, but I would’ve welcomed the occasion to meet and chat with you. Believe it or not, I would’ve listened, really listened. And, of course, I would’ve expected you to listen to me. Then we could’ve parted in peace – maybe not as friends, but at least as friendly acquaintances. Who knows? We might’ve even agreed to talk some more another time.

Anyway, consider this an invitation. I’m leaving your “#Pro-Choice” message on my door in hopes that you’ll see it, that you’ll be surprised it's still there, and that you’ll approach to discover this letter to you. Won’t you please come talk to me? Like I said, I’ll listen, but I’ll want you to listen to me in return.
_______________________________

Personhood and Compromise

Charles Krauthammer ("Cell Lines, Moral Lines," Washington Post, 8/5/05) simultaneously provides a weak argument for expanded federal funding of stem cell research while unwittingly drawing attention to the twisted morality of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Krauthammer concedes that an embryo is indeed a “new human life,” but he sees no problem in destroying embryos in order to conduct research on their cells. His argument – emphasized in italics, no less – is that thousands of such embryos “will be destroyed anyway,” so snatching a few stem cell lines before they’re snuffed is simply a practical matter. 

Where Krauthammer does have trouble is the possibility that embryos will be produced (and presumably sold) for experimentation purposes only, and he calls for limits to be included in the stem cell bill that is working its way through Congress.

If Mr. Krauthammer is not bothered by the disposal of “extra” embryos, then why would he be bothered by entrepreneurs trafficking in embryonic tissue and cells? If pre-born human beings are not persons, as he suggests, then what difference would it make if free and fertile citizens made a few bucks by providing embryonic grist for the stem-cell mill? The inconsistency in Krauthammer’s logic betrays an underlying relativism that allows him to pick and choose what kinds of human life are worthy of protection.

A second question for Krauthammer follows hard on the heels of the first: If he is troubled by the idea of “human manufacture,” then why isn’t he complaining about the IVF industry itself? It is well known that successful IVF is dependent on embryonic redundancy, and that every attempt at achieving pregnancy through this method will result in the production of multiple “spare” embryos that are usually destroyed. Isn’t this the very utilitarian human manufacture that Krauthammer is afraid of?

The pro-life bottom line is this: All human life is precious, including the zygotes and blastocysts that Krauthammer so glibly dismisses as non-persons. To designate certain stages of human development as expendable is to engage in the very moral reasoning that has been used to justify all kinds of depravity and violence in the recent past.

Either human life is sacred and deserving of every protection from conception until natural death, or else no one is safe. This is not merely a lesson from religion; it is a clear and disturbing lesson from history, and one which our national leaders should heed as they consider the stem cell issue.
__________________________

A version of this letter originally appeared in the South Bend Tribune's "Michiana Point of View" on September 2, 2005.