Pro-Life News

Pro-abort wolf in pro-life clothing

FDA appointee spurs debate on need to reduce abortion

By Jane Eisner / Philadelphia Inquirer

Editor's note: In an interview with David Hager of the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, anti-life columnist Jane Eisner exposes the fact that Hager is not really pro-life due to his support of abortifacent birth-control. Eisner also says there is a "pressing imperative to understand why a growing number of women in this country terminate a pregnancy." The pro-abort solution to reduce the nationwide increase of abortion will be to push the 'over-the-counter sale of Morning-After-Pills,' otherwise known as 'Plan B'.. --Jim Rudd

The Internet rumors were flying fast and furious again this week, implying that a palace coup was in the works at the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

The focus of concern was the selection of W. David Hager to be (depending on which version of the rumor you received) either a member or the chair of the committee, which advises the FDA on matters relating to drugs used in obstetrics, gynecology and related specialities.

Hager was portrayed as an extremist whose pro-life, anti-contraception positions and strong religious beliefs made him an inappropriate, even dangerous person on a committee designed to protect women's reproductive health.

In a postelection funk, I decided to check this out, and here's what I found: The rumors about Hager are inaccurate and unfair; worse, they serve to distract attention from the more important issue, which is how to address the increasing rate of abortions during the Bush administration.

First, the facts. The point about Hager's possible appointment is moot. He's already there. He's a conservatively oriented physician who speaks frequently about his views of Christian health care, and he does promote abstinence to the young, unmarried women he sees in his practice in Kentucky.

But he told me in an interview yesterday that he will prescribe birth-control pills if asked. He doesn't believe that contraception is a form of abortion, although that view was included in a book he edited. (So was the opposing view.)

Last year, he voted against allowing emergency contraception to be sold over the counter because there were no age restrictions and he was concerned that teenage girls would use the so-called "Plan B" as ordinary birth control. If, like alcohol, it was restricted to those 21 and over, he "would reconsider."

Most of his colleagues on the advisory panel didn't agree with that vote. The FDA subsequently went with the minority opinion and asked for further study on the impact of Plan B on teens - which, of course, could be just a way to shelve the issue. Indeed, it's not on the agenda for the panel's next meeting in December.

Still, a difference of opinion should not be a disqualification for a committee that can do its best work by including a variety of informed perspectives. Especially since there is a bigger task at hand: To address what appears to be an increasing rate of abortion, despite attempts to restrict access and acceptability.

A study done by Glen Harold Stassen, a professor of Christian ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and Gary Krane, an independent journalist, examined whatever state data were available for the last few years (since federal reports go only to 2000). They found that although abortion rates were at a 24-year low when President Bush took office, that trend appears to have reversed.

Michigan's rate increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003, and Kentucky's by 3.2 percent. The number of abortions in Colorado went from 4,463 in 2001 to 9,852 in 2003. The number even went up in the President's home state of Texas.

In fact, of the 16 states for which data were available, only seven showed a decrease. And since most of the data came from conservative Midwestern states (with better reporting systems), Stassen thinks the national picture would be far more alarming.

As an ardent pro-lifer, he is alarmed. Stassen contends that the abortion rate is directly tied to economic and social conditions, and that women are more likely to terminate a pregnancy if they are unemployed, unmarried, and without adequate health insurance.

When I queried Hager for his views on reducing abortion, he talked about the need for sexual education that would teach abstinence, but also provide information to those who chose to be sexually active.

Here is the crux of the matter: Two different approaches, both worthy of discussion. America should be having this discussion in a full and respectful way, without implying that only one view embraces morality, or only one perspective honors science.

Turning David Hager's appointment into an object of hysteria - or, conversely, turning him into some sort of martyr - distracts us from the more pressing imperative to understand why a growing number of women in this country terminate a pregnancy. Let's swamp the Internet with talk on that.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new
s/columnists/jane_eisner/10149899.htm

Posted by Editor at November 11, 2004 01:25 PM