By Dave Andrusko

Congressman Chris Smith

Last week, I wrote about pro-life Congressman Chris Smith's eloquent and comprehensive op-ed in which he warned/pleaded that a meeting at the UN this week not be kidnapped by the pro-abortionists. As he wrote in the Washington Post, referring to the review of the eight Millennium Development Goals agreed to at the start of the century, "the most compelling and achievable objectives -- huge reductions in maternal and child mortality worldwide --will be severely undermined if the Obama administration either directly or covertly integrates abortion into the final outcome document."

I subsequently took the time to read most of the reader responses. By now it shouldn't, of course, but it still does amaze me how no matter what aspect of the abortion issue that is under review, the same personal attacks on pro-lifers are as rife as they are scatter-gunned.

We don't care about women; why don't we adopt; we're all conservatives who hate "big government," so why do we want government to intervene in "private decisions"; the unborn is a "fetus" until birth, then it becomes a "child" [so there!]; pro-lifers such as Cong. Smith don't care about born children, etc., more tedious etc., most tedious of all etc.

Okay, let's start at the beginning. Whether you agree with Congressman Smith's pro-life views (which, by the way, most emphatically include a passionate concern for the welfare of born children) or not, he starts with premises that are unassailable if you think them through.

Is there really an inconsistency between opposing procedures that "dismember, poison, induce premature labor or starve a child to death" and trying to reducing infant and maternity mortality in developing nations? It's just the reverse.

Killing millions of unborn babies is inconsistent both with lowering infant mortality (duh) and reducing the number of women who die from pregnancy-related complications. Why the latter? Two reasons.

First, "We have known for more than 60 years what actually saves women's lives: skilled attendance at birth, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre- and post-natal care," Smith wrote. "The goal of the upcoming summit should be a world free of abortion, not free abortion to the world."

Second, "The lack of modern medicine and quality health care, not the prohibition of abortion, results in high maternal mortality rates," explained Jeanne E. Head, R.N., NRLC Vice President for International Affairs and UN Representative for National Right to Life in a speech delivered in April at the United Nations. "Legalized abortion actually leads to more abortions--and in the developing world, where maternal health care is poor, legalization would increase the number of women who die or are harmed by abortion." (See http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/April10/nv041510part3.html.)

As I conclude, I would be remiss if I didn't quote one paragraph in its entirety. Cong. Smith explained,

" A recent landmark study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and published in the British journal the Lancet in April is a great encouragement to governments that have been seriously addressing maternal mortality in their countries. The study, confirmed by similar numbers in a World Health Organization report released just this month, shows progress in the fight against maternal mortality; the number of maternal deaths per year as of 2008 has been reduced to 342,900 -- or 281,500 in the absence of HIV deaths -- some 40 percent lower than in 1980. And contrary to prevailing myths, the study underscored that many nations that have laws prohibiting abortion also have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world -- Ireland, Chile and Poland among them."

A great op-ed, by a great pro-life champion. You can read Cong. Smith's op-ed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091705303.html and my comments at http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Sept10/nv092010.html.