The art of deception has been used in conflicts for centuries. In the epic The Aeneid by Virgil, Greeks used a wooden horse to enter and besiege the city of Troy.
Today, pro-abortion forces are using the Trojan horses of misinformation and scare tactics to fight the passage of Amendment 26, a referendum that will appear on Mississippi's general election ballot on November 8. The measure would amend the state constitution to affirm that personhood begins at conception.
As Election Day approaches, lawyers, pastors, doctors and other pro-life leaders are warning Mississippians that believing the misinformation from the amendment's opponents will result in the continued killing of about 2,000 babies a year through abortion in the state.
That misinformation -- those "myths" -- includes the following:
- Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control
- Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization
- Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother
- Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer
- Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage
Below, a panel of experts responds to the misinformation that is being circulated about Amendment 26. The panel includes:
• Dr. Freda Bush, a board certified OB/GYN practicing at East Lakeland OB/GYN Association in Jackson, Mississippi, and outspoken supporter of Amendment 26
• Steve Crampton, vice president for legal affairs with Liberty Counsel and author of Amendment 26
• Brad Prewitt, executive director of YesOn26.net, an organization promoting the passage of Amendment 26
• Eric Webb, a board certified OB/GYN practicing in Tupelo, Mississippi, in obstetrics and gynecology
• Pat Vaughn, legal counsel for the American Family Association
• Dr. Bob Shearin, retired thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon in Mississippi
Myth: Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control
Bush: Personhood would not ban any contraception. And that's what I understand birth control's principal aim to be: It prevents conception from occurring. Now, the amendment would ban abortifacient pills. That is a pill that will end the life of a baby once it has been conceived. These include RU-486 and Ella because their purpose is to destroy an embryo after fertilization.
Crampton: The initial passage does not touch any right, industry or practice that is currently ongoing. Long term, if it is discovered that one oral contraceptive operates as an abortifacient and kills a living child, then I think it would be appropriate for the legislature to ban the sale of that contraceptive. That is a "some-day" occurrence because, as the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs says, there is no conclusive evidence any oral contraceptive operates in that way right now.
Webb: There are questions, or criteria, that can be objectively applied to discover if [a particular drug] should be considered a contraceptive or an abortifacient. The first of the criteria that must be met is that a woman using the contraceptive must be ovulating. If you have a contraceptive technique that reliably suppresses ovulation, there is no pregnancy, thus no abortion because ovulation must take place before a pregnancy can occur. Therefore, a medication that relies on suppressing ovulation would be considered a contraceptive and not touched by Amendment 26.
The second question that must be asked is whether or not there is a condition caused by the contraception that could plausibly cause a miscarriage if it does not suppress ovulation. For instance, you could use a condom. Condoms don't impair ovulation, but no one expects condoms to cause abortions simply because of how it works. It does not create a situation that would cause an abortion. If a medication allows an egg to be fertilized and then destroys it, it is an abortifacient and would cause the intentional death of an unborn baby. Therefore, it would be banned.
The third part of the criteria in determining whether or not a contraceptive is an abortifacient is the idea that there is already a high spontaneous rate of pregnancy loss. Not all ovulated eggs fertilize and not all fertilized eggs implant or survive to be successful live births. There is a fairly high, naturally occurring wastage rate of embryos. Even implanted pregnancies that are detectable, maybe one in five pregnancies, are going to spontaneously miscarry. If you have a contraceptive technique, it has to demonstrate a miscarriage rate higher than that. So, if there is already 20% fetal loss rate because of the way biology works, you have to demonstrate a particular method of medication is causing an increased rate of lost pregnancies.
The fourth is more of a qualifier. It is that the data you make the previous three assumptions on is reproducible. In this field, there is so much prejudice that you want to be able to confirm someone else's conclusions.
Myth: Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization
Webb: The process of IVF involves two steps, basically. Step one is a woman going through an induction to produce eggs and then a procedure to collect those eggs. This is the most expensive and painful part of the process. It uses expensive medicines and is generally very uncomfortable. The second step is taking those eggs and mingling them in a laboratory setting with a donor's sperm, most of the time it is the husband's.
What fertilizes creates a new person we call an embryo. Within a day or two, doctors will place those embryos into a woman's uterus and give them an opportunity to implant.
Let's say for argument's sake doctors extract 12 eggs. Then they fertilize all those eggs to see what takes so they can have the best quality embryo. Let's say 75% are fertilized after this. Now we are down to nine embryos. Most IVF specialists do not want to transfer all nine at once because that leads to an "Octo-mom" situation. So they look at the best ones, let's say it's three. They then transfer all three because at most, the mother will have triplets and she can handle that. But if they only transfer one egg and it doesn't survive, the cycle in which she can get pregnant is wasted and the couple will have to wait for the next cycle. So now they have transferred three embryos into the mother's uterus and the rest are frozen in liquid nitrogen where they are kept in perpetuity, which can last 200 years. Now, the bottom third, if they do not look like good candidates, they are discarded, washed down the drain.
Prewitt: In the case of my wife and me, we had three eggs. We fertilized all three and implanted them. All three developed heartbeats and God claimed one of those, leaving us with two beautiful boys.
Vaughn: Right now, doctors may implant five eggs, fully intending that you are going to find out which two or three grow best and then cull out the weaker ones. This is killing that baby. Amendment 26 would stop that process in IVF.
Crampton: Ultimately, over time, Amendment 26 will result in additional regulation of IVF. We must keep in mind that men are not angels. James Madison said in the Federalist #51 that, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But we are not angels and neither are doctors. Doctors need some governmental oversight to keep sinful natures under some type of control just like the average citizen. The truth is that, left to our own devices, we will engage in horrific conduct that will harm ourselves and others.
Myth: Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother
Crampton: Legal minds are in two camps. One camp says Amendment 26 will ban abortion as soon as it is passed. The other camp feels there will need for enabling legislation or court opinions.
If we are going to be principled on the issue of life, and there is no excuse for not being so, we must not have any exception for abortion. Just as the Amendment refers to human life that's created even by cloning or in a test tube, that baby is fully alive and fully human. No matter how the conception was brought about or who the father is, that life is entitled to protection under that law. In fact, early in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the courts quickly noted when those who were pro-life said they were for exceptions, they weren't really pro-life. How can you say you will kill a baby if rape or incest caused the impregnation? We cannot punish the child for the sins of the father. So yes, it may cause some short-term hardship, but in the long term, we recognize that God alone is the creator of life.
Shearin: Somehow there has been an implied connection that aborting a child conceived in rape helps the mother. I ask those who propose that idea to show their evidence. Abortion is wrong in any case. I have heard testimony from women who have been beguiled by pro-abortionists for not aborting a child conceived in rape and they feel doubly victimized by that process.
We know incest is a terrible and heinous crime. But an abortion in that circumstance serves the perpetrator. Abortion tends to cover the crime instead of bringing light on that act and helping the mother stop being violated by the incestuous person.
Prewitt: Rape and incest are tragic situations. But in dealing with the crime itself, we shouldn't be morally tone-deaf and somehow think that aborting the product of that crime will bring them healing. The statistics do not lie and the chances of getting pregnant by rape are small. The number of abortions right now caused by rape is even smaller. So we cannot justify the continued abortion of 53 million babies just for that small percentage. We must remember that the child is not the child of the rapist. That is a child of God, made in God's image. He or she is an image bearer of God.
[However] if the life of the mother is truly stake, there is nothing in this amendment that prevents the doctor from saving her life, even if it cuts against the child. I will not say the doctor attends to the mother first. I believe this amendment will cause a doctor to look at both mother and child with a sense of equality. His goal should be to have a viable child and a safe mother. In the case of a tubal or ectopic pregnancy, that is not a viable pregnancy. So unless the mother chooses to have a child, which is not viable and will result in her death as well, the doctor may remove him or her [through abortion]."
Webb: By analogy, let's consider if you are in your house and someone breaks into your house with a gun. You have reason to think they will take your life. That person is an adult, but his personhood does not mean you have to let him kill you. He has rights, you have rights. If you are threatened with deadly force, you are allowed to use equal deadly force to protect yourself. This is called the principal of self-defense. Any mother is allowed to act in her best interest to protect her own life, even if that means costing the life of the developing pregnancy. That would be true for any ectopic pregnancy.
The doctor is also protected by the legal principal of Double Effect -- that is when you do one action, there are two consequences. You intend for a good end, but a bad one comes with it. If you go into a burning building to rescue an unconscious man and break his leg in the process of dragging him out, he can't sue you for breaking his leg. You went into the building with the intent of saving his life. Having done that, you can't be blamed for the unintended consequences of having broken his leg. The same would hold true for a doctor. The doctor doesn't go into the operating room to take out an ectopic pregnancy with the intent to harm the fetus. It is a consequence of the treatment. The intent is to save the mother's life.
Myth: Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer
Shearin: Those who are making incredible statements like this are showing themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing. I would challenge anyone who says this to present an actual case or example. If they could do that, I would ask if we need protective legislation. That could be done quite easily. The truth is that if a mother has a cancer that is likely to take her life, she deserves treatment. Sometimes, that treatment has the unintended consequence of harming or ending the life of another person within the womb. But it is the same basic concept as emergency surgery. It is the same moral consideration.
Likewise, if the baby is lost during the process of treating cancer, that is not a deliberate abortion, therefore Amendment 26 would not affect it. I know several women who went through their pregnancies taking cancer treatments. They are doing fine and so are their children.
Myth: Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage
Bush: Look at the definition of miscarriage and murder. Murder is an intentional taking of another person's life. Amendment 26 says you will respect the life of a person from the beginning to its natural end. In a miscarriage, there is a natural end. No one would criminalize a life with a natural beginning and end. That is an innocent life that had a beginning and ended in a natural way. Murder, on the other hand, such as abortion, is not a natural end to a life.
Vaughn: Amendment 26 is a law that declares a fact. It doesn't name any crimes. And remember, women have had miscarriages in Mississippi from the time the state began, even before 1973 when a baby was declared to not be a person. None of those women were tried for murder. So, in reality, it is going back to old, established law. That is a cruel assertion to make. Proponents of this lie are making a woman who has already miscarried and is bearing the grief and stress of that to face this red herring by saying she could now be criminalized. That is simply cruel. –One News Now
Today, pro-abortion forces are using the Trojan horses of misinformation and scare tactics to fight the passage of Amendment 26, a referendum that will appear on Mississippi's general election ballot on November 8. The measure would amend the state constitution to affirm that personhood begins at conception.
As Election Day approaches, lawyers, pastors, doctors and other pro-life leaders are warning Mississippians that believing the misinformation from the amendment's opponents will result in the continued killing of about 2,000 babies a year through abortion in the state.
That misinformation -- those "myths" -- includes the following:
- Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control
- Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization
- Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother
- Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer
- Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage
Below, a panel of experts responds to the misinformation that is being circulated about Amendment 26. The panel includes:
• Dr. Freda Bush, a board certified OB/GYN practicing at East Lakeland OB/GYN Association in Jackson, Mississippi, and outspoken supporter of Amendment 26
• Steve Crampton, vice president for legal affairs with Liberty Counsel and author of Amendment 26
• Brad Prewitt, executive director of YesOn26.net, an organization promoting the passage of Amendment 26
• Eric Webb, a board certified OB/GYN practicing in Tupelo, Mississippi, in obstetrics and gynecology
• Pat Vaughn, legal counsel for the American Family Association
• Dr. Bob Shearin, retired thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon in Mississippi
Myth: Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control
Bush: Personhood would not ban any contraception. And that's what I understand birth control's principal aim to be: It prevents conception from occurring. Now, the amendment would ban abortifacient pills. That is a pill that will end the life of a baby once it has been conceived. These include RU-486 and Ella because their purpose is to destroy an embryo after fertilization.
Crampton: The initial passage does not touch any right, industry or practice that is currently ongoing. Long term, if it is discovered that one oral contraceptive operates as an abortifacient and kills a living child, then I think it would be appropriate for the legislature to ban the sale of that contraceptive. That is a "some-day" occurrence because, as the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs says, there is no conclusive evidence any oral contraceptive operates in that way right now.
Webb: There are questions, or criteria, that can be objectively applied to discover if [a particular drug] should be considered a contraceptive or an abortifacient. The first of the criteria that must be met is that a woman using the contraceptive must be ovulating. If you have a contraceptive technique that reliably suppresses ovulation, there is no pregnancy, thus no abortion because ovulation must take place before a pregnancy can occur. Therefore, a medication that relies on suppressing ovulation would be considered a contraceptive and not touched by Amendment 26.
The second question that must be asked is whether or not there is a condition caused by the contraception that could plausibly cause a miscarriage if it does not suppress ovulation. For instance, you could use a condom. Condoms don't impair ovulation, but no one expects condoms to cause abortions simply because of how it works. It does not create a situation that would cause an abortion. If a medication allows an egg to be fertilized and then destroys it, it is an abortifacient and would cause the intentional death of an unborn baby. Therefore, it would be banned.
The third part of the criteria in determining whether or not a contraceptive is an abortifacient is the idea that there is already a high spontaneous rate of pregnancy loss. Not all ovulated eggs fertilize and not all fertilized eggs implant or survive to be successful live births. There is a fairly high, naturally occurring wastage rate of embryos. Even implanted pregnancies that are detectable, maybe one in five pregnancies, are going to spontaneously miscarry. If you have a contraceptive technique, it has to demonstrate a miscarriage rate higher than that. So, if there is already 20% fetal loss rate because of the way biology works, you have to demonstrate a particular method of medication is causing an increased rate of lost pregnancies.
The fourth is more of a qualifier. It is that the data you make the previous three assumptions on is reproducible. In this field, there is so much prejudice that you want to be able to confirm someone else's conclusions.
Myth: Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization
Webb: The process of IVF involves two steps, basically. Step one is a woman going through an induction to produce eggs and then a procedure to collect those eggs. This is the most expensive and painful part of the process. It uses expensive medicines and is generally very uncomfortable. The second step is taking those eggs and mingling them in a laboratory setting with a donor's sperm, most of the time it is the husband's.
What fertilizes creates a new person we call an embryo. Within a day or two, doctors will place those embryos into a woman's uterus and give them an opportunity to implant.
Let's say for argument's sake doctors extract 12 eggs. Then they fertilize all those eggs to see what takes so they can have the best quality embryo. Let's say 75% are fertilized after this. Now we are down to nine embryos. Most IVF specialists do not want to transfer all nine at once because that leads to an "Octo-mom" situation. So they look at the best ones, let's say it's three. They then transfer all three because at most, the mother will have triplets and she can handle that. But if they only transfer one egg and it doesn't survive, the cycle in which she can get pregnant is wasted and the couple will have to wait for the next cycle. So now they have transferred three embryos into the mother's uterus and the rest are frozen in liquid nitrogen where they are kept in perpetuity, which can last 200 years. Now, the bottom third, if they do not look like good candidates, they are discarded, washed down the drain.
Prewitt: In the case of my wife and me, we had three eggs. We fertilized all three and implanted them. All three developed heartbeats and God claimed one of those, leaving us with two beautiful boys.
Vaughn: Right now, doctors may implant five eggs, fully intending that you are going to find out which two or three grow best and then cull out the weaker ones. This is killing that baby. Amendment 26 would stop that process in IVF.
Crampton: Ultimately, over time, Amendment 26 will result in additional regulation of IVF. We must keep in mind that men are not angels. James Madison said in the Federalist #51 that, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But we are not angels and neither are doctors. Doctors need some governmental oversight to keep sinful natures under some type of control just like the average citizen. The truth is that, left to our own devices, we will engage in horrific conduct that will harm ourselves and others.
Myth: Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother
Crampton: Legal minds are in two camps. One camp says Amendment 26 will ban abortion as soon as it is passed. The other camp feels there will need for enabling legislation or court opinions.
If we are going to be principled on the issue of life, and there is no excuse for not being so, we must not have any exception for abortion. Just as the Amendment refers to human life that's created even by cloning or in a test tube, that baby is fully alive and fully human. No matter how the conception was brought about or who the father is, that life is entitled to protection under that law. In fact, early in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the courts quickly noted when those who were pro-life said they were for exceptions, they weren't really pro-life. How can you say you will kill a baby if rape or incest caused the impregnation? We cannot punish the child for the sins of the father. So yes, it may cause some short-term hardship, but in the long term, we recognize that God alone is the creator of life.
Shearin: Somehow there has been an implied connection that aborting a child conceived in rape helps the mother. I ask those who propose that idea to show their evidence. Abortion is wrong in any case. I have heard testimony from women who have been beguiled by pro-abortionists for not aborting a child conceived in rape and they feel doubly victimized by that process.
We know incest is a terrible and heinous crime. But an abortion in that circumstance serves the perpetrator. Abortion tends to cover the crime instead of bringing light on that act and helping the mother stop being violated by the incestuous person.
Prewitt: Rape and incest are tragic situations. But in dealing with the crime itself, we shouldn't be morally tone-deaf and somehow think that aborting the product of that crime will bring them healing. The statistics do not lie and the chances of getting pregnant by rape are small. The number of abortions right now caused by rape is even smaller. So we cannot justify the continued abortion of 53 million babies just for that small percentage. We must remember that the child is not the child of the rapist. That is a child of God, made in God's image. He or she is an image bearer of God.
[However] if the life of the mother is truly stake, there is nothing in this amendment that prevents the doctor from saving her life, even if it cuts against the child. I will not say the doctor attends to the mother first. I believe this amendment will cause a doctor to look at both mother and child with a sense of equality. His goal should be to have a viable child and a safe mother. In the case of a tubal or ectopic pregnancy, that is not a viable pregnancy. So unless the mother chooses to have a child, which is not viable and will result in her death as well, the doctor may remove him or her [through abortion]."
Webb: By analogy, let's consider if you are in your house and someone breaks into your house with a gun. You have reason to think they will take your life. That person is an adult, but his personhood does not mean you have to let him kill you. He has rights, you have rights. If you are threatened with deadly force, you are allowed to use equal deadly force to protect yourself. This is called the principal of self-defense. Any mother is allowed to act in her best interest to protect her own life, even if that means costing the life of the developing pregnancy. That would be true for any ectopic pregnancy.
The doctor is also protected by the legal principal of Double Effect -- that is when you do one action, there are two consequences. You intend for a good end, but a bad one comes with it. If you go into a burning building to rescue an unconscious man and break his leg in the process of dragging him out, he can't sue you for breaking his leg. You went into the building with the intent of saving his life. Having done that, you can't be blamed for the unintended consequences of having broken his leg. The same would hold true for a doctor. The doctor doesn't go into the operating room to take out an ectopic pregnancy with the intent to harm the fetus. It is a consequence of the treatment. The intent is to save the mother's life.
Myth: Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer
Shearin: Those who are making incredible statements like this are showing themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing. I would challenge anyone who says this to present an actual case or example. If they could do that, I would ask if we need protective legislation. That could be done quite easily. The truth is that if a mother has a cancer that is likely to take her life, she deserves treatment. Sometimes, that treatment has the unintended consequence of harming or ending the life of another person within the womb. But it is the same basic concept as emergency surgery. It is the same moral consideration.
Likewise, if the baby is lost during the process of treating cancer, that is not a deliberate abortion, therefore Amendment 26 would not affect it. I know several women who went through their pregnancies taking cancer treatments. They are doing fine and so are their children.
Myth: Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage
Bush: Look at the definition of miscarriage and murder. Murder is an intentional taking of another person's life. Amendment 26 says you will respect the life of a person from the beginning to its natural end. In a miscarriage, there is a natural end. No one would criminalize a life with a natural beginning and end. That is an innocent life that had a beginning and ended in a natural way. Murder, on the other hand, such as abortion, is not a natural end to a life.
Vaughn: Amendment 26 is a law that declares a fact. It doesn't name any crimes. And remember, women have had miscarriages in Mississippi from the time the state began, even before 1973 when a baby was declared to not be a person. None of those women were tried for murder. So, in reality, it is going back to old, established law. That is a cruel assertion to make. Proponents of this lie are making a woman who has already miscarried and is bearing the grief and stress of that to face this red herring by saying she could now be criminalized. That is simply cruel. –One News Now
No comments:
Post a Comment