RU-486, the courts and a lawyer's fight against abortion

Richard F. Collier, Jr. is the president of the Legal Center for the Defense of Life, which is a nonprofit New Jersey corporation that represents clients in abortion-related cases. He was also retained by the New Jersey legislature to defend the Partial Abortion Ban Act of 1999 against the constitutional challenge that was brought by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court. He gave a lecture Tuesday in Dodds Auditorium. He spoke yesterday with 'Prince' Executive Editor Michael Koike.

'Prince': Could you explain the process of [extraction and dilation]?

Collier: It's a so-called medical procedure that was developed by two doctors for babies [in a more developed stage]. The doctor uses forceps or his hands and reaches into the woman's womb until he or she can grab the baby's feet. Then the doctor starts to deliver the baby out of the womb.

The baby's body is now outside the mother's body. The doctor then takes a sharp object and sticks it into the back of the baby's head . . . The baby's skull actually collapses. And then they can just pull the baby out. The baby is intact, except it's missing its brain.

The reason they call it "partial-birth abortion" is that the baby is partially born [at the time of the abortion]. The point at which these are done is 20 weeks [into the pregnancy] and beyond.

P: Why did you call it "an act of infanticide"?

C: Because the baby is outside the body. It's almost completely born before the baby is killed. It's a piece of legal fiction that the baby is being aborted as opposed to being killed.

P: How safe is this for the mother?

C: There are no valid statistics on whether it's safe or not, as far as I know. There are all sorts of speculations by one doctor or another about its safety. But in terms of properly done statistical studies, there's nothing. And according to one of the doctors who testified for Planned Parenthood, there's no valid statistical sample — no doctor has done enough of them to know. And the people who are doing these, with one or two exceptions, they don't advertise that they are doing it.

P: When do you think human life begins? Does it begin immediately after conception?

C: It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of pure and simple science. It begins at conception, like it does in every living creature. We treat every other situation like that as if it were simply a stage in development of that particular creature. Don't go in and try to tell a federal judge that this eagle's egg that you broke deliberately, that it wouldn't grow into an eagle.

It's scientific nonsense and legal fiction to say that — and this is what Roe used — this is a potential life as opposed to a living human being in a state of development. And certainly at a partial-birth stage, it's a human being.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

P: During your lecture Tuesday, you said the absolute right of abortion has "trumped even the first amendment." What did you mean by that?

C: I mean that there is a series of situations across the country — and most recently and most notoriously in the Hill v. Colorado case in the U.S. Supreme Court in which traditional first amendment law has been suspended or nullified when the situation was free speech of abortion . . . There is a clear effort around the country. [Supreme Court Antonin] Scalia said that there seems to be a bias on the part of the courts against pro-life speech.

As a result, the courts are supposed to ignore what the subject matter of the speech is when they rule on whether it can be censored, restricted or suppressed. What's going on is that when the courts realize that the people are speaking as pro-lifers, a stricter standard comes into play. No other speech would be subject to that.

P: In your speech, you called the new abortion drug RU-486, "the first human pesticide." Could you please elaborate?

C: It's the first product that's ever been approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] not for the improvement of life and health, but to kill specifically. [The drug] or chemical — however you want to characterize it — is designed for the purpose of killing a living human being. The whole purpose is to kill.

P: You also mentioned that earlier this year, Congress opened hearings on the sale of body parts of aborted fetuses. What is your opinion about these discussions?

C: Congress hasn't — as far as I know — made any specific legislation. In the news [Tuesday], I read that one of the places where this is going on is Nebraska. And Nebraska has been using these aborted fetuses in experiments. [Wednesday] there was some sort of petition drive to ban what's going on.

Personally, I think it's outrageous. I can't say it's something that I would put past the abortion industry — actually selling pieces of human beings for profit. How can you if you're a woman going into one of these doctors? How do you know he's giving you advise based on your best interests as opposed to his profit motive? In addition to that obvious conflict of interest, you just don't sell human beings.

P: What is your opinion of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer and his views?

C: Obviously, I disagree with his utilitarian philosophy that treats the convenience and happiness of the people who have made it out of the womb with greater weight than those who haven't made it out yet and can't pull the ballot lever. That's just so self-centered and egocentric that it's really an abhorrent philosophy.

I don't know him personally and I don't have any views about him personally, but I certainly think that the philosophy that I've heard and read in some of his articles is abhorrent.

P: Could you talk about the upcoming presidential election and the consequences that the race will have on the selection of Supreme Court justices in the next few years?

C: We will see at least two, maybe three, justices to replace. That could really swing the vote. You can assume that five-to-four [in support of a women's right to have an abortion] is the real vote, though I don't really credit that. I'm not so sure Justice Anthony Kennedy is an anti-abortion vote. So maybe you can even assume it's a six-to-three vote. If three or four justices are replaced, that could severely swing the vote.

I know that there is a debate going on among commentators. I think that some of them are even saying that this is the first election since 1968 in which the Supreme Court has played such a prominent part in the political race. But many of them feel that people won't be affected by the Supreme Court issue. Among pro-lifers, it absolutely will affect their votes. But when it comes to those people who aren't active one way or the other, who knows?

But this president isn't the only one who will be responsible for the Supreme Court justices. The Senate is too. And there are many Senate seats up also. It's absolutely crucial that a president who wants to select one way or the other has a Senate to back him up.