9/29/00 8:55 a.m.
Jagged Little Pill
Choice seems to be getting much easier.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

“One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, And the ones that Mother gives you don't do anything at all.”
— “White Rabbit,” Jefferson Airplane

n opposite sides of "the pond," the issue of life seemed to go in rather starkly different directions Thursday.

In Great Britain, the parents of conjoined twins "Jodie" and "Mary" decided to give up their appeal and allow the girls to be separated. The operation will kill Mary who can't survive without Jodie. However, the doctors say, Jodie will survive, whereas she would die if she remains conjoined with Mary.

The parents of the twins, a Roman Catholic couple from Malta, did not want the operation to take place. They felt that it should be God's will as to if and for how long one or both girls should live. The doctors at the hospital where the children stayed insisted that an operation be done to save the one twin. Now, the argument can be made that doctors are not supposed to be in the business of taking lives — even under the most arduous of circumstances.

However, there are rare occasions where they find it impossible to save both a mother and child during a problem pregnancy (not to be confused with the "health" of the mother argument that many pro-choicers raise). While a doctor should not, in good conscience, help cause the death of one child, can that same individual allow two children to die if he honestly believes it possible to save one? Should the parents alone be allowed to make the decision, even if it means both children would likely die?

Truly a Solomonic decision.

The three-judge court of appeal ruled on September 22 that the girls should be separated.

Interestingly, Reuters quoted Lord Justice Ward, "Do we murder Mary to save Jodie?" Apparently, British judges do not suffer the affectation of political-correctness that afflict American politicians. Ward did not say, "Do we 'sacrifice' Mary?" or "Do we do this awful thing?" No, he used the "m"-word, supposedly with the full understanding of the moral impact that word has. Another way of saying it might have been, do we commit "justifiable homicide"? While one can disagree with the decision made, it's striking that the judge was starkly clear about what was truly at stake. There seemed to be honest thought going into the decision. Choices and decisions involving life and death should be difficult.

But, on this side of the Atlantic, they seem to be getting much easier. The American Food & Drug Administration officially sanctioned RU-486. It's been the abortion battle that's been waged more on the sidelines. But, when an American manufacturer stepped forward earlier this year, it was only a matter of time before the FDA finally approved it for market.

This is a major decision. The "RU-486 cocktail" — the mifepristone which was the actual drug approved and the follow-up misoprostol — will now permit a woman to get a doctor to prescribe a couple of pills that will induce the termination of a pregnancy. Voila! Essentially, the procedure is now out-of-sight and out-of-mind. The early rhetorical triumph of abortion-rights forces was in making the argument one of "choice" instead of "life." More recently, the pro-life side made a serious advance in terms of public opinion by tactically focusing on the practice of partial-birth abortion, getting Americans to think about a specific procedure.

But, now RU-486 takes the argument in a different direction.

And once the regulatory hurdle has been overcome, it won't be easy to get the horse back in the barn (to mix a metaphor). Even if George W. Bush is elected president, could he be expected to use precious political capital waging an abortion battle immediately after inauguration to get the FDA's decision overturned?

To paraphrase Jefferson Airplane, this "one pill Mother takes don't do anything at all " — except get rid of a problem in a quiet, relatively non-invasive way. A mother can now think much less about the moral consequences of abortion. There is no need to go to a clinic. In the space of three decades, abortion has moved from "back alleys" to "clinics" to doctors offices and, now, for all intents and purposes to the privacy of our own homes.

J. C. Watts often says that integrity is what you have when no one is looking. This is true, but the flip side is that the glare of the public light often forces moral choice. If there are obstacles toward doing a particular action, perhaps an individual will think more than once before doing it. If a person is going to a clinic and has to face more than one person, perhaps the consequences of that decision will be made more vivid. This is not to encourage unfair harassment, but it is to note that obstacles are in our way for a reason. We have to think about how to overcome them.

The judges in Great Britain had the obstacle called "murder" in front of them. They understood that and answered the question "Do we murder to save a life?" The determination was, "yes." A horrific conundrum and one with which they will have to live. However, RU-486 removes the certain obstacles that a woman might otherwise face. Is it now possible to get this pill prescribed in a manner that parents, husbands, and boyfriends don't need to know? A couple of pills and one "mistake" is wiped away?

It's true: RU-486 makes "choice" that much easier. But is a choice easily made and with little thought really a choice at all?