Life Insight

A Publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
Vol. 13, No. 2 March/April 2002
In This Issue...

Dear Reader:

Here's a problem the pro-life community faces with depressing regularity:

Falsehood flies and the truth comes lingering after; so that when men come to be undeceived it is too late; the jest is over and the tale has had its effect.
– Jonathan Swift
"Reproductive rights" groups pour millions of dollars into marketing and circulating the faux-science studies that seem to so impress journalists. Thus the media and general public become convinced that partial-birth abortion is not all that bad and sometimes even necessary to preserve a mother's life or health; that abortion carries virtually no physical, emotional, or spiritual consequences; that condoms reliably protect against STDs; that abstinence doesn't work, but more explicit sex ed and more contraceptive access will surely reduce teen pregnancies; and that Science, which has nearly conquered the only impediment to free love and women's liberation – i.e., fertility – will also cure disability and disease if only researchers are given free rein to create and destroy human embryos.

Fortunately, a few skeptical reporters and opinion writers continue to pursue the facts with open minds. Unfortunately, they do not usually represent the major media outlets. These reporters seek out the facts, expose falsehoods and correct errors, and the truth takes root and spreads across the landscape of small-market papers and radio talk shows. Eventually it emerges in the nation's major papers although it's labeled only as "a competing claim" alongside the still copious distortions.

This phenomenon currently can be seen with respect to:

  • the safety of RU-486,

  • the merits of human embryonic stem cell research and cloning

  • the nature of "emergency contraception,"

  • the much increased risks following abortion of – emotional distress, suicide, breast cancer, and premature birth of subsequent children.
In this issue we will look at the latest disinformation and/or the slowly emerging truth about RU-486, cloning, and "emergency contraception."


More Deaths and Hospital Stays from RU-486

Information has recently come to light concerning "adverse events" associated with RU-486.

Cybercast News Service (CNS) broke the story in late February, based on the FDA's response to a CNS Freedom of Information Act request. Mainstream papers ignored the bad news until April 18, when the FDA and Danco Laboratories (U.S. distributor of RU-486) issued new safety warnings.

We now learn that a woman who died from septic shock on September 1, 2001 – nine days after taking RU-486 in Canadian drug trials (see www.ru486facts.org) – was not the only recent fatality associated with the drug. Two additional deaths have been associated with RU-486/misoprostol. One resulted from an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy; the other, a heart attack in a 21-year old woman with no history of heart problems.

Another patient's ectopic pregnancy was detected after taking the drugs, but fortunately in time to save her life with surgery.

Six additional women were reported to have experienced hemorrhaging so severe they required hospitalization. Serious allergic reactions also were reported in 3 women.

Danco and the FDA hastened to deny any link between the RU-486/misoprostol drug regimen and these adverse events.

RU-486 does not cause ectopic pregnancy, they explained. Of course that's true, but the side effects of RU-486/misoprostol can mask the symptoms of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy – mainly severe abdominal pain and bleeding – so that a woman may not recognize the danger she's in and seek emergency surgery immediately. About 2% of pregnancies are ectopic, and RU-486 is ineffective in aborting an ectopic pregnancy. Unless a woman seeks immediate care, she and her child may die. This is why the pro-life community objected to relaxed FDA regulations that failed to mandate using ultrasonography to rule out ectopic pregnancy, the protocol in other countries where RU-486 is available. Danco and the abortion lobby convinced the FDA to drop this requirement, perhaps because it would have added about $250-300 to the cost of RU-486 abortions.

Danco and the FDA insist that the drugs do not cause infection. True, but when they fail (8% of the time even within the prescribed 7 weeks since the last menstrual period), serious infection can be expected. The report of adverse events includes a 15-year-old patient who survived a "Life-Threatening Hospitalization." The child's symptoms included abdominal pain, adult respiratory distress syndrome, lung infiltration, pelvic pain, purulence, and septic thrombophlebitis. All this adds up to a massive, life-threatening infection.

One effect of the RU-486/misoprostol combination is to suppress the immune system. In a World Health Organization (WHO) study, 30% of women who had incomplete RU-486 abortions developed pelvic/genital tract infections due to immune system suppression. The WHO study calls for women to receive antibiotics for six weeks following an RU-486 abortion. Adverse Event Reports included a dozen "failed" or incomplete abortions, with the outcome described as "required intervention to prevent permanent impairment/damage."

The FDA-approved letter dated April 19 which Danco sent to doctors warns of the risks of ectopic pregnancy and systemic bacterial infections, and informs them of the 21-year old heart attack victim. But it comes far too late for the unfortunate subjects of these reports.

Cloning Follies Continue

Human cloning and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) are among the most grave and far-reaching concerns ever presented to Congress. Bioethicist Nigel Cameron describes the issue this way:

[W]hether we should use members of our own kind ... for a purpose that is other than the good of the individual concerned; whether we should sanction the use of ourselves, in however early a form, as experimental subjects whose final end is destruction.
(www.stemcellresearch.org/testimonies/cameron2.htm)

Despite its gravity, the drama, characters and plot twists of the cloning debate have all the hallmarks of opera buffa. The only thing missing is a Rossini-inspired score.

Periodically appearing in news stories on cloning are a space cadet who calls himself Raël, a flamboyant "andrologist" (Panayiotis Zavos), and a defiant Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori, M.D. who boasts of his plan to bring the first cloned human to birth. Antinori stunned the world in March by announcing that a baby in his cloning program had reached 8 weeks' gestation and counting. But skepticism may be in order here. To date, only one (unpublished) scientist has reportedly succeeded in "growing" cloned human embryos to the blastocyst stage to harvest their stem cells – professor Lu Guangxiu of China. (K. Leggett and A. Regalado, "As West Mulls Ethics, China Forges Ahead in Stem-Cell Research," Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2002, A1).

Celebrity cameos have been provided by 40 Nobel laureates, Michael J. Fox, Mary Tyler Moore and Christopher Reeve, although lately Mr. Reeve seems to have assumed the role of leading man as he reprises Congressional appearances.

A number of groups which raise awareness and research funds for specific diseases (e.g., Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Parkinson's Action Network) have taken active roles. Their lobbyists, somewhat like a Greek chorus, supply the continuous refrain: No cures without human embryonic stem cell research; no stem cell therapies without cloning; if Congress bans all cloning, millions will suffer and die needlessly.

A new ad paid for by the pro-cloning Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research echoes this theme. The ad shows a child in a walker and says: "Her Dream Is To Walk Again. Her Nightmare Is That Politicians Will Stand In Her Way." But the real villains of the story may be the mild-mannered scientists and biotech CEOs who have been working around the clock to produce any therapeutic success in nonhuman subjects to justify the continued pursuit of human ESCR and cloning.

Richard Doerflinger of the Bishops' Pro-life Secretariat has summarized their progress in this memorable way: "Twenty-five years of research in mouse embryonic stem cells have produced chiefly a great many dead mice; embryo cloning has produced no therapies even in animals."

This puts Senate Majority Leader Daschle in a bind. The Senate chamber is too closely split, and he needs to point to a breakthrough in ESCR – preferably one that didn't already occur two years ago, with even better results, using adult stem cells or cord blood. He can only postpone the Senate's debate and vote on this issue so many times (three so far, but who's counting). But at the current rate of progress in ESCR, the Antinori child-clone may be entering grade school before Senator Daschle's wish comes true.

In the meantime, evidence continues to mount of therapeutic successes with adult and cord blood stem cells and alternative therapies. A few very recent findings:

  • A San Clemente, California man suffering from Parkinson's received a transplant of his own adult neural stem cells. By the end of the first year, his symptoms were relieved by 83%. (American Health Line, April 10, 2002)

  • 26 patients received their own adult blood stem cells to treat severe Multiple Sclerosis after conventional treatments failed. Six showed improvement and the remaining 20 were stabilized. Dr. George Kraft of Seattle said: "These patients had all been rapidly deteriorating over the past year, so to get them to a point where they are stabilized is great progress" (L. Kay, "Stem Cell Therapy May Help Multiple Sclerosis," Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2002).

  • A Welsh toddler has been cured of severe combined immunodeficiency disease ("bubble boy syndrome"). Doctors transplanted the boy's own bone marrow cells back into his body after performing gene therapy to supply the missing gene for healthy immune-response. Four children in France have been cured by a similar procedure in recent years. (S. Pincock, "‘Bubble Boy' in Britain Cured Using Gene Therapy," Reuters, April 3, 2002)
On the pro-cloning side, with no research progress to report, advocates are forced to repeat the same pie-in-the-sky promises that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure every known disease and wipe out human suffering.

It's tough getting any media attention when you have nothing new to say, so on April 18, an activist group called "Lives in the Balance" staged possibly the most grotesque media event Washington has seen: a mock hanging on gallows near the U.S. Capitol. The point of this ghoulish display was to illustrate that "while Congress debates the issue, their lives and the lives of millions of Americans are ‘hanging in the balance.' The Senate is about to quash cures that are within our grasp through stem cell research," their press release reads.

At least five paraplegic individuals dangled high in the air above their wheelchairs, suspended by ropes attached to chest harnesses. This exploitation took place midday, in temperatures hovering around 95 degrees. And for what? Because some callous, ill-informed lobbyist convinced them that embryonic stem cells taken from their personal clones would help them walk again? The organizers should be ashamed for putting these folks through such an ordeal. Would they have consented had they not been misled that their protest could influence the Senate vote? Would they have consented had they not been misled about the dismal prospects of curing paralysis through embryonic stem cell research and cloning, and the amazing progress already achieved with adult stem cells and other therapies?

At the same event a group supporting a genuine cloning ban distributed a cleverly-worded "Stay of Execution" which states in part:

Whereas human cloning has never treated a single human patient; whereas embryonic stem cells have never been successfully derived from cloned human beings; whereas the therapeutic potential of human cloning and embryonic stem cells remains untested, unproven and purely speculative; and whereas adult stem cells and other alternatives are already successfully treating human patients, including patients with Spinal Cord Injury, Stroke, Parkinson's, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis and Heart Disease; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all patients expecting a "death sentence" in the absence of human cloning are granted a STAY OF EXECUTION by reason of the clinical progress in using adult stem cells and other alternatives....

The final act of this drama is yet to be written. Scene: the U.S. Senate. Date: known only to Sen. Daschle. It is not too late to contact your Senators and urge them to support the Brownback/Landrieu cloning ban (S.1899).

Easy Access, Appalling Results

As a literary style, irony can be quite appealing. But when it comes to federal legislation, the device is beginning to wear thin. Take, for example, Sen. Tom Harkin's "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2002" (S.1893). It masquerades as a "ban" while allowing unlimited creation of human embryos by cloning, so long as all cloned embryos are killed.

The most recent example of ironically-named legislation is the "Emergency Contraception Education Act" (H.R.3887 and S.1990). Educating doctors and consumers with solid, verifiable facts about emergency contraception (EC) is about the last thing reproductive health lobbyists and sponsors intend. What the bill does is add $10 million of your tax dollars to the over $7.5 million in private foundation funds already given to market EC.

But it's not just marketing that's going on. It's the biggest disinformation campaign since population-bomber Paul Ehrlich and friends predicted that by the 1980s there'd be nothing left to eat on Earth but plankton. To be fair, Ehrlich probably believed his forecasts. Those who've snookered the public concerning EC know better. Even feminist Germaine Greer condemned "the cynical deception of millions of women by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives [as] incompatible with the respect due to women as human beings" (The Whole Woman, 1999).

In January 1999 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found numerous sales and informational materials for Preven (the first EC to gain FDA approval) to be "false or misleading, and in violation of" FDA law. The FDA chided Preven's distributor, Gynetics, for the following: 1) misleading statements or implications that Preven is an alternative to regular contraceptives; 2) misleading claims of efficacy; 3) misleading consumer ads stating "many women do not experience side effects" which, per the FDA, "minimizes the fact that there are adverse events that occur with the use of Preven"; and 4) inadequate disclosure of risk information, even in materials intended for pharmacists.

Under FDA orders Gynetics corrected these half-truths and omissions. Currently, its Preven "prescribing information" (i.e., for doctors) lists page after page of worrisome contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse reactions. But materials directed to consumers on the Preven website, and countless ads, brochures and fact sheets for public consumption, paint EC in much rosier hues.

CLAIM: "EC does not interrupt a pregnancy. In fact, it will not work if a woman is pregnant" ("Fact Sheet," www.backupyourbirthcontrol.org). According to the Preven website: "It takes quite a bit of time – anywhere from 8 to 10 days – for pregnancy to occur after intercourse."

FACTS: That's true only in the Newspeak of "reproductive rights" ideologues who redefine pregnancy as beginning when the 6- to 7-day-old human embryo begins implanting in the womb.

The truth is that a sperm may succeed in penetrating a secondary oocyte ("egg") within 15 to 30 minutes after intercourse, beginning the process of fertilization. From that point, conception – the fusion of their pronuclei and mingling of chromosomes to form a new unique human being – takes no more than 24 hours.

Medical textbooks uniformly define pregnancy as "the gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from conception ... to birth" (Mosby's Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary, 2002).

How does EC work? If taken pre-ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, preventing conception; but often it does not. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo (causing his or her death) due to changes in the uterine lining. (See, e.g., C. Kahlenborn, MD et al., "Postfertilization Effects of Hormonal Emergency Contraception," The Annals of Pharmacology, March 2002.)

CLAIM: "EC should not be confused with Mifeprex. ... EC and Mifeprex are completely different drugs. EC helps to prevent pregnancy, while Mifeprex terminates an early pregnancy" ("Fact Sheet," supra).

FACTS: Promoters take pains to distinguish EC from RU-486, a.k.a. mifepristone or Mifeprex to distance EC in the public's mind from abortion. But, as noted, EC may also terminate an early pregnancy. And mifepristone has been used both as EC and tested as an alternative to daily contra-ceptives. And they're all used to kill young humans.

CLAIM: EC is "safer than aspirin" (Reproductive Health Technologies Project press release, Feb. 14, 2001).

FACTS: Consider this: Progestin-only EC (e.g., Plan-B) requires taking up to 50 times the usual daily dose of this hormone within a 12-hour period. Preven, and combined oral contraceptives (COC) when used as EC, require taking 4 to 8 times the usual daily COC dose within a 12 hour period. The common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding.

The Preven "Prescribing Information" warns: "Blood clots that form in the leg can cause blockage of blood flow in the leg veins [and] can travel to the lung, causing serious disability or death" (www.preven.com). Risks are greatly increased for women who smoke. But you won't find that in a boxed "Surgeon General's warning" on their ads.

On a pro-choice, post-abortion support message board where women discuss their experiences using EC, one finds reactions like these: "I thought I was never going to stop throwing up"; "Yuck, yuck, yuck. ... I was sick for three days"; "I'm sick. I'm sore. I'm a complete emotional wreck. I'm scared"; "i feel so many things, all so conflicting, and i have so much fear and self-loathing"; and, "FOR ME the morning-after pill was a totally negative experience which left me with lots of self-blame, unanswered questions, mistrust in doctors" (www.afterabortion.com).

CLAIM: Increased access to EC "will reduce the number of abortions by half" and not increase promiscuity.

FACTS: A recent government briefing paper by the Scottish Council on Human Bio-ethics demolishes that argument. EC has been readily accessible to women in Scotland for years, but abortions increased among every age group between 1990 and 1999. Teen pregnancy and abortion rates have not fallen. In Glasgow, for example, there was no drop in the abortion rate despite a 300% increase in the number of EC prescriptions.

The logic that dictates EC use will result in fewer abortions rests on an assumption that increased access to EC will not increase promiscuity. Au contraire. The Scottish Council report cites two likely causes behind the high levels both of EC use and abortion: "more unpremeditated sexual activity" and "more failures in contraception with increased use of condoms" (instead of more effective hormonal "contraceptives"). And these two factors also appear to be causing an "alarming rise" in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

U.K. economist Dr. David Paton finds support for these conclusions. Investigating the impact of contraceptive access to teen pregnancy and abortion over 14 years in 16 regions of the U.K., Paton concludes there was no evidence that access to family planning reduced teen pregnancies and abortions, but to the contrary, some evidence that greater access increased teen pregnancy rates. (See, D. Paton, "The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions," Journal of Health Economics, March 2002.)

Other Risks Related to Broader EC Access

Greater access to EC by making it available over-the-counter in drug stores, on-line, and in school clinics will prevent doctors from assessing risks based on family medical history. It will also deprive doctors of an opportunity to screen and treat young women who are especially vulnerable to STDs.

Is it appropriate to link STD screening with obtaining EC? Yes, because it's not unreasonable to assume that many women seeking EC have engaged in conduct that puts them at risk for contracting an STD. One in three women seeking EC in a U.K. study admitted to having unprotected sex when they were drunk, and nearly half blamed alcohol for one-night stands they would not otherwise have had.

There are over 65 million people in the U.S. currently infected with an STD. Over 15 million new cases occur annually, one-quarter of them in people under age 20.

Many of today's top 25 STDs are incurable and/or can cause permanent damage to reproductive organs. The Medical Institute for Sexual Health reports on a recent study of 18 to 22-year-old sexually active women: 50% were infected with human papilloma virus (HPV) at some time during the 3-year study period. HPV is responsible for 99% of cervical cancers. Condoms afford little or no protection because HPV is spread by skin contact.

Greater access to EC is not a solution to the problem of "unwanted" pregnancies and abortions. Like abortion, it's a "quick fix" that takes one life and can potentially destroy another. The lies under which EC is marketed give women a false sense of safety and security, perhaps leading them to engage in conduct which puts their physical and emotional well-being at risk. The proposals for increased access will keep parents of vulnerable teens in the dark, unable to intervene to shield their daughters from the consequences of our promiscuous culture.

The best solution for the problem of "unwanted" pregnancy and rampant STDs is the one EC enthusiasts never mention: chastity. It works every time.


Life Insight*
is a publication of the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
3211 Fourth Street, N.E.Washington, DC 20017-1194
Phone (202) 541-3070; Facsimile (202) 541-3054
Made possible through the generosity of
the Knights of Columbus

*The materials contained within are intended for use by the Catholic dioceses and organizations, and permission is not required for reproduction or use by them. All other uses must be authorized. For reprints, questions, or comments contact Susan E. Wills, at the above address.






__________________________________

Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3070
June 11, 2003 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops