Letters to the Editor

What wasn’t said at the rally

In an event intended to stir echoes of the 1963 civil rights march on Washington, pro-abortion activists assembled in Washington this weekend (“Pro-choice rally on Mall,” Monday, Metropolitan). We expected andheardimpassioned speeches denouncing restrictions on abortion as a direct threat to women’s lives, a violation of their constitutional rights and an assault on freedom itself.

President Bush was vilified for having signed into law both the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. What we did not hear this weekend, however, was a discussion of our collective responsibility to America’s smallest and mostvulnerablechildren, namely, our pre-term infants.

None of the marchers acknowledged that in some hospitals, such as the University of Iowa hospitals and clinics, almost 80 percent of 24-week pre-term infants survive and do well. No one will mention that in some of the same hospitals where pre-term babies receive state-of-the-art medical care, other 22- to 24-week unborn infants are discarded as medical waste. No one will acknowledge that the partial-birth abortion law simply bans one technical procedure but fails to ban the actual abortion.

Did anyone marching this weekend care about the following health-care paradox? Black Americans have decreased access to medical care with one major exception: Black women have increased access to suction and sharp curettage, the two surgical procedures that account for 97 percent of the abortions performed in this country. Why are black women electively aborting unborn babies at almost three times the rate of white women?

DR. HANES SWINGLE

Pediatric fellow

University of Iowa

Iowa City

…

Adrienne T. Washington, in her Friday column on the abortion rally on Sunday, “Long-ago abortion still fuels woman’s anger” (Metropolitan), relates the story of a woman who had an illegal abortion 50 years ago and is still bitter about it. She quotes the woman as saying the abortion was “the most degrading, horrible experience of my life” and further, “you feel so violated.” “Abortion should be rare; it’s not something you walk into gladly,” the woman also says.

Well, not much has changed even though abortion is legal. A recent poll by the Elliot Institute found that just 16 percent of women believe abortion makes their lives better, and among those women who are pro-choice, fewer than 30 percent believe it can improve their lives. In addition, 67 percent of pro-choice women would be more likely to vote for a candidate who calls for government support for grief-counseling programs to assist women who have had abortions.

Mrs. Washington also quotes the woman’s son, Dr. Steve Wolf, a physician, who wants to remind young women and men that with illegal abortions there is “considerable risk with your own life when trying to make a personal choice.” She also quotes him denigrating those who revere pre-born babies as well as babies already born: “Those who talk about the sanctity of life need to think about putting women’s lives on the line.” Unfortunately, the subsequent 30 years of research show abortion is still a dangerous procedure, both physically and psychologically.

DR. WILLIAM F. COLLITON JR.

Clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology

George Washington University Medical Center

Bethesda

Politicizing public health

The tens of thousands of health professionals who have participated in the Global Health Council’s annual conferences for the past 31 years would not recognize that conference from your editorial “HHS’ reckless agenda” (Friday). The characterization of our conference as political in nature is just plain wrong and patently misrepresents the nature of the conference, its topic and its participants.

We are frankly surprised that you termed this conference a “reproductive rights” forum. It is not, and a review of our conference program (available at www.globalhealth.org) will show that reproductive rights are not even part of the agenda. Nor is this, as you alleged, a “pro-abortion population-control conference.” Any fair review of the facts will show that it is, in fact, quite the opposite.

The Global Health Council is a strictly nonpartisan organization representing practitioners on the front lines of global health. We have worked closely and collaboratively with the Bush administration and with all past administrations during our 31-year history.

Our annual international conference is an opportunity for our broad membership — representatives from nongovernmental organizations, faith-based organizations, private companies, government and multilateral agencies — to discuss key global health issues. This year, we will be focusing on the vital issue of youth and health, emphasizing scientific facts and technical experience and highlighting ways to deal with youth and their needs that are culturally sensitive and have been tried and proved in the field.

The editorial selectively listed just six of the dozens of organizations presenting and participating in this conference. The balance of our conference would have been more accurately represented if you also had mentioned the wide spectrum of other groups that assure the usual balance of views and experiences that our conference participants have come to represent.

Inevitably, some of the subject matter of global health can be controversial. Frankly, even experts differ on ways to promote better health most effectively, especially among young people. This is why we make sure that these differences are aired in a respectful and open manner, that our broad spectrum of members, who include advocates for abstinence programs and supporters of pro-life positions, have the same opportunities to make their views known as those on the other side of these issues.

The U.S. government plays a vital role in global health, even greater today with the historic passage of the president’s Emergency Plan for HIV and AIDS Response. For three decades, part of that role has been to assure participation of practitioners in exchanging knowledge and experience at the council’s annual conference. The federal agencies cited in the editorial have long been partners in this scientific mission, but the editorial misrepresents our use of federal funds. Not one cent of these federal funds supporting our conference is used for lobbying or advocacy, and, in fact, a majority of the conference’s funding comes from private, nonpartisan sources.

Improved health for 1 billion young people around the world is too important to turn into a political kickball. There are other forums for partisanship, and the Global Health Council will not engage in this.

DR. NILS DAULAIRE

President and CEO

Global Health Council

Washington (“Heinz funds Bush bid for re-election,” Nation) inaccurately depicts the H.J. Heinz Co. as a partisan organization by incorrectly stating that the Heinz Co. has supported the Bush presidential campaign over the Kerry campaign.

As befits a global consumer-products company with thousands of employees in the United States and around the world, the Heinz Co. is nonpartisan and politically independent. The Heinz Co. political action committee, which is funded by voluntary employee donations, has a policy of maintaining good relations with both major political parties, particularly focusing on those candidates whose district or state contains a Heinz facility. Over the past seven years, the Heinz Co. PAC has contributed $96,000 to Republican candidates representing the states where we have facilities.

The practice of the Heinz Co. PAC in the presidential election is to support the nominated candidate from both major parties. Accordingly, the PAC donated $5,000 to the Bush campaign and, because the Kerry campaign does not accept PAC contributions, is donating $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

Heinz management and employees represent a variety of political perspectives and have personally donated to different causes and candidates on an individual basis. Simply put, the Heinz Co. makes quality nutritious foods and is not politically affiliated.

DEBORA S. FOSTER

Vice president

Corporate communications

H.J. Heinz Co.

Pittsburgh