MRL News - Spring 2001

MRL Annual Membership Meeting State Office July 21, 2001 10 a.m.

2001 Missouri General Assembly

New Attacks On Life In 2001 Session

The 2001 Missouri General Assembly was perhaps the most challenging in the last nine years as new attacks on life were unleashed. Cloning and embryonic tissue harvesting came to the forefront in the capitol this year, along with the usual attacks by those who support abortion. Once again, the pro-abortion stance of the Governor proved decisive in giving pro-abortionists the initiative in state legislation. Pro-life bills were heard in committee, but either never reached the floor or were buried when they did.

For pro-abortionists, this was to be the year for Missouri's ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Missouri Right to Life has been implacably opposed to ratifying the ERA since it was revived as a legislative subject in 1998. Ratification of the ERA would be a disaster for the pro-life movement because it would undoubtedly be used to bar even the modest regulations on abortion allowed under Roe v. Wade, such as parental consent requirements and bans on the use of tax money to subsidize abortions.

The political appeal of the ERA was especially strong this year, for the victory of certain statewide candidates was supposedly the product of the "women's vote." When ERA proponents in the House suddenly brought ratification to a vote in a surprise move designed to catch the opposition off guard, they felt victory was at hand. They were dealt a stunning setback as the 94 to 57 vote denied ratification.

Another pro-life victory came when a bill to mandate coverage of contraceptives in health care plans was rendered abortion-neutral. Intense negotiations by several pro-life organizations resulted in an agreement that drugs intended to be used as abortifacients would not be included in mandatory coverage and that individuals, institutions and employers could opt out of coverage for reasons of conscience. In addition, the option for an individual to opt out of coverage for contraceptives, if their health plan includes it, was not available before passage of this bill.

Tobacco Settlement/Life Sciences Research

The final half of the session brought an onslaught of novel means of destroying the lives of young, helpless humans -- in connection with the huge tobacco litigation settlement. Renowned medical institutions joined with powerful metropolitan chambers of commerce to support "life sciences research" as a major field into which to pour these newly-found, huge sums of money. These institutions made it clear in meetings that they do not want to be hampered by pro-life regulations. It is apparent that they foresee scientific prestige and perhaps large profits to be gained by using stem cells derived from human embryos to develop new transplant materials and possibly as cultures for new vaccines. The use of embryonic stem cells destroys the human embryos, approximately one week in age, whose cells are harvested. Such massive destruction of human life, in a manner that can rightly be described as medical cannibalism, evidently doesn't bother these institutions as it does the members of Missouri Right to Life. Missouri Right to Life certainly is not opposed to acceptable scientific research which enhances the well being of humanity. (See "The Politics of Stem Cells" in this issue.)

Life Sciences Initiative Petition Threatened

To add to the pressure on legislators, the institutions prepared an initiative to amend the State Constitution. The proposed initiative, which still must receive enough signatures from voters to be placed on the ballot, would ostensibly put the death-dealing research programs, and others funded by tobacco money, beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. No pro-life protections are contained in the proposed initiative, and it purports to prohibit any new restrictions on the tobacco-funded programs in future years.

The prospect of such a move had a dispiriting effect on some in Jefferson City. Certain groups touted a "compromise" which alleged to keep the money from being used for abortion, destructive human research (including stem cell harvesting), and cloning; however, the compromise language contained serious problems, such as an exception for "facilities and administrative" expenses, thus in effect canceling out the provision prohibiting spending for anti-life research. Also, the compromise language only applied to the Life Sciences Research Program, which was about 20% of the settlement money. The remainder, without any pro-life protections, would be devoted to such things as "health care treatment," "early childhood development and care" and "prescription drug coverage and health care treatment." This prescription program, while promoted as senior pharmaceutical relief, was not limited to senior citizens and could have been used for the coverage of RU-486 and the "morning-after pill." The health care treatment programs could certainly promote, and possibly pay for, abortions throughout the state. The anti-life results of the bill were very clear because of the absence of abortion-neutral language. Some of its provisions would have undone the years of work that pro-life people have done.

With over $140 million of tobacco money per year at issue, Missouri Right to Life was extremely concerned that such loose language would result in thousands of lives lost and much damage to the cause of life. MRL proposed language similar to that used in family planning appropriations, allowing legitimate research by independent affiliates of the institutions while preventing indirect subsidies of illegitimate research by the parent institutions. The institutions rejected this approach. We also suggested that the remaining questionable portions of the bill be made abortion neutral, but these concerns were ignored.

At the end of the session, despite the perceived power of the medical institutions and chambers of commerce, a few courageous state senators held firm, preventing the tobacco settlement bills from passing without effective pro-life protections.

Senators Larry Rohrbach, Chuck Gross and John Cauthorn, as well as State Representative Susan Phillips, deserve special thanks for their staunch support of pro-life values during this legislative session.

It remains to be seen whether an initiative petition drive is mounted. The petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State at least six months before an election is held, so the Legislature will convene its 2002 session before any such election can take place. Missouri Right to Life will continue to work to keep state money directed to laudable medical research and legitimate health programs, and away from giving economic benefit to any programs that destroy human life. MRL is also preparing to "go to the mat" if necessary, calling on all members and citizens of good will to fight the initiative which the powerful research institutions may yet attempt to enact.

Legislative Notes

Special Session Called

Gov. Bob Holden has called a special session of the Missouri legislature to coincide with the September veto session. He has stated that prescription drug assistance for the elderly will be considered, but other items may be added prior to the session.

With the problems that arose during the regular session with prescription drug coverage, we need to be alert during the upcoming special session.

Please pray for our legislators, and all governmental leaders, as their decisions effect our state's respect for the sanctity of life.

Judge Reaffirms Decision

After reviewing a new federal regulation, a Missouri judge has decided that Planned Parenthood still is not entitled to receive any state "family planning" money.

The decision by Cole County Circuit Judge Byron Kinder reiterates a November 1999 ruling upholding a Missouri statute that bars state family planning taxpayer funds from going to abortion facilities.

The Missouri Supreme Court ordered Kinder to reconsider the 1999 decision.

Language in Missouri's fiscal 2000 and 2001 budgets would have allowed Planned Parenthood to perform abortions and receive state family planning money, Kinder said. However, additional budget language bans state money from going to groups that share a name, facility, expenses, equipment or employee wages with an affiliated abortion facility, Kinder said.

Thus, Planned Parenthood remains ineligible for state family planning funds, despite revised federal guidelines.

Kinder's ruling also reiterates his judgment that the Missouri funding restrictions are constitutional and that Planned Parenthood branches should repay $105,750 in state funds. In addition, he reaffirms that the legislature has the right to hire a special assistant attorney general to represent the state. This became necessary when Attyorney General Jay Nixon went against the legislature and sided with the Director of the Dept. of Health and Planned Parenthood in the litigation.

The case is expected to return to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Let's Be Honest

During the 2001 legislative session, a need often mentioned was senior citizen prescription drug relief to provide help with the devastating costs of some medications. The vehicle touted to the public as the solution for this problem was supposedly the Life Sciences and Tobacco Settlement bill. What was not mentioned was the fact that this bill didn't list senior prescription relief as a program at all. Only in the summary to be presented to voters is this mentioned. First, let's quote from the only section of the bill that deals with prescription drug relief: "196.1081. The `Prescription Drug Coverage and Health Care Treatment and Access Account' is hereby created within the health care trust fund. Appropriations made by the general assembly from the health care treatment and access account, shall be used and expended solely for prescription drug coverage and health care." That sounds like an account for prescription drugs for anyone -- not just seniors! It could certainly cover the abortion drugs RU-486 or the "morning after pill." And what about the part that says "health care"? Some think abortion is health care! Now, let's quote from the bill a portion of what was to be presented to the voters who would need to approve the program: "Section C. The official summary statement for the proposed referendum measure of this act shall read as follows: `Authorizes deposit of tobacco settlement moneys into funds for use in smoking prevention, health care and prescription drug coverage for seniors, ...'" Hmmmm .... why does the bill say one thing in the description of the drug program and another in the statement to be presented to voters? Could it be to make it more acceptable to the voters? Come now, let's be honest with the citizens of Missouri!

I'm Your Doctor and I'm Here to Kill You

by Barbara Simpson

Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

It'ss a strange business I'm in. I do talk radio and I write. I know about a lot of things and read every thing I can get my hands on. I talk to reporters and scientists and experts and citizens with stories to tell.

Most of the time, the subjects we discuss on my programs deal with problems and situations that affect other people. It isn't often that the subject applies to me or my family. That was the case. Not now.

A little over two weeks ago, I interviewed a man on my program whom I'd interviewed before. He had written "Forced Exit," a book about euthanasia, what we used to call "mercy killing."

Wesley Smith has a new book out now. It's called "The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America," published by Encounter Books. It's a chilling account of the hidden changes in medical care in this country and more importantly, the deliberate changes in the training of doctors, nurses, ethics personnel and other health-care workers.

Remember how most of us were concerned about the wonders of medical technology keeping us alive artificially, making us slaves to tubes and machines? Remember how we all were advised to have living wills which would designate what we didn't want done to us if we were in final and desperate straits? Remember all the money we paid to lawyers to draw up such documents and how when it was done, we felt safe.

Forget it. You are not safe.

You are more at risk than ever. Not from being kept alive longer than you desire but from having your life ended sooner than nature might dictate and in fact, sooner than you or your family want. I won't mince words. What I'm saying is that you and your loved ones are now more in danger of having your life ended by doctors refusing medical care than in having it extended artificially.

In his book, Smith describes what is called the "Futile Care Theory." What it means in simple language is that doctors will refuse treatment, any treatment, if they decide that it's your time to die. It won't matter if the patient wants help. It won't matter if the family wants help. The answer will be "no."

When I interviewed Smith, I never dreamed that within days, I would experience exactly that situation. But I did. It is the most devastating experience you can imagine. It left me filled with raging emotions, unbelievable anger and frustration.

It left me with my father dead. He died just a few nights ago. He was in the late stages of prostate cancer. We knew he would not survive that battle. He had decided long ago that he did not want radiation, chemotherapy or surgery. That was his decision. We treated the illness with hormones and herbs and it was controlled for several years. But it finally did spread, and we knew the end was coming.

One week ago, he was transferred to a larger hospital to have blood drained from his chest. He was conscious, rational, could eat and drink on his own and had minimal pain. His only medication was a blood pressure pill, a baby aspirin, a Tylenol if he had pain, and an IV drip with potassium. Hardly what you would expect of a "terminal" case. He was to be transferred back to his original hospital/convalescent care. That's when it all happened, so fast it made our heads spin.

The doctors decided on their own that we wanted only pain assistance so they discontinued all the medicines he was getting, including the IV drip. They never asked the family; it was an arbitrary decision. My poor mother, who was alone with Daddy, believed them when they said it was the "best" thing for him. They were doctors after all! Besides, she told me, she was afraid to question them for fear they might do something to hurt Daddy.

It was a weekend. When I found out what they had done, I demanded to have a doctor, only to be told he was not on call. They could only take Daddy to the emergency room if it were an emergency and it wasn't and they could not re-insert the IV without doctors' orders. (Catch 22!)

I implored the head nurse and was told that Daddy was going "through a process"! (A process?) Yes, I was told in all seriousness, my dad was "processing." That's the new way of saying that Daddy was dying. The nurse also said that dehydrating Daddy would be good because it would force his body to produce endorphins to kill pain. I could not believe my ears!

After much discussion, I finally got him to have the doctor call me. He did but refused to reinsert the IV. They coerced my mother to agree to wait until Monday to see how Daddy was. They even told her the IV would do more harm.

Daddy ate and talked, right up to the end. He even ate two desserts with gusto. I talked to him a few hours earlier and he was his old self. Two days before, I'd asked him if he wanted to die and he said no.

You can live a couple of weeks without food but only about two days without water. The doctor removed the IV Friday night. Daddy was dead Sunday night. Two days.

The doctor expressed his regrets to my Mom and said he was sorry I was so upset. He said "that often happens with family members who just don't understand and get very emotional."

I don't know how he sleeps at night. I just can't wait to get his bill. I got more consolation from the vet

The Politics of Stem Cells

by Wesley Smith from The Weekly Standard

Wesley Smith, an attorney by training, is the finest "popular" critic of euthanasia, including specifically assisted suicide. He is the author of Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America.

Stem cells are undifferentiated "master cells" in the body that can develop into differentiated tissues, such as bone, muscle, nerve, or skin. Stem cell research may lead to exponential improvements in the treatment of many terminal and debilitating conditions, from cancer to Parkinson's to Alzheimer's to diabetes to heart disease. Indeed, breakthroughs in stem cell research reported just in the last six months take one's breath away:

* Italian scientists have generated muscle tissue using rat stem cells, a discovery that may have significant implications for organ transplant therapy.

* University of South Florida researchers report that rats genetically engineered to have strokes were injected with rat stem cells that "integrated seamlessly into the surrounding brain tissue, maturing into the type of cell appropriate for that area of the brain." The potential for stem cell treatments to alleviate stroke symptoms such as slurred speech and dizziness - - therapy that would not require surgery - - has the potential to dramatically improve the treatment of many neurological diseases.

* The group of scientists who achieved worldwide fame for cloning Dolly the sheep has successfully created heart tissue using cow stem cells. The experiment demonstrated that stem cells could be transformed into differentiated bodily tissues, offering great impetus to further research.

* Scientists at Enzo Biochem, Inc., inserted anti-HIV genes into human stem cells. The stem cells survived, grew, and developed into a type of white blood cell that is affected adversely by HIV infection. In the laboratory, these treated cells blocked HIV growth. The next step is human trials, in which stem cell therapy will be attempted using bone marrow transplantation techniques currently effective in the treatment of some cancers.

What will surprise many people is that none of these remarkable achievements relied on the use of stem cells from embryos or the products of abortion. Indeed, all of these experiments involved adult stem cells or undifferentiated stem cells obtained from other non-embryo sources.

The rat muscle tissue in the first example was generated using adult rat brain cells. The brain tissue generated in the Florida research was obtained using human stem cells found in umbilical cord blood, material usually discarded after birth and a potentially inexhaustible source of stem cells, since four million babies are born in the United States alone each year. Dolly's creators obtained cow heart tissue by reprogramming adult cow skin tissue back into its primordial stem cell state and thence to cardiac cells. The exciting HIV experiments were conducted using stem cells found in the patients' own bone marrow, spleen, or blood.

The opportunities for developing successful therapies from stem cells that do not require the destruction of human embryos should be very big news. But where are the headlines?

These and other successful experiments have been all but drowned out by breathless stories extolling the miraculous potential of embryonic stem cell research.

How many readers are aware, for example, that French doctors recently transformed a heart patient's own thigh muscle into contracting muscle cells? When these cells were injected into the patient's damaged heart, they thrived and, in association with bypass surgery, substantially improved the patient's heartbeat. Such research is now on the fast track, offering great hope for cardiac patients everywhere. With all of the hype surrounding embryo research, it is important to note that embryo stem cell research - - and its first cousin, fetal tissue experiments - - may not actually produce the therapeutic benefits its supporters have told us to anticipate. Such worries are not mere speculation. The March 8, 2001, New England Journal of Medicine reported tragic side effects from an experiment involving the insertion of fetal brain cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients.
The patients thus treated showed modest if any overall benefits by comparison with a control group who underwent "sham surgeries" without receiving fetal tissue. But over time, some 15 percent of the patients who had received the transplants experienced dramatic over-production of a chemical in the brain that controls movement.

The results, in the words of one disheartened researcher, were " utterly devastating," with the unfortunate patients exhibiting permanent uncontrollable movements: writhing, twisting, head- jerking, arm flailing, and constant chewing. One man was so badly affected he no longer can eat, requiring the insertion of a feeding tube.

While some studies using stem cells culled from embryos to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms in mice have been encouraging, grafts of fetal and embryonic tissue may provoke the body's immune response, leading to rejection of the tissue and potentially death, since once the cells are injected they cannot be extracted. Even more alarming, a May 1996 Neurology article disclosed a patient's death caused by an experiment in China in which fetal nerve cells and embryo cells were transplanted into a human Parkinson's patient.

After briefly improving, the patient died unexpectedly. His autopsy showed that the tissue graft had failed to generate new nerve cells to treat his disease as had been hoped. Worse, the man's death was caused by the unexpected growth of bone, skin, and hair in his brain, material the authors theorized resulted from the transformation of undifferentiated stem cells into non- neural, and therefore deadly, tissues.

Even some of the most enthusiastic boosters of embryo stem cell research see trouble ahead. For example, University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Glenn McGee admitted to Technology Review, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology publication, "The emerging truth in the lab is that pluripotent stem cells are hard to rein in. The potential that they would explode into a cancerous mass after a stem cell transplant might turn out to be the Pandora's box of stem cell research." Thus, it could be that adult tissue-specific stem cells are actually safer than their counterparts culled from embryos since, being extracted from mature cells, they may not exhibit the propensity for uncontrolled differentiation.

These concerns arise just as the long-time ban on using federal funds for research that destroys human embryos is under renewed scrutiny. That long-standing ban was effectively reinterpreted out of existence in the waning months of the Clinton administration, and the National Institutes of Health are currently accepting grant proposals for research using embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization but now deemed "in excess of clinical need." The new administration is taking a long, hard look at the policy; during the campaign, George W. Bush declared his opposition to research that involved destroying human embryos. All of this raises intriguing questions: Why is federal funding for embryo and fetal research pushed so hard and so publicly - - while adult stem cell and other alternative therapies are damned with faint praise? Why do the media applaud fetal stem cell experiments and provide klieg-light coverage of stories promoting the use of embryos, while they mention uncontroversial research not requiring the destruction of human life as an afterthought, if that? Indeed, why do some scientists assert that alternative stem cell research offers but uncertain hope, while they promote embryo and fetal tissue research as the keys to the Promised Land?

I suggest three answers: celebrities, abortion, and eugenics.

In a society that has often denigrated its true heroes, the only people who now stand head above the clouds are figures from the world of entertainment. Increasingly, these celebrities are using their power to promote public policies. They know that their participation can define issues and shape the debate by attracting media coverage, generating fan support, and, most important, stimulating a Pavlovian response in politicians.

Three high-powered celebrities have weighed in recently in the stem cell controversy, each promoting full federal funding of embryo research: the popular Michael J. Fox, stricken at a tragically young age with Parkinson's disease; the television icon Mary Tyler Moore, a diabetes patient; and actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed from the neck down in an equestrian accident. With such kiloton star power favoring federal funding of embryo research, promoters of research relying on adult stem cells and other alternative sources, along with those opposed to the destruction of embryos on ethical grounds, have been reduced to background noise or, worse, made to look heartless by denying these celebrities medical breakthroughs they need.

At a deeper level, just as in the nineteenth century many national issues led back to slavery, today numerous public policy disputes lead ultimately to abortion. The controversy over destroying human embryos to obtain their stem cells has brought an outcry from the pro-life movement, which views human life as sacred from the moment of conception.

This has led to reflexive support for embryo research by many pro-choicers, who have seized on the issue as a way to further their depiction of pro-life forces as caring little about people once they are born. Thus the embryo stem cell debate offers abortion rights advocates a "two-fer": it furthers their primary political goal of isolating and marginalizing pro-lifers, and it enables them to seize the PR high ground by "compassionately" pressing for research that offers hope against debilitating diseases. To acknowledge the tremendous potential of adult stem cell research would interfere with this political pincer movement. Finally, in my view, the ultimate purpose of promoting federal funding for embryo experiments over adult stem cell research, particularly among many in the bioethics movement, is to open the door to the eugenic manipulation of the human genome. Once embryos can beexploited for their stem cells to promote human welfare, what is to stop scientists from manipulating embryos to control and direct human evolution, equally for the purpose of improving the human future?

Indeed, some of those who signed a recent open letter to President Bush urging an end to the ban on federal funding for human embryo research were scientists and bioethicists well known as favoring eugenics. For example, James D. Watson, a co- discoverer of the DNA helix, has written that newborns should not be considered "alive" for three days, to permit genetic screening. Newborns who fail to pass genetic muster should be discarded, much as the ancient Romans left unwanted babies outdoors to die of exposure.

Another co-author of this letter, Michael West, head of the for-profit research company Advanced Cell Technology, proposes permitting human cloning as a way to obtain genetically matched stem cells for transplants, which might overcome the problem of tissue rejection in embryo stem cell therapy. Not coincidentally, many neo-eugenicists in the bioethics and science communities view cloning as a prime vehicle for directing the eugenic manipulation of human evolution.
All of this will come to a head in the coming months. Why go down the ethically flawed and controversial path of fetal stem cells, when adult stem cells and alternative sources offer such tremendous hope for treating every malady that research using embryos and fetal tissue seeks to ameliorate?

Instead of turning this important field of medical research into another battlefield in America's never-ending culture war (the first lawsuit has already been filed to prevent federal funding), why not focus our public resources with laser-like intensity on the incredible potential of adult and alternative sources of stem cells?

On The Internet

Missouri Right To Life E-Mail Alerts

MRL has begun an e-mail alert list. With this, we are able to notify you of legislative alerts, upcoming events and information on other important pro-life activities. If you are accessible by e-mail and interested in receiving these alerts, e-mail a message to MRL, asking to be added, at missourilife@mail.ultraweb.net..

Great Pro-Life Websites!

Try these web addresses for pro-life information.

Do research, write term papers, or just keep yourself current on important pro-life topics. Certainly not a complete list, but good places to begin!

MO Right To Life www.missourilife.org 

National Right to Life www.nrlc.org 

Youth for Life http://joseromia.tripod.com 

Pro-Life Infonet www.pro-lifeinfonet.org 

Intl Anti-Euthanasia Task Force  www.iaetf.com  

Life at Risk from the NCCB www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/liferisk/index.htm

Thought You'd Like to Know . . . .

. . . . For many years Dayton Hudson, the former parent company of Target stores, has given grants to Planned Parenthood of Minnesota. As a result, thousands of pro-life families participated in a boycott of Target stores. Since that time, the name has changed from Dayton Hudson to Target Corp. Human Life International, a pro-life group headquartered in Virginia, purchased 240 shares of stock in Target Corporation, giving them the right to present a resolution at the annual meeting. The resolution was aimed at stopping Target Corporation's continued funding of PP. On Feb 23, HLI received a letter signed by their Assistant General Counsel, stating, " It was a pleasure talking to you this morning about the current focus of Target Corp's charitable giving. .. .that focus has changed and, as a result, we no longer provide any funding to Planned Parenthood."

Human Life International Report May 2001

. . . . Seven months after the FDA approved the abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) for use in the U.S., many universities have decided not to offer it, saying conditions for dispensing it are too onerous. It's also apparent that some want to avoid the attention that distributing RU-486 might bring. A survey of about 30 schools found one, Yale, offering RU-486. Michigan State University's student assembly passed a resolution criticizing the school's decision not to offer RU-486 as "an abridgment of students' civil rights." Campus officials prefer the clinical debate to the political one, focusing on the repeat doctor's visits, potential complications and costs associated with administering the drug.

Associated Press April 17, 2001

. . . . An 18-year-old woman regained consciousness after giving birth to a healthy girl while in a coma induced by a car accident. Shannon Kranzberg gave birth on Jan. 14 after a staph infection apparently triggered labor. She had been in a coma for two months. "I just woke up and the baby was there," she told The Dallas Morning News. Doctors say it's rare for a woman in a coma to give birth, especially by natural delivery. Kranzberg was expected to be released from the Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation soon to join her husband and 2-month-old daughter, Alexis. The baby was about two months premature, and weighed 4 pounds, 12 ounces. Michael Kranzberg thought his daughter would never be born and his wife might never regain consciousness. "She's my hero," he said of his wife. "I just want to say to people who are in our position that you've just got to keep the faith," he said.

Associated Press March 2001

. . . . Pope John Paul II has criticized genetic manipulation of human beings and experimentation on human embryos. Marking the 20th anniversary of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome, the Pope warned against those who "arrogate to themselves an arbitrary and limitless power over the human being". He affirmed that "from the mysterious instant of his conception ... [a human being] must be accepted and treated as a person, created in the image and likeness of God himself".

Zenit May 31, 2001

MRL Forms Education Fund

As of January 2001, Missouri Right to Life has again formed an educational arm to further promote respect for life and instruct the general public on pro-life issues. The work of the Education Fund will be in addition to that already done by its parent group, Missouri Right to Life.

All donations to Missouri Right to Life Education Fund are tax deductible. They will be used for literature, fair and convention expenses, speaker training, and activities that educate about the sanctity of life.

Contributions to MRL Education Fund are wonderful gifts for anniversaries and birthdays or memorials in remembrance of our loved ones.

Donations may be sent to: MRL

Education Fund, P0 Box 651, Jefferson

City MO 65102.