MRL News - Fall 2001

Birth Control...or Abortion?

A frequent lament (excuse?) of those in the mushy middle on the abortion issue is that pro-life people don't even believe in birth control! Well, let's think about this.

In any discussion of birth control (contraception), it's important to understand that the definition of those words has slowly, but methodically, changed over the last few decades, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the pro-abortion industry. Previously, it was always understood that "birth control" meant conception control -and that conception control meant preventing fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Birth control meant preventing a new life from beginning.

But society has come a long way from that understanding - that's something from your grandmother's generation! "Birth control now literally means just that in far too many instances. The definition extends to methods that kill the tiny, new human being after his life has begun.

And that is one very insurmountable hurdle for pro-life people when dealing with birth control.

The abortifacient nature of many of the methods is understood by the medical profession, pro-life groups, churches, the U. S. Food & Drug Administration, and even admitted by a legal counsel for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

An article originally published in the April 1997 FDA Consumer discusses contraceptives and how they work. "Protecting Against Unintended Pregnancy: A Guide to Contraceptive Choices" remarks that for at least four methods, one of the effects is to keep the uterine lining from thickening, thus they "prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."

For Planned Parenthood Federation of America Legal Counsel Frank Susman, while representing them in 1986 arguments before the US. Supreme Court, this was apparently well known.

According to American Life League, he told the justices, "The most common forms...of contraception today -- IUD's, low dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available -- act as abortifacients."

Sadly, many health care providers either choose not to mention the facts to their patients or are ignorant of how the birth control methods which they prescribe actually work.

Intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, Depo Provera, Progesterone Only pills, low-dose contraceptive combination pills, and the morning-after pills all fall into the category of birth control that have the potential to end the life of a new human being. In their book Why Can't We Love Them Both Dr. & Mrs. John Willke discuss these methods in two chapters, one titled "Contraception" and another, "Very Early Abortion."

In the chapter "Contraception," they address two methods:

What about Norplant and Depo Proven?

Both of these use a form of continuing dose of progesterone. Part of the time they prevent ovulation. Part of the time they allow ovulation and fertilization, but prevent implantation. Therefore, they function both as contraceptive, at times, and as an abortifacient at times.

In "Very Early Abortions," the above methods are discussed in addition to several others:

What of the IUD?

The intrauterine device, commonly referred to as an IUD or coil (in Europe), is a small plastic or metal device that is inserted through the vagina and into the cavity of the uterus. The purpose of this is to "prevent" pregnancy.

Is an IUD a contraceptive or an abortive agent?

Until recently, almost all scientific papers had agreed that its effect was to prevent the implantation of the tiny new human being into the nutrient lining of the uterus; an abortive action. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in an official report that its effectiveness is "in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the inflammatory reaction to various types of IUDs"...and states that there "is one common thread... "They all "interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine cavity." Second Report on IUDs, Dec. 1978, U.S. Dept. of HEW, Food & Drug Administration Document 017-012-00276-5side)

A detailed report in a Planned Parenthood publication in 1989 claimed that a high percentage of its action was the prevention of fertilization. IUDs are Contraceptives, not Abortifacients; A Comment on Research and Belief 1. Sivin, Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec. '89

The above report, however, has not been duplicated and therefore has not presented enough evidence to change the conventional wisdom that the IUD is almost always an abortive agent.

What of Progesterone-Only pills?

These fall into the same category as the Progesterone-Only implant, Norplant, and the Progesterone-Only injection, Depo Provera.

How does the morning-after pill work?

This medication has an antinidatory effect on the endometrium (that is, a hardening of the lining of the uterus), which prevents implantation of the tiny new human being (blastocyst stage). If, for example, a rape victim had ovulated just before the assault and fertilization had occurred, then the use of such medication after the event would clearly be abortive.

There is a possibility that it can act in a sterilizing fashion. The large hormone dose could rapidly affect the ovary and prevent an ovulation that might have occurred one to three days after the intercourse. If sperm were still present and active in the woman's genital tract, she might otherwise have been fertilized one to three days after the event. In this case, some have suggested that such treatment (for example, as for an assault rape victim) might actually prevent a pregnancy. In actual practice, there is no way of knowing if she was fertilized at all and, if so, which effect the medicine had.

What about the standard contraceptive pill?

There are over 30 "contraceptive pills" on the market, each differing a little from the others. They "prevent" pregnancy through three separate functions.

1. They thicken the mucous plug at the cervix. If this is the primary effect, then it truly is contraceptive because it prevents sperm from entering.

2. They prevent release of the ovum. If this is the primary effect, then the function is "temporary" sterilization.

3. They render the lining of the womb hostile to the implantation of the tiny new human at one week of life. This effect is abortifacient. The earlier high-estrogen pills largely prevented ovulation. The newer low-estrogen pills allow "break-through" ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized 10% or more of the time. Most of these tiny new lives which result, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining (see number 3 above) and dies. These are micro-abortions.

The pill, then, can have a contraceptive or temporary sterilization effect (by far the most common), or  it can be an abortifacient.

You mean the effect is to abort?

Yes! "The morphological changes observed in the endometrium of oral contraceptive users have functional significance and provide evidence that reduced endometrial receptivity does indeed contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of OCs." In other words, because the endometrial lining is not receptive to the human being, who must implant in order to continue living, the human being will die. Souskuti, et al., "The Effect of Oral Contraceptive Pills on Markers of Endometrial Receptivity," Fertility and Sterility Vol. 65, #3, 3/96, p. 488

Thought you'd like to know..

....On the website of EMILY's List, which describes itself as "the nationwide network of political donors helping to elect pro-choice Democratic women," Sen. Jean Carnahan's upcoming Senate race against announced candidate Jim Talent is front and center. If questions exist about Carnahan's pro-abortion position, the fact that this stridently pro-abortion group chooses to highlight the race should erase all doubts.

In their December 2000 newsletter Notes from EMILY, the following was reported: "Under unusual and tragic circumstances, Jean Carnahan will take her place among pro-choice women in the Senate come January 2000."  See what the sympathy vote for her - and against unborn babies -rendered?

www.emilyslist.org Oct. 29,01

....Ads for the abortion pill RU-486 are running in 14 national magazines. Three Chicago residents have filed suit against the sponsor -- the National Abortion Federation -- charging the promotion violates laws against deceptive advertising. The pill's maker, Danco Laboratories, states online that "nearly all of the women" who receive the drug "will report adverse reactions, and many can be expected to report more than one such reaction."  That information is not disclosed in the ads.

LifeMatters September 2001

....A building that once housed death is now in the hands of South Carolina Citizens for Life and of Bethany Christian Adoption Services. The pro-life group faced moving its offices because of a substantial rent increase when a former abortion facility, once owned by the state's most notorious abortionist, became available. When the abortionist died in an auto accident, the property went on the block for taxes and was bought by a Christian businessman. SCOL's executive director observes that It is now being used for "redemptive, life-saving work whore thousands of babies once died."

National Right to Life News October 2001

Columbia Facility To Do Abortions Again

While court battles for state funding continue, Planned Parenthood (PP) again will dispense death for unborn babies at its Columbia MO abortion site, just blocks from the University of Missouri.

The facility stopped doing abortions in 1999. At press time, no date has been set for them to restart.

In 1999, the Missouri General Assembly refused funding tofamily-planning organizations that shared space withabortion facilities. Missouri Right to Life was closely involved in advising and supporting this budget language . While PP contests it to the Missouri Supreme Court, the court is forbidding all its branches from receiving state funding for family planning since the abortion business is not completely separated.

PP of Kansas and Mid-MO and PP of St. Louis have been working without state funds since 1999. Because of this, they are trying to raise private funds. Some of their sites have also raised prices.

Patty Shin, executive director of Missouri Right to Life, said, 'We're concerned about life, the protection of life and the right to life of every individual. Missouri Right to Life believes that state funds should not pay for or subsidize abortions."

Pam Manning, president of Missouri Right to Life, encouraged pro-lifers in Missouri to reach out to the college students with alternatives to abortion.

"The pro-life community needs to redouble efforts to assure that women know we are here to help them in any way needed," Manning explained. "They don't need to resort to abortion - a tragic response to their present difficulties."

Speaking of Planned Parenthood...

When tragedy struck our country in September Planned Parenthood of New York City developed their own brand of "relief kits."

In a press release issued On September 18, they offered "complete reproductive health care .... free of cost" to the grief stricken survivors of the terror in New York. The PPNYC website lists among their "services" surgical first - and second-trimester abortions under local, conscious sedation, or general anesthesia; additionally, chemical abortions are available.

It is unfathomable that what they offer in the face of the death and destruction of 9-11 is more death and destruction.

Their insensitivity doesn't slop there! Ten days after the tragedy, their national president issued an incredible statement equating the assaults with protests against PPFA's gruesome business.

"We at Planned Parenthood have lived and worked for many years with the threat of terrorism. Sadly, this is now a bond we share with the entire nation," she stated.

One last incredible episode. PP offices in Virginiaannounced the offering of free condoms in patriotic colors to raise money for victims of the attack. Noting that pregnancies jump following tragedies, they announced, "Offering patriotic condoms will hopefully stem the increase of unintended pregnancies while letting Americans...display their colors proudly."

Ashcroft Bars Controlled Drugs For Assisted Suicide - Judge Grants Restraining Order

On November 6, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed a 1998 ruling by former Attorney General Janet Reno that authorized the use of federally controlled drugs to assist suicides in Oregon, the only state that permits lethal prescriptions in certain cases. A federal district judge has granted a temporary restraining order requested by several patients, assisted suicide advocates and the Oregon Attorney General. It is effective until Nov. 20.

Under Oregon law, doctors may provide, but not administer, a lethal prescription to terminally ill adults. Guidelines are to be followed, but the law, the only one of its kind in the nation, has been used by at least 70 people since 1997.

The Ashcroft decision would effectively reinstate a November 1997 determination by the Drug Enforcement Administration that since assisting suicide is not"a legitimate medical purpose... prescribing a controlled substance with the intent of assisting a suicide" violates the federal Controlled Substances Act. Attorney General Reno agreed that "adverse action trader the CSA" might be warranted "where a physician assists in a suicide in a state that has not authorized the practice..." However, she decided to allow federally controlled drugs to be used to kill patients when legal under state law.

A national Wirthllin Worldwide poll taken this summer shows 67% of those polled say federal law should not allow the use of controlled narcotics and other drugs for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Contraceptive Coverage in Health Care Plans in Missouri

- by Jim Cole, MRL Legal Counsel

Missouri enacted a bill in 2001 which, among other things, aimed at ensuring coverage of contraceptives by all health benefit plans (HB 762).

Abortion supporters desired such coverage to include abortifacients, while pro-life legislators and groups insisted on a distinction between covering contraceptives on one hand and not covering abortifacients. (Readers should remember that Missouri Right to Life does not take a position on true contraceptives. Questions about true contraceptives should be addressed to churches and other organizations who have policies on them.)

After arduous negotiations in which Missouri Right to Life participated, language was agreed upon which protects against subsidizing abortifacients in two ways.

First, the statute does not mandate any coverage for "drugs and devices that are intended to induce an abortion." section 376.1199.1(4).) Therefore, it is plain under the new law that health insurance plans do not need to cover a prescription for mifepristone (commonly referred to as "RU-486") and other abortifacient prescribed as such. Furthermore, the new statute specifically says that such prescriptions would be covered by a long-standing Missouri Law, section 376.805, RSMo., which provides that any coverage of abortion in health insurance plans has to be by a separate rider, for which a separate premium is paid. In that way, consumers may avoid paying any money toward coverage of abortions in health insurance or other health plans.

Second, the new statute dealt with situations when it is not clear that a drug is "intended" to work as an abortifacient, or when it is not clear that the drug does or does not work as an abortifacient, or when a person has moral or other objections of conscience to coverage of contraceptives in general. A consumer may exclude coverage for contraceptives from any health plan in which the consumer participates if such coverage is "contrary to his or her moral, ethical or religious beliefs." (section 376.1 199.4(2).) The right to make such an exclusion is to be provided by "clear and conspicuous notice" on the enrollment form and materials which accompany the group health plan contract. (section 376.1199.6.) Moreover, any person, institution or organization which provides a health plan to employees may opt out of covering contraceptives if providing them is contrary to the moral, ethical or religious beliefs or tenets of the institution or organization. (section 376.1199.4(3).) Finally, any health carrier itself which is owned or operated by an entity pursuant to moral, ethical or religious tenets that are contrary to the use or provision of contraceptives may opt out of the mandate to provide coverage of contraceptives (section 376.1199.4(3),

There are other teams and provisions of the statute. An unofficial copy of the entire statute is available on-line at www.house.state.mo.us/bills01/biltxt01/truly01/HB0762T.HTM

MRL Notes

Voter ID preparation an early priority

Dave Plemmons

MRL-PAC Chairman

Even now, the stages are being set for many election scenarios in Missouir.  With redistricting and with term limits vacating 70+ state house seats and several state senate seats, there are incredible opportunities awaiting us for the years to come. But opportunities are only good when they are seizedupon!

That is where you as an informed pro-lifer can make a difference. By being prayerfully ready to identify more pro-life families through your local events and meetings, you can help to multiply the benefits of pro-life voter identification.

It is vitally important that our state office receive as many names as possible in order to increase our membership, and those people in turn can be informed about the positions of candidates on life issues. In upcoming newsletters, we will share some strategies for "growing" Missouri Right to Life's electorate. After all, don't we want to see a state government that is filled with those who respect life?

If your answer is yes, consider what you can do to identify more prolifers in your area, and well show Missouri that respect for life is a winning position for candidates!

Pro-Life Fundraising? Be On The Alert

MRL continues to hear from members confused by telemarketing calls received from so-called private groups who are unable to furnish evidence of having done real work. On close questioning, these groups relate vague projects and successes.

One such group that has solicited in Missouri is Elect Life, which has no record of lobbying on Capitol Hill or of having made meaningful contributions to the election of pro-life candidates.

For instance, reports to the Federal Election Commission show that in 2000, they raised over $3 million, but less than 2% went to political candidates. Their telemarketing firm received 93% of funds raised!

MRL does not know where the "call lists" for such groups originate, but please know that it is the policy of MRL not to release the names of our contributors/member to other organizations.

Remember, Missouri Right to Life and National Right to Life are thankful to receive your support. There arc also many other legitimate groups involved in right-to-life efforts. If you receive solicitations from groups with which you are unfamiliar, please make certain that they are doing worthwhile work. If questions remain, give us a call. Well help if we can!

Your Christmas contribution to Missouri Right to Life Education Fund not only helps to teach the pro-life story. Your gift is also tax deductible.

Your donation may be sent to

Missouri Right to Life Education Fund PO Box 651 Jefferson City MO 65102

Annual Oratory Contest

'Teens, get out you research material, your best voices, and set aside some practice hours -  it's time to prepare for the Missouri Right to Life Oratory Contest.

The initial phase of the annual competition is sponsored by the chapters and regions of MRL.  From the region level, winners advance to the state meet to be held at the annual MRL conference in Kansas City in March 2002.

Participants of high-school age may speak on a pro-life topic of their choosing.  The competition has two sections -- freshman-sophomore division and junior-senior division.  The junior-senior winner at the state level will be awarded a trip to the national competition to be held at the National Right to Life Convention next summer in Pittsburgh, PA.

Below is list information about dates and/or contacts for the contest in your area:

Eastern Region - Feb. 23, Creve Coeur Government Center, St. Louis, Contact: Eastern Region 314-961-7274.

Mid-State Region - information unavailable at press time

Northeast Region - Feb. 16, Crosswalk Christian Church, Macon, 10:00. Contact:  Mary 573-588-4206.

Southeast Region - information unavailable at press time

Southwest Region - Feb. 16.  Springfield, MO.  Contact: Carl Schimek 417-725-9444 or e-mail CARL725@aol.com

Western Region - Contact: Nancy Sanders, 816-468-4491

Stem Cell Research

Just Follow The Money

Many of the physicians and scientists engaged in the public debate over the use of embryos for stem cell research are often prominent faculty members at prestigious universities and public research institutions. And often they are also board members and shareholders of fledgling biotechnology companies which stand to make hefty profits from this research,

This creates an inherent conflict of interest for those who are promising wonderful advances from embryonic stem cell research, and who are assuring us that it's the high moral course to take, ("Why should we waste this promising material by just pouring it down the drain?) If they stand to receive monies because of a decision to fund research, they should rightly have their personal interests exposed. The dollars poured into the research also pay for their salaries and additional benefits.

Three of the leading scientists advocating embryos for stem cell research also serve on the boards of private commercial enterprises that might benefit from expanding research into this area. Douglas Mellon, chairman of Harvard University's department of molecular and cellular biology,is a board member of Curis Inc., a company seeking to commercialize technologies based on stem cells from embryos. Irving Weissman of Stanford University is the founder of two companies, SyStemix Inc. and Stem Cells Inc. Ronald McKay, National Institutes of Health, helped found NeuraISTEM Biopharmaceuticals.

From January through July 2001, these three were quoted 216 times in the national media favoring funding for research on embryo stem cells. Only 17 times were they linked to their commercial interests.

- from LifeMailers, Sept 2001

"No Logical Place To Draw The Line"

Even some who support legal abortion worry that society's sanction of research that would destroy human embryos may set a dangerous moral precedent.

We are "crossing a major boundary without any sense of how significant a boundary it is," says Duke theologian Amy Hall.

Once we approve killing one human being to save the life of another, where do we slop? Should we create and clone embryos just for "spare parts?" Why stop at embryos? Whet about near-term fetuses, or even newborn infants? Why not calculate an individual's quality of life or projected social contribution and determine whether or not someone else is entitled to his or her organs?

Hastings Center bioethicist Daniel Callahan supports abortion but opposes stem cell research that would destroy human embryos because once started, "there is no logical place to draw the line!'

The Washington Post says, "even moralists without fixed views on abortion are queasy about the idea of scientists mass-producing embryos for a goal other than human reproduction. For them, any amount of scientific progress is cold comfort in a future where human dignity is no longer the first priority."

March for Life Bus Trips

Now is the time for you and your pro-life friends to make plans to attend the 2002 March for Life in Washington D.C. The events will rake place on Tuesday, January 22.

The annual Washington D.C. trip is a powerful tool in standing for truth and a wonderful opportunity to see tens of thousands come together to jointly testify to the sanctity of each human life.

Attendees will meet with elected federal legislators and speakers the morning of January 22. In the afternoon, the Ellipse Rally and National March for Life will be held. Finally, visits with congressmen or their aides will complete the day. Then, back to Missouri!

Some pro-lifers will be traveling by car or airplane to D.C., but most from across the state will be traveling by chartered bus to join the annual activities commemorating the sad anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand. And we want you to join us!

Buses will leave from cities in Missouri and in central Illinois. Below is information on bus trips contacts:

Missouri-Illinois Life Caravan

Cost $115 due by 1/7/02 on a first-come-first-serve basis

Departs Mon., January 21- Returns Wed., January 23

	Several sites in St. Louis city and County
	Washington, MO
	Jefferson County, north and south sites
	St. Charles
	Alton, IL
	Greenville/Effingham, IL area

Contact for information/reservations for all of the above sites is: Tricia Davies (314) 822-8516. e-mail tdavies01@earthlink.net

Buses not part of the MOIL Caravan have different schedules, locations, and costs. Contacts are:

O Lord that lends me Iife,

Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness.

-William Shakespeare -