Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 11 No.2 - Winter Edition 1994                             Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Pro-Life Victoria Determined to Stop RU 486
- Editorial
- Abortion - An Illegal Act
- Babies Survival Kits
- Overpopulation? The Greatest Myth of Modern Times
- Mother Teresa Truth to Power
- A Giant has Left Us 

This is the husband and children of Nadine Walkowiak, the 31 year old French mother of Christophe 10, Magalie 8, Christian 7, Ludivine 5, and Laurie 3, pictured with their father at her graveside. She died on March 23, 1991. In April 1991, officials of the French Ministry of Health announced her death was associated with RU 486. Her photograph appears on the postcard l printed by Pro-Life Victoria and sent to all members and a large list of other prolife organisations to launch a campaign appealing to Health Minister Dr Carmen Lawrence to stop RU 486 trials in Australia.

A second postcard is enclosed in this newsletter. If you have already sent a card to Dr Lawrence, please ash a pro-life friend or family member to send this card. Dr Lawrence will need an avalanche of cards to convince her that Australians are appalled at the prospect of chemical warfare on the unborn children.

Here’s what John Wilks, of Pharmacists for Life said about RU 486 at the recent World Congress for Life in Sydney.

"The prime function of RU 486 is only to kill the unborn child. It is the responsibility of the second drug, the prostaglandin, to empty the womb of the dead child by causing strong uterine contractions. The RU 486 abortion procedure needs both drugs to make it marketable. And yet, even after the use of these two drugs, there are 5% of cases where a surgical abortion has to be done since the drug cocktail of RU 486 & PG has failed to achieve a pharmaceutical abortion.

So is RU 486 an easy procedure - listen to following and be the judge.

The administration of the drug is a lengthy and involved procedure which requires 4 visits to the clinic. As if that is not traumatic enough, the procedure can be 7 days long, measured from the time the pregnancy is confirmed until the woman returns to verify that the pregnancy is over and for post-abortion bleeding to be monitored.

But, I would wager, you could ask all day and find few women -who depend on the traditional media outlets for their news - who understand the intrusive, regulated and dehumanizing nature of the RU 486/PG procedure.

Some have had the gall to suggest that RU 486 could be used as a once a month menstrual regulator. What fanciful nonsense. Those charged with administering this drug suggest that a woman should live "within about 40km" of an abortion clinic.

To further underline this point, the French Ministry of Health has issued a memo stipulating that diagnostic equipment such as an ECG, cardiorespiratory equipment, injectable Calcium antagonists, and a fibrillator be on hand.

But don’t take my work for all of this -  listen to what the Chairman of Roussel-Uclaf, Edouard Sakiz, says about the promotion of RU 486 in the Third World:

It "would be the quickest way to sabotage the product".

And why can’t 486 be used in Third World countries?

Because they don’t have easy and ready access to emergency medical treatment if the RU 486 procedure goes wrong.

And why do things go wrong?

Moreover, there is an important psychological perspective to the RU 486/ PG procedure.

Because the drug can be given up to 49 days after the last menstrual period, there is, as Anna Duffy of the Thomas More Society has noted "the grisly possibility that a woman will deliver her tiny but unrecognisable dead fetus of 6-12 weeks alone and at home

To some, an abortion at home may constitute a form of privacy - but it also condemns a woman to loneliness isolation and total moral responsibility for her action.

To those who promote RU 486 I would say:

But take no heed of me at this point

- I might turn out to be hysterical.

Rather, hear again the authoritative words of Edouard Sakiz, the then Chairman of Roussel, who described the RU 486 procedure as:

"as appalling psychological ordeal" because the woman has to ‘live’ with her abortion for at least a week using this technique".

This hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for anything, let alone what is currently being called a medical advancement.

Top of Page

My trip to the World Congress for Life in Sydney in April was an interesting experience. I can best describe it in Euripides’ words: "Those whom the gods would destroy must first make mad".

En route to the Congress I stopped in Albury and read the local newspaper the Border Morning Mail. I was dismayed to read of the scarcity of local doctors to deliver babies. I was dismayed because in my possession I had a copy of a letter from 3 Albury doctors advertising their abortion services. Not enough doctors to deliver babies, but apparently enough willing to kill them.

Inside the Congress, I heard International Right to Life President, Dr Jack Willke, speak of the established connection between abortion of first pregnancies and breast cancer. Outside the Congress, in the daily papers, I read of the need to spend more on

breast cancer prevention because of the expected 25,000 deaths this decade. But no mention of its "politically incorrect" connection to abortion.

Inside the Congress, Dr Margaret Whyte, Vice-President of Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, urged us all to re-read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Outside the Congress, a correspondent to the letters column of one news magazine, citing current directions in invitrofertilization technology, urged us to do the same thing.

At Central Railway Station, a Socialist Left feminist handed me their newspaper agitating against female circumcision. She told me she believed in abortion. Seems it’s wrong to mutilate baby girls, but all right to kill them - and boys.

Returning to Albury, I read in the same newspaper of local doctors being involved in new infertility treatments. Doctors to kill babies, doctors

to create babies but not enough doctors to deliver babies. The same doctors who kill babies, "create babies"!

Since then, I have read again in the same paper (22/4/94) in an article titled "Law Is Open to Interpretation" Dr Scott Giltrap quoted on NSW Judge Newman’s recent Supreme Court Ruling. Unlike his fellow Adelaide abortionist, Dr Robert Jones, he studiously avoided the fundamental nature of abortion. Quoted in an article titled "Ethics in Embryo" (6/4/ 91) Dr Jones said, "Abortion is murder, you’re extinguishing a life and if you don’t face up to that you’re not being honest with yourself’. Hippocrates, the father of medical ethics, defined the practitioner of medicine as only a healer. Previously the "medicine man’s" role had combined both healing and killing. Doctors who assume this role are turning the clock back several millennia.

Denise Cameron

Top of Page

Mr Justice Newman on April 18, 1994 in the New South Wales Supreme Court rejected an action for damages by a woman who claimed that failure by doctors to diagnose her pregnancy prevented her from having an abortion. The Judge decided that the planned abortion would have been illegal. The case highlighted the fact that abortion in New South Wales is still a criminal offence, as is the case in Victoria.

This decision is encouraging for the pro-life movement and confirms what the movement has been saying for decades: that abortion on demand is unlawful, and that the law generally on abortion is being ignored.

Following the decision, the New South Wales Attorney-General told Parliament that the Crimes Act would not be changed.

In his judgement Mr Justice Newman said: "In order for an operation for the termination of a pregnancy to be lawful, it is necessary that the surgeon conducting the operation must be able to form an honest belief on reasonable grounds that the operation was necessary, to preserve the woman involved from serious danger to her life, or her physical or mental health, which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail. However, that description does not include the

normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. It is also the law that in the circumstances the danger of the operation was not out of proportion to the danger intended to be averted."

There was no reference to socioeconomic criteria in the case, and the judgement raises questions about the prevailing practices flowing from the Menhennent ruling of 1967.

The judgement is a timely reminder to the abortion providers that the preborn have rights and that abortion is a criminal offence. The pro-life movement has consistently held that any adverse external interference removes the baby’s right to life. Society needs to be mindful that all pregnant women have a requirement to be given full and positive support to enable them to bring their babies to term.

The decision provides an opportunity for the pro-life movement to challenge the current practice of abortion on demand. Pro-lifers need to keep reminding responsible authorities and others, of the need for enforcement of the law about abortion, in order to protect the pre-born and their mothers. To assist in this process an Australian Campaign to Enforce the Law Against Abortion is about to be launched.

David Millie

Top of Page

From time to time Pro-Life Victoria receives enquires about Pregnancy Counselling and Support for mothers who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. We are always able to refer such mothers to the Ringwood Pregnancy Action Centre whose establishment was sponsored by Pro-Life Victoria or to Right To Life’s Action Problem Pregnancy Centre in East Melbourne and its various centres throughout Victoria.

In my ten years as a nurse in a Women’s Prison, I had reason to make lots of referrals to community services. I did not always feel good just "handing out a card". For various reasons, this was often just not enough.

In the same way, I feel a telephone number on a card is not quite enough for us to be offering. In particular, when I have received requests for material goods for a baby I do not feel it very helpful to say, "well, you can go here, here, here or there, etc." I’d like to be able to say, "well for a start, we can provide you with a complete layette for your baby, a survival kit, to relieve your anxiety whilst you sort out other worries

I’d like to think Pro-Life Victoria had at least two survival kits permanently available for emergencies.

There may be some amongst you able to donate baby equipment.

Some babies are literally saved by dedicated pro-lifers outside abortuaries. To be able to offer a complete layette is not only a very practical start to solving the problems of such a distressed woman, but a tangible witness of the "welcome" we offer her baby

Below is a list of the articles and the quantity required for 2 baby layettes.

12 dresses or nightgowns
12 singlets (6 cotton, 6 woollen)
6 matinee jackets
6 dozen napkins, pilchers
4 bonnets, bibs (towelling), booties, bunny rugs
2 shawls
2 bassinettes/stands
2 carry baskets, cot linen

If you are able to help, please telephone (03) 818 6186.

Top of Page

The following article was submitted to the Melbourne Age newspaper in response to an article titled "Feeding the world’s Children Must be Our First Responsibility" by columnist Pamela Bone. Ms Bone has written several such articles with a recurring anti natalist theme. The Age did not print Eamonn Keane’s response. We have printed his response for your information. Eamonn Keane has written two books on population and related issues. They are titled Population Control and Population Explosion. He is the economics coordinator at a school in Harris Park, Sydney.

Pamela Bone contends that the world is overpopulated. She says that the world’s population "is growing faster than the ability of the Earth to feed its people" (The Age, April 25). Since 1948, the per capita food production of developing countries has increased by 40 percent. According to reports from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (UNFAG), with each year that passes, it takes less land to grow each person’s food requirements. Between 1970 and 1973, both India and China have been among the leading nations in exporting food.

In 1990, the UNFAO Report on the State of Food and Agriculture, claimed that every nation had the capacity to feed all their own people well and it blamed governments in developing countries for forcing food prices down thus giving farmers less incentive to grow food. Further to this, the UNFAO has estimated that with present technologies fully employed, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people roughly six times the present world population of 5.4 billion people. Roger Revelle, Director of the Harvard Centre for Population Studies, estimates that the world’s agricultural resources are capable of supporting 40 billion people. Indian economist Raj Krishna estimates that India alone is capable of increasing crop yields to the point of providing the entire world’s food supply. India, it is worth noting has four times as much arable land per person as Japan and twice as much as Britain.

Bone gives the impression that Third World countries are terribly overcrowded. On average, people in Australia, most of whom live in five cities, live in more crowded conditions than do people in China and India of whom 80 percent live in the countryside or in small villages. It has been calculated that the present population of the world could all lie down with nobody touching anyone else in a city smaller than Sydney. In general, population densities are higher in wealthier regions of the world than in poorer ones. China has a population density of 117 per square kilometre of land surface, Italy has 191 and the U.K. has 234. In fact, the U.N. Demographic Yearbook for 1989 listed more than 30 countries that were more crowded than China. In terms of population density per square kilometre of agricultural land, China has 273 while the U.K. has 315. In more general terms, for this measurement: Africa has 80, Latin America 55, Oceania 55, Asia 422, former Soviet Union 59, North America 55. These figures show that most of the World’s South (less developed countries) have low population densities per square kilometre of agricultural land which indicates the absence of a common pattern in the Third World countries.

What about resources? Professor Jacqueline Kasun says that while resources are always scarce relative to the demands that human beings place upon them, the limits are however so far beyond our present use as to be nearly invisible and are actually receding as new knowledge develops. For example, silicon for silicon chips is found in ordinary sand. Regarding the two principal metals which we use - aluminium and iron - these exist in almost limitless quantities in ordinary clay. Chemical processes are known for extracting them but are not used because it is easier to get iron and aluminium from iron ore and bauxite respectively. Dr Alan Hammond of the World Resources Institute, has stated that over the last few decades the prices of almost all resources have fallen in real terms. He points out that over this time the reserve to production ratio has in fact grown and that we have plateaued on a per capita use basis in industrial countries which are the main users.

Increasing demand for resources stimulates exploration and encourages people to search for more economical ways of extracting them. Even if demand outstrips supply, this will call forth the invention of substitutes. The Greeks’ transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age 3000 years ago was inspired by a disruption due to war of trade in the tin necessary to make bronze. The Greeks responded to the crisis by starting to use iron. Timber shortages in the 16 century Britain ushered in the age of coal. Similarly a shortage of whale oil in the mid-nineteenth century led to the sinking of the first oil well in 1859.

It is against this backdrop of human ingenuity discovering and creating new resources, that Professor Julian Simon in his book The Ultimate Resource, argued that resources should not be thought of as finite since it is the human mind itself which is the ultimate resource. In 1980, Simon offered to bet that the real price of any natural resource (grains, oil, coal, timber, or metals) would fall over the ten year period to 1990. With population on the rise and resources supposedly getting scarcer, then their real prices would inevitably have to rise. Simon disputed this simplistic equation on the grounds that resources were in fact becoming more plentiful and because of this he offered to bet that their prices would fall. Paul Ehrlich accepted the bet saying that he would "accept Simon’s astonishing offer before other greedy people jump in". Ehrlich lost the bet. Between 1980 and 1990, the price of the resources fell in real terms as Simon had predicted.

What about the environment? Does population growth inevitably lead to its degradation? It is pointless blaming population growth in developing countries for environmental problems when the developed countries with less than 25 percent of the world’s population: consumes 75 percent of all energy used, 79 percent of all commercial fuel, 85 percent of all wood products and 72 percent of all steel products. It is widely agreed that developed countries produce up to 80 percent of man-made pollutants.

In technical terms, environmental degradation is primarily the result of using inappropriate technology and of an unjust distribution of wealth and resources. On the basis of data gathered from both developed and less-developed countries, Barry Commoner, the well known environmentalist, concluded that: "In all countries, the environmental impact of the technology factor is significantly greater than the influence of population size or affluence". Eastern Europe for example has one of the worst pollution levels in the world but a relatively low population density. If it could acquire better technologies, it could begin to clean up its pollution while simultaneously raising the material living standards of its people.

If population growth has a negative impact on human welfare, then how do we account for the fact mat in the economic history of the United States and Western Europe, the biggest upsurge in their economic activity was during the period of their most rapid population growth over the last two centuries? Or why is the human condition in countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Kenya, and Mauritius for example, much better now than it was 50 years ago when their respective populations were much smaller? Again, why is it that there are less people affected by famine today than mere was during the same period of the last century even though the world’s population is much larger now?

The most exhaustive study to date of the relationship between population growth and development was carried out by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States in 1986. Its Final Report concluded that it is misleading to say that population growth causes poverty. It also found that no significant degree could pollution problems be related to population growth per se and that to a great extent these problems could be resolved by appropriate government policies designed to correct market failure.

The world "overpopulation" has no precise meaning. It describes a subjective judgement rather man an objective fact as there is no demographic criterion to define it. For example, Holland has four times the population density of its former colony Indonesia, but it is the latter that is said to have an "overpopulation" problem. The word overpopulation is simply a pejorative word for poverty. If we incorrectly analyse the problem of poverty as so-called overpopulation, then getting rid of the people them selves will suggest itself as a solution. This is easier than focusing on the poverty which challenges us to work for social justice and for solidarity between people and nations.

Top of Page 

At a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on February 3, Mother Teresa of Calcutta delivered the most startling and bold proclamation of truth to power I have heard in my more than 30 professional years in Washington.

Before an audience of 3000 - that included the President and his wife, the Vice President and his wife and congressional leaders, among others - the 83 year old nun, who is physically frail but spiritually and rhetorically powerful, delivered an address that cut to the heart of the social ills afflicting America.

She said that America, once known for generosity to the world, has become selfish. And she said that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion.

Tying abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets, she said, "If we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other⁹ Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." At that line, most of those attending erupted in a standing ovation, something that rarely occurs at these sedate events. At that moment, President Clinton quickly reached for his water glass, and Mrs Clinton, Vice President and Mrs Gore stared without expression at Mother Teresa. They did not applaud. It was clearly an uncomfortable moment on the dais.

She then delivered the knockout punch: "Many people are very, very concerned with children in India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion, which brings people to such blindness."

What? Abortion destroys peace and causes blindness toward the sick, the hungry and the naked? Abortion leads to wars between nations?

Of course it does, if life is regarded so lightly and its disposal becomes so trivial, so clinical and so easy. Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion fl6iirishes? Why agonise about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras?

Mother Teresa delivered her address without rhetorical flourishes. She never raised her voice or pounded the lectern. Her power was in her words and the selfless life she has led. Even President Clinton, in his remarks that followed, acknowledged she was beyond criticism because of the life she has lived in service to others.

At the end, she pleaded for pregnant women who don’t want their children to give them to her: "I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child."

She said she has placed over 3000 children in adoptive homes from her Calcutta headquarters alone.

She has answered the question, "Who will care for all of these babies if abortion is again outlawed?"

Now the question is whether a woman contemplating abortion wishes to be selfish or selfless, to take life or to give life.

by Carl Thomas, Denver Post. Carl writes for the Los Angles Times Syndicate.

Top of Page

 

by Dr Jack & Barbara Wilke for the Cincinnati Right to Life Bulletin.

The pro-life movement has just lost a man, who arguably may go down in history as the most important, most famous, most influential pro-life leader of all time. Dr Jerome Le Jeune died of lung cancer in Paris on Easter Day. His contributions to the movement are beyond calculation. He first achieved international stature as a geneticist by discovering the chromosomal abnormality of Downs Syndrome. It was he who first unlocked mat secret which has led to all the amazing genetic advances of the last twenty years.

Dr Le Jeune did not abandon his Downs Syndrome patients. He continued for the rest of his life doing basic research on this problem. Not long ago he told your editors that if he was given enough years, he might be able to discover the "cure" for Downs Syndrome. At the time of his death he had two thousand patients with this genetic abnormality under his care. During these ensuing years he had unlocked many secrets of this disease, narrowing the genetic problem down progressively, an essential step in being able to find whatever substance might some day be used to counter its effects. Tragically, he died at age 67 having not yet Achieved that goal.

Le Jeune was an extraordinary person. He was a totally professional scientist staying on the cutting edge of genetics until the day he died. He was the Professor and Head of the Department of Fundamental Genetics of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris for 30 years. His Institute originally had been funded by the French government. When Mitterand’s pro-abortion socialist government came to power, it cut off his funding but could not fire him because he held tenure. Subsequent to this, largely through private donations he was able to continue much of his research. He however, was forbidden to take any time off work, to lecture to pro-life audiences. He did however continue such lecturing by doing it on his own vacation time. In the last fifteen years he and Mrs Le Jeune did not have a vacation as he devoted every vacation day he had to lecturing internationally in his field of genetics.

With his wife Madame Birthe and five children he lived in a quaint, five storied, 16 century home in the shadow of Norte Dame Cathedral in the centre of Paris, an area of the city that he dearly loved. He was a gentle man, very loving, very prayerful and always the scientist.

Dr Le Jeune testified on a number of occasions before the US House and Senate. He is remembered by many for his startlingly effective testimony in Marysville, Tennessee in the case of the frozen embryos. More recently, he testified in the New Jersey case of J.M. vs V.C. bringing solid scientific data to bear on the question of when human life begins.

It seems that in our time it is the fashion to have many people trying to tarnish the image and reputation of national heroes. We can only say, as close personal friends of Dr Le Jeune for twenty years, that any attempt to tarnish his image either personally or professionally will be totally fruitless. This man was a man of towering scientific ability, of deep seated personal and family values, selfless and humble. He had an acute mind, a unique ability to state great truths with utter simplicity and a sense of awe at the mystery of life.

A giant has left us. He has gone to be with his heavenly Father whom he loved so well. We can only be thankful that he was here during these years when our movement needed him so much.

Dr Le Jeune visited Australia several times. His evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation made a deep and lasting impression on those who heard it. As Sir John Carrick said, "He has left us with a wonderful message, a message that many of us treasure".

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive