NewsBriefs

America's second largest medical association, The American College of Physicians, published a paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine where they announced their official opposition to assisted suicide. The paper said that physicians should look for ways to help terminally ill patients die in more comfort through better care and increased access to hospice care. The American College of Physicians feels that physician-assisted suicide could lead to various problems including: damage to the patient–physician relationship, lessening of the value placed on life, and hurt the medical profession's role of healing.

Assisted suicide is illegal in the United States except for the state of Oregon, where the practice has been legal since 1997.

 

House Rejects Abortions at U.S. Military Bases. On September 25, 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives again defeated a pro-abortion amendment to the military spending appropriations bill that would have allowed abortions at U.S. military bases. The House voted 217-199 to reject the amendment, sponsored by pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Those from Michigan casting a prolife vote included: James Barcia, David Camp, Vern Ehlers, Peter Hoekstra, Dale Kildee, Joseph Knollenburg, Mike Rogers, Nick Smith, Bart Stupak, and Fred Upton. Those from Michigan casting a pro-abortion vote included: David Bonior, John Dingell, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sander Levin, and Lynn Rivers. U.S. House Representative John Conyers did not vote.

Prolifers urged opposition to the amendment because the facilities and personnel of the federal government should not be utilized to deliberately destroy the lives of innocent human beings.

If adopted, the amendment would have struck current prolife policy that prohibits performing almost any abortion at a U.S. military hospital. The House adopted the current policy in 1996 and has consistently rejected previous attempts by Rep. Sanchez and other pro-abortion lawmakers to overturn it since.

As is typical in Congressional debates on abortion, pro-abortion lawmakers often attempt to mislead fellow lawmakers. Yesterday's vote was no exception. Rep. Sanchez circulated a briefing paper about her amendment contending it was needed to help women avoid "dangerous waits in order to return to the United States [for abortions] if stationed in countries that ban abortions."

Even if the Sanchez Amendment were enacted into law, abortions still would not be permitted at bases in those countries. Many countries, to their credit, have laws protecting the right to life of unborn children. However, it has been Defense Department policy to "respect host nation laws regarding abortion" at overseas bases, even before Congress enacted the current prolife policy in 1996.

 

 

Canadian test trials for the abortion drug, RU-486, were suspended when a Canadian woman died after taking the dangerous drug cocktail. Early reports say that the woman died from septic shock. The FDA approved RU-486 for use in the United States in spite of many serious safety concerns for the health of the women who might take it.

Canada has not yet approved the drugs for use. Reports of this tragic death surfaced just weeks after the National Abortion Federation advertising campaign touted RU-486 as "safe and effective." RU-486 is a chemical abortion technique used to abort unborn children seven weeks old or younger.

 

The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm specializing in prolife litigation and based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in New Jersey to accept for filing its "friend of the court" brief in a case seeking to protect a woman's fundamental interest in her relationship with her child, born or unborn.

The case, Donna Santa Marie v. Christine T. Whitman, arose out of New Jersey and challenges various laws of that State that permit and promote abortion without properly protecting a mother's fundamental rights.

Three of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are women who were harmed by abortion. Donna Santa Marie, the fictitious name of a sixteen-year old, was forced by her parents to have an abortion. Donna viewed abortion as "murdering [her] baby." Nevertheless, she was hurried off to a room where the doctor would perform the abortion, never getting an opportunity to explain her predicament.

Plaintiff Jane Jones, the fictitious name of another sixteen year-old, was misinformed about the true nature of abortion. Moreover, the doctor scheduled Jane's abortion without informing her parents or legal guardians. Had Jane known the true nature of abortion, she never would have consented to the procedure to "terminate her pregnancy," as the abortion doctor called it.

Plaintiff Mary Doe, also a fictitious name, asked her doctor whether her abortion would be terminating the life of a human being. Mary believed this was a critical fact for her decision. The doctor told her "no" and advised her that there was nothing but tissue and blood. Furthermore, the doctor told Mary that the very idea that the child was a human being was "stupid."

The Thomas More Law Center argued that various New Jersey laws violate the equal protection rights of mothers of unborn children. Specifically, in New Jersey a mother is not permitted to bring a cause of action for wrongful death if the negligence of another causes the death of her preborn child. Moreover, New Jersey law does not require a knowing and voluntary waiver of a woman's fundamental right to the relationship with her child prior to the irreversible termination of this right when it involves the abortion of her child.

 

Back to Table of Contents