|
By Sheila Mallon
Fetal experimentation -- even the sound of the
phrase carries grotesque Frankensteinian connotations.
Most Americans hearing someone speak of "fetal
experiments" would shudderingly assume that they referred to experiments on the
dead fetus. Horrible as those experiments on the dead fetus would be, there are
scientists conducting tests and experiments on aborted living fetuses and on
the fetus still living in the womb of a women who plans to have an abortion.
Most of us flinch at the thought of vivisection of
animals. How much more then should we cringe when we realize that
vivisection-type experiments on live aborted fetuses have occurred and are
occurring in this country with the blessings, in many instances, of the
National Institute of Health (NIH).
On October 13, Rep. Bill Dannemeyer (R - CA)
offered an amendment to a bill authorizing research on cancer and other
diseases (HR 6457). The amendment was adopted after heated debate. The House
sent the bill to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future.
The amendment states that the NIH "shall not
conduct or support research or experimentation in the US or abroad on a living
human fetus infant, whether before or after induced abortion, unless such
research or experimentation is done for the purpose of insuring the survival of
that fetus or infant."
Five Georgia congressmen voted against this
amendment.
They were Bo Ginn of the 1st District,
Charles Hatcher of the 2nd, Jack Brinkley of the 3rd,
Elliot Levitas of the 4th and Wyche Fowler of the 5th.
The Senate unanimously passed an almost identical
amendment in 1973. However, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D - MA) successfully amended
the proposal to make it effective only until a special task force could develop
policies governing fetal experimentation.
The task force then proceeded to undermine the
intent of the amendment by developing regulations containing a number of very
objectionable loopholes.
They permit the funding of medical experimentation
on unborn children if "the purpose of the activity is the development of
important biomedical knowledge which cannot be obtained by any other means" and
"the risk to the fetus imposed by the research is minimal." It is not clear,
however, what constitutes "minimal" risk for children intended for abortion,
who are prime candidates for such experiments.
Current policies are clearly discriminatory in
effect. Our federal agencies express strong concern for the life and health of
unborn children and try to protect them from harmful influences such as alcohol
and tobacco. But as soon as a woman decides to destroy her unborn child, the
federal government, in effect, ratifies that decision and places the child in a
new category as a guinea pig for medical research.
Some of this experimentation may be agonizingly
painful to the child, who researchers estimate to be capable of feeling pain as
early as the eighth week after conception. But all of it is research that would
not have been permitted on "viable" children already born, or even on "wanted"
unborn children.
The argument that the unborn child will "die
anyway" is a hideous rationalization. We are all going to "die anyway." We
should no more condone experimentation on the dying non-viable child than we
should condone it on the dying elderly.
The Dannemeyer amendment, even if it passes the
Senate, will not put an end to experimentation on the unborn. It would only end
the funding of it with our tax monies.
Fetal organs have been transplanted into mice,
according to the Los Angeles Times. The technique utilizes the organs of
fetuses between the ages of five-and 17-weeks gestational age. According to the
Times-Post article, the experiment was partially funded by the March of Dimes.
Another article earlier this year reported that E.
R. Squibb and Sons paid $10,000 to doctors at the Valley Abortion Center in
Phoenix, AZ. They were asked to test a hypertension drug on pregnant women who
were planning on abortions "anyway."
In a journal on ethical issues, a case study was
recently presented relating to practicing medical procedures on dying and
comatose children. Not only was the practice being considered, but whether or
not parental consent was needed was discussed.
The Dannemeyer amendment will certainly not put an
end to all these practices (and we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg); but
it is a starting point. The amendment recognizes that the inherent value and
dignity of the unborn child does not disappear as a matter of federal policy
simply because the child is "unwanted" by his or her mother.
A statement issued by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life
Federation says it beautifully. "The unborn already die in the millions because
of the Supreme Court's failure to recognize this principle (the inherent
dignity and value of the unborn); to promote the idea of experimenting on them
before they die is to add insult to injury."
You can help by writing to Georgia Senators Mack
Mattingly and Sam Nunn and asking them to vote FOR the Dannemeyer amendment to
stop fetal experimentation.
You can also help by remembering and writing to
express your disgust to the five Georgia congressmen who voted against the
amendment.
|
