And I believe potemkin organizations like National Right to Life only encourage this.
I base this not only on their hailing of the ESCR decision as a Winner compromise (albeit disappointing decision to be "forced" into) but also a conversation I had in D.C. once in the wake of the SB-30 "Parental Consent" decision in Texas.
If you pull up any of those threads, you'll see members of what David Keene likes to call "The Stupid Party" tossing their hats in the air and screaming "don't mess with Texas!" as Askel5 screams "READ THE BILL!!! READ THE BILL!!!" in the background.And ... let's face it. I'd given anything never to have to mention the name "Bush" again but there's really no getting around the fact that the Bush family has been in a position of leadership within the GOP my entire life.
In vain, I tried to point out that the bill required no such thing as parental consent and -- moreover -- fast-tracked minor abortions, provided additional protections for abortionists and codified additional privacy for the whole sordid practice. Contrary to the OUTRIGHT LIE printed in the "Dallas Morning News", there was no prison time for offending abortionists. Rather, his penalties were capped by the legislation.
All in all, a substantive win for the abortionists but a bone of Appearance, aptly named as the PATRIOT Act, thrown to the pro-life cause.
I was in DC not long later for either the Treason Rally or the House Managers Dinner and called up National Right to Life to speak to their Legislative Director. As it turned out, they were out but the Texas Legislative Director was sitting in for a fortnight. Beauty.
He was a most pleasant, intelligent young man. Catholic, I'm assuming, since he was a Thomist scholar. We talked for hours. Was I right about what I'd been arguing here at FR? You bet. In fact, I was even right in that the whole thing was geared to "make it look" as if parental consent were required. He knew as well as I the reports in the paper were, technically, misleading.
That bothered me greatly, actually. Sure, I can understand the strategy but why in the world would pro-aborts and the media end up complicit in such a strategy? They're not that stupid. Surely they knew it was a great bill. (What did it cost them to have "parent" really mean parent or guardian?) But they howled on command, even complained about the spectre of prison for abortionists and never corrected the lies printed in the Dallas Morning Herald. Case closed.
We also talked about the role of fathers.
I admitted that I would sometimes argue that -- if abortion was a "human" right as opposed to some strictly Female special right the State was peddling -- fathers should have the right to "abort" their fatherhood as long as they did so before birth, like the moms. "Don't make it worse!" he cautioned.
I knew he was right but, given that I believe fathers are the key to wresting women from the arms of the state, I kept harping on the subject.
"Bring us a case ... bring us a case," he said. I'll admit I left dejected. Clearly, in the 40 million legal abortions since 1973, there was not one father willing to go to bat for his kid. These things truly depress me.
Once I got back home, though, and started digging, I found the Loce case out of New Jersey. A young man who created a human wall with his friends trying to prevent his girlfriend from killing his child. He did take the case to court. Mother Teresa, Dr. Jerome Lejeune and several other luminaries filed amicus curiae briefs -- Dr. Lejeune even flew in from France to testify. (He's the geneticist that discovered Down's syndrome, by the way.) In the end, Loce was convicted of trespassing and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case he brought in defense of his right to protect the life of the child he'd have gladly supported had he or she been allowed to live.
So I'm not sure what good bringing a case would be when Justice insists she's deaf, if not blind.
(Though it's true I didn't realize until I got to this place that Prescott was in politics [lost an election to the publicizing of his eugenic views in '56, I believe], that George H. Bush was a Representative and our first Ambassador to China [I thought he'd just been a CIA guy] in addition to serving two terms as Vice President and one term as President, or that Prescott Jr. was the head of our US/China Chamber of Commerce. I did know Jeb and George were governors of two rather important electoral states also key banking and customs/borders concerns.)
The fact none of the Bush men seem to abide always by their Personal Convictions (particularly W.'s stating that life begins at conception), doesn't surprise me so much. It's quite possible that, despite their being Leaders, they don't have the freedom to live out their Personal Convictions. That's the price of being popular or in the Inner Ring in highschool, even. We all know that.
Rather, what bothers me is the way they can't seem to change the hearts of their pro-abort wives. The Bush women stand as constant testament to the fact that reasonable people can disagree about something so sacred as human life.
The Bush women stand testament to the fact that after a lifetime in politics (particularly the last 30 years' polarization, Litmus Test locksteps and "political realities" centered on the abortion issue that unites the Rainbow Coalition) ... that during all those 30 years, sitting through all those political and pro-life functions ... they remained UNconvinced of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and have dignity and the right to life from conception to natural death.
Not even the rank carnage of our abortuaries (which they'd like to see "reduced" and confined to the first trimester only) or the alienation of the sexes or the destruction of our families which ensue from our Culture of Death ... the linchpin of which is Legal Abortion ... has caused them to rethink their position on legal abortion.
So ... no. I don't believe that the leadership or the Establishment pro-life organizations are our best hope. They practically advertise the fact they cannot make a compelling argument for life to the very core of the longterm political leadership on the right ... be it their own wives or the GOP Senate who voted to reaffirm Roe during the campaign and passed the Schumer Amendment 80-17 (lest Gore get good press coverage for breaking what they assured us was going to be a tie).
I prefer organizations like American Life League or Priests for Life. The sorts of folks who will not compromise and will not be co-opted and who concentrate as much or more on the individual lives at stake and the Individual's ability to change hearts rather than work always to broad-based coalitions ... squandering their moral capital and their letter writing campaigns on useless legislation that nets no real progress.
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, I would like to comment on two newcomers to the Washington scene. They are Dr. Philip Handler, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Roger Olaf Egeberg, the Assistant HEW Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs subject to his confirmation by the Senate. I was extremely heartened by the sense of urgency expressed by both of these national leaders on the problems of overpopulation and dwindling resources. In a recent interview with This Week magazine, Dr. Handler stated:
"The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger, pollution, crime, overlarge, dirty cities-even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war-all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology. Second to the problem of overproduction is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we do not provide more food, we face worldwide famine."
Dr. Egeberg has displayed his keen awareness of the crisis our world is facing by emphasizing that at the top of his list of priorities will be intensified efforts in environmental and population control through technological innovations and family planning, the reclamation of waste products, and the development of a low pollution automobile.
We look to these two men for dynamic and purposeful leadership as the new administration charts its course.
I include at this point in the record the text of the interview with Dr. Handler:
"Man is on the threshold of a biological revolution," says biochemist Philip Handler. "It will influence the life of each of us Just as greatly as the industrial revolution affected every living person."
On July 1, Dr. Handler will leave his position as chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at Duke University Medical Center to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. This organization of the country's 846 most esteemed scientists serves as official advisor to the government on matters of science and technology.
This Week interviewed Dr. Handler about his views on what lies ahead in the biological sciences.
TW. Will you define what you mean "biological revolution"?
Dr. Handler. I mean that our understanding of living things is now so comprehensive that we should Soon be able to apply that information to human affairs, in order to improve the condition of man.
TW. In what major areas will this knowledge be put to work?
Dr. Handler. In population control, food production, health, control of the environment, and directing the evolution of our own species.
TW. Any reason for the order of your list?
Dr. Handler. The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger; pollution; crime; overlarge, dirty cities--even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war--all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology.
TW. Don't we already know enough?
Dr. Handler. We thought we were quite knowledgeable, until today's problems pinned us to the wall. Our knowledge turned out to be primitive.
The oral contraceptive pill and lUDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) have been successful because they divorce the act of sex from the act of using contraception. What we now need is a cheap, safe mechanism in which failure to use contraceptives would result in failure to conceive, rather than the present situation, which is the other way around--failure results in conception.
TW. What's the outlook for this?
Dr. Handler. There are several approaches--by immunology, particularly--which offer some promise.
TW. What's the next most serious challenge?
Dr. Handler. Second to the problem of overpopulation is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we don't provide more food, we face world-wide famine.
TW. What solution do you propose?
Dr. Handler. There are hundreds of thousands of plants, and we must systematically investigate them to see whether some could be bred into new forms. No new basic foods have been developed since the start of history.
TW. What about food from the sea?
Dr. Handler. The seas could be exploited on a much larger scale. For example, oysters, clams, and other shellfish could be grown in bays. We surely can grow more than we presently take from the sea. But I really think this type of activity--"aquiculture"--won't happen in the sea at all. When we become serious about growing fish, we'll grow them in "factories." Thats how chickens are raised today.
TW. Are there any other new approaches to feeding the world?
Dr. Handler. Today, we can take a fertilized frog egg, insert the nucleus from a cell of another frog, and the egg will develop into a frog that is a perfect twin of the one that provided the transplanted nucleus It's merely a matter of time before we can switch from frogs to mammals. When we do that, we should be able to make perfect copies of the best bull or cow in the world. We can make any number we desire, and thus markedly upgrade food production.
TW. What is the outlook in medicine?
Dr. Handler. We all know that the major killers and incapacitating disorders--heart disease, cancer, rheumatoid ailments -- are still with us. We've managed to contain infectious diseases only.
I'm sure that with time we'll have much-improved preventive and therapeutic techniques for many of the remaining diseases. Atherosclerosis, for example, is the underlying process of much cardiovascular disease, in which the arterial walls are plugged with calcium and fatty materials. I don't believe that's necessary. There should be some way prevent it.
There are small cracks in the problem of cancer. I have reason to believe that in the near future, we'll learn, if not how to prevent it, how to cure early cancer.
TW. About death Itself?
Dr. Handler. Well, about aging, I would like to see life like Shangri-la, where you stay physically young until you're 100, and then you die. Whether we can do this depends upon our understanding of the biological clock for man. If we knew what it is, it's conceivable we could intervene.
TW. You mentioned man's environment as a major problem.
Dr. Handler. It hasn't been really very long-10,000 years-since human beings belonged to tribes of wanderers that foraged and hunted. Each species radiates Into a niche, finds a place to which it's suited, and becomes dominant there. Our species migrated that way when it was small, wandering in tribes and clans.
Genetically, we can't be very different from our early forebears. The question is whether species that achieved dominance under primitive conditions can accommodate Itself adequately to living in cities. Biologically, the odds are against man doing equally well under such an utterly different set of circumstances than his beginnings. I don't know the extent to which mankind can survive successfully in large urban concentrations.
TW. Your last point was evolution.
Dr. Handler. There are something over 300 known hereditary diseases of man. We have learned to circumvent a number of them by keeping young people alive who suffer from those diseases. They grow up and reproduce, and spread their genes in the population. Instead of improving, the genetic pool of mankind is deteriorating. I think the total good of humanity demands that we minimize the incidence of these defective genes. We have no historical ethnic to guide us in this matter, but perhaps such people hould not be allowed to procreate.
The other side of the coin is to prevent the problem In the first place. There are some who hope to make DNA--containing only "good" genes--and insert it into the germ plasm of prospective parents. Maybe that will be possible In the distant future.
Or you could improve inheritance by breeding. As its farthest extreme, using the processs I described for cattle, one could, conceivably, deliberately make more Einsteins, Mozarts, or whomever you choose. Another, more practical way is to pick distinguished men and preserve their sperm by freezing it in "sperm banks." Then married couples might enjoy their own sex relationship, but when they want to have a child, use sperm from the sperm bank.
TW. Dr. Handler, you have described a possible world that Includes brand-new kinds of food, freedom from dread diseases, the possibility of greatly extended life span, even the control of man's own evolution. Are we ready to operate this civilization? Do we know how to perform and accept the new values it will impose?
Dr. Handler. No, we don't know enough yet. But that doesn't mean that we should producing new technology. Compared with the natural sciences and engineering, social sciences are relatively primitive. The degree of understanding of man as a social creature is not yet adequate to our task, as is evident in our domestic and international problems.
But, in part, these problems arise because technology has been so successful. It's the comfort enjoyed by 80 per cent of our population, brought about by technology, that makes possible the dream of a society In which the other 20 per cent can live equally well.
Technology also gives us responsibilities. It gave us the ability to destroy humanity on just the same scale, and we haven't really learned to manage that capability yet. That's where our lack of social understanding limits us badly.
A sophisticated blend of social and behavioral understanding with modern technological capability could truly usher in a new era for mankind, If we can avoid a holocaust in the interim.
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a great American, William H. Draper, Jr., major general, U.S. Army, retired.
Last week on September 10, General Draper celebrated his 75th birthday. Holding to a promise he made to his wife, General Draper retired as national chairman of the Population Crisis Committee, a responsibility that he has had since establishing the PCC 5 years ago.
As chairman of the Republican Research Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, I am very much aware of the significant leadership that General Draper has executed throughout the world in assisting governments in their efforts to solve the awesome problems of rapid population growth. No other person in the past 5 years has shown more initiative in creating the awareness of the world's leaders in recognizing the economic consequences of our population explosion.
The general has had a very meaningful life. He was an infantry regiment commander in the Pacific theater during World War II. He was economic adviser to Gen. Lucius Clay during the rehabilitation of West Germany. From 1947 to 1949, General Draper was Under Secretary of the Army, and in 1952 was appointed by President Truman as U.S. representative in Europe with ambassadorial rank to coordinate the mutual security program for Europe and to represent the United States in the North Atlantic Treaty Council.
In November of 1958, President Eisenhower appointed General Draper Chairman of the President's Committee To Study the U.S. Military Assistance Program. In October 1962, President Kennedy appointed the general head of an interdepartmental survey team to study and report on the situation in Brazil.
Fortunately, we will be hearing more from Bill Draper as he is now the honorary chairman of the Population Crisis Committee, and will continue to be available for consultation on world affairs for which he is so well qualified.