To the editor,

Sen. Jeff Smith’s column Sept. 4 titled “In vitro fertilization, family and politics” ends with “When it comes to the hope of a new family, we must set differences aside and work together.” New families are possible only when unborn children are not aborted. There is a glaring inconsistency in lamenting childless homes and advancing childlessness via the termination of human life. Republicans are not inconsistent in wanting to protect the life of tiny humans, which includes what all of started as: embryos. Democrats surely should “put differences aside” by recognizing the biologic, science-affirmed fact: embryos are tiny humans.

In the USA Supreme Court’s revisit of Roe v. Wade, there were not only legal factors (e.g. of jurisdiction), but I suspect also the decades of advances in medical sciences which showed the jurists (and us) that a fertilized egg and resulting embryo is both alive and human. What else could it be? It not alive, there would be no need to freeze, to hold growth in suspension. If not human, why would a woman/couple want to implant these tiny hims/hers? Sen. Smith seems to suggest that frozen embryos are not “unborn children.” They indeed are unborn. They indeed are tiny humans, and so also children.

When couples want a child and seek medical remedy, and become pregnant, it would surprise me if they thought that tiny life anything but “unborn children,” the designation (bemoaned by Sen. Smith in my reading) that the Alabama Court has given to frozen embryos. Out of a legitimate designation, Sen. Smith fashions fear. He observes that fertility clinics and practitioners “are starting to fear” that recrimination will be exacted on them for murder. Everyone knows that a new or changed law cannot be used to indict those who acted according to the law in time past. As regards to murder, prohibited in the Triune God’s commandment (He who judges matters by His own definition) we all have failed in support of our neighbor’s body and physical life. There is time now to admit need for forgiveness so dearly won by Jesus’ life. Repentance, grace, faith – these Democrats and Republicans should agree on.

Though Sen. Smith seems to suggest Republican reluctance to support legislation funding IVF treatments is of the heartless type (but what is abortion, what is experimentation using unwanted embryos?), yet sober, scientific, and yes, moral, reasons are in play to reflect a pro-life climate across the board. What of the babies after they are born? To increase tax burden, to take more of a couple’s paycheck, is not the way to benefit children. Finally, I urge the senator to support and advance adoption. Adopted children are every bit as wanted, loved and precious to parents as a child (yes, child) carried nine months in a mother’s womb.

Bruce F. King

Prescott