September/October, 1997 Volume XII Number 8

The Editor's Eye

"I wonder how . . . you correlate taking birth control pills with 'Christians killing their children?'"
That's what Dick Colbeth said in his letter to us recently. Ever since we published our birth control (BC) issue back in January, I was pretty sure we had answered that question. We offered significant proof that the Pill does indeed act as a chemical abortion.
But comments like Dick's should not be ignored. Maybe he thought the proof was lacking. Perhaps he felt the source was biased. He could have believed our motives were askew -- as he notes in his letter. (He says we have chosen this issue as a soft target because we are afraid of confronting abortionists for fear of FACE.)
I'm not sure of all the reasons, but I believe that if Dick is thinking this way, maybe others are too. (We have received a couple of tersely worded cancellations of late which might be motivated by offense over the BC issue.) After all, Dick is a long-time reader. I cannot tell if he just didn't read our earlier info on abortifacient birth control, or if he just doesn't want to hear it.
For this reason, we have devoted the majority of this issue to a piece by the inestimable Randy Alcorn, author of numerous titles including the well-received and carefully researched Pro-life Answers to Pro-choice Arguments. Alcorn is widely known for his reserve and his dedication to careful research. Nor is he connected to Life Advocate as some kind of shill.
Alcorn was first seriously appraised of the abortifacient nature of the Pill last year at the Pastor's Conference on Birth Control here in Portland, Oregon.
Since then, he has made a serious, eight-month study of the issue. Alcorn admits he was hoping for a negative answer to his research since he and his wife had used the Pill early in their marriage -- and he, as a church counselor, had often recommended the Pill to newlyweds. The stakes were high.
And so they are. If Bo Kuhar of Pharmacists for Life is correct, there are a minimum of 8 million BC abortions a year in the U.S. alone -- paling the number of lives lost to the abortion mills. If other figures are correct, millions of those lives are little "Christian" babies.
As you have probably guessed, Alcorn's conclusions are that all the current versions of the Pill do act as abortifacients. Morally and theologically, then, their use is sin.
The result is a slightly edited version of a booklet Alcorn will be publishing and a highly readable and pass-alongable article written by a known and credible source for that doubtful pastor or elder you have been having trouble convincing.
Or . . .
This may be the same thing for doubtful you.
You, like Dick, may have wondered why we at Life Advocate began devoting so much attention to BC. Well, the verdict is in. The Pill kills babies. Christian babies and pagan babies. If we are to oppose the killing of innocent babies from conception (fertilization), we have to accept all the attendant responsibilities.
If you are determined to hang on to your prosperity at the expense of having posterity, I guess you'll find fault with this as well. So be it. But if you are looking for sober truth, Life Advocate will do its level best to be its publisher.
That said, we have several other matters addressed in this month's pages.
Operation Rescue/National seems to be back in business. I'm not saying they ever quit, but no one can deny the general paucity of participation in theirs and others' rescue events -- until Dayton. Not only were there real rescues, the crowd managed to hold picnics on abortionist Martin Haskell's lawn without being arrested.
Artist Randi Grantham is in the news again. He closed a Florida abortuary (such sad news) -- quite inadvertently -- when he tried to give some of his artwork to a clinic. Police thought it was a bomb -- no word yet on their assessment of the artistic value of the sculpture. Following this, Randi received a chilling visit from a mysterious stranger.
Jim Rudd informs us of the nefarious workings of the NEPCOS and George Will comments on the baby-killer at the prom -- of whom I'm sure you have already heard. Two doctors cogently argue against physician-assisted suicide without resorting to the lame "there aren't enough safeguards" argument just as James Gallant, the euthanasiac reported on as our cover story back in September last year, got a slap on the wrist by the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. The criminal case against Gallant, though, has just begun. Bets on that outcome?

For God and for Life,
Paul deParrie

© 1997 Advocates for Life Ministries