Pro-LIFE NEWS

Vol. 15 No.2 - Winter Edition 1998                                    Print Post Approved - 33L385/00042

Contents:

- Jonathan Agape Oh
- ... and Elizabeth Piercy
- Editorial
- It was only a matter of time
- Pro Life Answers
- Freedom of Speech?
- Foetal Model Set for the Solomon Islands
- World View

The Autumn Edition of Pro-Life News featured a front page photograph of Dr Steve Oh and his wife Dr Sara Oh, who was thea36 weeks pregnant. The Ohs were described as the "more enduring Image of the West Australian Abortion Debate". Their baby was known to have a condition incompatible with life. The Ohs made a powerful plea to the West Australian Parliament to resist Labor MP Cheryl Davenport’s attempts to remove the legal protection of babies still in their mother’s wombs. Jonathan Agape Oh was born on Monday April13 and died at birth. His body was laid to rest on Friday April 17.

The day after the funeral, The West Australian published the following letter from Steve and Sara:

Jonathan, which means God has given us a son, did not die in vain. In the short time he lived he awakened his parents’ conscience to the plight of the unborn child and inspired them to speak out for those who could not.

He fought against the odds to stay alive until full term. Most babies like him die in the womb by abortion or naturally.

His was not to be a normal life because he came for a purpose. He came at a time when people were beginning to lose their sense of what is right and wrong, when their hearts were being hardened by selfishness, when many law makers who are given the mandate by God and man to protect and serve society have deserted its most defenceless members.

He came to remind us that life is precious, that life is worth respecting, that no matter how people think of others as ugly and useless in their own distorted minds, they are always beautiful to those who look at them through the eyes of love.

Jonathan was a beautiful baby. But for a slightly curled foot he was almost perfect. It was the unseen - his brain and damaged heart - that refused him life. His heart was beating perfectly until the last moment. I (Steve) saw his head emerge, his lips move for an instant and then he was gone. Perhaps this served as an ironic reminder to those who have normal brains and hearts yet are dead in their feelings and concern for others.

We would have preferred no publicity, but that was impossible. Jonathan led us into the war against abortion. As we gazed at his ultrasound image, it suddenly struck us that people were killing what we so earnestly wanted to save. We would have willingly traded some part of ourselves if only Jonathan had a chance to live. But from the beginning he did not. His was a death sentence. But 9,000 other WA unborn children who die needlessly each year are pink and healthy.

Top of Page

Meanwhile, here in Victoria, a little girl, Elizabeth Anne Piercy, only 31 weeks on this earth, all but one hour of that time, in her mother’s womb, was having a powerful impact on our struggle to defend human life against abortion and euthanasia. It was as if, from her very beginning, she joined in with her parents, her grandparents, aunts and uncles in their enthusiastic efforts to save babies from abortion and the vulnerable from euthanasia.

Elizabeth Anne was the first child for Drs Matthew and Eloise Piercy, a first grandchild for both grandparents.

Like Jonathan Agape Oh, she also had several conditions, which combined together, were incompatible with life. Her parents learned this on an ultrasound performed to check the position of the placenta. Elizabeth Anne’s existence was made known to us all by a photograph of her mother, Eloise, in the Herald-Sun newspaper May 5, supported by expressions of love and encouragement in two accompanying letters to the editor. A photograph of her at birth along with a beautiful one of her parents, appeared in the same paper on June 1. She was twice spoken of on Melbourne s prime radio 3AW talk-back program in a plea against partial birth abortions. Her mother wrote thankfully of her life and time in the world in The Age newspaper that same day. Lovingly and courageously her parents rejected the opportunity of ending Elizabeth’s life in the womb. That such an offer is even made to parents is quite evil.

We realise just how much medical scientists have perverted otherwise good technology, initially developed to save and treat problems in the womb. It is easy to appreciate just how frighted young parents in a similar situation to Elizabeth Anne’s parents, succumb to the subtle offers of todays obstetricians, to have the lives of their handicapped children terminated before they are born. Some parents actually don’t know that it is abortion that is being offered, dressed up as it is as an "induction" or" bringing on the birth".

I had been a guest at Elizabeth Anne’s parents very happy wedding, one sunny December 1996 morning. I went to her funeral. There was much to reflect on as I sat in the large congregation who had come to acknowledge Elizabeth Anne and accord her the respect that was her due. It occurred to me we were not only consoling her parents and respecting her. More than anything, we were thanking her for what her very being had come to symbolise. For 31 weeks Elizabeth Anne had the loving protection of her mother’s womb. For one morning she had our individual attention to reflect on the message she had given forth.

The eulogy delivered at Elizabeth Anne’s funeral, by a friend of her parents, strengthened her message. Lawrence Harsch told us of his and his wife’s empathy with Matthew and Eloise. Their little daughter, Sarah, was also born severely handicapped. She is 7 years old now and has never spoken. The easy way out for them would have been abortion. The right way was to choose life for her. In doing so they had experienced great joy in her very being. Like Elizabeth Anne, Sarah had made an incredible impact for life. Few of us can say we have actually saved a life, but their Sarah has. Unbeknown to Sarah, at a children’s birthday party, where she alone was handicapped, the mother of another child was contemplating abortion, having been told the child she was carrying was severely handicapped. When this mother saw Sarah’s mother tending to her, she thought, "If she can do it, so can I". For Sarah’s next birthday, she received a gift of an expensive bracelet from this woman, along with the explanation that, because of Sarah, she had resisted the temptation to have an abortion and chose life for her baby. Contrary to the doctor’s predictions, her baby was perfectly normal.

What children! Jonathan Agape Oh, Elizabeth Anne Piercy and Sarah Harsch.

What little activists for life! What an inspirational force they form. May we never let them down.

Editor

Top of Page

Controversial late abortion method "safe" were the words the Melbourne Age newspaper used on April 29 to report the findings of the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria on the clinical, ethical and legal issues associated with late-term abortions. The investigation was in response to a request from the Health Minister Mr Rob Knowles, following the public outcry against Queensland abortionist Dr David Grundmann setting up an abortuary, catering for partial birth abortions in Croydon. Safe? For whom? Partial birth abortion is fatal for one of the two "patients".

The only consoling thought to come into my head when reading this headline was, "Thank goodness for Parliament. We can all appeal to a higher authority than such a timid, unrepresentative group as the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria

Nonetheless, a public pronouncement from a Board of Medical Practitioners remains deeply disturbing. It runs parallel to another dark time, earlier this century. It made me reach for my copy of Professor William Brennan’s 1983 book "The Abortion Holocaust Todays Final Solution". One critic said of this book "Just as German medicine made the Nazi holocaust possible, todays medicine has created a uniquely contemporary holocaust".

Chapter after chapter Professor Brennan compares the Jewish holocaust with today’s abortion holocaust, detailing how each was "achieved". In chapter 11, The Medicalisation of Annihilation, he writes, "The perversion of medicine in the service of killing is accompanied by a redefinition of barbaric acts as valid medical procedures. An astounding bit of alchemy

sets in whereby the physician healer not only becomes a killer, but in the process of this most radical of transformations destruction loses its most repulsive features and becomes incorporated into the fabric of respectable medical practice. Doctors can then continue to view themselves as healers while perpetrating destruction on a massive scale".

The only way we can guarantee the safety of unborn children from such doctors, is to appeal to our Parliamentary leaders. If you haven’t already written, please write today to Premier Jeff Kennett, Attorney-General Jan Wade, Health Minister Rob Knowles, all C/o Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne, urging a ban on partial birth abortions in private and public hospitals, and no Western Australian style abortions for Victoria.

Denise Cameron

Top of Page

 

Incredibly, but not surprisingly infanticide Is now being seriously discussed in the United States of America.

The Winter edition of Human Life Review published six essays on infanticide following a ghoulish New York

Times Magazine article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the Massachusetts institute of

Technology. We have Included one such essay, written In shook.

Sometimes I have to pinch myself and ask what country I’m living in. Is this really the end of the 20th century? With all the wisdom of the ages to draw upon, how have we become so lost?

The last time I got this feeling was after reading a ghoulish, post Halloween New York Times Magazine article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I’m still recovering from the shock. And I’m amazed that there hasn’t been, in the weeks following the November 2 publication of this piece in the nation’s newspaper of record, more outspoken reaction.

Pinker’s contention is that infanticide is not necessarily wrong. That’s right. You heard me correctly. An MIT scholar, writing in the New York Times, is advocating that we open our minds to the legalisation of child sacrifice here in America.

"To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," he mice do." writes. Babies aren’t really people, he says, because they don’t have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savour plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there’s the rub: Our immature neonates don’t possess these traits any more than mice do."

Thus, Pinker argues that those who kill a newborn should not be punished as severely as those who kill older children. I’m not joking.

"Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates (infants) are not persons, and thus neo-naticide (killing and infant) should not be classified as murder," he explains.

So what are the ramifications of such a position - such as realisation? Pinker thinks we should move as a society toward a moral code in which, "A new mother will first coolly assess the infant and her situation," and then decide whether the baby lives or dies."

Now, is Pinker a lone crackpot the New York Times found under some rock simply to provoke controversy? Not at all. He’s got allies. He is at the cutting edge of a movement. His position is an illustration of the slippery slope upon which the entire pro-abortion philosophy rests ever so precariously.

Michael Tooley, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado, also argues in favour of infanticide. He thinks there should be "some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted." Others in this school of thought say parents should be able to kill their children "up to the time the (baby) learns to use certain expressions."

Tooley would particularly target those children "suffering from severe physical, emotional, or intellectual handicaps." Sacrificing such babies on the altar of expediency would mean the happiness of society could be significantly and justifiably increased.

Remember how happy we were all going to be when we eliminated unwanted children through abortion? A panacea was on the horizon, we were told. Utopia was around the corner. Poverty would be eliminated.

Is it any wonder we have kids ditching babies in high school restrooms when moral midgets like Tooley and Pinker are laying an intellectual and philosophical groundwork for them as pioneers?

But what’s this all about, anyway?

Steven Pinker Why is the New York Times providing a platform for such a bizarre point of view? And why now? I’ll tell you why.

A debate about abortion has been raging in the United States for more than 25 years. Until very recently, the pro-abortion side argued that we really didn’t know if it was a life inside that womb. It was an intellectually and scientifically bankrupt claim when it was first made, but recently - thanks to ultrasound and other neonatal technology, it has become a total sham.

So the ground shifted. The goal remained the same - the extinction of unwanted human life. But a new argument was needed - particularly with tough debates ahead such as late-term partial-birth abortions.

I don’t believe this is a debate Pinker, Tooley, et al. expect to win in the next six months. Instead, they are laying the foundation for a new pro-death social movement in the future. They are, like their pro-abortion predecessors, chipping away at the nation’s moral standards. After enough doubts have been raised in people’s minds, a court case will follow. And just like that, children’s inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be null and void.

Pay attention. The debate is being waged now. The seeds of a movement are being planted. Once again, the value of life is about to be reduced. Am I the only one fearful for the fate of my nation and world if we continue down this road?

Steven Pinker

Top of Page

They are essential to having equal rights with men"

Early feminists were pro-life, not prochoice

Susan B Anthony was a radical feminist, standing for women at a time when they were not even allowed to vote. She referred to abortion as "child murder" and viewed it as a means of exploiting both women and children:

I deplore the horrible crime of child murder ... No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed ... but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.

Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, made this claim:

"When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged".

Another leading feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, said this about abortion: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish".

These women were later followed by a new breed of feminists. Most prominent of these was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who advocated abortion as a means of sexual freedom, birth control and eugenics.

Sanger and others who followed her tried to tie the abortion agenda to the legitimate issues of women’s rights. The same thing happened in the sixties. Dr Bernard Nathanson says he and his fellow abortion-rights strategists deliberately linked the abortion issue to the women s issue so it could be furthered not on its own merits but on the merits of women’s rights. Because of the legitimate concerns for women’s rights, the abortion issue was pulled along on its coat-tails.

Early feminists such as Susan B Anthony would have been appalled and angered to think that abortion - which they deplored as the killing of innocent children - would one day be linked in people’s minds with the cause of women’s rights!

Some active feminists still vigorously oppose abortion.

Alice Paul drafted the original version of the Equal Rights Amendment. She also referred to abortion as "the ultimate exploitation of women

Feminists for Life of America (FFL) was started in the early 1970s. FFL supported the Equal Rights Amendment and has laboured for other feminist goals, but is adamantly prolife. One FFL member, Mary Ann Schaefer, has labelled the attempt to marry feminism to abortion as "terrorist feminism". In her words, it forces the feminist to be "willing to kill for the cause you believe in".

Both men and women should be free to affirm certain platforms of the feminist movement without affirming others. One may support some or most feminist ideals, while wholeheartedly opposing abortion because it kills children.

Women’s rights are not Inherently linked to

the right to abortion.

Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), says: "We have to remind people that abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s ... right to participate fully in the social and political life of society". But a pregnant woman can fully participate in society. And if she can’t, the solution is changing society, not killing babies. (Notice that abortion is called "the guarantor" of women’s rights. Are there no women’s rights unless there is license to kill unborn children?)

"How can women achieve equality without control of their reproductive lives?" Feminists for Life responds:

How can women ever lose second-class status as long as they are seen as requiring surgery in order to avoid it? The premise of the question is the premise of male domination throughout the millennia - that it was nature which made men superior and women inferior. Medical technology is offered as a solution to achieve equality; but the premise is wrong ... It’s an insult to women to say women must change their biology in order to fit into society.

The basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to women.

Rosemary Bottcher, an analytical chemist and environmentalist, wrote an essay titled, "Feminism: Bewitched by Abortion". Bottcher thinks women are much different than the way the feminist movement portrays them. If women can’t handle the stress and pressures of pregnancy, Bottcher wonders how they could ever handle the stress and pressures of the presidency. Here is the crux of her argument, as summarised by D James Kennedy:

A man is expected to be mature when he fathers a child; he is expected to endure inconvenience and hardship, if necessary, to provide the means to bring up and go through college, even if this requires taking an extra job or working late at night. He is expected to do this because he is supposedly mature.

But the woman, according to feminists, is so selfish, immature, irrational and hysterical that she cannot stand the fact of nine months of inconvenience in order to bring life to another person or to bring happiness, perhaps, to some other family who might adopt that child.

Top of Page

Joe Scheidler Lawsuit: Prior to this month’s civil suit by the National Organisation of (Some) Women against Mr Joe Scheidler NOW’s phalanx of pro-death lawyers asked the federal judge to rule that he and his attorneys should be barred from saying the following words in the courtroom. These words included: kill, killer, baby killers, murder, murderer, fetus, deathscort (abortion mill escorts), genocide, holocaust, abortuary, abortion, any reference to God or deity, religious beliefs in any form, Hitler, Nazi, manslaughter, childslaughter, rights of the unborn, death mill, rescuer, slaughter, slaying, slay, destroy, destruction, extermination, bloodletting, sacrifice, martyrdom, execution, homicide, infanticide, aborticide, fetuscide, butcher, butchery, carnage, massacre, bloodbath, decimation, mass destruction, Cain, assassin, cutthroat. The lawsuit accuses Mr Scheidler of racketeering. He has replied, "If it’s a racket to dedicate your life to saving babies from abortion through peaceful, effective means, then I plead guilty. But considering of our gut-wrenching financial struggles over the years, I can say it’s not a very lucrative racket." The NOW’s novel theory of "racketeering" is so slippery, it could have been applied to Martin Luther King. As Mr Scheidler said, "When King sat down at white only lunch counters, he probably had no idea he was a racketeer. Neither did I when I marched with Dr King in the spring of 1965 in Montgomery, Atlanta."

Prolifers Lose First Round: A jury in a federal district court in Chicago held three pro-life leaders to be liable under the federal RICO law. In this, the first of its kind class action civil law suit by the National Organisation of (Some) Women and abortion businesses, Mr Joseph Scheidler and two colleagues were held to be "racketeers". Under the rules set down by the jurors, the verdict was no surprise. They held that this was a violent conspiracy to exhort abortion clinics and run their business. Strangely, the defendants were held liable even though the jury did not find that they themselves had committed any violent acts.

Robert Blakely, the law professor who drafted the original statute, was extremely critical of the verdict: "This ruling makes the Boston Tea Party a RICO. NOW is trying to stop all demonstrations against abortion." The Chicago Sun Times, which has a consistent pro-abortion editorial stand, called this "a bitter harvest of a vaguely worded racketeering law which could smother First Amendment rights of speech and protest. This law," it said, "designed

to fight organised crime and drug dealers, may now silence social and political movements. It is a threat to every protest movement, shoestring or well heeled, unpopular or popular, conservative or liberal ... This ruling has more to do with free speech than the right to an abortion. There were and are specific laws against blockading abortion clinics, and they ought to be enforced, but if there had been a RICO law on the books back then, we can only wonder about the course of the civil rights movement and even the women’s movement."

Defence attorneys will appeal the case.

Dr Wilike Testifies: Dr Jack Willke was on the stand in defence of Mr Scheidler and the prolifers for two days. He noted the comment by Mr Scheidler after the verdict. Scheidler said: "The judge made it impossible for us to have a fair trial. He would not allow us to present our evidence. He would not allow us to counter any of the lies and misstatements of our opponents. We could not mention any of the babies we have saved or the women who have converted. He would not allow any Catholics or prolifers on the jury. His final instruction to the jury was to find us guilty." Dr Willke also noted the comments by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago who stated: "The Archdiocese of Chicago will consider joining in the appeal of the decision by filing a friend of the court brief The decision in this case effectively equates freedom of speech with racketeering. The decision very likely will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and religion for those who oppose the violence of abortion. If similar court decisions had been used to stop the organised sit-ins at lunch counters throughout the south in the 60’s, there would have been no civil rights movement. I will continue to pray for the defendants in this case who are enduring tremendous adversity to uphold the principle of freedom of speech for all Americans. In spite of the rulings in this case, I reaffirm the Archdiocese’s support for prayerful non-violent witness against the injustice and violence of abortion."

Dr Willke stated that his testimony was severely restricted, almost routinely being forbidden by the judge to adequately answer the prosecution’s questions. His hope is that the Federal Appeals Court will throw out the entire case and censure the judge who he says, "simply did not allow a fair trial".

Top of Page

In our Autumn Newsletter we appealed for a donation of $120 to cover the cost of providing Catholic Lay Missionary Josephine Barnes with a set of Foetal Models to use as a teaching aid amongst women and young students in the Solomon Islands.

As a result of the generosity of Mr & Mrs Laurie Jacobs and their family from Albury, Josephine will get her Foetal Models. Pro-Life Victoria thanks the Jacobs family for their long and generous support for such similar projects.

Meanwhile, we have had another plaintive appeal from a Catholic priest in Coimbatone, Southern India, who says, "I am fighting against abortion here. Please help us. Please kindly put me on your mailing list and send me your beautiful publications, old books, audio and video tapes."

We have sent him a set of our Foetal Models, trusting another prolifer will be as generous as have been the Jacobs family.

Top of Page

Puerto Rico - ProLife: In the last 17 years, the number of abortionists operating in Puerto Rico has dropped from 51 to 9. The number of abortion facilities has declined from 43 to 9. The total number of abortions, which was 55,000, is now 8,000. Association President Carlos Sanchez and others have led this successful campaign.

from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati Newsletter, April1998.

USA - Abortion for Rape? Should abortion be allowed if it results from forcible rape? The simple, most direct answer is, "should we kill an innocent baby for the crime of the father?" Another answer is, "we don’t punish other criminals by killing their children, do we? Why in this case?" Finally, there is an answer in the Bible. Deuteronomy 24:16, says: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children. Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.The second victim, the mother in most cases, does not want to kill the baby. She needs our compassionate and continuing help and encouragement.

from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati Newsletter, April 1998.

Netherlands - Infanticide: On 13 September 1997, the Lancet published comments on the topic of infanticide in the Netherlands (page 816-817). "While all neonatologists and general paediatricians felt that approval of parents was important in the decision to administer a drug with the explicit intention of ending an infant’s life, 23% of general paediatricians felt that it ‘was conceivable to administer such a drug without the approval of parents.’"

from international Right to Life Federation NewsIetter, February/March 1998.

Poland - Babies Safe Again: The final ruling by Poland’s constitutional Tribunal definitely scraps the 1996 law passed by their Socialistic parliament which had once again allowed abortions in the first three months. The Tribunal had ruled in May that the 1996 law violated the Polish Constitution’s right-to-life provision. It had remained in effect for a six month grace period. When the Solidarity controlled parliament failed the two thirds vote needed to overrule the court, Poland returned to its 1993 law. This allows abortions only for a number of extreme reasons. Polish babies are again protected. We salute our friends in Poland.

from international Right to Life Federation NewsIetter, February/March 1998.

USA - School Based Sex Clinics: An interesting report has been published in the Journal of Adolescent Health. It evaluated 24 school based health (sex) clinics on the "health" issues of sexual activity, contraceptive use, pregnancies and birthrates. The number of students involved was over 3,000. We recall that when these clinics were created, they claimed they would be able to reduce sexual activity and reduce pregnancy rates by increasing the knowledge of contraceptive methods. This report contradicts these initial claims. It reported that there was an increase in each of the following. There was greater knowledge of contraceptive methods. There was a higher sexual activity rate. There were higher pregnancy rates.

from Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati Newsletter, May 1998.

Germany - Abortion Survivor: The London Telegraph reports on a 25 week baby (32 cm). The child, apparently with Down’s Syndrome, was an attempted abortion but born alive. Doctors are said to have left it for ten hours after birth wrapped in a blanket "under observation", giving no help. The doctors then decided to give medical assistance. It is possible that the child has received serious damage. The implication of this has "reignited a passionate debate, with calls for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks."

from international Right to Life Federation Newsletter, February/March 1998.

Cuba - A Surprise: On 25 February 1998, Cuban President Fidel Castro condemned the use of abortion as a form of birth control. His statement came after Pope John Paul’s first visit to Cuba a month earlier. While in Cuba, the Pope had repeatedly condemned induced abortion. Abortion has been widely and easily available to Cuba’s women during Castro’s entire reign. Exact figures are not available, but it has been assumed that Cuba has one of the higher abortion rates in the world. Castro stated: "Abortion should not be used as an anti-birth method." - stating that it was a public health hazard and that it was his duty as a "revolutionary and public figure" to oppose abortion. This was part of a speech given after being re-elected unanimously for another five year term as president by the 595 deputies of the Cuban National Assembly.

from international Right to Life Federation Newsletter, February/March 1998.

Top of Page

Back to newsletter archive