rewrit919

Get me rewrite: A memo to the media

Abortion politics vs. science

Sept. 19, 1997

By R. Alta Charo

Search any news database for the word ``abortion'' and your computer will tell you that it has found more stories than it is capable of handling. But almost all of those stories are about the politics and ethics of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Rarely do the stories explain how abortion politics has invaded the public health field to the point that no corner of the biomedical science establishment is left untouched.

Research funding is held hostage to debates on embryos and fetuses. Basic science researchers avoid working for the federal government because of the constraints that will be placed on their work. And needed medical advances are slowed or halted.

Innocent civilians are often casualties of war. Biomedical science is one such civilian in the abortion wars, and, whether they know it or not, many Americans are paying the price. Here are just a few of those Americans:

* The elderly: Cytotec is a drug that treats the life-threatening ulcers that can develop when people take anti-inflammatory medications in large doses over a long period of time, for example, for arthritis. But cytotec can cause a miscarriage.

While this is hardly a problem for the elderly, it is a problem for groups like the National Right to Life Committee. In the 1980s, the committee and its congressional allies sought to block the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the lifesaving drug because they thought it would become a back door to an abortion pill.

* Cancer patients: Cancer cells don't know when to stop dividing. Doctors would like to cure cancer by halting this uncontrolled cell division, but it's hard to do that when scientists don't yet understand how cells know to divide normally. One key to unraveling the mystery is to do research on embryos, which go through a carefully orchestrated path of cell division and specialization. But federal funds for research on embryos have been missing since 1980 -- thanks to anti-abortion forces in the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations, and in Congress.

* Neurological disorder patients: Brain tissue doesn't regenerate itself the way skin does. Damage some brain tissue, and the damage is permanent. One possible therapy is to implant new brain tissue from a donor. But the new tissue has to be immature, so it can develop into the kind of tissue that was damaged, and it must be immunologically compatible to avoid rejection. Tissue taken from aborted fetuses can be used more easily than any other kind, but abortion opponents fear that doing so will undermine opposition to the abortions themselves.

Of course, no one has ever argued that using donated organs from murder victims will undermine opposition to homicide, but abortion politics is unusually sensitive to symbolism.

* Diabetics and leukemia patients: Cloning a few cells from someone's body could soon be the first step toward treating serious illnesses by directing the cloned cells into becoming ``stem cells,'' a special kind of cell that can then be trained to augment damaged bone marrow or insulin-producing cells. Unfortunately, cloning a few cells from a body entails an intermediate step in which one has created an embryo, which in turn is then directed into becoming stem cells rather than a baby. The American Life League calls this ``clone-and-kill,'' and it supports legislation that would ban this research.

* Firefighters: Cloning also offers the prospect of learning how to regenerate organs and tissue, such as skin. Firefighters routinely risk horrible disfigurement and even death due to extensive body burns. Research on cloned cells could be one way to express our gratitude, but, again, it is opposed by those who oppose any research that involves using fertilized eggs or embryos.

* Women between the ages of 15 and 55: It's been a long time since a new form of contraception has been developed, and while markets, product liability and feminist politics have all played a role, abortion politics have been front and center. Prospects for a once-a-month pill dimmed when abortion opponents scared the patent holder with threats of lawsuits and boycotts because the same drug could be used as an abortion pill. Research into substances that will prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg are ineligible for federal funding because failed attempts mean that a fertilized egg will result.

Ironically, some of this same, ineligible research is crucial to helping other women in this age bracket to overcome infertility or to avoid repeated miscarriages.

The list goes on and on. The abortion wars don't just affect women who want to terminate their pregnancies. We are all at risk of being swept up and swept aside in the general conflagration.

R. Alta Charo is associate professor of law and medical ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a member of President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

Tell us what you think

Subscribe to the print version of The Capital Times

If you have any questions or comments about this site, please email us.