Front Page















License to Bleed - Oct. 2, 2000

By James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.
contributor to

Fresh on the heels of the Strategic Oil Reserves ploy, the Clinton/Gore Scheme Team has once again exploited the citizens of the nation in order to serve their own short-term goals.

It seems as though a warped administration is readily willing to sacrifice the health and welfare of our female population if that is what it takes to stop the hemorrhaging of poll numbers within the Gore campaign.

Gone is the pretense of ensuring that abortions in the United States are "safe and rare." The choreographers of decline have succeeded in thrusting a drug-induced termination of life upon our nation. The sanctioning of this latest method will most likely lead to a rise in the number of abortions performed and an increase in the attendant risks, "comforts" of home notwithstanding.

Female voters are currently the most sought after constituency in the presidential campaign. However, women must ask themselves the degree to which they are truly valued.

A candidate in this instance who openly professes to care deeply about the health and well being of women and privately seeks to manipulate the political field is harming more than just the system. Can the desire to create a wedge issue possibly justify the placement of such a significant segment of the public in jeopardy?

Reproductive concoctions such as Norplant, Depo-provera, VES, DES and the Dalkon Shield damaged the health of millions of women when these items were hastily shoved onto the market. Now RU486, which uses a mixture of drugs to induce abortion, holds the potential to create a host of adverse effects as well.

In clinical testing, one out of every 100 patients using the RU486 protocol ended up in the hospital. Two percent of women who used the method had such severe bleeding they required surgery.

After years of study, the FDA only four months ago submitted restrictions which included the mandate that administration of the RU486 drugs take place within one hour of an emergency room, thus acknowledging some of the pitfalls of the drugs involved.

What salient facts emerged four months later to compel the FDA to drop protections for women's health? Curiously, the answer is none. And so we are left to wonder whether this was a purely political maneuver.

Euphemisms for anti-life procedures continue to creep into our public discourse. RU486 has been described for years as a "morning after pill," which sounds rather comparable to use of an antacid to subdue an overly seasoned meal.

In actuality, this is a multiple drug process designed for no other purpose than to extinguish life. A drug protocol with sufficient toxicity to kill a seven-week-old human embryo by cutting off nourishment and inducing uterine contractions is a far cry from any mint flavored heartburn tablet.

If the course of drugs works as intended, after several doctor visits the woman will deliver a dead child at an indeterminable time or place. She will also be burdened with the gruesome task of taking inventory of the baby's body parts, if a potentially fatal infection is to be avoided.

The overwhelming and persistent psychological trauma that oftentimes accompanies surgical abortion may be magnified exponentially when the woman is so directly involved in the fateful act.

If this tactic were merely a foolhardy attempt to move the polls, poetic justice would dictate that it suffer the same outcome as the oil reserve fiasco.

As a nation, it would be difficult to accept that for the most selfish, dishonorable purposes, an administration might work together with a possible future administration to soft sell abortion by prescription drugs for political expediency.

What follows in such a succession? Over the counter abortion? As a presumably decent society, would that surprise us? More importantly, as a caring society, would that trouble us?

Reproduced with the permission of . All rights reserved

Copyright © 1999 - 2000
James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.

All Rights Reserved