< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Lawrence Roberge

Author, Bioethicist, Biomedical Researcher
Posted August 9, 2004

The Future of Abortion Part 1
The Beginning of Life is Being Redefined

1. INTRODUCTION

(Was) it any surprise to the emotional and political reaction to President Bill Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion bill? No? Yet perhaps what is surprising is the emotional outcry against this procedure as compared to the political and social apathy of over 20 years of abortion (within the United States). Why such a reaction from pro-life and Church leaders now; when the same leaders never unleashed the same fury and media coverage during the past 23 years of abortions? Perhaps the answer will yield clues to the future of abortion in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the availability of abortion clinics and doctors is slowly dwindling. Organized protests at clinics, doctor's homes, and malpractice suits against abortion doctors have contributed to the decline of abortion service availability. With the decline in available abortion facilities and physicians, how will abortion continue as a method of eugenics and population control as well as an erroneously described "reproductive right"? Perhaps the answer lies in the future direction of abortion in the U.S.

2. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

As technological advances in the fields of endocrinology, biotechnology, immunology, and pharmacology progress, the creation of new abortifacient technologies will continue. Furthermore, these technologies will target the destruction of life at an ever-earlier stage of development. The movement of technologies to destroy life will continue to focus at the embryonic (up to 2 months of development) stage. This statement is exemplified by the recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the double-dose birth control pills and FDA market approval of RU-486 (Mifepristone). The purpose of the double-dose birth control pills is to block uterine implantation of an early stage embryo, whereas the progesterone blocking action of RU-486 acts to terminate embryonic life up to the first 49 days of development.

Beyond these recently approved drugs, the development of other embryonic stage abortifacients (such as more advanced progesterone blockers and ETF) is continuing. Furthermore, the development of an abortifacient vaccine is nearly complete (1,2). This technology does not block ovulation or conception, but rather blocks embryo implantation and leads to embryonic death, which appears as a menstrual period. This technology is targeted for world distribution. The vaccines will mislead many to believe they are using a safe effective form of birth control, when in reality, the vaccine will engineer a monthly abortion. The vaccines' effects will last for 18 months. The early embryo destructive effect of many of these products brings us to the next clue to the future of abortion.

3. MOVING AWAY FROM FETAL DEATH

Advances in technology will reduce the fetal body count while vastly increasing the embryonic fatalities. As a consequence, this may increase societal acceptance of abortion. How? The abortifacient technologies will destroy life at an earlier stage. Market studies for RU-486 (3) alone claim that the product could capture up to 60% of the clinical surgical abortions in the U.S. Other technologies could surpass that figure. Furthermore, one method that pro-life uses to convey the "humanness" of the fetus is to display graphic photos of fetuses with well formed fingers, eyes, hands, toes, a heart beating, etc. Advanced abortifacient technologies act to destroy the life in the embryonic (e.g. trophoblastic stage) stage, well BEFORE toes, eyes, hands, etc. are formed. Also, it will be harder to emotionally associate with a "hollow ball of cells" (as in the case of the trophoblastic embryo) than with a human shaped fetus. In essence, the myth that abortion just removes a "blob of cells or tissue" will be reinforced.

Even now, the beginning of life is being redefined at the uterine implantation stage (AKA nidation), rather than conception. This redefinition allows justification for such medical activities as human embryo experimentation and the recently publicized incident in Britain of the disposal of thousands of human embryos. This redefinition has been supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the American Fertility Society (AFS) (4,5).

This new redefining of the pre-embryo as not totally human life affords not merely research on human embryos, but expanded use of abortifacients that destroy early life by killing the pre-embryo or blocking uterine implantation (REMEMBER: blocking uterine implantation leads to rapid death of the embryo). At present, some forms of birth control (e.g. Intrauterine devices (IUD) and some versions of the birth control pills), already block embryonic implantation into the uterus. It must be further noted that as more data arises on the complications due to surgically induced abortions, marketing strategies for abortifacient products will capitalize on this data as a motivational factor toward more embryo-stage directed abortifacients. Simply put, pharmaceutical corporations will use available data on abortion complications (e.g. abortion and infertility link; abortion and breast cancer link, etc.) to convince the consumer to use birth control that in reality is abortifacient in nature. As the population of consumers accepting this technology increases, total surgical abortions will rapidly decrease, while the total number of abortions will rise exponentially.

In reality, the population will increasingly be deceived into accepting abortifacients as a version of effective birth control. The shift from surgical abortions to pharmaceutical abortifacients brings us to the next aspect of the future of abortion.

4. PHARMACEUTICAL ABORTIFACIENTS

The market shift to pharmaceutical abortifacients has some advantages. First, this technology reduces the role of clinics and doctors. Doctors need not use a clinic to prescribe or dispense pharmaceutical abortifacients. Rather, doctors may dispense these drugs (or vaccines) in their office and doctor-patient confidentiality will protect such actions. Also, as previously noted, increasing dissemination of pharmaceutical abortifacients will lead to a decrease in surgical abortions. As surgical abortions decrease, this will reduce abortion clinic revenues. Eventually, the declining revenues may force many clinics to close. Although some clinics may continue to exist, by virtue of distributing abortifacient drugs, the most cost-effective measure for physicians (and health care providers like HMO's and PPO's) will be abortifacient distribution at the physician's office.

This shift in abortion (from surgical means to pharmaceuticals) will further favor the physician in another way.

One of the strong deterrents for physician's working in the abortion industry is malpractice suits. In recent years, a combined force of pro-life advocates and legal professionals has unleashed a torrent of malpractice suits due to botched abortions. As a result, physician participation in the abortion industry has declined as malpractice suits and malpractice financial settlements have climbed. As abortifacient technology favors pharmaceuticals, the resultant legal/financial responsibility shifts away from the sole physician towards the larger (and more legally formidable) pharmaceutical corporations. The costs of malpractice insurance would be comparably lower (by dispensing abortifacients) even though the physician's participation in abortion would continue. Malpractice suits would be replaced by drug manufacturer lawsuits which are more lengthy, costly, and more difficult to win. Furthermore, recent FDA bias towards RU-486 may require future lawsuits against this federal agency. Lawsuits at this level are even more lengthy and difficult (if not impossible) to win.

The distribution of abortifacients by doctors may make abortion more palatable to physicians. One case in point, a 1995 Kaiser Family Foundation survey (6) has found that doctors who would not perform surgical abortions would prescribe the abortifacient drug, RU-486. Furthermore, the same survey demonstrated that a majority of the doctors that do not perform abortions have prescribed the "morning after pill" for emergency contraception. As more abortifacient products enter the marketplace, physicians (even with their knowledge base of endocrinology, pharmacology, and gynecology as well as the understanding of the consequences of the use of abortifacient drugs and vaccines) will increasingly turn to prescribe these products to terminate early stage pregnancies.

Finally, as abortifacient pharmaceuticals rise to the predominant form of abortion, another important marketing strategy will eventually influence the future of abortion. Recently, Americans have enjoyed the non-prescription availability of commonly used pharmaceutical products like Nicorettetm gum, Tagamettm, Zantactm, Rogainetm, and Naproxin (AKA Alevetm). The process to move a prescription drug to an over-the-counter drug status (commonly referred to as RX-to-OTC conversions) has been accelerating during this decade. Usually, the motivational factor for this conversion is the end of the pharmaceutical firm's exclusive marketing of this product as its patent expires.

At present, the only drugs that the FDA will absolutely not allow RX-to-OTC conversions are narcotics. It is conceivable that eventually some abortifacient pharmaceuticals (as their patent comes up to the expiration date) will become available over the counter. Women could one day in the near future obtain abortifacients in their discount drug stores as easily as purchasing aspirin, antacids, panty hose, or nail polish!

© Lawrence Roberge 2004 Reprinted with Permission

LAWRENCE F. ROBERGE M.S.is a biotechnology consultant, college instructor, bioethicist, and biomedical researcher. He is the author of the new book, THE COST OF ABORTION (Four Winds Publications, LaGrange, GA, 1995). He has consulted for pharmaceutical, medical, and biotechnology corporations across the United States, Canada, and Europe. He has published research on neuroscience, biomedicine, abortion vaccine technology, and the adverse effects of abortion on women.