Just as important as the lives of our youngest unborn citizens also are the lives of our elderly and severely disabled. Innocent human life must be protected from fertilization until natural death. End of life issues have been in the media as the world watches the case of Terri Schiavo in Florida. Terri emerged from her coma several years ago, but she relies on a feeding tube for sustenance. Without this tube, she would, of course, die. As her husband fights to remove this tube, her parents are fighting to keep her alive. Also back in the spotlight is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act; finally, the law recognizes the brutality of this procedure. Additionally, the dangers of another abortion procedure, RU 486, are manifesting. After the death of a young lady in California, Rep. Jim DeMint said he will sponsor a bill that would suspend the Federal Drug Administration’s approval of the dangerous abortion pill. The Pro-Life movement faces many different battles and must continue to work diligently for the dignity of all innocent human persons.
Please read this issue of the Pro-Life Update carefully to understand some of the challenges we now face and how you, as a Pro-Life activist, can help advance the Culture of Life. Please share this information with your family, friends and church congregations. Make copies. Spread the news.
Terri Schiavo’s Struggle for Life
Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who emerged from a coma about four years ago, still relies on a feeding tube for nourishment. When she awoke, her parents were able to spoon-feed her and nurture her towards good health. She was responding to them both verbally and physically. Her husband then moved Terri to a hospice facility that inserted a feeding tube. Many people suspect his intentions. At the hospice facility, Terri’s parents were only allowed to see her during supervised visits. In fact, a priest ministering to Terri and her family was forbidden to give Terri communion because doing so would have violated the restraining order put in place by Terri’s husband.
Terri’s husband, who now has another girlfriend, a child by her, and another child in utero, is fighting with medical personnel and the courts to have Terri’s feeding tube removed. This debate, predictably twisted by most news outlets, centers on whether Terri’s husband should be able to end her life, despite her parents’ desire and willingness to care for her and their claim that Terri would not have wanted to be euthanized. Terri’s case also raises questions regarding the ethical permissibility of removing life-sustaining nutrition and hydration.
As a general principle, nutrition and hydration should almost never be considered extraordinary care; any ill person should be fed and given water. Nutrition and hydration do not generally constitute extraordinary means of medical treatment but rather are fundamental necessities for comfort care due all persons.
Currently, Terri’s fate lies within the courts. Terri’s husband was successful in having her feeding tube removed; however, the Florida legislature passed a bill empowering Governor Jeb Bush to issue a one-time stay to prevent the withholding of nutrition and hydration from a patient. Governor Bush did order that Terri’s feeding tube be replaced. This bill—and Terri’s life-sustaining feeding tube—are now being challenged in the courts. The outcome of Terri’s case will have worldwide repercussions for the treatment (or denial thereof) of our infirm and elderly. Please pray that Terri’s life is preserved and that we do not usher in again the Nazi practice of eliminating “the useless eaters.” If you would like more information or would like to support Terri and her family, please contact: Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, 4615 Gulf Blvd #104-103, St. Petersburg Beach, FL 33706, www.terrisfight.org.
President Bush Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
After eight years of unsuccessful attempts to pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the law finally passed in both the House and Senate. I was honored and proud to be invited and to attend the landmark occasion of our President signing this bill. As expected, however, pro-abortion organizations have successfully held this ban up in the courts, and three lawsuits were filed by pro-aborts before the President had even signed the bill.
The Pro-Life movement has been working diligently to ban this grotesque procedure, while the pro-abortion movement cannot conceive of outlawing or limiting any type of abortion procedure. After learning that President Bush was to sign the bill, Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said, “Any shred of doubt that this is the most anti-choice president this country has ever had has been convincingly erased.”
As he was signing the bill, President Bush stated, “For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” He continued: “The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome. The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.”
Rep. Jim DeMint to Introduce RU 486 Ban
After the death of teen Holly Patterson of California, U.S. Representative Jim DeMint (R-SC) pledged to carry a bill that would suspend the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the use of RU 486, also called mifepristone, pending an audit by the congressional General Accounting Office.
Under the pro-abortion Clinton administration, the FDA rushed approval of the RU 486 abortion drug in 2000 for women who are no more than seven weeks pregnant. Pro-Life advocates worried that thorough and proper testing had not been conducted, risking unprecedented and unpredictable medical problems for women (and of course their unborn children). Unfortunately, with Holly’s death, their fears have been proved true.
Holly’s father, Monty Patterson, was shocked at her death. "The medical community treats this as a simple pill you take, as if you're getting rid of a headache," Mr. Patterson told the San Francisco Chronicle. “The procedure, the follow-ups, it's all too lackadaisical. The girl gets a pill. Then she's sent home to do the rest on her own. There are just too many things that can go wrong.” Sadly, something went wrong with his daughter.
"This is all about the health of women and getting women the right information about a drug that is clearly dangerous," DeMint said. He will call his law Holly’s Law, after 18-year-old Holly, who died on September 17, 2003.
