|
Church
Says Ethics Must Guide Biomedical Research
In order to assist our readers in evaluating the
positions of the various candidates in this
year’s general election, the Light
is publishing a series of three articles.
The first, which was published in the
September 7 edition, offered a brief summary
of Catholic teaching regarding the
responsibility of Catholics in political
life. The second article, published in the
September 28 issue, outlined Church teaching
on the life issues, including abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment, war and
peace, and same-sex marriage. The third
article appears below and addresses
biomedical questions, including stem cell
research, cloning, emergency contraception,
and in vitro fertilization.
STEM
CELL RESEARCH
A stem cell is a human cell that, when it divides,
has the potential to produce either another
cell, like itself, or other cells with more
specialized functions depending on the needs
of the body. For example, certain stem cells
in human blood have the potential to produce
red blood cells and white blood cells. A
stem cell is like the stem of a plant that
becomes differentiated as it grows.
Researchers using stem cells harvested from adults
have had very promising results in the
treatment of debilitating diseases,
including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord
injuries, leukemia, heart damage,
sickle-cell anemia and others.
Experimentation on adult stem cells, and
their use in the treatment of disease, pose
no moral problems because the collection of
such cells in no way endangers the life of
the donor. The Church has consistently
encouraged adult stem-cell research
including the harvesting of stem cells from
umbilical cord blood. Just recently, Pope
Benedict XVI addressed a
Pontifical
Academy
for Life Symposium on the subject. The Pope
praised scientific knowledge and advanced
technology when they combine with ethics
that teach respect for the human being at
every stage of existence. He commended the
Pontifical
Academy
and all people of good will for their
commitment to achieving “new therapeutic
results from the use of cells of the adult
body without recourse to the suppression of
newly conceived human beings.” (
Vatican City
,
October 4, 2006
).
The
process of harvesting stem cells from a
living human embryo, on the other hand,
results in the embryo’s death. This
process, called embryonic stem-cell
research, is immoral because it involves the
destruction of the lives of newly conceived
human beings. Commenting on this technology,
the Pope said that the Church is, and always
has been, opposed “to those forms of
research that provide for the planned
suppression of human beings who already
exist, even if they have not yet been
born.” He reiterated the “human value of
the newly conceived child also when
considered prior to implantation in the
uterus.” The Pope described the essential
problem with experimentation that involves
destruction of newly conceived human beings:
“No one can dispose of human life. An
insurmountable limit to our possibilities of
doing and of experimenting must be
established. The human being is not a
disposable object, but every single
individual represents God’s presence in
the world” (cf. J. Ratzinger, God
and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002).
In the
United States
, the debate about stem-cell research began
in the late nineties. In 1995, Congress
banned federal funding of research harmful
to the human embryo. In 1999, the
Clinton
administration reinterpreted the ban,
claiming that the funding prohibition did
not apply to research on cells derived from
human embryos, even though the cells could
be derived only by destroying the embryos.
In August 2000, the National Institutes of
Health published funding guidelines for
research using embryonic stem cells. A year
later, President Bush announced that federal
funding would be available for research
using only stem-cell lines already in
existence. The White House reaffirmed this
policy in June, 2004.
Extravagant claims by embryonic stem-cell
research advocates only serve to confuse the
debate. While the idea of a future without
Parkinson’s or some other debilitating
diseases is very appealing, the moral truth
is that a good intention, such as developing
the cure for a disease, does not make a
morally evil action, the intentional killing
of a human embryo, permissible. In Catholic
theology “[o]ne may not do evil so that
good may result from it.”(Catechism
of the Catholic Church #1749-1761)
The Catechism
of the Catholic Church states, “Human
life must be respected and protected
absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a
human being must be recognized as having the
rights of a person – among which is the
inviolable right of every innocent being to
life” (#2270). Embryonic stem-cell
research violates this most basic of rights
and is, therefore, forbidden by the Church.
Despite accusations that the Church is
choosing embryos over suffering patients,
the truth is that the Church has a
2,000-year-old record of supporting
experimentation and technology that seek the
well-being of human beings through ethical
means. The United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops has supported all efforts
and advances in stem-cell technology that
are scientifically and morally sound.
Richard Doerflinger
, deputy director of the Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops, commented on recent
attempts in Congress to pass pro-embryonic
stem-cell legislation. “A better path,
already endorsed by President Bush and an
impressive bipartisan majority of
Congress,” said Mr. Doerflinger, “is to
fund avenues for discovering or creating
cells with the abilities of embryonic stem
cells without exploiting human embryos at
all.”
HUMAN
CLONING
Cloning is a form of asexual
reproduction. It is done by taking genetic
material from a person's body cell,
injecting it into an egg whose nucleus has
been removed or inactivated, and then
stimulating the egg to begin embryonic
development. Genetically the cloned embryo
is virtually identical to the person whose
cell was used. Some people want to use
cloning to produce infants as copies of
living or deceased people. This is called
“reproductive cloning” or
“cloning-to-produce children.” Others
want to use cloning to mass-produce human
embryos to be destroyed as raw material for
experimentation. This is called
“experimental cloning” or
“cloning-for-biomedical research.” The
issue of experimental cloning overlaps with
the problem of stem-cell research discussed
above. A person might want, for example, to
create a cloned embryo that would provide an
endless supply of genetically matched stem
cells for himself in order to avoid tissue
rejection during the treatment of disease.
Sexual intercourse in marriage is the
only morally acceptable means of
procreation. Cloning is an asexual means of
reproduction that is dehumanizing and that
treats human beings as laboratory products.
For these reasons, the human cloning ban
supported by the Church has been approved by
a bi-partisan majority in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Many countries, including
Canada
,
France
, and
Germany
have similar bans on cloning. Furthermore,
claims that a ban on cloning would impede
the treatment of disease are misguided.
Creating human clones to use their embryonic
stem cells to treat disease, for example, is
not only immoral but unnecessary. As shown
above, adult stem cells are available for
the treatment of disease and present no
ethical problems. Donum Vitae issued
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith in 1987 addresses the immorality of
human cloning. “[A]ttempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human
being without any connection with sexuality
through ‘twin fission,’ cloning or
parthenogenesis are to be considered
contrary to the moral law, since they are in
opposition to the dignity both of human
procreation and of the conjugal union” (I,
1 and 6).
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: “PLAN B”
The Catechism
of the Catholic Church teaches that all
forms of contraception are immoral.
“Artificial contraception is the use of
mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures
to prevent conception from taking place as a
result of sexual intercourse; contraception
offends against the openness to procreation
required of marriage and also the inner
truth of conjugal love” (2370).
Morning-after pills are often called
“emergency contraceptives.” Despite the
fact that they are called contraceptives,
however, morning-after pills may, and often do, act as abortifacients. This
is the case with a newly approved
over-the-counter “emergency
contraceptive” for women over 18 years of
age called “Plan B.” According to the
manufacturer’s instructions, “Plan B”
may prevent ovulation, fertilization and
implantation. Preventing implantation
deprives an embryo, which may be as much as
a week old, of needed nutrition causing it
to be aborted.
Lacking physician supervision, many women who use
“Plan B” will not be aware of the
potential for abortifacient action.
Catholics value all human life, even the
newly conceived child prior to implantation.
To do less is a serious violation of the
dignity of the human person. A woman who
uses “Plan B” needs to know that she
runs a high risk of aborting the embryo in
her womb.
Advocates of “Plan B” say little if nothing about
the additional risks to women who use it.
The amount of artificial hormone used in
“Plan B” is 40 times that found in
comparable prescription-only birth control
pills and there is no way of knowing the
frequency with which the drug will be used
by any individual. The fact that “Plan
B” is available over-the-counter to those
18 and older practically insures that it
will eventually fall into the hands of
minors just as alcohol and tobacco do.
“Plan B’s” new packaging insert
indicates a five times more likely risk of
fatal ectopic pregnancy. Contraceptives like
“Plan B” carry proven risks of
depression, weight gain, vision impairment
and other problems.
Little is said, as well, about the fact that “Plan
B” has proven to be very profitable for
Planned Parenthood. The Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB reports
that, in 2003, Planned Parenthood saw an
estimated profit of over $15 million from
the sale of “Plan B.”
Pro-abortion advocates promote morning-after pills in various ways.
They have succeeded in obtaining coverage in
health plans of federal employees for
contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug
Administration. Abortion advocates are also
lobbying to require all hospitals to provide
morning-after pills for rape victims, with
little or no regard for the consciences of
health care personnel who must dispense
them. They also seek to establish public
education programs promoting morning-after
pills.
RU-486
RU-486
is a drug specifically designed to end a
pregnancy that is not more than 49 days old
(dated from the beginning of woman’s last
menstrual period). RU stands for Roussel
Uclaf, the developer of the drug, while 486
is simply a shortened version of 38456, the
number assigned to the drug in the
company’s laboratory. The United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave
approval for use of this drug in the
United States
on
September 28, 2000
.
RU-486,
or mifepristone, works by causing the
mother’s womb to slough off the implanted
embryo. It blocks the effect of
progesterone, a hormone necessary to
maintain implantation. Two days after taking
RU-486 a woman enters the abortion clinic
and receives a prostaglandin which causes
uterine contractions, expelling what’s
left of the shriveled embryo. The abortion
may take hours or a day or longer. The woman
must return to the clinic 14 days after the
administration of RU-486 to make sure that
the abortion took place and that there are
no complications. On rare occasions a
surgical intervention may be necessary to
remove the remains of the embryo.
Occasionally, the drugs fail to cause the
desired abortion. Because the child may be
injured in various ways, abortion providers
will then recommend a surgical abortion. In
U.S.
trials of the drug 92 % of chemical
abortions were successful when performed in
the fifth week of pregnancy, while only 77%
were successful when the abortions were
performed during the seventh week.
Health
care professionals warn that people with
various medical conditions may not safely
use the drugs administered during an RU-486
chemical abortion. They also point out that
side effects of the drugs may be minor or
serious. In the spring of 2006, the deaths
of several women were linked to the
administration of RU-486. At that time, the
FDA reminded abortion providers about the
proper use and risks of RU-486.
From
a moral point of view both chemical and
surgical abortions are deplorable since they
cause the death of the unborn child. In his encyclical,
The
Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II
affirmed Church teachings regarding the
sanctity of human life and the evil of all
forms of abortion: “Human life is sacred
because from its beginning it involves
‘the creative action of God,’ and it
remains forever in a special relationship
with the Creator, who is its sole end. God
alone is the Lord of life from its beginning
until its end: no one can, in any
circumstance, claim for himself the right to
destroy directly an innocent human being.”
IN VITRO FERTILIZATION
The
Catholic Church teaches that human embryos
obtained through in
vitro or artificial fertilization are
human beings with rights whose dignity must
be respected from the first moment of
conception (Donum
Vitae, I, 5). The Church also teaches
that the process of conceiving a child
through in
vitro fertilization is against moral
law.
In
vitro
fertilization is the name given to a
procedure in which an egg, or eggs, taken
from a woman’s body are fertilized in the
laboratory with a man’s sperm. The sperm
may be taken from her husband or from an
unrelated donor. Ordinarily, several eggs
are fertilized and two or three are
implanted in order to increase likelihood of
a successful pregnancy. Those that do not
implant are sloughed off. It is more
difficult to achieve implantation by an
artificially created embryo than one created
by natural means. Embryos that are not
implanted may be discarded or frozen for
future use.
The
Church teaches that the process of
conceiving a child through in
vitro fertilization is against moral
law. Where the child is conceived using
sperm collected from a donor other than the
husband, in
vitro fertilization “violates the
unity of marriage, the dignity of the
spouses, the vocation proper to parents, and
the child’s right to be conceived from
marriage. It deprives the child of his
filial relationship to parents, can hinder
his personal maturation, damage family
relationships, and be a source of disorder
and injustice in the whole of social life”
(John B. Shea, M.D., “The Immorality of In
Vitro Fertilization,” Ethics
and Medics, October 2006, Vol. 31, No.
10). Where conception is achieved using
sperm collected from the husband, the Church
still teaches that in
vitro fertilization is illicit because
procreation must be the result of the unity
of spouses.
Certain
practices necessitated by the procedures
involved in artificial fertilization are
also immoral. In
vitro fertilization necessarily involves
creation of more embryos than can be
implanted. The “extras” are either
discarded or frozen. In this process, the
researcher “usurps the place of God” and
“sets himself up as the master of the
destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily
chooses whom he will allow to live and whom
he will send to death, and kills defenseless
human beings (Donum
Vitae, I, 5). Where the embryos are
frozen even in order to preserve their lives
for future use, the process is an offense
against the dignity of the unborn child.
Freezing embryos exposes them to grave risks
including death or physical harm, deprives
them of maternal shelter and gestation, and
exposes them to the possibility of further
manipulation.
The
Church has great compassion for married
couples who know the sadness of infertility.
The desire for a child is natural and is the
expression of the proper vocation of spouses
to fatherhood and motherhood. Nevertheless,
the Church says that “marriage does not
confer upon the spouses the right to have a
child . . . [A] child is a gift, ‘the
supreme gift’ and the most gratuitous gift
of marriage, and is a living testimony of
the mutual giving of his parents. For this
reason, the child has the right . . .to be
the fruit of the specific act of the
conjugal love of his parents . . . (Donum Vitae, II, 8).
Surveys Provide Information on
Candidates’ Positions
In
an effort to educate people about candidates
and their positions on issues important to
Catholic voters, the Pennsylvania Catholic
Conference (PCC) prepared questionnaires
that were sent to the candidates for
governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative,
state senator and state representative. The
responses are published here. The PCC and
the Diocese of Scranton neither support nor
oppose any candidate for public office.
2006
General Election – Pennsylvania Governor
Candidate
Questionnaire Responses
1.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what is
your position on providing legal protection
for unborn children from the moment of
conception?
Rendell
(D): Oppose
Swann
(R): Support
1a.
If support, what exceptions, if any, would
you require?
a)
would not require exceptions
b)
life of the mother
c)
life of the mother, rape, and incest
Rendell
(D): Did not indicate
I
believe abortion should be legal but as rare
as possible. My efforts to improve our
adoption services have been recognized with
two national awards.
Swann
(R): C
2.
What is your position on research that
involves destroying live human embryos to
obtain their cells for experimentation
(embryonic stem cell research)?
Rendell
(D): Support
Swann
(R): Oppose
3.
What is your position on a provision in the
state budget to fund contraceptive services?
Rendell
(D): Support
I
have also increased funding for abstinence
education.
Swann
(R): Oppose
4.
What is your position on mandating employers
and health insurance plans to cover
contraceptives in their prescription drug
plans?
Rendell
(D): Support
Swann
(R): Did Not Indicate
The
specific health services provided by a
certain employer or health insurance plan
should be left to the discretion of those
providers and employees.
5.
What is your position on a moratorium on the
death penalty in
Pennsylvania
?
Rendell
(D): Oppose
Capital
defendants must have access to experienced
and able counsel and to DNA testing, even if
they cannot afford it.
Swann
(R): Oppose
6.
What is your position on amending the
Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage
as the union between one man and one woman
and prevent civil unions or another
functionally equivalent legal status?
Rendell
(D): Oppose
I
agree with our existing legal definition of
marriage as being between one man and one
woman, and I therefore believe the amendment
is unnecessary to protect marriage. I have
always supported giving same-sex couples in
a committed relationship functionally
equivalent benefits.
Swann
(R): Did Not Indicate
I
support a clear and unequivocal amendment to
the state constitution that defines marriage
between one man and one woman.
7.
What is your position on legislation that
allows only single individuals or married
couples to adopt children?
Rendell
(D): Oppose
Swann
(R): Support
8.
What is your position on school choice
legislation in the form of direct grants, or
vouchers, to students to attend the school
of their choice?
Rendell
(D): Oppose
I
have, nonetheless, doubled funding for the
Educational Improvement Tax Credit.
Swann
(R): Support
We
must allow children in perpetually
underperforming schools to have other
academic options.
9.
What is your position on increasing funding
for the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC),
which encourages businesses to donate to
K-12 scholarship programs?
Rendell
(D): Support
EITC
scholarships have doubled since I took
office.
Swann
(R): Support
10.
What is your position on giving more public
dollars to state-funded preschool (ages 3-4)
program available to all students regardless
of family income and administered
exclusively by public school districts?
Rendell
(D): Did not indicate
I
strongly support pre-kindergarten funding
for school districts AS WELL AS for high
quality community providers.
Swann
(R): Oppose
All
providers of preschool should be available
for state funds.
11.
What is your position on legislation to
create a registration system for religious
child care providers that includes health
and safety requirements (but not licensure
by the Department of Public Welfare) and
preserves their religious freedom (i.e., in
curricula and hiring practices, and
discipline)?
Rendell
(D): Did not indicate
I
believe that staff/child ratios, corporal
punishment and staff qualifications ARE
issues of health and safety.
Swann
(R): Support
12.
What is your position on using more public
money to make assisted living/personal care
more affordable and provide more health care
options for the elderly so that they may
choose the setting best suited to their
needs (i.e., home care, assisted
living/personal care, nursing home)?
Rendell
(D): Support
I
have nearly doubled the number of seniors
able to live at home and in dignity while
receiving needed services.
Swann
(R): Support
13.
What is your position on legislation
establishing a review board to impose
standards that ensure scientific research in
Pennsylvania
adheres to ethical principles?
Rendell
(D): Did not indicate
I
am willing to consider any evidence of the
need for such a board.
Swann
(R): Support
We
should build off the model in the tobacco
settlement legislation.
14.
What is your position on legislation that
forces Catholic health care providers to
provide, pay for or refer for services
contrary to their conscience and moral
teachings?
Rendell
(D): Did not indicate
My
position would depend on the specific
service.
Swann
(R): Oppose
Each
provider’s policy should be made clearly
known to the insured associated with the
institution.
15.
What is your position on the appointment of
a task force to examine Pennsylvania’s
long-term care policy and funding needs for
senior care services so Medicaid-funded home
and community based alternatives are carried
out in partnership with all types of
long-term care providers?
Rendell
(D): Support
My
Long Term Living Council is soliciting input
from stakeholders.
Swann
(R): Support
2006
General Election – U.S. Senator
Candidate
Questionnaire Responses
1.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what is
your position on providing legal protection
for unborn children from the moment of
conception?
Santorum
(R): Support
Casey
(D): Support
1a.
If support, what exceptions, if any,
would you require?
a) would not require
exceptions
b) life of the mother
c) life of the mother,
rape, and incest
Santorum
(R): B
I
would not vote against otherwise pro-life
legislation if it also included exceptions
for rape and incest.
Casey
(D): B
If
the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe
v. Wade and the issue was returned to the
states, and if the PA General Assembly
passed an abortion bill, that bill would
contain exceptions for rape, for incest, and
for the life of the mother. I would strongly
support that bill because it would have the
effect of reducing the number of abortions
in PA.
2.
What is your position on research that
involves destroying live human embryos to
obtain their cells for experimentation
(embryonic stem cell research)?
Santorum
(R): Oppose
I
do support adult stem cell research and
introduced the Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Research and Enhancement Act to find
other alternatives.
Casey
(D): Oppose
I
will strongly support increased funding for
research on umbilical and placenta stem
cells, adult stem cells, and other forms of
stem cell research that do not harm the
embryo.
3.
What is your position on suspending all
federal executions?
Santorum
(R): Oppose
I
have supported the death penalty in very
limited circumstances, with strict
enforcement of due process rights, ensuring
that innocent individuals are not subjected
to this ultimate penalty.
Casey
(D): Oppose
I
support the death penalty for heinous
crimes. But I support federal legislation
that provides access to relevant DNA
evidence.
4.
What is your position on a constitutional
amendment that defines marriage as a union
between one man and one woman?
Santorum
(R): Support
Casey
(D): Oppose
Marriage
can only be between a man and a woman. I
believe PA State law is clear on that. And I
do not believe
Washington
should take this decision away from state
legislatures. I understand that many good
people support this amendment because of
their legitimate concern about protecting
the definition of marriage. Yet far too many
in
Washington
are using this amendment to divide our
nation for political gain. I will not be a
part of such efforts.
4a.
If support, which constitution should be
amended?
a.)
U.S.
Constitution
b.)
PA Constitution
c.)
Both
Santorum
(R): C
I
strongly believe in defending traditional
marriage and have spoken on the Senate floor
in support of this measure.
Casey
(D): N/A
5.
What is your position on expanding the
federal school voucher program (e.g. the
Washington
,
DC
voucher program) to other jurisdictions to
further study its effects on at-risk
children?
Santorum
(R): Support
Casey
(D): Oppose
I
was educated in Catholic schools. I taught
at a Catholic school. My girls attend
Catholic schools, but I cannot support any
program that drains money from public
schools.
6.
What is your position on providing a tax
credit to businesses that donate to
scholarship organizations that provide
scholarships for low-income students at
private schools in grades kindergarten
through 12?
Santorum
(R): Support
I
have introduced a bill that would turn the
PA EITC program into a federal law.
Casey
(D): Oppose
Same
as above. Tax credits would drain revenue
for public education.
7.
What is your position on legislation that
forces Catholic health care providers to
provide, pay for or refer for services
contrary to their conscience and moral
teachings?
Santorum
(R): Oppose
I
introduced the Abortion Non-Discrimination
Act to address this problem.
Casey
(D): Oppose
I
am for exemptions that provide adequate
provision for individuals to get care
elsewhere.
8.
What is your position on mandating employers
and health insurance plans, regardless of
their religious beliefs or moral
convictions, to cover contraceptives in
their prescription plans for employees?
Santorum
(R):Oppose
I
also oppose the FDA’s recent decision to
sell the “Morning-After Pill”
over-the-counter, while my opponent favors
it and calls for it to be “widely
available.”
Casey
(D): Support
I
do not believe that employers should be able
to deny their employees coverage for legal
contraceptive services, especially since
those services are proven to significantly
reduce abortion rates in this country.
9.
What is your position on comprehensive
immigration reform efforts (such as the
McCain/Kennedy proposal) which outline steps
for undocumented workers to earn
US
citizenship or legalization?
Santorum
(R): Oppose
Unlike
my opponent, I oppose amnesty. I believe we
must first secure our borders, so I
introduced the Border Security First Act.
Casey
(D): Support
I
would have voted for this bill over doing
nothing at all. However, as I have said, the
bill is not perfect. My top priority is to
pass legislation that emphasizes border
security and punishment for employers who
hire illegal immigrants. And I will never
support efforts to criminalize priests,
nuns, and lay workers for trying to help
immigrants.
10.
What is your position on comprehensive
health care reform efforts that include
providing coverage for immigrants?
Santorum
(R): Support
I
support patient-centered proposals to expand
access to quality and affordable health care
for all Americans, not increasing dependency
on government programs. I do not support
providing government benefits to illegal
immigrants who do not pay taxes.
Casey
(D): Did not indicate
My
priority is to expand health care coverage
and reduce the cost of health care for
children and working families. I oppose
efforts by some to deny health care access
for legal immigrants.
11.
What is your position on cuts or program
changes to Medicare and Medicaid that
restrict access to health care for low
income citizens?
Santorum
(R): Oppose
I
strongly support efforts to reform Medicare
and Medicaid to root out fraud, waste, and
abuse so that our hard-earned tax dollars
are spent on services for those that need
them the most.
Casey
(D): Oppose
If
elected to the U.S. Senate, I would be
strongly supportive of a number of other
initiatives of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, including: protecting
Social Security, especially for individuals
and families whose resources are already
very limited; environmental protection,
especially as it affects children’s
health; increasing the minimum wage;
expanding children’s health insurance;
supporting child care initiatives, including
the Family and Medical leave law; and
supporting children’s health and nutrition
programs including food stamps and WIC.
U.S.
Congress
Candidate
Questionnaire Responses
NOTE: This questionnaire was sent to Christopher Carney (D-10), Don
Sherwood (R-10), Paul Kanjorski (D-11),
Joseph Leonardi (R-11), John Peterson (R-5)
and Donald Hilliard (D-5). Mr. Hilliard was
the only candidate who responded. His
responses follow. (DNR indicates did not
respond to this question.)
1.
If
Roe v. Wade is overturned, what is
your position on providing legal protection
for unborn children from the moment of
| 
