Snowflakes Falling?

Some say the only sure things in life are death and taxes. Not so. Your faithfulness, constancy, and resolute determination to stand up for the powerless is another. The deathly fear on the part of the pro-death set that ordinary people will see the unborn as fellow members of the human family is surely another.

Which means that any proposal that qualifies as a "win-win" will automatically be denounced in semi- to full-hysteria mode. Understandable, because pro-death proponents are the ultimate believers in zero sum.

For them when a woman is in a crisis pregnancy situation and thinks she wants to abort, that's the end of that. Case closed. Helping her choose, say, adoption is denounced as a first-strike attack on the "right to choose," rather than a perfect example of exercising "choice."

Pro-abortionists, of course, prefer the more high-tone appellation "pro-choice," but they are anything but. Scratch most pro-choicers and you'll instantly discover someone who panics at the idea of affording women accurate information and a few hours to contemplate whether they truly do wish to end the life of their children.

Likewise, in the context of cloning and stem cell research that would require the death of human embryos, these same bastions of "choice" turn a deadly shade of pale when the unborn are treated as something more than research fodder. Take the news that the " Bush Administration Will Promote Embryo Adoption," as one headline put it.

Embryo adoption? We've talked about this marvelously generous concept in National Right to Life News, the "right to life newspaper of record." [To obtain a subscription, or give one to a friend, call us at 202-626-8828.] The idea is a model of simplicity, caring, and win-win.

When a couple creates via in vitro fertilization more embryos than they implant, most often they freeze the tiny new humans. However, many of these human embryos linger in a kind of suspended animation for an indefinite period of time. What to do if they are not to be implanted in the biological mother?

Find an "adopting" family. There are already agencies that treat the frozen human embryo in the same way they would other children who need a home. So the immediate issue is, can the federal government help spur more such life-affirming, everybody- wins programs? Indeed!

According to the Associated Press (AP), "The [Bush] administration plans to distribute nearly $1 million for public awareness campaigns promoting donation of embryos, one of several options available to couples who create more than they need for in vitro fertilization. Pro-life groups have lauded embryo adoptions as a way to protect the lives of those unborn children who otherwise would have been destroyed."

Where did the impetus for this initially come? As Pro-Life Infonet makes clear, "Perhaps the real credit for the grant program goes to pro-life Rep. Mark Souder (R-In.). During the debate surrounding President Bush's decision to prohibit federal funding of any new embryonic stem cell research, Congressman Souder held hearings on the issue. Several children who had been adopted as frozen embryos attended the hearing along with their families. According to John Cusey of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, the grant program is a result of the successful hearing."

Credit for popularizing the concept goes to Nightline Christian Adoptions, which plans to apply for a grant. The agency's program, which it has dubbed "Snowflakes," has produced 18 babies with an additional five women who are pregnant now.

"I believe every embryo is a child that deserves a chance to be born," JoAnn Eiman, a spokeswoman for Snowflakes, told the AP. " This is more than mere tissue. They need an option they haven't had in the past."

So what could there possibly be to object to? In one of the most remarkably candid sentences I have ever read in the popular press, the AP wrote,

"However, the program is making some people who support destroying human embryos in research nervous. Officials at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine fear it will suggest that donating embryos to another couple is preferable to donating them for research or destroying them altogether."

Eleanor Nicoll, a spokeswoman for the fertility clinic trade group, told the AP, "Our biggest concern is to protect all of the options for the patients, not to make any one thing the designated best option."

Get it? If you actually suggest that bringing this child to term is the "best option"--better than destroying the human embryo--this is cause for "concern"!

And of course Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), who seems always to prefer death to life, is aghast. Again, according to the AP, paraphrasing Michelman,

"Abortion advocates worry that the program lays the legal groundwork for considering embryos human beings with full legal rights. Using the term 'adoption' rather than 'donation' makes it appear that the program views embryos as children."

What's this? You take a human embryo, implant him/her in a woman's body, and he/she is born nine months later--and you want to consider them "children"? Perish the thought. Strike that. Perish the children.

For the pro-death set, ensuring that the human embryo is treated like mere "material" is crucial. If they have lots and lots of trouble with the American public on partial-birth abortions--the hideous butchery of unborn babies 20 weeks or older--that's one thing. But if the ordinary man or woman on the street comes to see the youngest human beings as "children"--well, that's quite another. It's enough to initiate a full-fledged panic attack.

However, for pro-lifers this is wonderful, encouraging news. Keep tabs here and at Today's News & Views (www.nrlc.org/ News_and_Views/index.html) for further updates.

dave andrusko can be reached at dha1245@juno.com.