First
I’d like to take a moment to congratulate Louis Appignani for having
the vision to fund the Humanist Center for Bioethics at the UN Plaza,
and to thank Dr. Ana Lita for inviting me to speak today. It’s an honor
to be on the conference agenda with so many luminaries in field of
bioethics, especially Glenn McGee, who helped move the dialogue forward
with his pioneering bioethics blog. I’m a big fan of his. I’d also like
to welcome the many friends of mine who are here today to support the
work of the Women’s Bioethics Project.
My talk will describe the state of bioethics public policy today and
the role that extremely conservative and religious right forces are
playing. I’m not going to take you through bioethical policy minutia;
instead, I want to spend some time putting the efforts of the extremely
conservative and religious right in a bigger picture context, raising
your awareness to the key players, and describing their underlying
philosophical approach. I will also highlight the opportunities for
offering an alternative vision, and present the Women’s Bioethics
Project view.
When I left my corporate job five years ago to study bioethics at
Harvard, I had a hard time describing to my family and friends what
“bioethics public policy” was and why it was important to devote my
life to helping society work through these issues. What was then an
obscure concept is now in headlines worldwide.
Why the change? First, the post-election analysis that highlighted the
importance that “moral values” held to voters has become part of the
general consciousness, and Americans are primed to think in these
terms. By bringing moral values to the forefront, the 2004 election has
opened a window of opportunity to bring more complex, reasoned
reflection to bioethical issues.
Second, the highly politicized embryonic stem-cell research issue and
the recent Terry Shiavo case have heightened public awareness of
bioethics. The media is heavily covering these topics and the general
public is beginning to understand that bioethical issues are real and
relevant to their lives.
Lastly, technological visions that were once dismissed as science
fiction are becoming a reality. Already the ways in which biotechnology
will affect our lives is being determined by policy makers, judges and
juries, and voters.
I founded the Women’s Bioethics Project because bioethics public policy
is in flux. The issues to consider are enormous and cover a broad
spectrum, from “designer babies” to physician assisted suicide. The
institutions on which we have traditionally relied for guidance on
difficult moral issues—whether church, government, or the academy—have
failed to keep pace with the science or societal implications
underlying the issues. Political alliances are blurred, and there are
few unbiased acknowledged leaders or spokespeople to whom the public
can turn.
Additionally, the media is having a difficult time figuring out how to
cover bioethical issues. When the lines between health, technology,
religion, business, and politics are blurred finding the right editor,
reporter, expert or columnist is tricky.
Because of this disarray, the opportunity to widely impact the
direction of public opinion is up for grabs, yet so far only the
extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have seen this
opportunity and are actively driving the bioethics agenda on a national
and international level.
From Leon Kass’ efforts captured by the March 7th Washington Post
article “Conservatives Draft a 'Bioethics Agenda' for President,” to
the right’s high-profile involvement in the Terri Shiavo legal battle,
to the new Pope’s recent pronouncement that bioethical issues are on
the top of his list, there can no longer be any doubt that the
conservatives are weighing in on these issues.
Let’s step back for a moment and look at the broad political climate.
Based on the work of Rob Stein of the Democracy Alliance and others, it
is well documented that the conservative movement in this country has
spent the last thirty years building an intellectual infrastructure
that consists of interlocking and cooperating elements that include
conservative media, foundations, and think tanks.
Every day this conglomerate of conservative forces drives public
opinion, advances legislation, emboldens conservative judges, and
frames electoral politics to advance its agenda and to secure its
power. It controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of
government and it is this that we need to hold in our minds as we look
closer at the struggle to define the bioethics agenda.
So who are some of the key players? I’m sure you are familiar with many
of them: the
National Catholics Bioethics Center,
the
Center for Bioethics and Culture, the
Center for
Bioethics and Human Dignity, and the
American Bioethics
Advisory Commission, who’s parent organization is
the American Life League. These are just a few of the
many organizations funded solely to promote and drive a conservative,
overtly religious bioethics agenda.
It is important to understand that these organizations are not
operating in a sphere outside of the conservative movement that I just
described. Here’s a direct example: In Oct 2003 the Center for
Bioethics and Culture posted an article on its website entitled “Who
will be the next Joe Coors of Bioethics?” Joe Coors, of the Coors
Brewing Company, was the businessman who provided the initial seed
money for the one of the first conservative think tank founded in 1973,
the very influential Heritage Foundation. The article was a plea for
conservatives to step up funding of bioethical political initiatives.
Fast forward two years to a March, 2005 article posted on the
American
Journal of Bioethics Editor’s Blog to find
out how well this plea for funding worked. The article, by bioethicist
Art Kaplan, was titled “Have Conservatives Bought Bioethics?” and
details how a group called the Philanthropy Round Table had funneled
hundreds of thousands of dollars to bankroll the courtroom effort on
behalf of Terri Shiavo’s parents. Kaplan reveals that The Philanthropy
Round Table is actually a consortium of foundations (which includes the
Coors family foundation) that funds conservative causes.
While it is interesting is that there are a few bioethics centers
trying to push a conservative agenda, and that conservative foundations
have decided to fund a few high profile cases, what the Women’s
Bioethics Project finds even more compelling and, frankly, frightening,
is that well-established conservative think tanks that have
traditionally focused on broad economic, social, and foreign policy
issues have recently added “bioethics” to their political agendas.
A few examples of conservative think tanks now focused on bioethics are
the
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in
Washington, D.C., where Leon Kass is a fellow (2002 revenue: $17
million); the
Ethics and Public Policy Center in
Washington, D.C. (2003 revenue: $1.8 million); the
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies in Washington,
D.C. (2003 revenue: $4 million); the
Discovery
Institute in Seattle, Washington (2003 revenue: $4 million); the
Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and
Holland, Michigan (2003 revenue: $9 million); and
James
Dobson’s Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colorado, (2003
revenue: $127 million).
Why are these conservative think tanks now fervently working to shape
bioethics policy? They see bioethics as a way to extend their
conservative agenda. Their constituents are looking to them to provide
education and counsel on these issues, and they believe, and does the
Women’s Bioethics Project, that bioethical debate will be the
battlefield for defining the kind of society we want to create.
The approaches these think-tanks take to bioethics differ because of
their target audiences. For instance, The Discovery Institute
underwrites promotional book tours for conservative bioethicists, Focus
on the Family issues a series of mini white papers on “How would God
want us to respond” to bioethical issues, and the American Enterprise
Institute recently held a lecture for its membership on “How to think
about Bioethics and the constitution.”
Regardless of the approach, what all these think tanks and centers have
in common is that they are not focused on single issues; they cover an
amazing breath including end of life, euthanasia, physician assisted
suicide, abortion, stem cell research, reproductive technologies, and
genetics to name a few. They are incredibly adept at tying these issues
together in a unified conservative framework based on a concept of
“human dignity.” This defines their position on any given issue and
resonates with their audience.
In light of this well-funded, well-coordinated effort with large
constituencies primed for political action on bioethical issues, is
there still time to effectively promote an alternative progressive
bioethics agenda? The Women’s Bioethics Project believes the answer is
a resounding yes.
One opportunity is the signs of cracks in the conservative’s armor. For
instance in the Shiavo case, the majority of Americans - regardless of
their position on the issue - felt it was not appropriate for the
President and Congress to be intervening in what was seen as a private,
family decision that was a matter for state court at most.
Another opportunity is the fact that conservatives are beginning to
fight amongst themselves about how best to push their agenda, which is
temporarily undermining the coalition.
As an organization that advocates for women, we have an opportunity to
reach out to women who are concerned about protecting their
reproductive freedom and are suspicious of groups who talk more about
the moral status of the fetus than the realities of these women’s
lives.
But our biggest opportunity may be the fact that technology continues
to evolve. Many new technologies such as genetic testing, human
germline modification, and neuro-biology are still in their infancy and
the debates have not yet been framed by extreme conservative and
religious right propaganda. We still have time to frame those issues
and ensure that the debate is not reduced to simplistic notions and
partisan polarizing.
Challenging the conservative stronghold won’t be easy. We are unlikely
to match their megaphone, and we won’t be effective by merely
dismissing legitimate concerns as scientifically ignorant or
faith-based nonsense. We need to do more than just say “yes” where the
conservatives say “no.”
We have the power to shape a compelling alternative vision based on a
different worldview and values. How do we do that? Here is how the
Women’s Bioethics Project is approaching the problem:
We must be willing to move beyond our historical ways of thinking about
issues. Technology will change the nature of the facts and force us to
reexamine the tenets of our underlying belief systems whether we
identify as pro-choice, pro-environment or pro-science. For example,
when one partner wants a frozen embryo donated to research and the
other wants it implanted in another women’s womb, what is the
pro-choice position? We may want to see scientific progress continue
but are there circumstances where it can do more harm than good? Our
willingness to engage in a broad rethinking of the issues will help us
map out powerful and compelling positions.
We must spend more time thinking about what kind of world we want to
live in, and then build a philosophical framework around this vision
rather than just weighing in issue by issue. We need to talk less about
technology and more about values. We have a responsibility to not cede
all things moral to the religious right.
We must embrace strange political bedfellows, as bioethics does not
necessarily follow a party line. Look at the Schiavo case—when else in
history have Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Rush Limbaugh all agreed
on a major issue? This is just the beginning. We must look at this as
an opportunity; a strategic way to get reach out to groups that would
not ordinarily align together and show them what values we have in
common.
We must work on issues that are really relevant to people’s lives, not
just the sexy ones that get all the headlines. Broad issues that don’t
seem frightening or hot enough to engage national media attention still
deserve our focus, such as access to health care, poverty, and caring
for children and the elderly.
And finally, we must think globally from the beginning; the issues we face do not have borders and affect all of humankind.
This is an exciting time to be involved in bioethics. We have the
historic opportunity to define the issues, shape policies and make a
difference. We must step up and work together to create the kind of
world we all want to live in.
