The right to life cause is not about surgical abortion alone. It is about re-establishing respect and protection of innocent human life from fertilization until natural death. It is about public policy that reflects our nation's founding principle that "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life ...... and that governments are instituted among men to protect that right, along with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life cause is not only about doing away with the right to abortion, a "right" fabricated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, but it is also about legal protection of the human embryo in the research laboratory or the in vitro fertilization clinic, and those at the end of life who must be defended against assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Today, in scientific research laboratories on university campuses across the nation, experiments are being performed on human embryos, for utilitarian purposes, in violation of the moral law and the founding principles of our Republic. The tiniest of human beings are being subjected to medical experiments in an effort to "harvest" their stem cells, before they differentiate into organs, blood and bone. Some scientists believe stem cells may be used to grow replacement cells and organs for transplant purposes. Unfortunately, the embryonic human being must be killed in the process -- an unacceptable evil.

In addition, the mapping of the entire human genome (3 million base pairs of DNA) is expected to be completed by 2003 at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, MD, opening the door to many miracles of modem science, while at the same time bringing about ominous implications for genetic engineering, manipulation and discrimination.

The pro-life movement is facing mind-boggling issues of public policy. If those seeking and holding public office are informed of these developments, and surround themselves with advisors who believe it is never acceptable to seek a good end through evil means, the American people and the world should be well-served. Otherwise, our children and grandchildren may reap the whirlwind.

Consider the following questions you can ask your Congressman and Senator and candidates for every office, from President to County Judge:

• As a matter of public policy, do you think human embryos should be respected as human beings? (Yes)

• Should scientists be prohibited from generating human life for experimentation? (Yes) These tiniest of humans have no mother, no father -- in fact they may come into being through a cloning technique (egg of one person, nucleus of another - perhaps even of the same gender), they will never reside in a womb but will be killed in the first hours of life after their stem cells have been "harvested."

• Should Americans, born or unborn, be protected from enforced genetic testing in order to obtain health insurance or medical care? (Yes) What if your pregnant daughter is forced to have her unborn baby undergo a genetic test and is found to have a genetic predisposition to one or more serious medical conditions? Should insurance companies be allowed to deny your grandchild health care coverage because she may be at risk? (No)

• Should experiments in human cloning be prohibited across the board, whether privately or publicly funded? (Yes) Many scientists want to experiment in creating human clones, and are trying to convince Congress that the only thing that should be prohibited is the implantation of the cloned embryo in a mother's womb. In other words, they want to clone - then kill - a new human life.

• Should in vitro fertilization clinics be allowed to generate "extra" human embryos and then kill the ones that aren't implanted, or cause the "leftovers" to be frozen in liquid nitrogen until somebody decides what to do with these babies? (No) Currently, according to USA Today (12/8/98), 100,000 human embryos are frozen in this manner, suspended in time and treated as property, to be used or discarded as their parents or the courts decide. While we believe in vitro fertilization is morally wrong, it may not be possible to end the practice, since there are over 300 in vitro clinics already in the United States and it is a very big business. If it is not possible to end the practice of in vitro fertilization, should in vitro clinics at least be prohibited from using the eggs and sperm of any but legally married couples? (Yes)

• Should fertility clinics be required by law to limit the fertilization of chemically-induced eggs to no more than three, in order to avoid pressure on the parents to engage in "selective reduction" in the case of six, seven, eight and even nine babies? (Yes) Currently, many fertility clinics do not act responsibly and will allow fertilization to take place when numerous follicles are ready to release eggs. Then, they offer the parents the option of "selective reduction" which involves a decision on which babies to kill in order to make room for the others. Then, a fatal chemical is injected into the selected babies, hearts, killing them and "reducing" the number of babies to be carried to term.

• Since virtually all state and private universities receive federal funds, should experiments on human embryos be banned from their premises? (Yes)

• Should various gene therapies be made illegal because they could cause the alteration of the genetic code of generations to come? (Yes)

• Should chemicals that are called "contraceptive" but are actually "interceptive" be paid for with taxpayer dollars? The mode of action of the emergency "contraceptive" pill (ECP) allows conception to take place, so a new human life comes into existence. The chemicals in the pill make the lining of the uterus inhospitable to the developing baby who dies from lack of nourishment. This is called an abortifacient drug. Should it be U.S. policy to provide these pills to any segment of our population at taxpayer expense? (No)

These are but a few of the issues that cry out for pro-life action. It appears that too many Republican politicians and some pro-life leaders for that matter, are generally far less informed than they should be on these matters, while Bill Clinton, who is a "policy wonk," likened the cloning of Dolly the sheep to "the splitting of the atom" in its importance. He mentioned the Human Genome Project in his state of the union address last year. It is clear that the Clinton liberals know what is at stake, and many of them are traveling the utilitarian road.

That is why the 2000 elections and the Republican National Convention will be a watershed for the right to life cause. The founding principles of our country are on the table as never before. We will be looking for truth and clarity and pro-life vision in the presidential candidate we choose to lead our Party.

There are people in our country and some in our Party who, if the Declaration of Independence were being written today, would not endorse it nor would they sign it. Why? Because they don't believe that the right to life comes from God. Because they don't believe that the right to life is unalienable and cannot be transferred from one to another like property, to be disposed of at will. Because they don't believe that government exists to protect the right to life. Because they represent what the Founders sought to change. Because they refuse to submit to the "laws of nature and nature's God."

The Republican National Coalition for Life is already working to see that the pro-life plank in the Republican National Platform is readopted at the 2000 Convention in Philadelphia. We are counting on you, our diligent supporters, to stay informed, be active in the Party process in your state, and circulate the RNC/Life Pledge as widely as you know how, in order to show tangible support for our cause.

Elizabeth Dole to Run for President?

Last week, Elizabeth Dole announced that she is stepping down as president of the American Red Cross, giving rise to speculation that she may launch a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In the Feb. 9, 1998 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru writes about Elizabeth Dole's position on abortion: "In a 1987 profile for the Washington Monthly, Philip Weiss had fun with her comments to the New York Times in 1980 ('I think it's just about the most difficult question there is, and one I'm still wrestling with') and to him seven years later, ('I think it's just about the most difficult question I've ever had to wrestle with, and frankly I'm still wrestling with it.') All that wrestling to so little effect! But how very like Elizabeth Dole: scripted, indecisive, careful not to offend." On April 23, 1996, The New York Daily News reported that in an interview, Mrs. Dole "appeared uncomfortable discussing the abortion issue." Asked by the Daily News whether she supported a constitutional ban on abortions, the newspaper quoted her as saying, 'Yes. There are three exceptions -- life of the mother and rape and incest." Elizabeth Dole, like her husband, evidently wants to appear pro-life, when in fact her position is one that would insure that abortion remains legal.