Pro-Abortion Groups Target Doc On Religious, RU-486 Views

Prominent pro-abortion groups are attacking the record of a Kentucky physician because of the possibility that he may be appointed to a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on women's reproductive health. The abortion advocates are worried that W. David Hager, M.D., would use his position on the panel to try to roll back FDA approval of the abortion regimen, RU-486.

"We do have a litmus test, and that is respect for women," said Marjorie Signer, spokeswoman for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, explaining why the coalition opposes the appointment of Hager to the FDA's 11-member reproductive health drugs advisory committee.

It was that committee that helped review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 and subsequently recommended its approval to the Clinton administration FDA.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is reassembling the committee to review the safety of hormone replacement drugs, with initial meetings scheduled for Nov. 12 and 13. HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson is in charge of making new committee appointments.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and allied groups like the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) and the National Organization for Women (NOW) predict Hager would someday use his committee post not only to try to roll back FDA approval of RU-486, but also to thwart approval of other drugs disliked by conservative Christians.

Hager is a University of Kentucky obstetrician/gynecologist who specializes in the study of infectious diseases. But he's also openly Christian, promotes abstinence before marriage, and opposes the use of RU-486.

"He may suggest that a certain kind of birth control pill ... not be approved" because they interfere with a woman's hormone levels, said Signer. "He may think that's interfering with the natural order of things, as he has written. His viewpoint may be that birth control pills are called 'abortifacients.'"

That's "not a viewpoint that's medically accepted," she said. "Mainstream medicine, as represented by medical text books, says that pregnancy, medically speaking, begins with implantation," said Signer.

Hager's future recommendations to the committee would not be scientifically based, Signer predicts. "He would be raising [objections] based on his religious beliefs about life, and what is permissible and not permissible. But I don't call that religious," she said, correcting herself; it's "ideological."

In September, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) also signaled that the political left was spoiling for a fight over Hager's appointment. In written questions given to President Bush's nominee to head the FDA, Mark McClellan, Kennedy asked McClellan whether he approved of Hager serving on the advisory committee.

Kennedy cited reports that Hager refused to prescribe contraceptives to married women and recommended Scripture readings for treating premenstrual syndrome.

But Genevieve Wood, a Family Research Council spokesperson, said the FRC and other pro-life groups are ready for yet another fight over Bush administration appointments.

"The fact is [Hager has] really become the latest object of 'religious profiling,'" said Wood. "You have people like Hillary Clinton and others out there saying that they're scared of his faith and we shouldn't be moving towards what she calls 'theology based science.'

"What it really means is you can be a good doctor but you can't be a Christian ... and get appointed to the FDA," said Wood.

Wood called Hager "eminently well qualified for the position," rebutting criticisms that he's "scantily qualified."

"Anyone who looks at his background can see that he's not only well published, but he's very well thought of by colleagues throughout the country in the medical community, especially when it comes to infectious diseases [and] including sexually transmitted diseases," said Wood.

Pro-life groups have lobbied the Bush administration to re-open a review of RU-486, and Wood believes the reproductive health advisory committee might accommodate the request.

"There's no reason to believe that it couldn't come back again before the committee, which is why you have people like Hillary and Planned Parenthood and others coming out so adamantly against [Hager]," said Wood. "They're more worried about keeping abortion on demand safe and legal than they are about women's health."

Hager's office declined to comment, referring press calls to the FDA, which was closed in observance of the Columbus Day holiday.

So if you won't let women kill their fetus, you don't respect them? Interesting. I agree, I don't respect women who believe they have such a right. I don't respect women who are unrepentant about the so-called "exercising" of that so-called "right".

The really sad thing is the Janus-like two faced quality of these abortion advocates. We are pro choice, they say. But have you ever heard them support one woman who CHOSE to keep her baby? Didn't think so. It is sad to even think about.

I'd disagree. If you think about how the welfare, ADC, and other such systems have been set up under leftist influences, I'd have to say that such people support tens of millions of women who have chosen to keep their babies. Although they do it with your money as well as theirs, I'll admit.

Not even clinton was willing to cram RU-486 openly down the throats of the American people. He did it by stealth and it took him a long time to get it through. It's an extremely dangerous drug, much more dangerous to women than surgical abortions.

If Republicans regain control of the Senate, it should be possible to make appointments like this. Is it worse to be religious than to want to teach children how to use condoms in the back seats of their cars, a la clinton's Surgeon General?

Sure, they are happy to support any of them that are on some sort odf government handout, but have you ever heard them praise a working woman, who keeps her child, and raises it without government help? HA! My biggest beef is this - they call themselves pro-choice, but they then turn around and say that Planned Parenthood groups have no business trying to talk women out of abortions. Did the definition of choice change since I last read it?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.