Recent Poll Results: a Poll Conducted July 6-19 by the Pew Research Center Surveyed 2,003

PRO LIFE NEWS (August 6, 2007)

St. Malachy Council 12540

Humanae Vitae: July 25th marked the 39th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “On the Regulation of Birth.” If you have never done so, or it’s been a while since you’ve done so, I suggest you read this important teaching. In it, Paul VI predicted that artificial birth control would lead to “marital infidelity,” “a general lowering of moral standards,” the reduction of woman to “her being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his (man’s) own desires” and abortion. Considering the explosion of divorce, pornography, abortion and other attacks on human life since 1968 when this encyclical was released, it is almost as if Paul VI was a prophet. You can access this lesson at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.

Washington Pharmacists Fighting Back: Pharmacists in Washington are suing the state government over a law that went into effect in July forcing them to dispense the morning after pill. In April, the Washington state pharmacy board determined that pharmacists can’t get in the way of a patient’s “right” to a prescription. The law would apply even if the pharmacist objects to the drug on the grounds that it could cause an abortion or for other moral or religious reasons. Pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen filed the lawsuit on the heels of a survey by Baraga Interactive that found that 65% of respondents support the right of a pharmacist to decline a prescription order for moral reasons. This survey confirmed a Medscape study in 2005 in which 69% of respondents supported pharmacists’ rights of conscience. Washington joins states such as California and Illinois where the law requires pharmacists to fill any prescription that conforms to state and federal law. Several other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Dakota) have laws explicitly acknowledging the pharmacist’s right to decline orders.

Is Wall Street Finally Wising Up on Embryonic Stem Cell Research? When ES Cell International, a leading embryonic stem cell research facility, discontinued operations recently, former chief executive Alan Colman told Science magazine that investors concluded, “the likelihood of having products in the clinic in the short term was vanishingly small.” This is exactly one of the points that the Pro-Life community has been making in regards to this unethical research—there are no guarantees of any cures coming from it. According to Father Tad Pacholczyk, a prominent bioethicist, “Progress in human embryonic stem cell research has been slow over the past few years, and the proposal to treat sick patients remains largely a speculative endeavor at this moment in time. On the other hand, there are a number of companies that are pursuing and rapidly developing treatments for patients based on adult stem cell applications, and the timeline for these therapies suggest that investors may actually see returns in just a few years, with the added advantage that no fundamental moral lines will have to be crossed to garner a profit.” With Wall Street funding beginning to dry up, is there any question as to why the embryonic stem cell research companies are trying to get their funding from federal tax dollars?

An Ugly Precedent May Just Have Been Set: The first child born to Daniel and Amara Estrada, Aiden, was born with Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, a condition that resulted in a small head, webbed toes, the inability to communicate and the requirement of feeding tubes to receive food and water. When their physician, Dr. Boris Kousseff of the University of South Florida, gave them the go-ahead for a second pregnancy, he failed to warn them of the 25 percent possibility that their second child could have the syndrome as well. When their second child was born with the disease, the Estradas sued Dr. Kousseff, contending that he could have caught the disease with a simple test and given the Estradas the option of killing their child in an abortion, something they definitely would have done according to their lawsuit. A jury recently awarded the Estradas $23.5 million for the so-called “wrongful birth” of their child. Pro-Life organizations are expressing deep concern about this, believing that this lawsuit will encourage more doctors to promote abortion as a solution for parents of unborn children who are potentially physically or mentally handicapped. According to Sheila Hopkins, the director of the Respect Life office at the Florida Catholic Conference, “To call it a wrongful birth seems very odd. Anyone can have children who have challenges….Who are we to decide what’s a ‘wrong’ birth and what’s a ‘right’ birth?”

“If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.” Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, #13