RealCurrents

I was disappointed to read of Wal-Mart’s reversal as it announced it would carry the Plan B “emergency contraception”, aka morning after pill. At least Wal-Mart has confirmed it will continue its conscientious objection program so its pharmacists won’t be required to dispense the drug.

I guess the sun is setting on Sam Walton’s long-held philosophy driving Wal-Mart, that “wherever we’ve been, we’ve always tried to instill in our folks the idea that we at Wal-Mart have our own way of doing things.” [Made in America, p. 66] According to Wal-Mart Vice President of Pharmacy Ron Chomiuk, “We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead … Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country’s only major pharmacy chain not selling it.”

The key word in this latter quote is “only”. Like it or not, being the “only” one is what leaders do, and for a long time Wal-Mart seemed comfortable with this, but their inability in recent years to rise above some of their own problems was already a hint they’ve lost a vision for this. It’s hard to fault companies for abiding by the laws where they operate (Massachusetts and Illinois have required pharmacies to stock Plan B), but it’s annoying when they decide to just knuckle under everywhere else as a foregone conclusion. Plan B is less problematic than RU-486, but is it really so much to hope that at least one company would take a pro-life stand to the fullest extent possible?

Despite this setback, another case points to how there are, nevertheless, many “low-hanging fruit” type opportunities where the pro-life movement could make an impact. It should be easy to find agreement concerning the case of six year old Vietnamese orphan Tuan Van Cao, who needs a visa for emergency surgery in this country. Unfortunately, his condition is urgent, and again bureaucracy has worked its wonders, denying him a visa, even though the costs of his surgery are already covered.

Apparently, his humanitarian parole waiver application was rejected (after two months) by the Parole and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, an office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is itself now a part of that renowned example of your government in action, the Department of Homeland Security. Those trying to help him were told to pursue adoption, a process that could take a year or more.

According to Pam Cope, who reportedly got involved with Vietnamese orphans through the organization Ventures for Children International, “Tuan’s case is black and white. He needs emergency medical treatment and we can give him free medical treatment here in the United States” The pro-life movement needs to do a better job of identifying opportunities like these where children can be protected and there is likely to be little political opposition.

Changes made to immigration law back in 1997 have made Tuan’s predicament fairly common. Reportedly over 5,000 applications for a humanitarian waiver have been rejected in the 2000-2005 period; only about 20% are approved. Obviously, the law needs to be tweaked so that medically urgent cases are assured of receiving expedited approval, unless there is some compelling reason not to.

In the big picture, this visa problem points to how the pro-life movement needs to broaden the scope of its activity. There are many pro-life issues beyond abortion that impact how society treats children and, just as importantly, how society views and values children.

It is encouraging to see that progress may finally be possible in some of the worst areas of the abortion debate, such as partial-birth abortion, acknowledgement of post-abortion syndrome, and RICO abuses. At the same time, by identifying and becoming an advocate in broader areas where some progress may be relatively easily attainable, the pro-life movement could gain credibility and offer a more compelling argument for the value of life, and of the need for us to make the welfare of children and others who are weak a higher priority.

Among these areas of opportunity are more balanced divorce laws that better protect single mothers and children, extensive liberalization of adoption laws and tax credits, and reform of the foster child system. While the underlying philosophy behind the pro-life position is not well understood, it seems, the driving vision of the pro-life position, of compassion and care for even the weakest in society, will be easier to share with more tangible results.