Alex Jordan Harris posts at The Rebelution about an English mother who is suing over an unsuccessful abortion. Check out the comments; the blog's teen readers find the story especially disturbing. The suit drives home the message that, regardless of the good intentions that pro-choicers may have, the pro-choice position taken to its logical conclusion is inherently anti-child and anti-life.
Today's "Big Town, Big Heart," the new feature that I edit, features muscian/cat-rescuer Richard X. Heyman. One thing you won't learn from it is that one of my fave rave '60s singers, Peter Noone, once recorded a few of Heyman's tunes.
God willing and the Creek don't rise, then at about 4 a.m. today, a new feature will debut on the Daily News' Web site: "Big Town, Big Heart: Celebrating New Yorkers Who Make a Difference." That same feature will appear Monday through Thursday in the New York City editions of the Daily News (and on Mondays only in the national edition). It's hitting the streets now. Chances are you'll see it before I do, as I've got to grab some z's before awakening at the unearthly hour of 10 a.m. to meet a pal in the city.
All of which is a rather pedestrian way of saying that today is the most important day of my working life.
"Big Town, Big Heart" (there's that link again in case you didn't click the first time) is what I've wanted to do for as long as I can remember — really, since childhood, if I had been able to articulate it back then. Four days a week, the News will publish a full-page article that I've assigned and edited about a person who goes above and beyond the call of duty for others.
These stories, as I envision them, are not sappy, sentimentalized hagiographies, but simple, factual portraits of everyday heroes. They take a person like yourself — one who, whether he or she realizes it or not, has a positive mission in life — and show what that person does that touches others' lives. In the course of reading it, perhaps you'll be attracted to that person's goodness, and it'll make you want to take your light out from under a bushel. Or perhaps it'll make you feel glad that, even if your good deeds aren't always recognized, someone who shares your heart is appreciated. Either way, I don't think you'll read anything quite like it anywhere else.
What I really love about editing this feature is what it has taught me already, and continues to teach me, about what's really important in life. As you know if you're a regular reader (or if you just know me from Gawker), I am a Christian, soon to be a Catholic, who strives to live out her faith. I have strong opinions about many issues, religious and political, and I am glad for the opportunity to express them on my blog. But one of the main tenets of my faith is something that's very hard to keep in mind from day to day: Neither Christians, nor people of any one faith or political bent, have a lock on goodness.
Jesus said that no one is good except God, and the Psalms likewise say that there is not one who does good — that is, no one who does it of his or her own volition. The motivation to do good can only come from God. Therefore, while good deeds alone cannot bring salvation, they do indicate that the doer in some way hears God's voice. In that sense, everyone who does good is connected, through that good action, by a silver thread to everyone else who does good. As God's children, we're supposed to look for those connections — and when we find it, we will find agape, brotherly love.
To that end, as I research and assign subjects for "Big Town," I'm finding myself fascinated by the variety. Every week — and I've already assigned the first three weeks of stories — there are people who come from different sides of the political spectrum, who may have strong faith or no faith. Yet, I believe that readers who might disagree with the subjects' views will find themselves, like me, touched by their stories.
Good works unite people, and better yet, they unite us at the highest level of our humanity. I'm enormously excited, as well as gratified, to be involved in something that, on any given day, will be read by people from all walks of life and affect each of them in much the same uplifting way.
Now, I should really get those z's — especially since I'm working two jobs these days. (I'm still at the News' national edition as well.) Apologies to all to whom I owe e-mails — hopefully you'll agree when you read "Big Town" that I have a good excuse for wanting to give my typing fingers a rest at the end of the day. Thanks very much to everyone (including Max, whom I have no doubt reads this) for your prayers over the past year. If you like "Big Town," please let the News know.
Presented for your approval, products from the Modesty Zone store:
I have come to realize that, when I am on a date, one of the most appealing things that a man can possibly do is protect my chastity. It's a sign not only of the highest respect, but also of great personal strength, as in Proverbs 16:32: "[He that is] slow to anger [is] better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city."
These words that I just discovered on the Americans on Call Web site sum things up beautifully:
A couple of months ago, I wrote about Planned Parenthood's taxpayer-subsidized campaign to teach children relativism, saying, "In the view of Planned Parenthood, the only wrong way to think about sex is to believe that sexual behavior contains within itself an intrinsic and inseparable moral dimension."
Here are more examples of the "Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret Sanger" school of sex ed: synopses of sketches from Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties' IMAGES Theatre. According to the IMAGES Web site, these and other sketches are performed for high schoolers by Planned Parenthood's own teen troupe. See if you can detect the ideological threads running through these little pieces of entertainment intended for ages 14 and up (the opening and closing ones are performed for middle-schoolers as well):
Releasing the Old (opening) 3.5 minutes
A dance number that shows the cast moving through old beliefs, thoughts, emotions, habits—all old ways of engaging with the world including fear, apathy, judgments, and attitudes. The cast calls on the audience to release the old ways, release what no longer serves you in life.
Primary Message:1. We need to release the old in order to take steps to engage in new ways of thinking and acting.Life is Perfect (personal choice) 3.5 minutes
This scene begins with the very beginnings of life on earth. In the vast oceans of primeval earth, life begins and travels onward towards land. It then moves to a time when humans realize that they possess something powerful, something very personal, the concept of personal choice. This scene concludes with the realization that true empowerment is personal power, the power of the self.
Primary Messages:1. Personal choice is important, but also includes personal responsibility and respect for oneself.Charlie and the Condom Factory (sexually transmitted infections) 15 minutes
2. Individuality is vital.
3. Life is good when we make decisions for ourselves based on our fundamental principles.
The scene is structured in three episodes, played intermittently between other scenes. As in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, five lucky winners receive an incredible prize. In this version, Wilma Wonka has randomly scattered five golden condoms throughout the world. The finders of these riches are promised a lifetime supply of condoms, as well as access to Wilma’s world famous Condom Factory for one glorious day. There they are sure to see and learn things beyond their wildest dreams. As an added bonus, one Grand Prizewinner will receive an extra surprise upon the tour’s conclusion.
Primary Messages1. The scene provides information, including symptoms and treatments of various bacterial and viral STIs, including Chlamydia, Gonorrhea Syphilis, Herpes, Genital Warts and HIV/AIDS.Phantom of Ignorance (birth control) 7 minutes
2. Abstinence is the only method guaranteed to prevent the transmission of STIs, but if planning to engage in any sexual activity one must always use protection.
3. Life offers no magical “everlasting orgasm.” Only by making good choices and truly respecting oneself and others can real happiness and health be attained.
This scene is structured in three parts. As in Phantom of the Opera we begin with an auction. Our auctioneer starts the bidding for birth control devices. All major birth control methods are auctioned off to a crowd of enthusiastic bidders. Withdrawl method, Birth Control Pills, the Contraceptive Patch, Nuva Ring, Depo-Provera shot, male condoms and female condoms, and Emergency Contraception (or “the Morning-After Pill) are all discussed. After the auction two lovers decide those methods are too much work and fall victim to the Phantom of Ignorance. They soon learn the consequences of unprotected sex. The lovers are confused and both blame each other for the resulting pregnancy. The Angel of Protection reminds our couple that even though they thought they were being careful, they were not being safe, they were not engaging in safe sex.
Primary Messages:1. Birth Control pills, the Contraceptive Patch, Nuva Ring and Depo-Provera are all hormonal contraception that require a doctor’s prescription. All use different combinations of Progestin and Estrogen to prevent ovulation. All are very effective means of contraception but do not protect against STIs.New Perspectives (closing) 4 minutes
2. Male and Female condoms are very effective means of contraception and also help prevent STIs. They are available over the counter and are easy to use.
3. There are consequences to having unprotected sex. Many myths about how a woman gets pregnancy are false. It only takes one unprotected intercourse act to get pregnant or to get an STI. Protected sex is the responsibility of both partners.
4. Emergency Contraception or “the Morning-After Pill” can be used only as a back up method and should be taken within 72 hours of any unprotected sex.E. If one chooses to be sexually active remember the three Cs: use contraception correctly, consistently, and cooperatively.
The final scene shows our cast struggling between old beliefs and new thoughts and attitudes. They challenge the audience to release the old and embrace the new, be open to change and to live consciously day to day.
Primary Message:1. New Perspectives, our theme for this season, calls for mindful living, for the transformation of old ways of living that no longer serve the individual or this world.
Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-doHe also suggests a new sketch for Planned Parenthood's IMAGES Theatre: "Pandora's Pill Box."
I have a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-dee
If you are wise, you'll listen to me
What do you get with a contraceptive mentality?
Where a disease is seen as your own fertility.
You would think someone would object.
As women's bodies become an object.
Steve G. has thrown down the gauntlet, refusing to be outdone in the world of blogger glamour pics. Well, two can play that game. Here's my brand-spankin'-new author photo, by Tony Carnes:
I don't have a TV, so I'd never heard of this guy until reading about him on Emily and Annie's blog.
So I went to YouTube, and after watching this clip, I agree. He is cool.
OK, back to my weekend ...
Greetings, all — It's my weekend, so I may not post again 'til Monday (I know, famous last words), but in the meantime I have a treat for you: Via the American Chesteron Society, and in honor of my dear blog pal The Raving Atheist, here are some quotes from Gilbert K. Chesterton on atheism:
Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative." ("Charles II," Twelve Types)
"It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian." ("Introductory Remarks" Heretics)
"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." ("Wells and the World State," What I Saw in America)
"There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life." (ILN 1-3-31)
"Even in an empire of atheists the dead man is always sacred." ("The Meaning of Dreams," Lunacy and Letters)
"Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist." (The Ball and the Cross)
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." (Where All Roads Lead)
You know you've arrived when Rabbi Daniel Lapin lists you among victims of the thought police.
Seriously, this is an honor, as I've long admired Rabbi Lapin and his work with his nonprofit organization, Toward Tradition, and highly recommend their pamphlet on a similar subject to Rabbi Lapin's "The Evolution of 'Tolerance'" (PDF file).
The Raving Atheist notes that his post in which he quoted Betty Friedan on monogamy and chastity has been included in the online Carnival of the Feminists, which aims to " End Sexism, Sexist Exploitation, and Oppression."
There's just one thing. As the RA reveals on his blog, a large quote that he attributed to Friedan was actually taken from the Pope's encyclical on love, "Deus Caritas Est."
The RA — who had submitted his post for consideration to the feminist blog carnival — waggishly attributes the miscredit to "an editing error."
I don't advise searching YouTube.com for the word "Pope" because 99% of the search results are scatological, e.g. a foul-mouthed takeoff of MTV's "Pimp My Ride" called "Pope My Ride." (It's not as funny as it sounds, believe me. The definitive "Pope My Ride" has yet to be done; I leave it to The Curt Jester.) However, buried within the morass are a few gems — like this clip of John Paul the Great watching breakdancers and "giving them their props," as the person who posted the clip puts it. If you're like me, you'll find yourself going from laughter to tears within the space of a second.
There is also a clip revealing that the trash cans at Washington's JP2 Cultural Center talk. Who knew?
Your morning newspaper today has a story on something it calls "late-term abortion" or "mid-term abortion" (as though it were a canceled college exam. Chances are if its headlines mention partial-birth abortion, the words "partial birth" are in scare quotes. Indeed, the procedure's scary enough, but that's not what the editors mean.
The media in general is intent upon portraying the procedure Congress barred under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as a fictive creation with a made-up label. Such an accusation would have more weight if the Associated Press et al deemed it necessary to tell readers just what "'partial-birth' abortion" is supposed to be.
If you'd like to know the truth about the procedure from a source other than pro-life Web sites, the best online article is "Gambling With Abortion," which appeared in Harper's by Cynthia Gorney, who is generally considered the most fair-minded mainstream reporter to tackle the issue. I don't agree with everything she says, but she's quite bold for one writing for a liberal publication. Witness this passage on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act's history:
Year after year, 1995 through the end of the Clinton presidency, the public battles roiled on: Clinton declared that he’d sign the ban, but only if it included a health exception; the ban’s authors refused to write in a health exception, insisting that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect a woman’s health. Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996; a new ban passed in 1997, and Clinton vetoed it again. At one especially dismal point Ron Fitzsimmons made headlines of his own by confessing that he had given a reporter D&X [partial-birth abortion] numbers that he knew were too low to be real. “Lied through my teeth” were Fitzsimmons’s exact words, and although Fitzsimmons says he’s still sorry about the credibility damage done to his abortion-rights colleagues in Washington, the truth was that none of them, himself included, had been eager to sit down with reporters or unfriendly congressmen and explain in plain English what D&X is: one terrible-to-look-at procedure among an assortment of terrible-to-look-at procedures used for second- and third-trimester abortion in the United States, which is relatively uncommon, but only relatively—there are 1.3 million abortions performed annually in this country, 12 percent after twelve weeks—and is protected by repeated rulings of the Supreme Court. “We’ve been talking about ‘choice’ since 1973, but everyone knows there’s this big elephant in the room that we can’t talk about,” Fitzsimmons says. “I mean, come on. It’s insulting to women when we obfuscate. Let’s talk about it.”For more information on partial birth abortion, here is the Congressional testimony of nurses who witnessed the procedure. Also online: a list of links to documents on the issue and an article on misconceptions and realities about it from National Right to Life.
I'm delighted to announce that not only do I have a review of the book Fired! in today's Wall Street Journal — my first byline there — but the review's also available online for free on OpinionJournal (unlike most Journal content, which is usually subscriber-only).
Photo by Eileen Smith.
If you haven't already read my raves about the new film "The Second Chance," please do — it's the best new drama I've seen in some time.
There are many ways of working to insure that the Holocaust's horrors and the lives of Hitler's victims are never forgotten.
Putting a 67-year-old Holocaust denier in handcuffs and making him face up to 10 years in prison is not one of them.
UPDATE: He's been sentenced to three years.
...to have been present at this reunion.
As consolation, I enjoyed this little flashback. Barry and Robin are on the left. I think the vocals are live.
While you're at YouTube, don't forget to remember the oldest member of my other favorite singing family, Bill, who died Friday, following his brother Barry by only weeks.
I know I said I wasn't going to post 'til Monday (unless the new glamour pics arrive), but I have to jump in to tell you that I just saw a great movie and advise you run, don't walk, to see it if it's near you.
I say run, don't walk, because the film is getting no promotion that I can discern, so there's no telling how long it'll be in theaters, which is a darn shame, because it's great.
It's called "The Second Chance," and it's the first film directed by Steve Taylor, who is known for being a maverick of the Christian music world. He's been enormously successful as a record producer (Sixpence None the Richer and others), and has also sold over a million records as a singer and songwriter, but puts a high premium on artistry and refuses to play the game.
The ads for The Second Chance" suggest it's a white-pastor/black-pastor buddy movie where the rich white megachurch guy is kicked downstairs and has to help out at the black pastor's poor inner-city church. I was expecting something like "The Fighting Temptations," with all the clichés showing the well-off man's shock at seeing how the other half lives. The fact that lantern-jawed, ultra-clean-cut Christian singing star Michael W. Smith reinforced to me the possibility that the film would be slick and predictable.
All that, plus the fact that I'm quite cynical about films made beyond 1965 and only see about five new movies a year at most, was enough to keep me away. But Steve Taylor's involvement piqued my curiosity, so I watched the clip of "Scene #1" on the film's Web site.
Smith's acting in the clip seemed to confirm my fear that he would be wooden — a misjudgment on my part, as I now know he was acting well; his character starts out the movie repressed and uptight. But as I watched it, I noticed something that freaked me out quite a bit. It seemed to have been shot by someone who had closely studied "Citizen Kane." The effects with the lights going out in room after room; the shifting, symbolic, carefully chosen backdrops; the shadow-box effect as each room's doorway appeared as a light at the end of the tunnel — these were all utterly, gloriously Wellesian. They were also accomplished without taking away from the scene's drama; the visual effects enhanced the scene's meaning rather than distracting it.
Since when, I thought, had a Christian filmmaker made a dramatic, non-action-oriented "Christian" film with such attention to visual detail?
It didn't occur to me until I left the Times Square AMC 25 after seeing "The Second Chance" yesterday that the answer to that question was the late 1980s, when Krzystof Kieslowski made "The Decalogue."
I saw a lot of "Decalogue" in "The Second Chance." It also struck me, afterwards, that the film contained strong echoes of G.K. Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross — so much so that I would be very surprised if Taylor had not read it. (He lists as one of his heroes Flannery O'Connor, so it's not much of a stretch to think he's read Chesterton as well.)
"The Second Chance" is a remarkably thoughtful film, artful without being arty, and genuinely moving without being manipulative. It pains me that I haven't heard advertisements for it on the Christian radio stations in my area, nor have I seen any notice of it elsewhere; I discovered it by accident, while searching the online movie listings.The message of this film is essentially nonpartisan and is one that would have meaning to churchgoers and nonchurchgoers alike: We must be doers of the Word and not just hearers.
The end of the film — which is not as neat or predictable as I'm sure Hollywood would have liked — is particularly moving. (Don't worry, I'm not going to spoil it.) It has a message that crosses denominational lines — I found it more Catholic than anything else, though I'm sure that wasn't the intent. I've never before seen anyone pull off the social-justice message onscreen in such a way that reflects what true social justice is — as opposed to a politically polarized depiction.
To put it in a nutshell, in "The Second Chance," Steve Taylor tells a moving story of friendship, and conveys a larger social message, and gives, essentially, the full Gospel message, all within a quiet, delicate, and sensitively done film. Great soundtrack, too. Go see it while it's still around. You won't be sorry.
Find showtimes for "The Second Chance" on the IMDB. Note: The ad at left is from the film's Web site; it's not a paid ad.
[UPDATED — see below:]
Greetings and thanks for visiting. Unless my photographer sends me my book-publicity pic over the weekend, the links collection that'll appear above shortly will probably be my only post until Monday morning. I am currently working two jobs — the one I've had, plus a new one as assignment editor for a new feature that will appear in the paper four days a week. (I'll tell more about it when it debuts on the 27th.) As a result, I have practically no free time, but it will be worth it, because the feature's exactly what I've most wanted to oversee since before I can remember (even before I was a music journalist). I think it will make a lot of people happy.
Right now, I am going to enjoy my weekend, which runs Fri.-Sat. — hope you enjoy yours too. God bless.
"Actually I found God in a dream—or he found me....One night Jesus came to me in a dream and it was very real. When I woke up he was basically still there, and he's been with me ever since. No kidding. So don't tell me dreaming is a waste of time! It's the best move I ever made, hands down.
"I think up until that time I really, really wanted to know if God was real, if the God of the Bible was the real God, but I didn't think you could know. I didn't think it was possible for an intelligent person to be sure of such a thing. But then suddenly I knew, without the shadow of a doubt. I knew that he was real and that he loved me and had a plan for my life and would be with me forever. And almost instantly I started hanging around born-again Christians, the folks I would have avoided like the plague earlier. And I discovered most of them were the most wonderful people I could have ever hoped to meet. They were full of life and good humor and joy and intelligence, nothing like I'd been led to believe. I think most serious Christians are like that, the ones I've met, anyway. So today I do all I can to be around serious believers, whether Catholic or evangelical or whatever.
"If you hang around people like that, who know God personally and live like they do, it's bound to affect you positively. We cannot be Lone Ranger Christians, as someone has said. We need each other. It's utterly vital to the life of faith."
— Author Eric Metaxas, interviewed by John Zmirak in Godspy
This main headline was my idea.
UPDATE, 1/6/09: Since the link above doesn't work, here's what I wrote:
Colin at Fallen Sparrow asks — and poetically answers — the question, "What happens when statuary gets caught in a Nor'easter?"
"This past Tuesday, on Valentine’s Day, the day of true and sincere love, Tiffany was very excited as she left the New Image Nail Salon. For over an hour she had sat in a chair holding her fingers and hands perfectly still while Shandra carefully filed and coated and painted each of her nails. While each nail had its own unique design, they all worked together under the unified theme ... of hearts. Shandra was truly an artist, and Tiffany was very excited at how her beautiful new nails had turned out. She just knew Jordan, her long time boyfriend, would be as excited as she was..."
Ladies and gentleman, it's the beginning of my dear friend Dennis Schenkel's first practice homily. You may be surprised to discover where it goes. Congratulations to Dennis, a seminarian at St. Meinrad in Indiana. If the Catholic Encyclopedia had an entry called "Reasons to believe the Church truly is seeing a wave of dynamic, promising, faith-filled seminarians," there'd be his picture.
Blogger Rachael Snider sends this comment that appeared on Abortion Clinic Days:
Hi thereMarie Claire is published by Hearst, so I guess you could say Ms. O'Connor's attitude has a historical basis. After all, it was William Randolph Hearst who allegedly wired a reporter in Havana who had told him all was peaceful there, "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
I am a reporter for Marie Claire magazine working on a lengthy feature about "crisis pregnancy centers" and I love your site. I am looking to talk with women who have been deceived by CPCs. I am wondering if you can help. Of course I wouldn't expect you to divulge their identity to me, but if you could pass along my information, I would greatly appreciate it.
Please feel free to call me any time day or night via email or cell phone at siobhanmegan@yahoo.com
All the best
Siobhan O'Connor
Reporter, Marie Claire Magazine
I plan to live out my time on Earth, but if I were to die at this moment, I would die happy, having found the music video I've been seeking for over 20 years. In color, yet.
Yes, I have discovered the search function at YouTube.
More goodies from the same site:
A friend who regrets her abortion writes: "Here's something you might want to link to. Really beyond the pale. Anne Lamott writes a lot about her conversion from being a bitter leftist alcoholic to a despairing leftist born-again Christian. But her conflation of abortion with redemption is quasi-hysterical here."
It sure is — as are Lamott's other observations sparked by an experience she had while sitting on a panel discussing social justice, where she was confronted by a pro-lifer in the audience:
I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right....To which I would add: How thoughtful of Annie Lamott to remind us how much more Presidents Carter and Clinton cared about unborn life than the current administration. After all, they were good Democrats who took care of the desperately poor, so they had the extra brain power and resources to consider the rights of the unborn....What? You mean they didn't?
I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies — some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for — when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.
Most women like me would much rather use our time and energy fighting to make the world safe and just and fair for the children we do have, and do love — and for the children of New Orleans and the children of Darfur. I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.
But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.Ladies and gentlemen, Margaret Sanger has returned to the building. But perhaps we've got a new slogan for the pro-life movement here: "Life. Inflict it."
From my blog friends Alex and Brett Harris at The Rebelution comes word that a Florida girl named Candace Walsh (left) has been undergoing massive surgery to deal with the gram-positive cocci infection that originated on her bones and is spreading through the soft tissue of her body, eating it away. Her parents are devout Christians and have set up a site, Pray for Candace, with more information and updates on her condition. It means a lot to Candace and her family to know that people are praying for her, so please visit the site, pray, and sign their prayer calendar. While her condition remains very serious, Candace has been responding well to treatment and managed a beautiful smile yesterday, which you can see on the prayer site.
Two things:
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Acting Commissioner
U. S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville MD 20857-0001
Dear Dr. von Eschenbach:
This letter pertains to the Food and Drug Administration’s investigation of the deaths of four American women who died from septic shock following the use of the abortifacient, Mifeprex® (mifepristone, also commonly known as “RU-486”).
On or about July 19, 2005, members of Congress became aware that four American women had died after taking RU-486. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control justifiably investigated these fatalities, and a summary of the results was published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. I am encouraged by the joint FDA-CDC effort to examine the serious health and public safety risks posed by RU-486. The available data strongly suggest that we have much more to learn. Consequently, I was pleased to learn that FDA intends to hold scientific meetings next year to examine these infection-related deaths.
As FDA and CDC confirmed, each of the four women who died from septic shock were infected by Clostridium sordellii, a potent anaerobic bacteria. It is also known that a Canadian woman died from septic shock linked to C. sordellii after taking RU-486. These women did not possess other risk factors or underlying medical conditions that would have predisposed them to sepsis. In general, they were young and healthy. Moreover, although these women complained of weakness, nausea and vomiting, these symptoms are consistent with the medical abortion procedure, and they had no fever to indicate an infection. Nevertheless, each woman died soon after being hospitalized.
I am deeply concerned about the safety of the RU-486 regimen and the possibility that there may be some deaths and many non-fatal adverse events that have gone unreported. An article accompanying the New England Journal of Medicine Report, referenced above, notes that RU-486 abortions present patients with a ten times greater risk of death than surgical abortions done early in a pregnancy. The New England Journal of Medicine Report investigating the sudden post-RU-486 deaths of healthy young women states the obvious: “These cases indicate the need for physician awareness of this syndrome and for further study of its association with medical abortion.”
Dr. von Eschenbach, it is imperative that the FDA continue to fully investigate the potential harm posed by RU-486. This must be done in order to reassure women, their families, and their doctors that women’s health is the FDA’s paramount consideration in allowing this drug to remain on the market. Safety concerns based on scientific analysis must be followed wherever they lead. To that end, and in light of the critical public health issues involved in this matter, I am requesting information and documents relating to FDA’s investigation of these deaths in preparation for an oversight hearing.
Please submit your responses to each request below to my staff in writing as soon as you are able to answer that item. Additionally, in those instances in which actions have been taken by CDC in conjunction with FDA or FDA is aware of steps taken by CDC alone, please so indicate.
I request the following documents regarding the four American women who died from septic shock following RU-486 abortions: (1) copies of all notes, physician charts and other records prepared by the treating healthcare providers (including emergency room records); (2) autopsy reports; (3) pathology and laboratory reports; (4) information on the dosage, timing, and route of administration of any medications given.
I have the following additional requests for information on related topics:
1. In August 2001, a Canadian woman died after taking RU-486 during a clinical trial. Has FDA investigated this death?
a. If so, please provide all of FDA’s findings, memos, and reports on this adverse event.
b. In addition, provide the following documents if they are in your possession: (1) copies of all notes, physician charts and other records prepared by the treating healthcare providers (including emergency room records); (2) autopsy reports; (3) pathology and laboratory reports; (4) information on the dosage, timing, and route of administration of any medications given.
c. If the FDA has not investigated this death, please explain why not.
2. Has FDA investigated, examined, or inquired as to whether the British mifepristone-related abortion death in May-June 2002 was caused by septic shock?
a. If so, please provide, in full detail, FDA’s findings and documentation as requested in item #1, supra (Canadian death). (FDA ISR # 3928293-5; British case # 2002108411GB)
b. If the FDA has not investigated, examined or inquired into this death, please explain why.
3. For each of the four Californians who died following administration of the RU-486 regimen, please examine those records and provide the following information, if available:
a. What specimens were cultured, i.e., blood, sputum, urine, vaginal, etc? Please provide the results of each culture.
b. What information has been collected on other infections which may have been present but were not lethal?
c. Please provide the complete blood counts in both the emergency room and the hospital.
d. Please provide the kinds and amounts of intravenous fluids given, including packed red blood cells.
e. Please provide the dates of all clinic or ER visits prior to hospitalization, and which actions were taken at each date.
f. Please provide the vital signs on admission to both the ER and to the hospital.
4. Is FDA aware of cases, other than the four U.S. fatalities, in which reports indicate that the patient became septic?
a. If so, please provide FDA’s findings in each case, in full detail, and provide documentation as described in item #1, supra.
b. If FDA has not investigated any non-fatal sepsis cases, please explain why FDA has not done so.
5. Has FDA investigated, examined, or studied the life-threatening RU-486 adverse events (e.g., hemorrhage and ectopic pregnancies) other than those related to septic shock resulting in death?
a. If so, please summarize FDA’s findings in each case, in full detail, and provide documentation as described in item #1, supra.
b. If no findings were made, please explain why FDA has not done so.
6. Has FDA or CDC investigated, examined, or studied the deaths of women in States other than California that were “pregnancy related” and may have been caused by RU-486 abortions?
a. If so, were any of those deaths related to Clostridium sordellii?
b. If there has been no investigation, please explain why FDA has not done so.
7. Has FDA or CDC examined Medicaid payment records from States other than California to look for admissions for infections that may be associated with RU-486 abortions?
a. If so, please summarize FDA’s findings in each case, in full detail, and provide documentation as described in item #1, supra.
b. If there has been no examination of such payment records, please explain why FDA has not done so.
8. It has been suggested that the infections may be related to the off-label use of the vaginal administration of misoprostol. Has FDA investigated, examined, or studied this possibility?
a. If so, please explain why the vaginal use of misoprostol in other obstetrical and gynecological settings has not produced infections from C. sordelli.
9. Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of RU-486, waited until November 2004 to mention risk of bacterial infection on the drug’s warning label. Did the FDA work with Danco on this label change?
a. If so, why did it take so long to make a label change informing the public of these risks – even after these risks had caused deaths?
10. An examination of over 800 RU-486 regimen adverse event reports reveals a high number of serious and life-threatening bleeding cases. Has FDA/CDC explored the possibility that these adverse events could be caused by Clostridium sordellii hemorrhagic toxins or hemorrhagic toxins from other bacterial species? If so, provide details of what has been learned.
11. Professor R.P. Miech, in a recent article on RU-486 and septic shock related to C. sordellii infections, references, at fn. 26, a 1992 article by Lazar and others that studied the effect of RU-486’s antiglucocorticoid properties on the development of septic shock in mice.
a. Was this article submitted to the FDA during any phase of the mifepristone drug testing and approval process?
b. Did the FDA staff review the article during any phase of the RU-486 drug approval process?
c. Did the FDA ask the drug sponsor to conduct studies looking at IL-10 production in normal non-pregnant human females receiving RU-486?
d. If the article was not received by the FDA, or received but not reviewed, please explain why that occurred.
12. Based on the findings of Lazar and others, see question #12, the laboratory observation of RU-486 lethality during sepsis in mammals was established. Did the New Drug Application sponsor provide FDA with any further data from animal studies to elucidate the nature of this lethal effect or to quantify how often it might occur in higher mammals when septic? (Such data could have been used to extrapolate the risk to humans.)
13. Subcommittee staff is aware that an Ohio abortion clinic director told a federal district court in litigation challenging Ohio’s medical abortion statute that his clinic does not use the FDA-approved Patient Agreement form.
a. Has FDA heard of similar statements about clinics in Ohio or any other State?
b. How often does FDA audit Patient Agreement forms for Subpart H drugs or drugs subject to an approved risk management program in general?
c. How often has FDA conducted audits to verify that only FDA-approved Patient and Prescriber Agreement forms are being used by RU-486 providers?
d. Can an RU-486 provider offer alternate or ancillary patient agreement forms without obtaining prior approval of those forms from FDA?
e. Could a provider comply with informed consent requirements if he/she used an alternate, unapproved form? If he/she used no form?
f. What due diligence requirements has FDA placed on Danco to ensure that Danco's providers comply with the approved risk management program?
In light of the fatalities and risks surrounding RU-486, and the paramount importance of women’s health, I wish to proceed quickly with this investigation in preparation for an oversight hearing. Therefore, your responses to these questions should be submitted separately as completed, and no later than 12:00pm, Monday, February 6, 2006 for all responses. Please also consider who the appropriate Administration witnesses may be for the oversight hearing into this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Souder
Chairman
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources
Government Reform Committee
[UPDATED to add Benedict quote:]
Reading the second of the two quotes on love and sex that the Raving Atheist attributes to Betty Friedan, one would think she'd been listening to her Papa. But actually it's the RA who's apparently been brushing up on "Deus Caritas Est"—and discovered Benedict's feminine mystique.
It's quite stunning to see how little RA had to change the Benedict quote to make it pass as the words of a pre-Third Wave feminist (meaning one from before feminism exalted pornography). Here's the original:
Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness.
It's hard to resist checking out a site that calls itself "quite possibly the most apocalyptic, yet progressive, onymous Mormon group blog in history." It's a heavy-duty initiation into Latter-Day Saint thinking, to be sure, but an interesting way to learn the discussion going on between members of the church on issues such as the sanctity of life.
Judging from his blog, pro-life powerhouse Nathan Sheets has recently had a second-conversion experience. It's affected him profoundly, as you can see from the new intensity he's expressing in his spiritual writings on his blog and elsewhere—including forming a pro-life (or, as his school's newspaper calls it, "anti-abortion") student group and starting a provocative blog campaign, "The Fetal Exception."
Please pray for Nathan as he works to spread the Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life) in a hostile environment.
* * *
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the second conversion:
Christ's call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, "clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a "contrite heart," drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.
St. Peter's conversion after he had denied his master three times bears witness to this. Jesus' look of infinite mercy drew tears of repentance from Peter and, after the Lord's resurrection, a threefold affirmation of love for him. The second conversion also has a communitarian dimension, as is clear in the Lord's call to a whole Church: "Repent!"
St. Ambrose says of the two conversions that, in the Church, "there are water and tears: the water of Baptism and the tears of repentance."
The barren baubles sold through Planned Parenthood of Greater Cleveland's online store include the "Orange Pod Necklace" (above) and "Flower Necklaces" (left).
I find it ironic that Planned Parenthood is attempting to market oral-contraceptive jewelry by associating it with the plant world—particularly the "pod." Peas in the pod are flora's most popularly cited equivalent to pregnancy. It's as though Planned Parenthood implicitly realizes that the concept of nascent life is what sells products to women — even products that celebrate self-imposed sterility.
In 2004-05, Planned Parenthood of Greater Cleveland received $372,510 — 9% of its budget — from federal taxpayers. If you would like to add your voice to those urging politicians to cut off Planned Parenthood's public funding, sign the petition at StopPlannedParenthoodTaxFunding.com.
A Catholic friend of mine who asks to remain nameless wrote to me the other day about the violence over the Mohammed cartoons:
Not that I condone the kind of violence going on in response to those cartoons, which were ill-conceived and thoughtless.As a fan of G.K. Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross, I can relate to the desire to see one's fellow Christians take their faith seriously enough to defend it against cultural affronts. I took my friend's comments at face value.
But it would please me immensely if Catholics put up similar verbal resistance when when there are things like "Piss Christ" and the dung-smeared image of the Virgin that was feted and lauded at the Brooklyn Museum some years ago.
While I am opposed to the violence and rioting in parts of the Muslim world after a Denmark newspaper “Did a Rushdie,” I cannot wonder if maybe Christians would do better to partially follow the lead of the Prophet Mohammad’s followers.To which I can only say: Enough.
Clinton Watson Taylor writes in the online American Spectator that Yale's much-heralded decision to put soap in its dorm bathrooms leaves them "a long way from civilized yet, because the bathrooms are co-educational." Not surprising from an Ivy League university that gets "Pure Romance," a sex-toy vendor that hosts house parties, to sponsor its annual Sex Week.
No, this isn't a personal ad. (If it were, I'd just be seeking one hero.) I've just received an extraordinarily wonderful assignment at work that I'll be doing instead of my "Blog On!" column. This feature, which will be ongoing, will focus on individual New Yorkers who make a positive difference in others' lives: people who volunteer, work for nonprofits, do teaching or community outreach, or any other kind of work where they go above and beyond the call of duty.
I'll write more about this new feature as its debut approaches. In the meantime, if you know anyone who lives or works in the New York City area — it could be yourself — who deserves attention for the good work he or she does, please drop me a line with a little information about them: dawn -at- dawneden.com (replacing the "-at-" with an atsign). If the person sounds like the kind of subject I'm looking for, I'll write back to request contact information. Thanks!
Also, thanks very much to readers who have prayed for me over the past year; it means a lot to me.
Yesterday, exactly a year after my friends Kevin and Lesley's daughter Molly was born (that's her with me last March), Dr. Albert Mohler published an important article on "The Big Business of Making Babies." He asks, "Is an unregulated free market in reproductive technologies and materials such as human gametes destined to undermine human dignity and the sanctity of human life?" The answer's self-evident — but read why.
* * *
Great Rejected Front-Page Headlines, #2 in a Series: DRUG SNUGGLER
Yesterday in Manhattan, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge named Chester J. Straub cast the dissenting vote in a 2-1 decision striking down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. (A California court also struck down the ban on the same day.)
Straub's dissent is masterful and I highly recommend you download and read the whole thing (requires Adobe Reader). [UPDATE: Reader Bryan L. Fordham has put the entire dissent into HTML format, with links to individual pages.] Following are some excerpts; asterisks mark the points where I've skipped sentences or sections. I've also bolded some sentences for emphasis.
On a related note, I'm happy to announce that I've decided to marry a great Catholic legal mind. I just haven't met him yet. With brilliant men of integrity like Straub, Alito, and Roberts, Catholic lawyers and judges are the new rock stars.
CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (the “Act”), Congress sought to prohibit the “gruesome and inhuman procedure” of delivering a fetus into this world only to destroy it as it reaches the threshold of birth. Pub. L. No. 108-105, § 2(1), 117 Stat. 1201, 1201, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1531. This procedure, Congress found, blurs the line between abortion and infanticide and distorts the ethical duties of physicians. Id. § 2(14)(G), (J), (O), 117 Stat. at 1205-06. Moreover, Congress specifically found that the “partial-birth abortion” procedure — generally referred to as “Dilation and Extraction” or the “D & X” procedure — is “never medically necessary” and in fact “poses serious risks to a woman’s health.” Id. § 2(13), 117 Stat. at 1203-04. It further found that there is “no credible medical evidence” that the procedure is safer than other abortion procedures. Id. § 2(14)(B), 117 Stat. at 1204.
The District Court, in this case, agreed with Congress in many respects. After hearing all of the evidence, the District Court found that the government’s expert witnesses had “reasonably and effectively refuted Plaintiffs’ proffered bases for the opinion that D & X has safety advantages over other second-trimester abortion procedures.” Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ashcroft, 330 F. Supp. 2d 436, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (N.A.F.). The District Court found that many of the plaintiffs’ proffered bases are not “credible; rather they are theoretical or false.” Id. at 480.
Nonetheless, the District Court held the Act unconstitutional upon finding a “division of medical opinion,” or a “disagreement in the medical community,” about the purported safety advantages of D & X. See id. at 481-82. According to the District Court, Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), renders irrelevant Congress’s findings — and, indeed, the District Court’s own findings — on the medical necessity of the D & X procedure. The District Court stated that the question is not whether “Congress was reasonable in its finding that D & X is never medically necessary. Instead, the relevant inquiry . . . is whether Congress reasonably determined, based on substantial evidence, that there is no significant body of medical opinion believing the procedure to have safety advantages for some women.” N.A.F., 330 F. Supp. 2d at 488.
In my view, the District Court’s fundamental error — which is reflected in the majority’s opinion as well — is to collapse the inquiry into whether a “division of medical opinion” exists and thereby discard any role for congressional findings about the actual necessity of the procedure. Stenberg requires a health exception “where substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women’s health.” Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 938. While a “division of medical opinion” may factor into the presence or absence of “substantial medical authority,” there must be more to the inquiry than simply counting heads. The medical opinion in favor of a particular view — in this case, the advantages of D & X — must be supported by credible medical explanations and evidence. Whether such medical evidence exists is a factual issue, and I believe we owe deference to Congress’s factual findings, supported by the District Court’s own findings, that D & X is never medically necessary and that there is no “credible medical evidence” to the contrary. See Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, § 2(1), (13), (14)(B), 117 Stat. at 1201, 1203-04. At least some consideration of and deference to congressional findings is appropriate in the area of abortion, just as it would be on factual matters affecting economic or environmental regulation, campaign finance reform, or the necessity of civil rights measures to remedy
discrimination.
* * *
Unlike the New Hampshire statute, see id. at 964-65, the Act does not regulate access to all
methods of abortion. As women would have unfettered, immediate access
to induction and D & E, methods of abortions that have been proven to
be safe, scientifically established, and available, see infra Part
I.A.2, there is no requirement that the Act contain a health exception.
* * *
I recognize that the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence does
not involve rational basis review, or even the kind of intermediate
scrutiny that led the Turner Court to apply the “substantial evidence”
standard to congressional factfinding. At the same time, there is no
reason that the overarching and fundamental principle of deference to
congressional factfinding — both as a matter of respect for the
lawmaking power and as a matter of institutional competence — should
not apply in the context of regulating the methods of abortion.
Congress has a legitimate interest in regulating medical techniques of
abortion. “[A] state may properly assert important interests in
safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in
protecting potential life.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973).
Indeed, in Roe, the Court not only reaffirmed the State’s “legitimate
interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical
procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety
for the patient,” but it specifically noted that, because “the risk to
the woman increases as her pregnancy continues[,] . . . the State
retains a definite interest in protecting the woman’s own health and
safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.”
Id. at 150.
In this case, Congress has made specific findings, including that
the D & X procedure “is never necessary to preserve the health of a
woman” and that it “poses serious risks to a woman’s health.” Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act, § 2(13), 117 Stat. at 1203-04. In making
these findings, Congress did not challenge or otherwise dispute that
Stenberg controls as a matter of constitutional law. See id. § 2(1)-
(7), 117 Stat. at 1201-02. While Congress may not invade the Supreme
Court’s province of interpreting the Constitution, it is not so bound
by the Court’s determination of facts that have relevance beyond a
particular case. Whether a particular medical procedure is safe,
necessary, or risky is a question of fact that has a definite answer.
Based on Congress’s institutional competence over the judiciary with
respect to such legislative facts, I believe that we owe Congress at
least some level of deference when it makes these determinations. At
a minimum, we should be required to consider those findings and how
they may affect the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion
ban.
2.
Congress made the following relevant findings: (1) D & X was
“unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother”; (2) D & X “poses
serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure”; (3)
“[t]here is no credible medical evidence that [D & X procedures] are
safe or are safer than other abortion procedures”; (4) no expert,
including the doctor who invented the procedure, has been able to
“identif[y] a single circumstance during which a partial-birth
abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman”; and (5)
“[a] ban on [D & X] will therefore advance the health interests of
pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.” Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act § 2(2), (14)(A)-(F), 117 Stat. at 1201, 1204-05. In
the discussion above, I have focused on the general principle of
deference to Congress’s fact-finding, rather than any specific
standard of review, because these findings are well supported and
worthy of deference under any standard.
The evidence in the congressional record solidly supports
Congress’s conclusion that no medical circumstance requires a D & X to
protect a woman’s health. Numerous doctors testified before, or
provided letters to, Congress that, in their experience, they have
never had a patient who required the D & X procedure. See, e.g., The
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995: Hearing on H.R. 1833 Before
the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 109 (1995) (hereinafter
“1995 House Hearings”) (Statement of Dr. Nancy Romer) (“I have never
had a patient who required the [D & X] procedure for maternal illness
or fetal malformations.”); The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002:
Hearing on H.R. 4965 Before the Subcomm. on the Const. of the House
Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. 26 (2002) (hereinafter “2002 House
Hearings”) (Statement of Dr. Curtis Cook) (“Never in the more than 10
years that I have been providing perinatal care to women with
complicated pregnancies have I ever experienced a single clinical
situation where the late-term abortion procedure being considered
before this Committee has ever been required or even considered a
superior option clinically to other well-known and readily available
medical and surgical options.”); Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003: Hearing on H.R. 760 Before the Subcomm. on the Const. of the H.
Comm. of the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 107 (2003) (hereinafter “2003
House Hearings”) (Letter from Dr. Byron C. Calhoun) (“In my over 14
years as a Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialist I have never used or
needed the [D & X] technique to care for my complicated or life
threatening conditions that require the termination of a pregnancy.”);
id. at 110 (Letter from Dr. T. Murphy Goodwin) (“I have not
encountered a case in which what has been described as partial-birth
abortion is the only choice, or even the better choice among
alternatives, for managing a given complication of pregnancy.”); id.
at 117 (Letter from Dr. Lewis Marola) (“Never, ever, in our years of
practice have we seen a situation which warrants implementation of [D
& X].”).
Other sources before Congress confirmed these doctors’
experience, indicating that there are no circumstances in which the D
& X procedure would be necessary to preserve the health of the mother.
See, e.g., 2002 House Hearings, supra, at 86-87 (Diane, M. Gianelli,
Outlawing Abortion Method, American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995, at 3)
(reporting that Dr. Hern, author of Abortion Practice, a “widely used
textbook,” “could not imagine a circumstance in which this procedure
would be safest”); see also 2003 House Hearings, supra, at 7
(Statement of Dr. Mark G. Neerhof) (“None of these risks are medically
necessary because other procedures are available to physicians who
deem it necessary to perform an abortion late in pregnancy.”); id. at
105 (Letter from Dr. Watson Bowes) (stating that based on his
experience with high-risk and complicated pregnancies, D & X “is not
the only option for terminating these pregnancies in the safest
possible manner”); id. at 106 (Letter from Dr. Nathan Hoeldtke)
(writing that he could not “imagine” any case where “an intact D & X
[would] be medically necessary”); id. at 146 (American Medical
Association (“AMA”) Fact Sheet) (“AMA’s expert panel, which included
a ACOG representative, could not find ‘any’ identified circumstance
where [D & X] was ‘the only appropriate alternative.’”). While the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (“ACOG”) contended
that D & X “may be the best or most appropriate procedure” in an
unspecified “particular circumstance,” its assertion was wholly
speculative; “[a] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no
circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only
option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” 2003
House Hearings, supra, at 200 (ACOG Statement of Policy).
Evidence in the congressional record further indicated that, even
in an emergency, D & X is not appropriate or medically necessary.
See, e.g., 2002 House Hearings, supra, at 8 (Statement of Dr. Kathi
Aultman) (“In an emergency situation, when immediate delivery is
necessary, D & X would not be used because it would take too long.”);
see also 2003 House Hearings, supra, at 97 (Summary of Testimony of
Dr. William Cashore Before the Health & Welfare Comm. of the R.I.
State S.) (“The 1-3 day period of cervical preparation . . . belies
the ‘emergency’ nature of the procedure.”); id. at 114 (Letter from
Dr. Camilla C. Hersh) (“In the event of a truly life threatening
complication of pregnancy, the days of delay involved substantially
add to the risk of loss of life of the mother.”).
It is undisputed that no peer-reviewed studies or data exists
showing that D & X is either safe or safer than other abortion
procedures.
* * *
The District Court’s own findings support Congress’s findings
that D & X is never medically necessary and not safer than other safe
abortion procedures. The District Court did “not believe that many of
Plaintiffs’ purported reasons for why D & X is medically necessary are
credible; rather they are theoretical or false.” N.A.F., 330 F. Supp.
2d at 480. Furthermore, it found that “[t]he Government’s experts,
especially, Dr. Clark, demonstrated that some of Plaintiffs’ reasons
necessitating D & X are incoherent; other reasons were shown to be
merely theoretical.” Id. at 479-80.
The District Court was correct in finding that no evidence
supported the necessity of D & X. As an initial matter, the evidence
showed that very rarely does preserving a women’s health ever require
an abortion. See Trial Tr. at 352 (Dr. Grunebaum testifying that it
was “rare” that pregnancies are terminated because of a serious
medical condition); id. at 1743 (Dr. Lockwood testifying that it was
rare that maternal health would require an abortion prior to
viability); id. at 2315 (Dr. Clark testifying that such situations
were “very rare”). The testimony of the government’s witnesses
supports the contention that in the rare case where maternal health
might require an abortion, D & X was never necessary to preserve the
woman’s health. See id. at 1760 (Dr. Lockwood could not think of any
circumstance where D & X would be necessary to preserve maternal
health); id. at 2311 (Dr. Clark testifying that “[u]nder no
circumstances is D & X abortion necessary to preserve the life or
health of the mother. . . . Under no circumstances would the abolition
of this procedure in any way jeopardize the life or health of any
mother regardless of what medical conditions she may have.”); id. at
2313 (Dr. Clark testifying that “I can’t imagine any medical condition
. . . in which this D & X procedure might be helpful to me, as someone
who spent my life caring for critically ill women, in which it might
be helpful to me in preserving the life or health or well-being of the
mother. I can’t come up with one.”).
Furthermore, the plaintiffs and their experts agreed that they
had never encountered a situation where D & X was the only available
procedure or where the mother’s health required a D & X. See id. at
261 (Dr. Grunebaum responding “[a]bsolutely not” to the question of
whether D & X is “the only method available for performing abortions
in any given circumstance”); id. at 491 (Dr. Johnson testifying that
“I don’t believe there is ever a condition where [D & X] would be the
only procedure that would be available or an option to perform” and
agreeing with the government’s statement that there was no “maternal
complication that would either require [D & X] or make [D & X] the
only procedure to be performed”); id. at 1369 (Dr. Weiss stating that
he could not “think of a circumstance where it would be required to do
an [D & X] for a maternal health condition”) ; id. at 1683 (Dr. Chasen
agreeing that his study showed that D & X “is rarely used in cases of
a maternal medical problem”).
* * *
In sum, Congress had before it compelling evidence, confirmed by
the District Court, that the D & X procedure is never medically
necessary and that there is a lack of credible evidence in support of
the procedure. The trial evidence supports Congress’s judgment that
no maternal health condition required the use of D & X. Nor is D & X
preferable or safer than D & E in any particular circumstance. The
alleged safety advantages are wholly unproven and hypothetical, and,
to quote the pithy phrase of the District Court, “Intuition does not
equate to scientific fact.” Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ashcroft, 330 F.
Supp. 2d 436, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (N.A.F.).
* * *
Rather than defer to, or even consider, these finding by
Congress, the District Court and the majority hold that D & X’s
ultimate medical necessity is not the issue — that the issue is simply
whether D & X is supported by “substantial medical authority,” which
has been equated to a “division of medical opinion.” In my view, the
framing of the issue by the District Court and the majority is not
required by Stenberg and distorts not only the constitutional balance
between Congress and the Court, but also the balance between the
interests of women in terminating their pregnancies and of the State
in regulating as “gruesome and inhumane” a procedure as D & X.
II.
For the sake of completeness, I would also reject all of the
plaintiffs’ other arguments for holding the statute unconstitutional.
The Act does not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right prior
to viability to terminate her pregnancy. Specifically, the
requirement that the physician “deliberately and intentionally”
deliver the living fetus to one of the specified anatomic landmarks
“for the purpose of performing an overt act,” 18 U.S.C. §
1531(b)(1)(A), requires that the physician “consciously desire” to
violate the Act. See United States v. Townsend, 987 F.2d 927, 930 (2d
Cir. 1993) (stating that the terms “deliberately” and “intentionally”
are synonyms of the more common mens rea term “purposefully”); see
also United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980) (“[A] person
who causes a particular result is said to act purposefully if he
consciously desires the result happening from his conduct . . . .”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). In a D & E, the physician
intends to dismember the fetus and remove the pieces and not to
deliver the fetus to either of the anatomical landmarks for the
purpose of committing an overt act that the fetus cannot survive. See
Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805, 1033 (D. Neb. 2004), aff’d
sub nom. Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2005), petition
for cert. filed, No. 05-380 (Sept. 23, 2005). Moreover, if due to
complications during a D & E procedure, the fetal head is crushed,
disarticulated, or even pierced and suctioned while it is within the
mother’s body, the Act is not violated unless the physician began the
procedure with a conscious desire to do so. See id. at 1033
(“[U]nless a physician begins a particular abortion with a pre-
meditated and specific intent to perform the abortion in the manner
the Act forbids, the physician has not acted in violation of the
statute, even if it so happens, as he or she proceeds, that the
fetus’s head gets stuck and must be crushed, or its contents removed,
to complete the delivery.”).
For the same reason, I would also hold that the act is not vague.
See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000) (holding that a statute
was not vague as it contained the intent requirement that the
violation be “knowing”). Finally, the Act’s life exception is
constitutional. The word “necessary” in the statute has the same
meaning as it does in the phrase “necessary, in appropriate medical
judgment, for the preservation of the life . . . of the mother.”
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000) (quoting Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992));
see also Simopoulos v. Virginia, 462 U.S. 506, 510 n.2 (1983)
(affirming conviction under abortion statute that contained the same
life exception).
* * *
Some argue that the removal of a fetus during a D & X is not
“birth.” See Farmer v. Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J., 220 F.3d
127, 143 (3d Cir. 2000). However, “birth” is the “passage of the
offspring from the uterus to the outside world.” Dorlands Illustrated
Medical Dictionary 207 (27th ed. 2000). The removal of a fetus from
its mother surgically does not mean that it is not born, as a fetus
removed from its mother via a cesarean section is certainly “born.”
Moreover, I disagree with the contention of the Farmer court that the
intent of the mother governs whether a child is born or aborted. See
Farmer, 220 F.3d at 144. A child born prematurely, even though its
mother does not intend it to be born, is not necessarily an abortion.
Indeed, the statute that the majority relies on for its definition of
a “person” defines “born alive” to include “any member of the species
homo sapiens . . . regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or
it may not be “deprive[d] . . . of life . . . without due process of
law,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. At this point, the mother’s right
to privacy, autonomy, and bodily integrity are waning in importance,
and the fetus’s increases in strength. Just as viability is the point
during the gestation of the fetus when the interest of the State in
potential life become paramount, see Casey, 505 U.S. at 869, birth14
induced abortion.” 1 U.S.C. § 8. If the intent of the mother
controls the scope of her right to destroy her offspring, there is no
reason why she should not be able to destroy the child after it has
completely been separated from her body.
I disagree with Chief Judge Walker that the fact that the Act is
not limited to post-viability abortions necessarily vitiates the
compelling interest of the State in preventing the procedure to
distinguish abortion from infanticide. Once a fetus is born, its
viability ceases to be relevant to determining the constitutional
protections to which it is entitled.
* * *
We should consider independently whether providing
an unknown number of women a marginal health benefit outweighs both
the fetus’s emerging right to life and the State’s interests in
protecting actual and potential life.
In addition to vindicating the right to life of those in the
process of being born, the State has a compelling interest in
protecting the line between abortion and infanticide — the second
significant difference from the Nebraska statute. Congress, inter
alia, found that partial-birth abortion “blurs the line between
abortion and infanticide,” Partial-Birth Abortion Ban § (2)(14)(O),
117 Stat. at 1206, and that failing to prohibit the practice would
“coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all
vulnerable and innocent human life,” id. § (2)(14)(N). There is
undoubtably a compelling state interest in preventing the killing of
newborns. Infanticide, like suicide, is a “serious public-health
problem,” which the State has an interest in “studying, identifying,
and treating its causes.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 730. This horrific
crime occurs in the United States and throughout the world with
alarming frequency. See, e.g., Amy D. Wills, Neonaticide: the
Necessity of Syndrome Evidence When Safe Haven Legislation Falls
Short, 77 Temp. L. Rev. 1001, 1004 (2004) (noting that 250 homicides
a year involve infants being killed within the first twenty-four hours
of life); see also Parents of Dead Infant Sought, Chi. Sun Times, Jan.
16, 2006, at 14 (reporting that a newborn was found dead in a trash
bin).
The majority offers the definition in 1 U.S.C. § 8(a) of “born
alive” for the proposition that Congress has already drawn “a line”
against infanticide. While the statute includes infants that have
been “complete[ly] expel[led] or extract[ed] from his or her mother,”
it does not exclude humans at a prior stage of development from the
term. Indeed, Congress specifically provided that “[n]othing in this
section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any
legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species
homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive.’” Id. § 8(c).
Regardless of whether a partial-birth abortion terminates the life of
a statutory “person,” allowing a physician to destroy a child as long
as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path
towards condoning infanticide. Preventing the death of an infant in
the process of being born safeguards those infants who have been
completely separated from their mothers.
I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a
pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally,
ethically, and legally unacceptable.
IV. Conclusion
Congress’s determination that D & X is never medically necessary
to protect a woman’s health was well founded and supported by the
District Court’s opinion. Additionally, I do not believe that the
right to terminate a pregnancy extends to the destruction of a
partially born fetus or overrides the State’s compelling interest in
preventing infanticide. As none of the arguments advanced by the
plaintiffs convinces me that the Act is unconstitutional, I do not
believe that Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, __U.S.__,
126 S Ct. 961 (Jan. 18, 2006) is applicable. I understand, however,
that based on the majority’s finding that the Act is unconstitutional,
it is appropriate for the majority to request further briefing from
the parties on the proper remedy.
I respectfully dissent.
