Susan G. Komen Foundation has ties to country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood
Please click below to see the facts on the Komen Foundation- Planned Parenthood ties including the fact that Susan G. Komen for the Cure awarded 72 grants to Planned Parenthood afflilates during the years 2000 through 2005. When stopping to speak with a Susan G. Komen for the Cure sidewalk volunteer over the past Mother's Day weekend, I was greatly alarmed to hear that she was not aware of the Komen-Planned Parenthood connection. This older woman stated that she was pro-life and shocked to hear of any Komen Foundation involvement with Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.
"Pro-life citizens who are interested in fighting this deadly disease should be aware that one breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, has a policy of offering financial support to abortion providing facilities."
One of the participants in this recent Pew Forum interview is Jennifer Butler - the Executive Director for Faith in Public Life. You may remember that this group organized the Compassion Forum early last month. Faith in Public Life said they would discuss the abortion issue at the forum and issued this statement: "We hope to get to the heart of the issue and why it's so divisive. We hope to try to pry the door open to potential common ground and ask if the political labels we use when it come to abortion really capture where Americans are on the issue."
However, in this Pew Forum interview, Ms. Butler proudly points to her strong connections with Planned Parenthood and her speaking engagement at the "Planned Parenthood prayer breakfast":
BUTLER: Yeah, well, it is interesting you asked that. I am
speaking at the Planned Parenthood prayer breakfast tomorrow. And
we have worked very closely with some think-tanks in
town with Third Way and with Center for American Progress. Many of these groups
are also very interested in connecting more strongly with faith communities. And
I'd say there has been a resurgence in their interest, an intensification since
2004. So I think it is extremely important to build those bridges there...
...There has been some recent progress in that arena because it has
been a point of tension. I mentioned earlier our work with Third Way. And they
worked with leading evangelicals and progressives to outline a strategy for
approaching the abortion issue which, interestingly enough, did not involve
compromise. And they were very clear that they didn't want a
watered-down solution to the problem, nor did they want
people having to compromise on their ideals...
Butler should explain how working "closely" with Planned Parenthood helps achieve
"common ground" to solve the "problem" of abortion.
Last week, the Associated Press reported the story that a Yale University art student over a nine-month period had artificially inseminated herself, self-induced repeated abortions and saved the blood to showcase in her senior performance art project.
Yale officials went on to issue the following statement, "Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns."
We would agree with Yale's statement that the reported project would have "violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." Reflecting on the artistic interpretation of the project though, one could view this student's purported experiments with her body for her art as "choice" to the nth degree. The pro-abortion movement would like for women to have the complete "freedom" to do what they would like with their bodies for their own individual purposes, regardless of the harms it may cause to them or others. In an effort to avoid pregnancy, anything goes including repeated drug-induced abortions or miscarriages with poorly regulated drugs which can disrupt women's regular cycles, and disregard for resultant physical and psychological consequences.
In the end, it was not so much the “ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body” that was highlighted, but rather clarity that the project operated within a vacuum of a misplaced notion of both freedom and true choice; devoid of care for the woman, the bond between a mother and her child, and the miracle of the beginning of life.
Ted Turner, apparently chomping at the bit to promote the agenda of the global warming alarmists, says we will be eating one another by mid-century. Always hungry for a headline, Turner is sure to grab a few by suggesting that the world's population, exacerbated by global warming, will lead to scarcity of resources.
What's on Turner's menu of solutions? Population control.
"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," Turner said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."
Of course what happens when people don't comply? If it is a good idea, then government has to make you comply, whether it's wearing seatbelts, bicycle helmets or limiting your quiver to two.
There is even more to the call for population control, like China's forced sterilization and infanticide and the liberal West's advancement of same-sex relations.
Stanford University professor Paul R. Ehrlich, in his book The Population Bomb, predicted millions of people would die of starvation in the 1970's and 1980's without the type of population control that Turner is calling for. The hysteria created by Ehrlich paved the way for the United Nations Population Fund.
The UN projected that the planet would be overrun with 11.5 billion people. Ehrlich was wrong. The UN now is quietly saying the population boom will fall far short of their projections. World population is projected to peak at 8.5 billion and then start a steady, long-term decline which many countries are already experiencing and multi millionaires promoting doomsday scenarios.
So we might very well have fields where no crops grow, not because of climate change, but because of an intemperate climate for humans caused by radical public policies.
March 31st marks the third anniversary of the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo. I would feel remiss in not alerting our readers to the excellent Washington Times op-ed on her case by Nat Hentoff published today. As Mr. Hentoff points out:
The reason Congress asked the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own and was not terminal.
This was not a “right-to-die” case, as the author notes. Rather, it was about “the right to continue living.”
To those of us who favored Congressional action on her behalf, we believed that this disabled woman was not receiving the level of constitutional procedural protection that even common criminals receive. In fact, Professor Carter O. Snead (Notre Dame School of Law) has written an important paper (“The (Surprising) Truth about Schiavo: A Defeat for the Cause of Autonomy”) describing the ways the Florida courts misinterpreted state law in reaching their decisions to end Terri’s life. I discussed some of this in an article published on the Weekly Standard’s website one year ago.
A couple of weeks ago, FRC held a briefing on Capitol Hill by patients on the therapeutic benefits already being realized with adult stem cell treatments. Here's a video recap:
Patients featured in the video include:
Amy Daniels, successfully treated with adult stem cells for Systemic Scleroderma.
Jill Rosen, successfully treated with adult stem cells for antiphospholipid syndrome (a lupus-like disorder).
Barry Goudy, successfully treated with adult stem cells for Multiple Sclerosis.
Today's Washington Times contains a "must read" op-ed. Professors Gerald R. McDermott (Roanoke College) and Carol M. Swain (Vanderbilt) give a well-developed argument for defunding Planned Parenthood based on "disturbing realities" about the way that organization conducts its business.
Here is their concluding paragraph: "One must wonder, then, whether taxpayers should continue to support an organization that is flush with money, has been willing to skirt or ignore laws intended to protect the people it claims to serve and may be targeting minorities with a practice many Americans believe immoral."
Also, much praise to the Washington Times editorial page for publishing this excellent piece.
On Friday, March 14th, Secretary Michael Leavitt (Dep't of Health & Human Services) issued an important press release announcing his letter to Dr. Norman F. Grant, the Executive Director of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG). In his letter, Secretary Leavitt stated his justifiable concern that ABOG's Bulletin for 2008 Maintenance of Certification could require physicians to refer patients for abortions against the dictates of conscience. Such outcomes might arise from the "interaction" of that ABOG Bulletin and a "report" of the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (dated Nov. 7, 2007) entitled "“The Limits of Conscience Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.”
Secretary Leavitt took note of federal laws intended to "protect the rights, including conscience rights, of health care professionals in programs or facilities conducted or supported by federal funds." He asked ABOG to clarify its position "[i]n the hope that compliance of entities with the obligations that accompany certain federal funds will not be jeopardized...."
As Secretary Leavitt and the public await ABOG's answer, the Secretary should be commended greatly for his efforts on behalf of those health care professionals who do not wish to refer patients for abortions or act in other ways that would undermine their commitment to the ethical provision of medical services. In case it is not clear, implementation of the projected ABOG-ACOG policy denying licensing or re-licensing to doctors unwilling to refer for abortions could eliminate pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists from the practice of medicine in the United States. This is unacceptable.
A Strong Show of Force against Pregnancy Center Smear Campaign in Maryland
Last week Maryland's Senate Finance Committee heard testimony on a bill that would require the state's pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), or crisis pregnancy centers, to post a disclaimer about their services. SB 690 would force pregnancy resource centers to tell women who contact them that the centers are "not required to provide factually accurate information to clients."
Representatives from NARAL, who lobbied for the bill, cited a recent report conducted by young women who visited pregnancy centers posing as girls with unplanned pregnancies. In reality, the report was a weak attempt to disgrace the good work of PRCs. Senators were quick to question its validity based on its small numbers, and due to the fact that no real clients had been interviewed for feedback.
FRC's Director of Women's and Reproductive Health, Moira Gaul, testified on the negative impact the bill would have on women's health. In particular, she elaborated on how it would undermine the effectiveness in linking women to vital community, healthcare, and support services. Attorneys from the Thomas More Society, Care Net, and others spoke against the bill, citing its unconstitutionality and stating that it would never hold up in court of law. Scores of pregnancy center personnel also testified, including registered nurses, licensed social workers, medical doctors, and licensed psychologists to show that it would violate their professional ethics to provide factually inaccurate information to clients.
In total, over 45 people came to testify against the bill. NARAL's weak attempt to devalue the amazing services PRCs provide was clearly evident as the professionalism, compassion and care of PRC workers shined throughout the lengthy hearing.
Never a group to turn away a buck, Planned Parenthood will take money from wherever and whomever it can get it, be it the government, Hollywood movie stars, and corporations. That welcoming spirit apparently even extends to those who seek racial genocide:
They experimented on 10 severely abnormal embryos left over from traditional fertility treatment.
Within hours of their creation, the nucleus, containing DNA from the mother and father, was removed from the embryo, and implanted into a donor egg whose DNA had been largely removed.
The only genetic information remaining from the donor egg was the tiny bit that controls production of mitochondria - around 16,000 of the 3billion component parts that make up the human genome.
The embryos then began to develop normally, but were destroyed within six days.
This all done, of course, in hopes of preventing diseases caused by genetic defects (fatal liver failure, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, etc.). However, the notion that this takes us one step closer to assembly-line human beings seems to be lost in the hard-charge toward technological advancement. Also lost is the fact that this search for a cure for disease in human beings involves killing human beings.
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush announced the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR is the largest commitment ever by any nation for an international health initiative dedicated to a single disease -- a five-year, $15 billion, and multifaceted approach to combating the disease around the world. The United States now leads the world in its level of support for the fight against HIV/AIDS.
I've posted most of the video from last week's Blogs for Life conference below. Unfortunately, due to some technical errors we were unable to record any of the speakers who gave presentations before the first break.
I'll offer FRC's sincere apologies to Barbara Curtis, Jill Stanek, Dawn Eden, and Michelena Fredenburg, whose talks were left unrecorded. They each gave excellent presentations, and I encourage you to visit their blogs and websites.
Here is a linked list (for archival purposes) of all the video we have posted below:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by Professor Hadley P. Arkes from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by Judie Brown of American Life League from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by Michael J. New from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by Maggie Datiles of Americans United for Life from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech given to pro-life bloggers by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of the speech by Michael Illions of Conservatives With Attitude from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
Here is video of a speech by Peter Shinn of Pro Life Unity from last week's Blogs for Life 2008 Conference held at FRC. Press the 'play' button below the fold to watch:
New Poll: Americans Oppose Abortion Coverage in "Universal Health Care Plans"
FRC Action, the legislative action arm of Family Research Council, has released the results of a commissioned national survey showing that a clear majority of voters would be less likely to support a candidate who proposes a national health care plan that includes universal abortion coverage. The scientific survey by Wilson Research Strategies asked the following question of 801 likely voters: “If a candidate for the Presidency proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, would you be more or less likely to vote for that candidate?”
A clear majority of voters (56%) signaled that they would be “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate proposing universal abortion coverage compared to (31%) who would be “more likely” to support such a candidate. Intensity runs strongest among those opposed to the idea, with 45% indicating they would be “much less likely” to vote in favor of a candidate whose plan forced taxpayers to pay for abortion, compared to 19% who would be “much more likely” to endorse such a candidate. Opposition to universal abortion coverage crossed nearly every demographic including sex, race, region, and age.
Some of the poll’s most interesting findings include the following:
Independent voters of all ages and sex would be less likely to vote for a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense.
Although a majority of Democrats would support a candidate that proposed a national health care plan with universal coverage of abortion at taxpayer expense, the support is soft at best (51%).
Resistance to abortion coverage is consistent between both sexes and all ages. Women aged 55 or older are the most opposed to such coverage (59% are less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), men of all ages follow in opposition (57% less likely to vote for a candidate endorsing it), and the majority of (51%) of women aged 18-54 are less likely to support such a candidates.
Widespread disapproval of candidates who support taxpayer-funded abortion coverage spans all but one region of the United States —New England.
Many thanks to all of the bloggers who were our guests today at FRC for the 2008 Blogs for Life conference. It was a great event, and FRC gives special thanks to all of our excellent speakers, and bloggers who made it a success.
I'm sure that I'm leaving many people out, so if you were here today, make note in the comments and I'll highlight you.
We had some "technical difficulties" with the webcast initially (Murphy's Law plays when most convenient), which were thankfully sorted out before the event's conclusion. Our apologies to those who had problems.
If you missed the event, check back here later this week for archived footage.
FRC will host the third-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2008 at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. beginning at 8:00a.m. This event will precede the March for Life, which will mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
A webcast will be available for those who can't make it to D.C..
Here's a summary of adult cell reprogamming studies
A couple studies have been published that have ended the debate over human embyronic stem cell research, because scientists showed how to get embryonic-like stem cells without harming or destroying embryos or cloning human embryos for research. For a summary, continue reading below.
NEW DELHI, November 30 (Compass Direct News) – Ending a long era of absence of adoption rights for non-Hindus, the government has cleared the way for all religious communities in all Indian states to adopt legally.
The government of the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance on October 26 gave notice of new rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act or JJA of 2006, making room for all communities to adopt, reported national daily The Times of India on November 17.
“This has ended a long wait by the Christian community, which for many years has been urging the government to grant them the right to adopt,” a representative of the Christian Legal Association (CLA) told Compass.
Christians from almost all denominations are happy with the government’s move.
Hopefully, the increased availability of adoptive parents will be good news for survival chances of Indian girls.
The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn't yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:
Here's the statistical breakdown:
ISSUE
VOTES
PERCENTAGE
Abortion
2398
41.52%
Same-sex "Marriage"
1141
19.76%
Tax Cuts
626
10.84%
Permanent tax relief for families
563
9.75%
Federal "hate crimes" legislation
331
5.73%
No vote on this question
181
3.13%
Taxpayer funding for abortions
151
2.61%
Prayer in schools
93
1.61%
Reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine"
88
1.52%
Public display of the Ten Commandments
57
0.99%
Enforced obscenity laws
54
0.94%
Embryonic stem cell experiments
48
0.83%
Voluntary, student-led prayer in schools
44
0.76%
Total
5,775
100%
Now that you've got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.
Whether the federal government ought to be in the business of subsidizing birth control, which, except in cases of rape or abuse, is a matter of individual voluntary decisions about one's sex life and desire for children, is a good question. Whether people should have an automatic "right" to subsidized birth control under Medicaid, to be paid for indefinitely out of other people's federal taxes, is another good question. Those are matters for a long-term policy debate. The more pressing question is whether the federal government should continue to subsidize, to the tune of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars a year, an organization, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, that derives a heap of its revenues from abortions, has sustained a demonstrably poor record on reporting suspected sex crimes against underage teenagers--and has a mountain of cash to boot. What about the taxpayers' right to choose?
Well, hold onto your hats. It is about to happen. Not here (at least, not yet), but in England. On Sept. 5, a government agency (called the Human Fertilization and Embryology Agency or HFEA) decided to let scientists, mad or otherwise, create human/animal hybrids. Let me repeat: Science fiction will become science fact very soon; and man and beast will be combined into one.
Of New York Times Editorials on Animal Eggs and Human Embryos
There's so much that needs to be said in response to today's pathetic editorial. The following statements, at least, deserve comment:
There are distressingly few women willing to donate their eggs for experiments at the frontiers of this promising science....Many were likely deterred by the time, effort and pain required - including daily hormone injections and minor surgery - to retrieve the eggs.
Not to mention the possibility of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, cancer, and death, complications which the New York Times editors must regard as inconvenient to their message.
And they were almost certainly discouraged by the meager compensation [...] These restrictions are meant to protect the women against exploitation, but they have created a dearth of egg donors for stem cell research.
In other words, some people are concerned about the exploitation of women but all we know is that there aren't enough women giving up their eggs -- this is offensive.
Scientists need to develop new stem cell lines genetically matched to patients with diseases like diabetes or Parkinson's. They typically take the nucleus of a patient's skin cell and inject it into an egg whose nucleus has been removed.
Obscuring the truth of what this process is might be expected from smaller papers, but the NYT eds ought to have the [wherewithal] to use the word cloning, since that is where so much of the controversy lies.
If all goes well, the desired stem cell can be derived from the result.
An "embryo" is now a "result." Masterful. If the NYT eds had done even a little research before opining on the subject, they'd have learned that all has never gone well: stem cells have never been derived from a cloned human embryo.
With few human eggs available, some privately financed stem cell scientists are studying animal eggs to see if they can work the same magic when injected with a human nucleus.
The magic has yet to be worked. The NYT eds are going out of their way
to look silly.
That may send shivers of apprehension through people who imagine rogue scientists creating grotesque half-human, half-animal creatures in the laboratory. But a thorough examination of the process by British regulators should alleviate such fears...there would be remarkably little animal - only about 0.1percent - in the mix.
It looks like -- for now, at least -- that Planned Parenthood's bait-and-switch tactic of building a new Aurora, Illinois clinic under a false name has backfired:
CHICAGO (AP) — A suburban Planned Parenthood clinic prohibited from opening after anti-abortion activists raised questions about how it received its building permits will stay closed for the near future.
U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle on Thursday rejected a motion that could have allowed the clinic in Aurora to open as soon as Friday and predicted a long legal fight for Planned Parenthood.
While the case is far from over, it's good to see Planned Parenthood's duplicitous practices acknowledged and left unrewarded. The fact that the nation's largest abortion provider applied for its building permits under the name of "Gemini Office Development" is very telling.
Judge Blocks Opening of New Ill. Planned Parenthood Clinic
Back in July, FRC's Washington Update took notice of an Aurora, Illinois Planned Parenthood Clinic which surreptitiously began construction disguised as the "Gemini Health Center," only to let community residents (and construction workers) know that it was really a new location of America's largest abortion provider.
CNS News is now reporting that the clinic's opening (for now, at least) has been blocked:
(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge has at least temporarily prevented the nation's biggest abortion provider from opening a new $7.5 million clinic in Aurora, Ill., while the city government investigates charges that Planned Parenthood used secrecy and fraud to obtain permission to build the 22,000-square-foot facility.
U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle, Sr., on Monday gave Aurora officials 24 hours to file a response to a request from Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area (PPCA) for an injunction that would have forced the city to allow the new building to open on Tuesday as planned.
A hearing is set for Thursday that awaits Planned Parenthood's response.
Yesterday the L.A. Times ran a story on a Missouri law that would regulate abortion clinics as outpatient surgical centers (Missouri abortion law under review). Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, wrote an excellent point-by-point rebuttal which we believe is worth reposting in its entirety:
The L.A. Times reported Monday that "Planned Parenthood's clinic here in central Missouri performs about 600 first-trimester abortions a year, drawing patients from areas several hours away. Surgical abortions take place in two small exam rooms as the patient, often sedated with a Valium, lies on a padded table, her feet in stirrups." The hall is "dimly lighted" and after the abortions the mothers are taken "to a small, spare recovery room" which "is crowded, the vinyl recliners positioned so close to one another, patients could hold hands."[1]
It is inhumane to subject mothers to such overcrowded post-abortion facilities. Planned Parenthood enjoys an annual profit of over $50 million as the United States' largest abortion provider,[2] but a clinic pleads poverty in complying with a new Missouri law[3] requiring the same conditions for abortion patients as other surgical patients.
Though the L.A. Times article admits to the crowding, it misleads the public in several ways. The article conceals how the Missouri law applies to all abortions equally, and the federal judge's injunction against the law has the effect of permitting second and third trimester abortions to be performed at overcrowded clinics. The judge heard arguments Monday on making his injunction permanent.
The L.A. Times quotes three individuals who benefit from the abortion industry before quoting a defense of this law: "We're applying the same standards of healthcare to abortion clinics as we are to other medical facilities," said Pam Fichter, development director of Missouri Right to Life.
Point-by-Point Rebuttal
Point 1: "A first-trimester surgical abortion takes about two minutes."
False. It takes many times longer than that, even if there are no complications.[4] When incomplete, the abortion is repeated on the same mother. If there are complications, then even more is required. Some abortions are done under general anesthesia, which of course takes longer still.
Tonsillectomies and colonoscopies have been subject to this Missouri law, and they do not require any more time than abortions.
Point 2: "After, patients at the Planned Parenthood clinic here walk down a dimly lighted hall to a small, spare recovery room, where they rest in recliners, a box of tissues by each chair. Most are cleared to go home after 15 minutes."
Misleading: Obviously patients "are cleared to go home" so quickly because the clinic is overcrowded, and early departure is needed to ease the crowding. Patients who undergo surgery other than abortion are not told to go home so quickly, and it is inhumane to treat mothers this way after abortions.
Point 3: "They have enacted the most far-reaching regulations in the nation -- dictating the physical layout, staffing and record-keeping policies of any facility that performs five or more abortions a month, including private doctors' offices that regularly prescribe the abortion pill."
Misleading: This law is no different from what is required for other ambulatory surgery centers. The complaining Planned Parenthood clinic does surgical abortion, so the point about the abortion pill does not apply to it. As to doctors' offices, very few prescribe this dangerous abortion pill, which causes bleeding, pain and higher complications. It is reasonable to require safe facilities of providers who do profit from abortion.
Point 4: "The law would put providers of five or more abortions a month in the same regulatory category as outpatient surgical centers that perform a wide range of procedures, some under general anesthesia, including tonsillectomies, cardiac catheterization, hernia repair, cataract removal and colonoscopy."
Misleading: Abortion is often done under general anesthesia, which is more serious, while the other surgeries above are often done without general anesthesia. There is no reason why abortionists should get by with facilities less adequate than what is required for the less serious tonsillectomies or colonoscopies.
A 30-year-old singer and marathoner who says she survived a botched abortion attempt urged a Louisville gathering of more than 200 people to oppose abortion.
"What I often say is if abortion is merely about a woman's rights, then what were mine?" Gianna Jessen told the annual gathering of Kentucky Doctors for Life Foundation at the St. Matthews Community Center. " I live with the results of this tragedy in our lives."
Jessen, a Christian singer from Nashville, Tenn., said her teenage mother was 7 ½ months pregnant when she went to a Los Angeles abortion clinic.
Jessen said her mother had an uncommon method of abortion in which saline solution was injected. Jessen said she was born alive at two pounds, and taken to a hospital where she was placed in an incubator but suffered from cerebral palsy.
Read the whole story. Jessen is a living example that there are more than just one set of "rights" at play in the abortion issue.
Embryonic stem cell research typically begins with cloning. Scientists insert the genetic material from an adult human cell into a human egg that's been emptied of its own DNA. The cloned cell is then nurtured in the lab for several days, until it grows into a blastocyst, a microscopic clump of cells that could theoretically develop into a fetus if attached to a uterine wall.
As I reread the article, I noticed this rather peculiar correction:
FOR THE RECORD:
Stem cell research: An article in Wednesday's section A on embryonic stem cell research incorrectly stated that such research typically begins with cloning. The cloning method is under investigation, but researchers generally obtain stem cells by extracting them from embryos produced during in-vitro fertilization.
First of all, it is rather strange to see cloning so plainly put in relation to embryonic stem cell research in a paper like the L.A. Times, even though there is a very real and present connection. While I'm not sure of the the exact ratio of embryonic stem cells obtained from embryos produced during in-vitro fertilization to embryos produced by cloning, it's clear by the very legislation passed in states like Missouri that cloning is needed for ESCR to have even a chance of success.
Whether or not Ms. Simon was in error, I don't know, but it's refreshing to see a reporter even acknowledge that a connection exists.
Tom McClusky, along with former FRC staffers Kristin Hansen and Pia de Solenni, contributed to National Review Online's symposium on the criminalization of abortion. From Tom's entry:
...In fact, the Family Research Council has consistently supported legislation that protects the expectant mother and her child; we have also called for case studies of postpartum depression in women who have had abortions (a measure introduced by the great Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Penn). Our main opposition in getting these pro-women initiatives into law tends to be pro-abortionist groups like Planned Parenthood. In the U.S., laws against abortion have always targeted the abortionist, never the woman. To suggest that women be criminalized for having an abortion is rather ludicrous. U.S. law gives the abortionist the final say about whether the abortion will happen or not and additionally gives him the right to profit from it. The act of abortion itself is exploitive of the woman even as it kills the child.
Adult Stem Cell Successes: Patients and Doctors to Speak Out
WHEN: Thursday, July 26, 2007 @ 10 AM ET
WHAT: The U.S. Senate is expected very soon to attempt an override of President Bush’s veto of the bill to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research. Patients from around the world who have been successfully treated with adult stem cells will be joining the news conference. Doctors will discuss the impact of their work and how adult stem cell research holds the most promise in treating patients.
WHO:
Stephen Sprague has been completely free of his leukemia since his cord blood stem cell treatment almost 10 years ago.
Eight years ago, Doug Rice was told he had two years left to live with congestive heart failure. He was successfully treated with his own adult stem cells that were injected into his heart.
Dr. Amit Patel, a doctor with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, has treated numerous patients for heart damage with adult stem cells.
Dr. Julio Voltarelli, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, has successfully treated Juvenile (Type I) diabetes patients with their own adult stem cells.
Prof. Francisco Silva, Vice President of Research and Development for PrimeCell Therapeutics, has been involved in studies using adult stem cells to treat patients with heart damage and spinal cord injury.
It isn’t often that I am impressed with Republicans in their handling of pro-life issues, but last week's floor debate in the House on easing the President’s restrictions on stem cell funding was one of those times. The arguments by the largely Republican opponents of the stem cell legislation were measured, rational, and scientific. In contrast the arguments of the bill’s supporters shouldn’t even qualify as demagoguery. Histrionics would be more apt.
In speaking out against the bill Republicans were on top of their game. They clarified that—in spite of their opponents’ spin—there is no ban on embryonic stem cell research. They pointed out that the research is not “struggling” or “under-funded,” but already has over $4 billion designated for it over the next decade from the public and private sector. In response to the perennial charge that they and the President are “against science” they reminded the listener that the current bill is in essence one passed two years ago and that two years is an eternity in cutting edge science. They argued that embryo-destructive research is quickly becoming yesterday’s news. One member even pointed out that the Nuremburg Code should make us weary of deriving medical knowledge from the destruction of a human—no matter how small or young it happens to be.
Their opponents, in contrast, seemed to have grown intellectually flabby, gorging on their perceived high levels of public support. They made specious arguments that by only allowing supernumerary IVF embryos to be destroyed they were instituting “needed ethical constraints.” (Note that currently the ethical constraint for federal funding is that no embryos be destroyed. This argument assumes the part to be greater than the whole, known to be a fallacy for centuries.) They vaguely and generically referenced America “falling behind” the “rest of the world” in stem cell research. They belittled the usefulness of adult stem cells, in the face of most evidence. And when all else failed, they fell back to lame arguments from authority—from thousands of scientists (both the well meaning and the self-interested), to that pillar of cellular-biological erudition, Michael J. Fox.
Perhaps most reprehensible was the way in which many members invoked sick friends, family, and loved ones. One cannot help but sympathize with them in their struggles, and pray for their well being. At the same time, when embryonic stem cells—and only those derived from destroyed embryos—are presented as the only possible hope for every ailment, large or small, one cannot help but detect a despicable cynicism at work—even for politicians.
Following thirty minutes of the pro-life forces arguing against the bill dispassionately, from bases in reason, science, and secular ethics, Speaker Pelosi ended the floor debate by calling embryonic stem cell research “biblical in its power to cure.” Speaker Pelosi defended the bill by invoking the Good Book, and yet her ilk would have us think it’s the pro-lifers who thump their Bibles in opposition science. The pro-life Republicans who spoke yesterday are owed a debt of gratitude for showing just how wrong that view is.
"Whenever lawmakers are debating stem cells, you can guarantee some study about adult stem cells will be released," said a frustrated Senate Democratic aide about the reports, in Nature and Cell Stem Cell."
I can see why they would be frustrated. Every time the Democrats want to push through some embryo destructive legislation the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy sends a memo telling the leading science journals to release studies showing why such unethical legislation isn't needed. After the Democrats go to all the trouble of claiming that millions of people will die without ESCR its a bit rude for the scientists to contradict them by proposing an ethical alternative.
Maybe Congress should just institute a 90-day blackout period on any scientific advancements that contradict the need for their pet causes.
Living, breathing people who have been treated by stem cells — some who would have otherwise died — are signs of the great hope of stem-cell research. Take Doug Rice, a bear of a man who was told he had months to live because of heart disease, yet after being treated with his own blood stem cells, his heart function is almost normal. Then there’s Dave Foege who also received the same treatment for his ailing heart, after his doctors had sent him home to hospice. And accident victim Jacki Rabon can walk with the aid of braces after she had her own nasal stem cells injected into her spinal-cord injury. Carol Franz is an incredible woman who suffered from multiple myeloma, a bone cancer, until she had her bone-marrow stem cells transplanted. Stephen Sprague has been free from leukemia after having a cord blood stem cell transplant. And Keone Penn no longer has sickle-cell anemia after receiving a cord-blood stem-cell transplant...
How much have you spent this year on the abortion-oriented services of Planned Parenthood? This question may seem too personal, or out of line with your religious beliefs. But the truth is that if you pay taxes, you support Planned Parenthood.
