Tennessee Lawmakers Clash with Planned Parenthood Officials over Undercover Footage
Lila Rose of Live Action Films again exposes Planned Parenthood's reckless counseling practices. This time, Rose posed as a 14-year-old girl, who was impregnated by a 31-year-old man. Rose, in her dialogue with the Planned Parenthood counselor, mentions:
My boyfriend said he could pay for everything--But he shouldn't come here to pay 'cause you'll see him, right?" the counselor replies, "It doesn't matter. As long as your parents are not here and can't identify him, he can just pay and that's it. He could be like your older brother or whatever."
Tennessee law mandates that a minor must have parental consent before undergoing an abortion. Since the video has been released, two Tennessee state legislators, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and Sen. Jack Johnson, have introduced legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood.
"Why would citizens tolerate paying the bills of an organization that protects statutory rapists and victimizes young girls? This is the sad result of the careless abortion-first mentality that has persisted at Planned Parenthood for decades."
In his answer to the question on the Freedom of Choice Act, President Obama first said abortion was a "moral issue" and then went on to say:
[T]his is an issue that... individual women have to wrestle with... And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States... So that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion...
These were careful words. Notice that Obama avoided any phrasing that would suggest that he believes abortions per se ought to be reduced. He doesn't ever assert that we ought to reduce the number of abortions because that would cast abortion in a negative light; wanting fewer abortions suggests abortion is a negative thing that ought to be reduced. Rather he is always careful to say that he wants to reduce the need for abortion, which leaves abortion as a "good" and casts the pregnancy (or rather the child) as the bad that should be reduced.
The Democrat platform under Obama was changed from making abortion "rare" to reducing the need for abortion -- a move deeper into pro-abortion orthodoxy. It's like the child is the dreaded disease and abortion is the wonderful vaccine -- why would we want fewer of those wonderful vaccines? It's the dreaded disease we want to reduce!
Obama is careful in his choice of words and so should pro-lifers be: do not ever give Obama credit for wanting to reduce abortions.
Maternal and Fetal Health Interim Guidance Concerning N1H1 or Swine Flu from the CDC
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides guidance and information on background, risks, suggested treatments, and other considerations for pregnant women and N1H1 or Swine Flu. The CDC currently reports, "Pregnant women are also known to be higher risk for seasonal influenza complications and during prior pandemics, and it is reasonable to assume that pregnant women are also at higher risk for swine influenza complications.
Call to NPR in Los Angeles; Customers Misusing Plan B
Last week, the Obama Administration announced that it would not appeal a federal district court's decision commanding the FDA to begin selling the Plan B contraceptive to 17-year-olds as an over-the-counter product. Previously, the FDA and drug company set the lower age at 18. Plan B's manufacturer-distributor, Teva, will have to submit an application to FDA which the agency will then approve.
As we noted last week, the Family Research Council has been concerned that women might use Plan B frequently, repeatedly in the place of standard contraceptives. The labeling contains no clear warning about such use. FDA officials have pooh-poohed this argument, but one interesting anecdotal piece of evidence has come in on this topic.
The changes to Plan B marketing were discussed on "AirTalk," a public radio program broadcast by KPCC-FM, a station owned by Pasadena City College on April 23rd. The guest-host was David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times, and he interviewed Dr. Susan Woods, former FDA official and Plan B supporter, and Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. The show can be heard via this weblink.
There was one extremely interesting caller who was referred to as "Steve from Diamond Bar." (Steve start: 22min 05sec; Steve end: 23min 05sec.) Steve is a co-owner of a pharmacy, and he explained that a few years ago 30-minute consultations were needed before the pharmacists could dispense Plan B over-the-counter in California.
Steve had occasion to notice the buying patterns of his customers. He noted that many purchasers were responsible about using Plan B, but he also described a class of customer who came to the store "on a regular basis" and purchased Plan B "week after week." When David Lazarus asked him whether the repeat users "were a majority or minority of users," Steve responded that they were probably half of the Plan B purchasers.
Even if Steve from Diamond Bar did not remember correctly and inflated his estimate, it is clear that a substantial population of Plan B users were using this drug very frequently - as many have feared.
The Associated Press is reporting today that the Obama Administration has decided to roll over for a federal district court decision issued last month commanding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell the morning-after-pill, Plan B, to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
Typically the Department of Justice (DoJ) would vigorously defend an agency decision - in this case FDA's restricting Plan B over-the-counter sales (OTC) to women 18 and over. Here, however, the Obama FDA and DoJ have decided to accept an aggressive court ruling without appeal. In essence, the Administration let a judge make a scientific decision as to when it was safe to sell Plan B over-the-counter.
Is Planned Parenthood becoming the Fountain of Youth?
Live Action's Lila Rose investigates yet another Planned Parenthood (Memphis, TN this time) , which yields what's becoming an all-too familiar result -- people's ages being mysteriously lowered by clinic workers:
President Barack Obama last January 23rd --in office just two and a half days--revoked the Mexico City policy. That policy was initiated by President Reagan and supported by both Bush administrations. Obama's action was hailed by pro-abortion groups around the world. The little-known but very powerful outfit, Americans for UNFPA, issued an ecstatic statement: "[This action] allows all Americans to again hold our heads high. We can be proud to be part of a nation that is, once again, ready to lead the world in promoting the health and rights of women."
What was the Mexico City policy? It was a prohibition on giving U.S. foreign aid monies to organizations-like Planned Parenthood-that perform or promote abortion in developing countries. Because the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) had been found complicit in communist China's massive practice of coerced abortions, UNFPA was also de-funded. This was done under a provision of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that has the force of law.
President Obama's "Health Care Summit" continued at the White House today. From Ted Kennedy to the National Federation of Independent Business, a diverse group was assembled to provide input in the large public forum and in smaller "breakout" sessions.
It is beyond dispute all Americans want consistent access to high-quality and cost-effective medical insurance and care. No one who has ever seen a loved one suffer or who has personally experienced a serious disease or injury wants anything less. How we arrive at this goal is where the division lies. President Obama has asserted that health care is a "right." Is healthcare itself a "right" or is access to health care a right? These are important distinctions. If it is a fundamental right it must be provided for and that would fall to the government. A government-run monopoly would result in sharp increases in health care costs, rationing of healthcare and a decline in quality.
What do you call an American citizen who objects to one of President Obama's most radical nominees? "Verbal terrorists," according to "Hardball's" Chris Matthews. The MSNBC host, who last night addressed the controversy surrounding Kathleen Sebelius, took a gratuitous swipe at the pro-life community for opposing the Governor's radical positions. "Is she going to get through the anti-abortion people?" Matthews asked. "Yes. I think she's going to do that. I mean, verbal terrorism? Yeah, she'll get through that."
Give me a break! Educating Americans on Sebelius's record isn't "terrorism," it's activism, no, it's realism! As a candidate for one of the most influential posts in Obama's Cabinet, Sebelius's public positions matter--particularly if they're as far outside the mainstream as hers have proven to be. Before Sebelius is confirmed, Americans deserve to know where she stands. They should know that the Kansas governor supports late-term abortions, filthy, roach-infested abortion clinics, government as the final authority on children's health, the killing of innocent abortion survivors, and socialized medicine. Despite what Chris Matthews believes, standing up for the defenseless and the vulnerable is what public officials are supposed to do. This is just an attempt to shift the focus off the extremism of Sebelius' record.
Revoking the Conscience Protection Clause--not a good idea
Maybe, it is time for some around Washington to realize that discriminating against medical providers who decline to perform or refer for abortions is not a good idea. After all, they are standing for their beliefs. The Obama Administration is trying to remove this rule from the books, to which Rep. John Boehner posted this response.
What Kathleen Sebelius Could Mean for the Department of Health and Human Services
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is not just another massive bureaucracy. It is the largest department in the federal government, with a proposed budget of $821 billion for 2010. In contrast, the Defense Department's budget of $534 seems puny.
Much of the HHS budget is composed of outlays for two "entitlement" programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Yet HHS is a vast federal agency, laden with sub-agencies and programs, most of which are unfamiliar to the American people but many of which have a direct bearing on federal policy regarding pre-born life, in our own country and internationally.
Now, with the nomination of abortion advocate Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) to be HHS Secretary, President Obama has signaled his willingness to use the nation's largest Cabinet department as a means of advancing a radical abortion agenda.
This morning's Washington Postbrings news of what should be the Obama Administration's high-water attack on the sanctity of human life, and what should be for the pro-life cause our Dunkirk. Routed at the polls, pummeled on forced funding of the international population magnates, threatened with compulsory tax funding of the domestic abortion industry, we now face an Obama repeal of the Bush Administration's conscience protections for health care workers who decline to participate in abortions.
It's time to send out a call for the dinghies, the tugboats, the fishing trawlers -- anything that floats or may float -- and make it clear that in its lurch toward the Culture of Death the Obama Administration will be unable to dragoon people of conscience into their ranks or drum them out of their professions. The purest joy of an evildoer is to draw others -- especially people of highest character -- into their work and thereby drain their moral capital and sully their reputations. All this is happening because the evidence suggests that the ranks of medical personnel committed to abortion as their stock-and-trade is small and, shall we say, not drawn from the elites of the profession. In communities from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to Midland, Texas, the local abortionist is a drive-by doc, who visits for the day to conduct his ministrations of destruction upon the population. The dearth of death-dealers makes the crushing of conscience a social value for the Left.
Moreover, it is a sign of their own bad conscience. If so many good people will not perform abortions or hesitate to thrust a cycle of pills at a 15-year-old girl who really needs a wise adult offering her a better way than feeling compelled to submit to sexual exploitation by a boyfriend or adult man, then maybe, just maybe, there is something amiss with those health personnel who seem to hesitate at nothing. For the pro-life community right now, a Mrs. Miniver moment is the right thing. We've long upheld the rose as our symbol. Let's go down to the sea in ships.
Such laws, among other things, seek to correct a philosophical mistake. That is, they seek to correct the dis-unity between "person" and "human being" that philosophers such as Peter Singer make. There is no difference. All human beings are persons. Creating a distinction between some human beings, who are persons, and some who are not is a dangerous game.
It is the powerful, after all, who will decide which human beings are persons, and you can bet your last dollar they won't leave themselves out. But, as history proves, they will leave others out - the weak, the voiceless, the outsiders. The whole history of our United States may be understood as a struggle to recognize, and to guarantee in law, that all human beings are equal. State "personhood" laws are well within this tradition.
Our Navy chaplain told us last Sunday about a most interesting psych experiment from his college days. Student volunteers were given special goggles. These goggles blocked out the students' peripheral vision and turned everything they saw upside down--a full 180º. At first, of course, the students stumbled around, as if hopelessly uncoordinated and incapable of movement. Gradually, however, they began to accommodate themselves to the new view. In a surprisingly short time, the students, their upside-down goggles firmly attached and without peeking, found they could negotiate with ease. Apparently, some volunteers for this upside-down experiment have become so proficient they can actually pilot airplanes.
I feel like those student volunteers. I remember when the world was right side up. In the 1960s, I did not take psychology in college, but biology. In that class, we dissected a fetal pig. I can still smell that formaldehyde and see the odd smile on my fetal pig. You can imagine, then, how strange, how upside down it seemed to me when I heard people in that era begin to talk of the unborn child as a fetus.
Glamour Article Strikes a Chord: New Outreach Offers Hope of Healing
Last week, Glamour magazine published an unusually candid article on the topic of abortion and women's mental health: "Abortion: The Serious Health Decision Women Aren't Talking About Until Now." Surprisingly, the article conceded that women's abortion experiences can carry with them the long-lasting burden of psychological harm and mental health morbidity. Illustrating several women's real-life personal struggles with the aftermath of their abortion decisions, which left them depressed and traumatized, the article undermines the myth that abortion is a non-event in women's lives. But the article neglects to mention the very real dilemma that there is an utter lack of resources on a public health level available to women and individuals devastated by their abortion experience and in desperate need of help.
In the window of the Martin Luther King Library in downtown Washington, D.C., is a sign with a quote from Rev. King, the famous pastor and civil rights leader. It reads, "In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends."
For too long, women and men who know better have been silent about the negative effects of abortion on the women and babies who undergo the procedure and on their family and friends. Women in high stress situations of unplanned pregnancies, and the babies they have conceived, have been without the benefit and support of people who could have spoken up about the serious negative after effects of their own abortions or the abortions of women they know. For too long knowledgeable people remained silent while women facing abortion believed the lie that this "product of conception" was just a blob of tissue, only to be told after the abortion that, "It was a boy/girl."
If you've ever been confused about the national debate over stem cell research, you're not alone. Politicians, preachers, and pedestrians alike are likely to be confused, given the vague rhetoric that's often thrown about.
For a good primer on the debate, and to learn about the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells, which ones are ethical and which were not -- or which is truly yielding successful treatments, tune in today at 11:00 a.m. EST for the live webcast of a lecture by FRC's Dr. David Prentice. In "The Audacity of Hype: Embryonic Stem Cells -- Wasting Taxpayer Lives and Wasting Taxpayer Dollars," Dr. Prentice examines "the real facts on the science and the difference between hype and hope" in the stem cell debate.
Planned Parenthood, the nation's premier supplier of birth control, is also the nation's top deliverer of the undelivered - human lives that are ended by induced abortion. The chart below shows the regular, decades-long increase in abortions carried out in the U.S. by the agency that styles itself as focused on reducing the "need" for abortion.
Planned Parenthood has doubled its abortion count (and the figures exclude early abortions carried out through abortifacient means in the first minutes or days after conception) in the last 13 years alone. Federal (taxpayer) money for the group has also grown during this period. Money to Planned Parenthood is apparently a "stimulus" affording the group more access to women who are abortion vulnerable.
I listened this morning to President Obama as he addressed the National Prayer Breakfast. I was filled with awe. Not because of his smooth delivery or his gracious style. Rather, that his style so completely belies what his motives are. This president is the most pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-life movement president in the history of the United States, and oh by the way, very likeable as he glides through with his wrecking ball on life and marriage issues. When he refers to the fact that religion should not divide people, does any thinking person doubt that he is speaking of abortion and marriage policies?
This president seems so completely owned - not just politically, but mentally as well - by the liberal philosophies which are drummed into students' brains on college campuses, that he has the audacity to tell a Prayer Breakfast audience that he will change the Faith-Based Offices from faith-based to faith-based plus non-faith-based groups. What might some of those be? Perhaps, Planned Parenthood because they have done such "fine work" in the community?
He can get away with diminishing the purpose of the faith based offices with Americans who are not familiar with the ways of politicians, but this writer sees right through to his intent. His gleaming smile cannot hide the giant wrecking ball he wields. He has begun the dismantling of the protection of marriage (because standing up to the gay attack on Christians and their beliefs is "divisive"), he has voted against protecting human life in and out of the womb (because to defend the voiceless is "divisive") and he will put in place those people and those organizations who know just how to do it (read bios here.)
Sadly, he is popular enough to attend a national prayer breakfast and deliver a speech that carried more criticism of religion than the worth of it. I know that by blurring the tenets of all religions he was sending a message of hope to radical Muslims who have pledged to kill those who disagree with them. Oddly, I get the feeling he was sending the same message to those of us who would stand and defend the unborn and who would demand that the sacrament of marriage be left alone.
Indiana doesn't have the corner on the market for the "wink, wink -- we'll take care of you" style of illegal abortion counseling. Lila Rose and the crew from Live Action go undercover into an Arizona Planned Parenthood where instead of reporting statutory rape, a worker counsels a young girl to keep silent:
What's up in Alaska? Senator Lisa Murkowski today voted with President Obama to overturn the Mexico City Policy which, according to World Magazine, "prohibits grantees in receipt of U.S. funding from performing abortions, lobbying to legalize abortion, or promoting abortion as a family-planning method." (See also, our Tom McClusky's description of the policy below - in the blog on 1/23/09.) That places her in the company of liberal Republicans Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe as the only Republicans to vote with the Democrats. Alaska's new senator, Mark Begich, voted to fund overseas abortion providers as well.
I wonder whether Sarah Palin would have made it a trio ?? The GOP Platform on which Palin ran for President with John McCain stated:
"We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the 'Mexico City policy,' which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values."
Perhaps, I am wrong, but I never heard Palin stating an objection to the platform on this point.
The results keep coming in, and the results are great. Research using adult stem cells continues to yield success in treating living human beings. While the media is all agog over a new (the first) FDA approved trial for embryonic stem cells, the real story is the continuing success with adult stem cells, which can be isolated and used in treatments without any ethical problems. In our semi-annual update, David Prentice and I collect and discuss only such successes from the last 6 months, and they are impressive.
In our 12 page report, you'll meet people who have been helped with adult stem cells, such as 9-month old Chole Levine, who made a 50 % recovery from cerebral palsy, Susan Fister who overcame leukemia, 12 year-old Michael Wenman whose digestive tract had been destroyed by a malfunctioning immune system prior to his ASC treatment, among many others. Their stories show that we can provide highly successful treatments to suffering human beings without engaging in unethical embryonic stem cell research. In embryonic stem cell research, human beings in the embryonic state must be destroyed; with adult stem cell research, on the other hand, we can use stem cells in a person's own body, or from cord blood "banked" at birth, to treat them. This is ethical science and medical at their best.
I'm amazed with the number of people, on both sides of the abortion issue, in the media and definitely in Congress who have no understanding of what the Mexico City Policy is and does. I recently did an NPR interview where the obviously biased reporter asked me a number of "questions" that showed both a bias and a lack of knowledge in the policy. At a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in October of 2007 a number of witnesses (including Joana Nerquaye-Tetteh, former executive director of Planned Parenthood Association of Ghana) who support the overturning of the Mexico City Policy had to actually admit ignorance of the policy during the hearing after some intense questioning from Republicans on the Committee.
First a little background. The Mexico City policy was first implemented via a memorandum by President Reagan in 1984 at a United Nations population conference in Mexico City, thus the name Mexico City policy. Prior to President Reagan's actions American policy on paper was to never promote abortion overseas, however in practice US tax dollars directly supported organizations which advocated and performed abortion. It remained in effect until 1993 when President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy on January 22, 1993 for the entirety of his tenure in office. On January 22, 2001, President Bush issued a memorandum restoring the Mexico City policy.
In as little words as possible, the Mexico City policy halts U.S. family planning funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform abortions or "actively promote" abortion as a method of family planning in other countries.
What does this mean? Under the Mexico City Policy for an NGO to be "actively promoting" abortions means they provide advice and information regarding the availability of abortion or encourage women to consider abortion; lobby a foreign government to legalize or make more available abortion; or conduct a public information campaign regarding the benefits and/or availability of abortion.
That is what NGO's can't do. What they CAN still do under the Mexico City Policy is provide referrals for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term; and treat injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, i.e., post-abortion care. The argument that the Mexico City Policy is in actually a "global gag rule" is pure and utter nonsense - unless you actually believe that abortion, killing the child in the womb, is a form of family planning.
The effect of President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy is that now millions ($461 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008) of dollars are taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortion, and delivered into the hands of organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method - especially in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds.
On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere
On first blush, it is nothing new - it follows a pattern in these statements from defenders of Roe v. Wade and its progeny in that it: 1) makes no effort to establish that the Supreme Court was and is properly vested with the power to create and enforce such a "right"; 2) uses the catchphrase "right to choose" without specifying what is being chosen, why there is a right to it, and especially why there is a right to choose something that should not be chosen so often; and 3) links this spurious right with things that most Americans do agree are right and good, particularly equal opportunity for women.
The statement's "equality" language is meant to dress a mean act of destruction with the high fashion of principle. The reality of tension and conflict between men and women at all levels is real and serious, within every venue of life. As to why the ability to abandon the life the two sexes have created to the tender mercies of the abortionist is a guarantor of equality, rather than an abdication of responsibility, the statement does not say. The small body of a child rests lifeless in this struggle between the sexes. It is so sad and unnecessary, as the lives of millions of accomplished men and women who both faced their responsibilities and fulfilled their careers attest. This does not mean the feminist struggle lacks import in the area of reproduction; it surely does. It only means that abortion is not the answer. More likely, it is a major part of a very wrong answer.
Where Mr. Obama's statement is notable is that he repeats the latest of the catchphrases, "the need for abortion," which was offered up in the 2008 Democratic platform. It becomes his phrase in a new way now. For one, it means this issue is not above his pay grade anymore. There is a "need for abortion." If that is so, this practice is in every way distinct from something morally objectionable or inherently wrong. Who would speak of a "need for human trafficking"? A "need for child abuse"? A "need for prostitution"? There are indeed many sorrows in this Vale of Tears that the law, for prudential reasons, does not address. Non-obscene pornography for one, perhaps. But no one but the most radical people speaks of these evils as things for which there is a "need."
President Obama says he wants to reduce the need for abortion. But if it is essential to women's equality, why reduce it? His policies, deferred today for a few hours, weeks, or - we hope - months, will certainly promote and increase the abortion rate. Today's statement says that "we are united in our determination . . . to support women and families in the choices they make" on this issue, irrespective of "our views." Either that is a very presumptive editorial "we" or a very elastic use of the word "support." It probably means public funding for both maternity care and abortion. But most Americans oppose tax funding of abortion. We as a nation are not "united" in this matter, though President Obama may seek to force a new unity upon us with the chains of appropriations law.
The best hope is that this portion of his statement is rhetoric. That he, or other Democrats in Congress who retain some respect for the Hyde Amendment and similar provisions that have kept a wall of conscience between the citizenry and this bloody trade, may yet have a change of heart and allow only those who will death, Planned Parenthood and its friends, to fund death. Common ground so blood-soaked is not a place where men and women can stand together. Virtues die in such soil.
In case you missed it this morning, posted below is the full video of the 2009 Blogs for Life conference. In the coming days, we hope to have the individual speeches segmented, but until then, here's the entire three hours:
It was a great conference with good turnout both online and in person this year, and I'd like to thank all the speakers and attendees who made this year's event one of the best we've had to date. Again, here's the lineup:
In case you missed Blogs 4 Life, there is a great way for you to read (in 140 characters or less) about the event. The Twitter hashtag #B4L has gained some considerable traction today.
Here's the list of those Twitter-ing from Blogs 4 Life.
On January 5, 2009, the New York Times carried an article ("For Privacy's Sake, Taking Risks to End Pregnancy" by Jennifer R. Lee and Cara Buckley) describing the fact that many Dominican women in New York City are aborting using the anti-ulcer drug, misoprostol (Cytotec®). Misoprostol is also the second drug in the FDA-approved abortion regimen of mifepristone (RU-486 or Mifeprex®) and misoprostol. Using misoprostol alone is a practice that is widely found in Latin American nations because misoprostol is cheap and available in pharmacies while mifepristone is either expensive, restricted in distribution, or both. (From some quick web research: RU-486 does not appear to be approved in many Latin American nations; it isn't even approved in Canada.)
Access to RU-486 is tightly controlled in the United States, but misoprostol is sold in drug stores as an anti-ulcer medication for people who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS). In New York City "women can obtain the pills either through pharmacies that are willing to bend the rules and provide the medicine without a prescription or by having the drugs shipped from overseas."
The RU-486 regimen was developed so that mifepristone could chemically end the pregnancy's development while relying on misoprostol to then bring about the violent uterine contractions needed to expel the "products of conception." With misoprostol-only abortions the mifepristone-related chemical action does not occur, and abortions, like those reported in the article, depend primarily on termination based on contractions and expulsion. Because of the dual action, RU-486 abortions are more effective than misoprostol-only abortions, but even they fail 3-5% of the time.
To their credit, Lee and Buckley do note that misoprostol abortions have "side effects" that "can be serious, and include rupture of the uterus, severe bleeding and shock." The article also quotes a doctor who has studied misoprostol abortions in New York City where "he saw a lot of Dominican immigrants with incomplete abortions in the emergency room."
Of course, this is the pattern that we at FRC, along with doctors from the American Association of Pro Life Ob/Gyns ("AAPLOG"), have observed. We analyzed RU-486 adverse event reports obtained from the FDA via the Freedom of Information Act. Many chemical abortions do not complete themselves and women are forced to seek out emergency room care while they are tremendously sick. Blood loss can be significant sometimes requiring transfusions.
Instead of portraying these abortions as events that end the life of a human being while abusing the bodies of the women who have them, chemical abortions are portrayed in a benign light in the article. But the reality is much different.
Earlier this month, the Alan Guttmacher Institute attacked my September Family Research Council study which documented the effectiveness of state level pro-life parental involvement laws. They claim that my methodology is 'faulty.' They also argue that forcing minors to reveal their pregnancy to their parents places teens at risk of abuse.
In my response I document three studies in peer reviewed journals that show that the overall incidence of abortion among minors declines after the passage of parental involvement laws. Additionally,parental involvement laws protect minors in other ways. Parental involvement laws make it more difficult for child predators to use abortions to cover up their criminal behavior.
Furthermore, many minors seeking abortions without their parents' knowledge are at risk because they are unaware of their own medical history. In my response, I report cases where minors undergoing abortions died because they experienced an allergic reaction to the anesthesia.
It is for these reasons and others that many district attorneys, law enforcement officials, and groups representing crisis pregnancy centers support pro-life parental involvement laws. Here is a link to my full response [PDF].
If you haven't already, mark your calendars for the fourth-annual Blogs For Life conference on January 22nd, 2009. It will again be hosted here at Family Research Council Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and will run from 8:30 - 11:30a.m.
This year's event will, as usual, precede the March for Life, which marks the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. We'll be webcasting the event again, and we're in the process of lining up another great group of speakers, so stay tuned to this spot for more information.
If FOCA is passed, then Catholic Hospitals are in Danger of Closing
This morning, I read an article in The Washington Examiner about how the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would be a huge threat to Catholic health care systems, not just in Maryland, but around the nation.
Barack Obama has pledged the very first thing he would sign into law would be legislation aimed towards making abortion legal throughout the pregnancy and place the burden on taxpayers to cover this horrific procedure.
With this type of legislation being possibly enacted, many bishops are considering closing Catholic hospitals. At a recent general meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki said, "We may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely." In Maryland, there are eight hospitals that would be threatened, including St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, which is nationally renowned for their cardiac care center.
According to our own government affairs department here at FRC, Maryland, along with six other states has legislation similar to FOCA.
"In Maryland , FOCA-type legislation has been on the books since 1991. According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate in the United States DECREASED nine percent since 2000 to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2005. By contrast, the state of Maryland in 2005 produced a rate of 31.5 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age, an INCREASE of eight percent since 1991."
Hopefully, Congress will use common sense and not pass such a detrimental piece of legislation that would threaten quality medical care straight across the board.
New Mental Health Studies Dispel Myth That Abortion is a 'Non-Event'
News of note this week is that two new studies published in peer-reviewed journals continue to link abortion and negative mental health effects.
The first paper , published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey, the most comprehensive national dataset on the prevalence of psychological disorders, to explore associations between abortion history and mental health. Abortion was found to be associated with an increased risk of a number of mental health problems including: panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depression. The four study authors presented their research on topic at a panel discussion at the Family Research Council in October 2008.
The second paper, written by New Zealand researcher David Fergusson, analyzed data from a 30-year longitudinal study. The methodology, analysis employing two types of models for concurrent and long-term health effects, strong control for confounding variables, and comparison groups were all strengths of the study. The results indicated abortion to be associated with an increased risk of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorder, illicit drug dependence, and suicide ideation.
The results of both studies add to the strong body of evidence detailing the causal association between abortion and mental health disorders. These findings continue to raise important implications concerning informed consent in healthcare. Women in this country deserve quality healthcare which provides accurate information on the associated risks accompanying abortion.
Also making news yesterday was a review paper published by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. In their own press release the university/dept. cited the review paper as the most rigorous review of the literature to date which purported that "studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion." This is an insult to Johns Hopkins as a credible academic research institution. The exclusion of numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals was a gaping omission. The ties of senior author Robert Blum to the Alan Guttmacher Institute as a board member and previous board chair as well as the funding of the university's department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors work, by Planned Parenthood of Maryland, serve as evidence of the political motivation behind the publishing of the study. Johns Hopkins should be admonished for stamping such sham science.
Women are increasingly coming forward to share about the negative impacts of abortion in their lives. Clinicians treating women for mental health disorders are increasingly stepping forward to tell the truth about the large numbers seeking treatment due to the fallout from abortion. The repeated lies from the pro-abortion community that abortion is a non-event or somehow "therapeutic" in women's lives are being dispelled and the truth clearly elucidated by scientific findings.
Christmas is a humbug for Planned Parenthood of Indiana
The Christmas season is looking a bit Scrooge-ish for Planned Parenthood of Indiana. They've already been visited by two specters in recent days.
Last week (the ghost of Christmas present?), their introduction of "gift vouchers" for abortions didn't exactly kindle the holiday spirit. This week, invoking the ghost of Christmas Past, Live Action Films introduced an undercover video featuring an "overly-helpful" PP worker who becomes hard of hearing when evidence of rape arises:
LifeNews is now reporting that the worker has been "suspended," whatever that means. Perhaps Indiana Planned Parenthood needs a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come...
Abortionists are Human Rights Defenders? Seriously?
The pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and its partners requested and were granted a hearing today at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States according to their recent newsletter (see p. 2).
The Commission will hold a hearing today titled the "Risks and vulnerabilities affecting defenders of women's rights in the Americas," raising the specter of human rights activists and defenders of women's rights being "affected". You can review the Commission program here.
But what is CRR's goal? Legal rights for women? Is it the legalization of abortion? CRR is more ambitious. Their newsletter references a previous letter they sent to the United Nations which makes it clear that they are not so much trying to protect human rights defenders or defenders of women's rights as they are trying to get international legal bodies to include abortion providers under the legal designation of "human rights defender." If they are successful, abortion providers would be protected under the 1999 UN Declaration of Human Rights Defenders.
It would be a travesty for international bodies to equate those who perform abortions, including those who perform partial birth abortions, with those who advocate fundamental human rights of others.
CRR in their letter raises violence against abortion providers as one of their key arguments. Violence against abortionists is wrong and should be condemned. But CRR goes much further. They are in fact making the case that any restrictions that would affect abortion providers' practices would constitute an abuse of human rights defenders.
Indeed, CRR spends considerable time defending Dr. George Tiller of Kansas, an abortionist known for his late-term abortions (and advertising internationally for his services). It is odd that they would single out Dr. Tiller as a human rights paragon, until you realize that they oppose even peaceful protests at abortion clinics such as his, even when they acknowledge the fact that such protests are constitutionally protected.
CRR also opposes state laws that would require abortion clinics to have the same health standards as ambulatory clinics--regulations that would actually protect the health of women obtaining abortions. Indeed, CRR goes so far as asking the UN to "investigate" the United States for state and federal laws that conflict with their views. Again, violence against abortionists is wrong, period. But peaceful protests? Parental notification laws? Laws ensuring medical the competency of abortion providers? They want a UN investigation. Perhaps even more brazen, CRR wants international bodies to investigate cases of "smear campaigns" against abortion providers, in which any public campaign against such abortionists occur. They oppose the mere existence of legal restrictions because it would be burdensome to the abortionist, something most people think might be legitimate for physicians performing surgery on their patients. What about legal liability? Nope, CRR wants none of that either. The kicker may be that CRR wants these international bodies to impose fines on states that who disagree with them. Why? So they force local law enforcement agencies to implement "human rights teaching" on abortion in their training programs.
And these are people that many pro-choicers in Congress have tried to get you to fund with your taxes. I suppose if you can cast this asprotecting human rights defenders, it might just work.
FRC Submits Comments to HHS on Conscience Protection
On August 26, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") asked the public for comments about rules it proposed to protect the rights of conscience of health care providers - in particular, to permit them to refuse to assist in, provide, or refer patients for abortions. These conscience rights were created by three historic federal statutes known more commonly as the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments.
The Family Research Council and several other groups filed comments on September 25th responding to HHS. Get a copy of them here.
Here is a summary of our main points:
HHS's proposed rules (regulations) are needed because many participants in the health care system are violating the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments. Many intended beneficiaries of these landmark civil rights laws - intended to protect health care providers' right of religious and moral conscience - do not know their rights under the law. HHS regulations are needed to clarify the extent of these statutory protections.
HHS should adopt a fertilization-based definition of pregnancy (and thus abortion) because that is consistent with the prevailing medical dictionary definitions, religious thought, and medical science on when life begins: these are, after all, conscience protections, so they should protect the conscience's of the various health care providers.
Even if HHS does not adopt a fertilization-based definition of pregnancy, it should reject the implantation-based definition in HHS's human-subject regulations for a number of reasons.
o For example, non-uterine, ectopicpregnancies demonstrate that uterine implantation cannot define the onset of pregnancy.
As a final alternative, HHS should recognize that the reasonable, subjective religious or moral conviction of the individual or institutional health care provider should govern, given the statutory focus on protecting conscience. Religious freedom and conscience in this country plainly reflect the views of the individual or institution, not the views of third parties.
Recognizing a right of conscience does not discriminate against women or violate any concepts mandated in Roe v. Wade and its progeny which do not purport to require any particular health care provider to participate in abortions.
HHS should enforce the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments in the same manner as it enforces other civil rights statutes, like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
HHS's Title X regulations, which require grant recipients to counsel and refer for abortions, appear to violate the law as set forth in the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments.
AUL President Charmaine Yoest + Ramesh Ponnuru = swastika
Now anyone who knows Charmaine (a former VP here at FRC) and Ramesh (author, speaker, and pro-life expert) know that they are as far removed from German National Socialism as one can get. I doubt either of them is losing any sleep over this. After all, the hip way these days to say "I don't like you" is to call someone a Nazi or compare them to Hitler. It's the irony here that's noteworthy. As Eppinette observes:
I'm not sure I understand how it is that those of us who are working to protect life are to be equated with one of the most life-destroying regimes that ever existed. Some people just have too much time on their hands, I suppose.
Too much time on their hands indeed --- and too little time spent on their history homework.
In the name of "choice" CRR is asking people to oppose the rights of conscience of those in health care who do not want to have anything to do with abortion or any other procedure or technology which the professional deems immoral.
Rather than being sensitive to the differing conscientious stands that citizens and professionals will be taking on divisive issues, CRR and its allies are pushing to ride roughshod over the consciences of professionals.
This tendency is on the increase in advocacy organizations and needs to be labeled for what it really is ... the American form of totalitarianism. In this they join the ranks of those who followed Lenin, Hitler and Mao.
It is time for all, no matter where they stand on the public issues of morality, to at minimum not violate the conscience of anyone. If we lose that we lose one of the foundations of a humane society, and we can forget democracy.
The Presidential Volnteer Service Award was bestowed upon a well deserved group of organizations and individuals, including Heartbeat International and Care Net affiliated pregnancy centers, last week. Daily coming alongside women and men in need of emotional, educational, and informational support and services, pregnancy care centers exemplify compassionate outreach across the country. The movement represents unsung servants of care and a model for faith-based efforts.
Coope, a medical ethicist by practice and a philosopher of psychology and language by training, does an interesting job of evaluating the ethics of abortion (writ large, consciously bypassing so-called "hard cases") by taking a somewhat peripatetic approach, avoiding the dogmatism that often comes from a consciously systematic metaphysics.
Coope admits that he "recently" came to the question of abortion in a serious way. In his youth he considered it some, falling into the secularist camp of Glanville Williams more than anything else. He went on to make a philosophical career without giving the matter much thought. Then:
I dare say the matter never crossed my mind until, many years later, my wife was pregnant with our fourth child. Since she was then well in her thirties she was of course offered 'the tests.' Well, who wants a damaged baby? I was, I remember, quite anxious that the chromosomes should carefully be counted. I just refused to consider what if. Distressing choices, I must have said to myself, should not be faced while it was still unsettled whether the question arose. In dedicating the book to the memory of the child in question, my son and good friend Nicholas, who died on the cliffs of Glen Cova while I was writing it, I cannot help but thinking back to these beginnings. I am acutely aware that had 'the tests' turned out differently, he might well have been killed by doctors, with my connivance, before he was born. Luck saved him - and me. How many there are who have not been lucky.
Through his recognition of the moral and emotional difficulties inherent in prenatal testing as it exists today-namely in its propensity to lead towards destruction of "damaged" babies-the rather liberal Coope decided to give us a splendid book. Likewise, it is hard to see Gov. Palin's meteoric rise with Trig at her side and not conclude that her decision to have and to raise a child with Down syndrome has struck a public chord in some way or another. All this leads me to think there is, culturally, more under the surface on this facet of the abortion debate than meets the eye.
By the time Nancy Pelosi digs herself out of the hole her abortion comments have gotten her into, she'll likely have reached some of the crude oil she's keeping off the market.
In defending her utterly baffling assertion that the "doctors of the Church" never were in agreement on when life begins she now cites some lesser commentary by St. Augustine (Questiones de Exodo), which states, "the law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."
One gets the impression that Pelosi had some vague memory about Augustine on abortion and then some poor staffer had to go digging around the endnotes of Michael Gorman's Abortion & the Early Church (a pretty reliable little book, I might add). I'm now curious to know if Pelosi ascribes to all of Augustine's positions, or merely those that appear to be convenient to her. Is it wrong to cry over sad love stories? Must sex always have a reproductive intent? What's the moral status of concubinage? Is slavery always wrong?
Never mind the fact that Augustine still thought embryonic abortion was immoral (see On Marriage and Concupiscence), and later in life complicated his own earlier views on ensoulment. The fact is that his alleged support for Pelosi is reliant on incomplete, 5th century science. His determination on the soul of the embryo/fetus is based on the empirical determination of science: does the early child in the womb have "sensation"? At the time the answer seemed to be "no." Now we know, through advances in embryology, that from conception we have a living human being, animated in its self-directed development from the first instant of fertilization.
Apparently Pelosi would rather base her political opinions on the natural philosophy of ancient Romans than on modern science. What's next, a Medicare Prescription Leach Bill? A Congressional task force ensuring that the American people have their humors in proper balance?
Throckmorton Commentary on APA Abortion and Mental Health Report
Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy at Grove City College's Center for Vision and Values, does a great job of highlighting the major flaws of the recent APA (American Psychological Association) report on abortion and mental health in a Washington Times op-ed today.
He exposes the organization's conflicting position since 1969 holding abortion as a civil right, the fact that APA leadership has continually refused to meet with women who claim adverse health effect following abortion, the one study basis of report headline conclusion, and other criticisms by pro-choice researcher/reviewer Fergusson.
HHS Proposed Conscience Regs Published in Federal Register
Today, the Federal Register published the Department of Health and Human Services' notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to ensure that HHS "funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law" (lower case mine).The notice for these proposed conscience protection rules can be found in PDF via this link.The deadline for filing comments is September 25, 2008.
The pro-abortion industry has pounced on a leaked copy of conscience regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that the Administration is trying to redefine contraceptives as abortion. Not pointing out that major pro-abortion groups, including medical groups, are trying to force medical personnel to perform or promote abortion--not contraceptives-- criticism of the leaked regulations have been picked up by the press. Secretary Michael Leavitt posted a blog yesterday rebutting this claim saying:
An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.
The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.
Both Hirshman and Goldberg seem (rightly) opposed to sex-selective abortion, but can't wrap their heads around the irony that they're unable oppose sex-selective abortion in the United States because it would be, in their eyes,an attack on "choice." As Goldberg admits in the end, "It turns our whole framework of choice on its head."
It seems that Hirshman and Goldberg would rather fend off any perceived threat to choice than side with a conservative on prohibiting sex-selective abortions. Then again, it's not all that surprising that they're personally opposed -- yet would continue to allow the destruction of baby girls just because they are girls.
However, if one looks at the Australian Government's own charts it is clear that Australia is heading into a big demographic problem with way too few children to support an aging population.
The Commission's suggestion is very shortsighted and parochial: loss of taxes for the government.
The reality view: The longer the fertility increase is delayed the greater the crisis eventually faced. Babies that are not born in a particular year cannot be made up in future years. Australia may later decide to import other countries' people (but these people will likely be poorer and less well-educated than the children that could be born in Australia).
Furthermore, while the government may lose some taxes short term the average Australian household will likely not be much affected, except those where the mother brings in a very large salary (say over $110,000 per year). U.S. research shows that for married mothers with children who go out to work the income is virtually a wash when all the extra expenses and taxes are factored in (Aguirre M.S. 2006). And this without adding another loss: the loss of household productivity through which the wife adds value to her husbands income (it really is their income, but you get the point) by her own labor value added.
This is a case of an alliance between socialist and capitalist interests. Feed the market for the time being, bring in the taxes and forget the long term common good and definitely forget what women might want.
Professor Michael New has been a resident scholar for the summer at FRC. Yesterday his NRO Op Ed on the recent Contraception Conundrum demonstrates to "pro-choice" advocates that prolifers are primarily for something, "building a culture of life", rather than being against something, "anti-abortion". It is a good read.
Stories have been floating around--probably thanks to Drudge--about more women donating eggs because they're strapped for cash. Leaving aside the possible risks of egg donation and the ethics of in vitro fertilization, this speaks to a potentially growing problem of what happens when human life -- in the form of human tissue or organs -- is commoditized.
I once spoke on a panel dealing with the question of whether we should change the existing laws to provide monetary incentives for organ donations. A co-panelist of mine argued that a grave danger in monetizing body parts comes from a radical reevaluation of self-worth to reflect actual cash value. He gave the dystopian hypothetical of a student applying for financial aid, and being denied by the college administrator, "Well, your bank account is lean, but you still have 2 kidneys and a whole lot of eggs, so we calculate your net worth at $30,000." The fact that some women see cashing in on their eggs as the logical step when the economy tightens does not reassure that such a hypothetical and ironic devaluation of human life is an impossibility.
Where to begin with this story... A nurse in Birmingham, England gave an abortifacient drug to the wrong woman. It seems that in the interests of confidentiality, they call women from the waiting room by their first names-whereupon the nurse is to verify the identity. It just so happens that a woman who wanted a consultation and a woman who wanted an abortion shared the same first name. Guess which one got the abortion-confidentially, of course.
Sadly this is not unheard of in Europe. A 2004 case of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Vo v. France, dealt with precisely the same issue. In the case at hand Vo, a Vietnamese immigrant, was mistaken for another woman while at the hospital for prenatal care, and mistakenly given an abortion. She sued under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("Everyone's right to life shall be protected.") to vindicate the lost right of her child. Of course the ECHR was about to do no such thing.
Both cases reflect the awful truth about abortion in our society: it's not about choice at all. The nurse in Birmingham violated the mother's freedom of choice by giving her an undesired abortion, and she gets to keep her nursing job with a "caution" on her permanent record. Vo's freedom of choice was violated and the ECHR refused to acknowledge the rights of the child she grieved. But what's a mother's choice to have a child next to the goal of legalized abortion? After all, the pro-aborts say, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
I blogged Monday about the Forum on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) that Judiciary minority members held last Thursday, July 10th, and I posted the statements made by Representatives Franks, Lamar Smith and testimony given by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
The good news just keeps coming about successful human treatments with adult stem cells. If you want to read about those from the last six months, David Prentice and I have a new paper recounting their stories. Click here to read it.
A commonsense way to reduce abortion would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring parental notification. The problem is that many abortion clinics lure young girls from their home states that have parental notice laws to states where they can get abortions without their parents knowing. Often the man who gets a young girl pregnant takes her to the clinic. To counter this type of human trafficking, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) reintroduced the Child Interstate Notification Act (H.R. 1063).
Testimony on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA)
On Thursday, I testified at a legislative forum on behalf of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). Also testifying were Professor Teresa Collett, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and local pro-life activist Missy Smith. Five Members of Congress were at the hearing and about 20 members of the media and congressional staff were present.
This is what Representative Chris Smith, who organized the Special Order, said in his speech Wednesday night:
"Can we trust Planned Parenthood? They say their vision is to be the Nation's most trusted provider of sexual and reproductive health care. This is from an organization that targets minorities, that performs millions of abortions and barely even attempts to help women carry the babies to term. Reproductive health should include, not exclude, babies."
Even if the U.S. should pay for family planning, why should we subsidize the abortion industry? This debate is not about family planning, it's about using abortion as a means of population control.
Lianyungang, a booming port city in a Jiangsu province economic belt, is ground zero for some of these changes. According to the China Family Planning Association, it's the city in China with the most extreme gender ratio for children under four--163 boys for every 100 girls. One sunny Saturday morning at verdant Cangwu Park, I count six boys and three girls bouncing on the inflatable castle. Near the ice-cream stand are a dozen sticky-faced kids, seven boys and five girls, feeding pigeons. The children running after kites adorned with Olympics mascots and China's Shenzhou VII spaceship: three and two. The drivers of the cheerful little tanks circling an electric track: three and one.
These numbers work fine on the playground, but, for China's many match- making services, they may prove troublesome. At the Good Luck Marriage Introduction Agency, in a town a few hours' drive west from Liangyungang, two whiteboards mounted on the wall advertise the age, height, and income of available singles. On the day I visit, founder Tao Hui, a fortysomething woman with a bouffant, is watching soap operas in her sweatpants. She hasn't felt the shortage yet, she says. On the whiteboards, a few dozen nameless men line up nicely to a few dozen nameless women. For now, many in the early wave of surplus men are marrying younger women.
"We'll see real problems in eight or ten years," Tao predicts. Her 17-year- old son, she assures me, has good prospects. But she already turns away a lot of single males from outlying villages with no money or education. "If they're ugly and can't find work, there's nothing I can do. No one wants them."
Unfortunately, it looks like the problems created by the combination of China's one-child policy and a cultural preference for boys won't be limited to ugly men. Hvistendahl reports that the crime rate among youth has doubled over the past decade -- and youth interest in violent activities is on the rise.
It seems that as the first fruits of state intervention into Chinese family life reach maturity, the imbalance of the sexes is making lopsided more than just matchmaking services.The Chinese government's attempt to control its population is in danger of becoming a population out of control.
One way of seeing that Bill is right about how the South Dakota decision reflects a growing change in abortion jurisprudence, is by looking at the reaction from some parts of the left. Emily Bazelon of Slate, is in a bit of a tizzy over it. The bee in her bonnet is the informed consent law's provision that doctors must tell women seeking abortions that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Apparently this is unacceptable. Bazelon informs us,
Planned Parenthood argued that the state is legislating morality because to call a fetus a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" is an ideological statement, not a medical one.
I was unaware that there was any debate in contemporary medical science as to whether or not a fetus- defined as a developing, distinct member of the species homo sapiens-was in fact a developing, distinct member of the species homo sapiens. (Bazelon refers to this line of thinking as "tautological." Perhaps it is, but just because something happens to be true via tautology doesn't negate the fact that it's true.) Perhaps some long-suffering practitioners of Aristotelian medicine might argue that the fetus is a vegetable or an animal, and not yet a human? Surely this cannot be what Bazelon would count as a "medical" opinion.
She goes on:
The Supreme Court has told the states that it's not for them to resolve when life begins-and it should certainly follow from this that they can't force any such resolution on doctors.
Never mind that the authoritative medical textbooks and the longstanding orthodoxies of embryology and developmental biology are crystal clear about when life begins, the Supreme Court has told us that we can't legislate based on those facts. It is reassuring to know that America has the likes of Anthony Kennedy and Harry Blackmun to be the arbiters of permissible scientific knowledge.
And the kicker:
As the 8th Circuit dissent by Judge Diana Murphy points out, the question "in some sense encompass[es] the whole philosophical debate about abortion."
Judge Murphy and Ms. Bazelon don't seem to understand the "the whole philosophical debate about abortion." The question at hand is not whether or not the fetus is a human being, but whether or not, as a human being, it is worthy of respect and in possession of an inviolable right to life. As Bazelon notes, almost in passing, the Supreme Court has pronounced "no" on the matter of the fetus' personhood and rights. Pace Bazelon and her liberal judge friends, the Supreme-or any-Court is incapable of pronouncing "no" on the question of the fetus' fetushood and biological status as a human being. This is merely the factual starting point for any fair-minded and reasonable analysis of the abortion question. If Bazelon and Murphy want to argue that these young human beings lack dignity and are not deserving of our respect due to their age, their location, their dependency, or mere caprice, they are welcome to do so. Maybe now that in South Dakota misinforming pregnant women through omission or commission isn't an option, they'll have to.
Remember Gonzales v. Carhart? That's the Supreme Court decision from last year that upheld the Congressional ban on partial birth abortion. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, and lawyers tied themselves up in knots trying to interpret it. Most agree it was a narrow victory for the pro-life cause, but it was a victory. That can be seen in last Friday's decision by the 8th Circuit to allow a South Dakota abortion law to go into effect, a case in which FRC filed a friend of the court brief.
Prior to Gonzales v. Carhart, such laws were routinely struck down before they ever came into binding, legal force. Kennedy specifically noted, however, that this approach (another of the distortions abortion causes to the law) would no longer be followed. If someone wanted to challenge a law as it was applied to them, they could, and the court would decide whether specific provisions of that law, rather than the entire law, violated the Constitution. The 8th Circuit applied that logic to a challenge to South Dakota's law, and allowed the law to go into effect.
The law merely provides that women seeking an abortion should be given complete information about the risks involved, etc, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry wanted to stop it at any cost, as usual, regardless of the fact women deserve to receive such information. However, the 8th Circuit rejected their old "business as ususal" approach to litigation concerning abortion and replaced it with some common sense.
What do you do if you're a pro-embryonic stem cell physician and can't get federal dollars to fund your research?
The answer is obvious: make a Lifetime/afterschool special - caliber movie that demonizes conservative pro-life senators.
The Los Angeles Times reports on a new film called Hope premiering at the Cannes Film Festival. The movie depicts a pro-life U.S. Senator whose son is injured in an automobile accident. The son's only "hope," of course, is an experimental embryonic stem cell treatment --- which he must travel to India to receive. He can't get it in the United States because of his father's evil polices.
The Los Angeles Times could barely control its praise for abortionist Harvey Karman whose May 6th death was announced by the paper this past weekend. Unfortunately for The Times, the truth cannot be smothered in the internet age, and it had to grudgingly give up some facts about Karman.
The obituary writer, Elaine Woo, revealed that "[w]hile training in psychology at UCLA, [Karman] started an underground abortion referral service and eventually performed abortions himself, for which he was convicted and sent to state prison for 2 1/2 years." I don't think psychologists are "trained" to perform surgery - or am I missing something? In truth, Karman was practicing medicine as a surgeon without training, a license, or facility privileges. His criminality actually involved killing Joyce Johnson in April 1956 after he botched her abortion.
Well, Karman gained early release from prison and went on to butcher more women - once again, here is Ms. Woo:
"Karman also had many detractors, particularly because of his attempt to revolutionize second-trimester abortions with a device called the super coil, which was inserted into the uterus and expanded when exposed to moisture, causing a miscarriage. It caused serious complications, including hemorrhaging and infection, when it was used on about a dozen women in Philadelphia on Mother's Day in 1972."
One of the activists, Carol Downer, who co-founded feminist women's health clinics in SoCal in the 1970's told the Times, "Harvey engaged in some very irresponsible experimentation on women's bodies." "Irresponsible experimentation" - that is very charitable. But, Downer had to offer praise because Harvey was "a real change agent." And, if a change agent wants to make an omelet, he may have to break a few eggs.
If you want to read a very different bio of Karman - read all three pages of this web post written some time before Karman's death; and then this on the death of Joyce Johnson. The account rendered here of the carnage Karman wrought on Mother's Day 1972 in Philly is somewhat more detailed:
"Keeping sloppy records, working well into the night, the abortion team managed to pack the 15 patients selected for 'super coil' abortions by the early morning hours. One woman ended up hospitalized in Pennsylvania due to lacerations. Others needed to be hospitalized upon return to Chicago. Local health authorities contacted the Centers for Disease Control, which investigated and found that two of the patients had been lost to follow-up, one required a hysterectomy, one was hospitalized for twenty days with infection, and one continued to bleed until she became anemic. In total, nine of the 13 patients who could be tracked down had suffered complications."
What a guy!!! For more details on Harvey Karman's career as a butcher, see Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., and Richard N. Ostling, Aborting America (New York: Pinnacle Books, 1979): pp. 85-93 (Nathanson, a distinguished ob/gyn, provides excellent medical-scientific insights into Karman's medical activities and inventions.)
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.
Many urban Chinese kids are discovering for the first time the meaning of sibling rivalry--and the government is taking notice. Since the late 70s, China's family planning policy has dictated a one-child policy for city-dwellers (two children for rural citizens), with fines for those who do not comply. The BBC reports, however, that due to China's rising wealth, many couples are opting to pay the fines and proceed with more children:
[China] is keen to curb its population growth, and the controversial family planning policy, implemented in the late 1970s, is meant to limit urban couples to one child and rural families to two.
But rising incomes mean that some newly rich couples in urban areas can easily afford to break the rules and pay the resulting fines.
In fact, last month, a survey by the National Population and Family Planning Commission found that the number of rich people and celebrities having more than one child was on a rapid increase, and nearly 10% of people in this category had three children.
The story also brings to light a fact of which I was previously unaware: the Chinese government prohibits early marriages. In the United States, the oldest marriageable date without parental permission is 19 (Nebraska). In China, men are permitted to marry at 22, and women can tie the knot at 20.
But according to [a spokesman for the PRC's National Population and Family Planning Commission], "early marriages are still prevailing in some parts of the country, especially in rural areas, which goes against the family planning policy".
Part of the reason why rural families refuse to comply is because of the traditional preference for sons.
Experts say this preference has led to the under-reporting of female births, as well as abortion of female foetuses and female infanticide.
As we have writtenherebefore, when mixed with a cultural preference for sons, a maximum child policy can be lethal. Now that the Chinese government has seen that its systems of fines is failing as the economy grows, it will face some tough decisions. While we don't know whether or not the government will stiffen or loosen its penalties, it is good to see that some families see that no matter what the fine, the value of life and marriage is priceless.
Over at Books & Culture, there's an interesting interview of Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. Longman talks with interviewer W. Bradford Wilcox about the current attitude among progressives (Longman calls himself a progressive) regarding population growth.
You are a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a progressive think tank. Why should progressives be concerned about fertility declines in the West? How do fertility declines specifically threaten progressive values and public policies?
It's fair to say that most self-described "progressives" don't agree with me that low fertility is a problem. Many environmentalists, for example, believe that fewer people means a cleaner environment. Other progressives suppose that a decline in population would increase the amount of food and other resources available to the poor. Many feminists, gays, and "childless by choice" people in general feel threatened by suggestions that society needs more children. And when it's pointed out that the lowest birthrates are generally found among the most "progressive" people, then the conversation gets really heated.
On all these counts, I believe progressives are in denial. Today in the United States, for example, we have far cleaner air and water than we did in the 1940s, when the population was just half its current size. That's no paradox. Population growth is a spur to more efficient and cleaner use of resources, so our cities are no longer choked with smoke from steam engines and our cars get far better mileage and are far less polluting. Similarly, population growth is what drove us as a society to find far more productive ways to grow food. Thanks to increased crop yields, per capita food production is higher than ever, even as world population surpasses 6 billion. At the same time, there is more forested land in the United States than in the 19th century because so much less acreage is needed for farmland.
Today at 11:00 a.m., EDT, FRC will host a Family Policy Lecture by Dr. John G. West, of the Discovery Institute entitled, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: The Disturbing Legacy of America's Eugenics Crusade." If you can't join us on location here in D.C., be sure to watch the live webcast of the event. Here are the details:
This year marks the centennial of the world's first forced sterilization law, passed by the state of Indiana in March 1907. By the early 1930s, some 30 states had enacted similar laws as part of a secular crusade to breed better humans known as "eugenics." Promoted in the name of Darwinian evolution, eugenics led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today. Why did America's leading scientists and scientific organizations embrace eugenics for so long? Was eugenics a logical application of Darwin's theory, or a terrible misuse of it? What is the connection between the eugenics movement and the population control movement that arose in the 1950s and 60s? Most importantly, what are the lessons we can learn from eugenics for today's controversies over science, bioethics, and public policy? Dr. West will explore these questions and more.
If you were asked to name the technologies whose proliferation inadvertently threatens the human race, what would you include? IEDS? Assault rifles? Nuclear warheads?
Add this one to your list: the sonogram machine.
The widespread use of sonogram technology--coupled with liberal abortion laws--has made it possible for women to identify the sex of their child so that those without a Y chromosome can be killed before they're even born. Last year, in a speech before the U.N., demographer Nicholas Eberstadt revealed the details of this frightening trend:
Over the past five years the American public has received regular updates on what we have come to call “the global war on terror”. A no-less significant global war—a war, indeed, against nature, civilization, and in fact humanity itself has also been underway in recent years. This latter war, however, has attracted much less attention and comment, despite its immense consequence. This world-wide struggle might be called” The Global War Against Baby Girls”.
The effects of this war on girls can be seen in the changes in the sex ratios at birth. Eberstadt explains that there is a "slight but constant and almost unvarying excess of baby boys over baby girls born in any population." The number of baby boys born for every hundred baby girls, which is so constant that it can "qualify as a rule of nature", falls along an extremely narrow range along the order of 103, 104, or 105. On rare occasions it even hovers around 106
These sex ratios vary slightly based on ethnicity. For example, in the U.S. in 1984 the rates were: White: 105.4; Black: 103.1; American Indian: 101.4; Chinese: 104.6; and Japanese 102.6. Such variations, however, remain small and fairly stable over time.
But Eberstadt finds that in the last generation the sex ratio at birth in some parts of the world has become "completely unhinged." Consider this graph from provinces in China in 2000:
MONTREAL - In what is considered a world first, Melanie Boivin has donated her eggs to her daughter who is sterile because of a genetic condition called Turner's syndrome.
The Montreal lawyer's eggs are to be frozen until her seven-year-old daughter, Flavie, becomes of age to bear a child through in-vitro fertilization.
If she chooses to become pregnant, Flavie will be giving birth to her genetic sister and Boivin will simultaneously become mother and grandmother.
The possible outcomes from this scenario boggle the mind. Would this make Flavie's spouse (assuming he consented to fathering a child with his mother-in-law's eggs) a stepfather-husband to Flavie? Would he be progenitor to his own sister-in-law? Would the child have a brother-in-law-father, a sister-mother, and a mother-grandma? My head hurts just from thinking about all the possible permutations.
What's equally bizarre is the apathy some ethicists have toward the matter. University of Toronto philosophy professor and "moral scholar" Wayne Sumner argues:
When it comes to donor gametes, it is "irrelevant" who donates the eggs, Sumner said.
"I don't see it as all that significant - the scrambling of generations .I don't have concerns about whether it's natural or normal.
"It's a little odd for (Boivin), who will have both a child and a grandchild simultaneously, but people wrap their heads around these things."
Caitlin Flanagan is one of those talented writers for whom I imagine it is hard to find an ideological home. Feminists and liberals despise her for suggesting that feminism might not have worked out for the benefit of women. Likewise, she doesn't quite fit the conservative mold --- she is, for example, regrettably on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.
However one chooses to label Flanagan, she is nevertheless refreshingly honest at times. Writing in the latest issue of The Atlantic, she argues that while, "a thousand arguments about the beginning of human life will never appeal to me as powerfully as a terrified pregnant girl desperate for a bit of compassion," there is one effort by pro-lifers that gives her pause:
But my sympathy for the beliefs of people who oppose abortion is enormous, and it grows almost by the day. An ultrasound image taken surprisingly early in pregnancy can stop me in my tracks. In it is much more than I want to know about the tiny creature whose destruction we have legalized: a beating heart, a human face, functioning kidneys, two waving hands that seem not too far away from being able to grasp and shake a rattle. One of the newest types of prenatal imaging, the three-dimensional sonogram—which is so fully realized that happily pregnant women spend a hundred dollars to have their babies’ first “photograph” taken—is frankly terrifying when examined in the context of the abortion debate. The demands pro-life advocates make of pregnant women are modest: All they want is a little bit of time. All they are asking, in a societal climate in which out-of-wedlock pregnancy is without stigma, is that pregnant women give the tiny bodies growing inside of them a few months, until the little creatures are large enough to be on their way, to loving homes.
These sonogram images lay claim to the most powerful emotion I have ever known: maternal instinct. Mothers are charged with protecting the vulnerable and the weak among us, and most of all, taking care of babies—the tiniest and neediest—first. My very nature as a woman, then, pulls me in two directions.
The secret of the sonogram in preventing abortions is out, and both sides of the debate know it. The South Carolina House of Representatives has even passed a bill to require women seeking an abortion to have ultrasounds before proceeding with an abortion. Not surprisingly, many pro-abortion advocates want what amounts to censorship, and therefore seek to keep distressed pregnant women as far away from ultrasound machines as possible.
Indeed, in this debate there is much to lose. For the abortion industry, business is in jeopardy. For humanity, there is much more.
While some in the audience nodded or facially expressed their approval of Charmaine Yoest’s anti-abortion message at Princeton University last night, others made it clear during questioning that Yoest spoke a foreign language which they had no desire to learn.
Charmaine Yoest, FRC's vice-president of communications, recently gave a lecture at Princeton University on the topic, "The Politics of Abortion: Moving Toward a Post-Roe America."
As this video notes, some babies are "born with something that affects more people than malaria, cancer, or even HIV and AIDS. Because of it, many of them will be denied an education and condemned to a life of poverty. Thousands of them will be killed. Millions more will be victimized and abused. Because all these babies have one thing in common…"
Interestingly, this ad by Trócaire, the official overseas development agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland, was banned by the The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) because it was deemed too "political."
The group is encouraging its supporters to contact pharmacies at Costco, Target, Wal-Mart, or Osco stores - because those four chains have not signed on to Planned Parenthood's policy of guaranteeing women access to emergency contraception - "without discrimination or delay."
Plan B, also known as the "morning after pill," was recently approved for over-the-counter use, despite obvious risks to womens' health. Planned Parenthood apparently plans to use the findings of its Pill Patrol to bully pharmacies into stocking the drug. Ironically, the group claims on its website that the goal of the campaign is "to protect women’s health."
And yes, Planned Parenthood is funded with your tax dollars (nearly 273 million dollars, according to their annual report).
In two studies reported at the American College of Cardiology conference, scientists used adult stem cells -- not the more controversial embryonic stem cells -- to treat patients and saw marked improvement in their health. Experts note these early studies need to be replicated in larger groups to confirm the results.
The findings are welcome news for patients like Joseph Glasser, 74, who received a bleak prognosis nine years ago after suffering a heart attack that left his heart so weakened he had to have a pacemaker implanted. Seventy-five percent of his heart muscle had died, his cardiologist told him, and there was nothing more he could do.
In the years afterward, Glasser frequently felt fatigued and short of breath, so he sought out new treatment options and eventually enrolled in a stem cell study at the University of California San Diego. There, doctors took cells from his leg, cultivated them in a lab and then injected them into his heart.
Today, two years after treatment, he says he no longer has problems maintaining energy, and even walks on a treadmill and swims.
If this treatment proves conclusive, it will be one of many successful treatments with adult stem cells. How many successful treatment with embryonic stem cells? Well, just take a look at the score.
If the U.S. doesn't move quickly to regulate the new trend of interspecies cloning, it's safe to say that researchers will experiment until the cows come home. In the U.K., some already have. Since human eggs are in short supply, researchers in Britain applied for permission to create human-cow embryos. In America, scientists are not even required to ask for permission--because no such restrictions exist!
At the University of Nevada, Professor Esmail Zanjani has joined the ranks of Harvard and Yale scientists who have taken advantage of the lack of government scrutiny. This week, Zanjani announced that his team has created the world's first human-sheep chimera, whose cellular make-up is 15% human and 85% animal. Although Zanjani promises that the technique will give rise to a new source of organ donors, there's no telling what complications will result from the hybrid.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of ethical complications in this amoral frontier. Research like this has created a legal and moral vacuum that Congress should fill with guidance and oversight. Join us in urging your leaders to ban creation of animal-human hybrids.
While the federal government is mired in debates about the culture of life, three states have taken it upon themselves to pass a bevy of pro-life legislation. In Mississippi, Gov. Haley Barbour signed a bill that would prohibit abortion in the state if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. In the meantime, the legislation requires abortion clinics to offer women an ultrasound before they consent to the procedure.
Neighboring Arkansas approved a House measure that requires abortion businesses to tell women that they cannot be coerced into having an abortion. Vermont tackled a bill that affects the end of life. Despite pressure to follow in Oregon's footsteps, the Vermont House defeated a measure that would have legalized assisted suicide.
Unfortunately, New Hampshire is one state that has become the focus of an intense attack from anti-family forces. Next week, legislators are considering bills on every subject from parental notification and abortion regulation to legalizing civil unions and a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Our friends at Cornerstone Policy Research are hosting a rally tomorrow at the New Hampshire statehouse in Concord. The Granite State is increasingly a key battle ground in the nation's culture wars.
What do gay British men do when they want a designer baby? They pay a visit to their Uncle Sam, of course. A shortage of donor eggs and surrogate mothers in the United Kingdom has prompted some infertile gay couples to buy "designer babies" from a Los Angeles clinic:
DOZENS of gay British men have paid about £33,000 to create a baby of their chosen sex on an IVF programme for two-father families.
Nearly 20 male couples from this country have already taken part in the scheme, in which they pay for eggs from a university student which are then implanted in a different woman who bears the child.
The Fertility Institutes, the clinic in Los Angeles which runs the programme, said it had also received 25 inquiries by last week from male couples in Britain thinking of paying for surrogate children.
These $65,000 children come highly customized. Here's clinic director Dr Jeffrey Steinberg:
On our programme, to be an egg donor, it is a requirement that you are between 18 to 27 years old and that you are currently at a university. Couples worry about the family history, and if there is a social marker of stability and achievement it is probably success at a university. University students are not interested in carrying the baby for themselves or anyone else.
The surrogates, on the other hand, are very interested in carrying the baby but, a lot of the time, they are blue-collar and not of the best of the selection [for eggs]. If we separate them we get the best egg donors and the best women to carry the babies, which is the perfect combination.
That's right, it's only the best for British gay dads. It's a good thing that Dr. Steinberg is seeing to it that these "blue collar" types who continually pollute the gene pool are only used to do the "manual labor" of making a baby. Who knows what type of people we would end up with if the proletariat produced any offspring?
Of the myriad of tragedies associated with this program, one is that the children end up with a (white-collar) donor mother and a (blue collar) surrogate mother whom they will likely never know. Two "dads" simply don't measure up to a mom. Add to this the dangers involved with IVF-PGD, and a program that touts the creation of new life can quickly become a recipe for destruction.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but in South Carolina, it could also be worth a thousand lives. This week, while I was in South Carolina speaking at North Greenville University, the state House passed a groundbreaking bill that which would require women who are considering an abortion to see an ultrasound of their unborn child. The measure passed by a 68-vote margin. The legislation now heads to the state Senate for approval, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) has indicated that he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
The legislation would be Planned Parenthood's worst nightmare. For years, ignorance has been bliss for the abortion industry. They believe that sex education, even for pre-teens, should "show it all," but throw a developing baby into the mix and they rush for the lens cover. This proposal gives women the opportunity to see their babies face to face, discover their reality, and then make an informed decision.
As the Senate weighs a bill forcing taxpayers to pay for research that requires the killing of human embryos, one of the president's top scientists suddenly jumped ship on the administration's policy in order to support the legislation. With a vote just weeks away, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), raised eyebrows with the timing of his endorsement, particularly since he has defended the administration's stance in the past. To the Senate Appropriations Health Subcommittee, Zerhouni said, "It is clear today that American science will be better-served, and the nation will be better-served, if we let our scientists have access to more stem cell lines... I think it is important for us not to fight with one hand tied behind out back, and NIH is key to that."
However, in his bold pitch for taxpayer money, Zerhouni neglected to justify the need for more embryonic stem cell (ESC) lines. Have there been so many advances with the 22 current lines that scientists can legitimize new ones? If Zerhouni is requesting taxpayer money from the Senate--in addition to the $40 million NIH spent last year on the project--then the least he could do is provide a record of ESC research advances and a detailed list of what cannot be done without new lines.
The reality is, 85% of the world's embryonic studies use President Bush's approved lines, and the NIH is waiting to distribute 3,000 shipments of cells derived from them. In the past, Zerhouni has said these lines are sufficient. What's changed? Dr. Zerhouni also downplayed the promise of adult stem cells, saying that their potential is "overstated." As the nation's top scientist, Zerhouni should know that patients are using adult stem cell alternatives to treat over 70 diseases. We have personally met patients who are reaping the benefits of adult stem cells in therapies for sickle cell anemia, heart disease, leukemia and other diseases. That is progress, not speculation.
In case you missed it, Joe Carter, FRC's Director of Web Communications (and managing editor of this blog), was profiled over the weekend in the Washington Post in an article entitled "Evangelical Bioethics and the Web" by WP religion reporter Michelle Boorstein. It's a good look not only at Joe, but also on how the internet can be a forum for the some of the most important bioethical issues facing us today.
The miraculous story of little Amillia Taylor, who is said to be the youngest surviving premature baby, has prompted Britain to reconsider its abortion policies. As it stands, the U.K. allows women to abort through the 24th week of pregnancy. Until recently, experts argued that unborn children could not survive outside the womb before that period, a theory that Amillia's existence has completely discredited.
Tory MP Nadine Dorries has sponsored bills in the past that would impose a tighter limit on late-term abortions. In light of the Taylors' story, Dorries intends to reintroduce legislation that would make abortions illegal after 21 weeks. As one doctor said, "To me it seems utterly illogical that one doctor is struggling to save a baby delivered at 23 weeks while another is aborting a healthy baby of the same age."
Amanda Marcotte, the blogger who worked for John Edwards campaign before she fell victim to the "right wing noise machine", has an interesting take on abortion:
To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses abortion, she’s not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. She is probably thinking about her family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance. If I got pregnant, I wouldn’t even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that abortion would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.
In fairness, most abortion advocates are not as morally deranged as Marcotte. Some even consider abortion to be "morally questionable", a position Marcotte claims is a "huge insult":
The penultimate question with regard to issues of life is "what does it mean to be human?" Courts have effectively sidestepped that question in cases like Roe v. Wade, opting to address questions of privacy instead.
Sarah Elizabeth Leighton was only a 14-week-old fetus when a toilet at a Brooklyn public school collapsed, injuring her schoolteacher mom.
The fall in January 1999 ruptured Esther Portalatin-Leighton's placenta, and Sarah was born prematurely, less than four months later, the family contends.
[...]
Sarah's learning disabilities and asthmatic symptoms are the direct result of her early birth, which was caused by the ruptured placenta, her parents argue.
City lawyers tried to get the case dismissed before trial by arguing that the child had to have been able to survive outside the womb at the time the injuries occurred in order for her to recover damages.
Well, Sarah has survived outside the womb, and she can now claim the injuries sustained when she was a 14-week old fetus. Whatever the merits of the case, the fact that court now recognizes "fetus Sarah" as the "girl Sarah" is a step toward justice.
The court, of course, made sure not to draw parity with abortion issues:
"Abortion cases are genuinely distinguishable from the [Leighton] case since fetuses which are aborted are not born alive," Brooklyn Appeals Court Justice Gloria Goldstein wrote.
However, the panel did offer conception as a line of demarcation, saying that "as long as the injuries occurred after conception and the child was born alive, she could make a claim." It almost sounds absurd (after all, what injuries can one sustain before conception?), but it does lend considerable recognition to the notion that personhood begins at conception.
On Wednesday night, before a packed Statehouse gallery, the Iowa legislature held public hearings on an issue that has spawned debate all across the country. The three-hour proceedings on human cloning illustrated just how divided Iowans are. Most of the scheduled speakers favored overturning the state's human cloning ban, but they were clearly not representative of the crowded audience who voiced strong opposition to the bill.
While researchers insisted that the law would promote embryonic stem cell research, not human cloning, critics point out that the bill would not only promote human cloning but would legally protect it. State Senator Pat Ward (R-West Des Moines) says the repeal is "not needed, period" because stem cell research without cloning is already happening.
Although scientists argued that the current cloning ban hinders Iowa's ability to treat disease, one biotech executive disagreed, saying, "The fact that we're located in Iowa has not hurt our ability to do business with other scientists... [even under] Iowa law." In an effort to expose this deceitful "stem cell" bill, the Iowa Right to Life Committee and Catholic-based Fidelis have launched a radio campaign to educate citizens before today's vote. In neighboring Kansas, the House has introduced a bill that forbids the government from funding human cloning research.
Unlike measures elsewhere, this version accurately defines cloning in the terms used by the President's Council on Bioethics. The state's scientists are outraged by the language because they fear that the reality of the procedure will deter voters from supporting "progressive" research.
People everywhere are talking about the baby born after spending less than 22 weeks in her mother’s womb. Baby Amillia has been called everything from the pro-life icon, the new poster child for the pro-life movement, miracle baby to small wonder. Her parents are pleased just to hear her name. Yesterday, the Taylor’s were informed that they could take their daughter home. And even though her development is continually being monitored by medical staff people everywhere are rejoicing at the news.
The media attention Amillia is getting should WAKE UP AMERICA to the fact that life can not be determined merely by length of time in the womb. At 21 weeks, Amillia Taylor was more than just a “blob of tissue” as the media and pro-choice advocates would want you to believe. Although not fully developed yet, Amillia has attributes of a full term baby only smaller. She had tiny visible toes, wiggly fingers, and a beating heart! Instinctively Amillia knew she had to fight, and fight she did. Doctors are now saying her prognosis is excellent. Amilla’s continued success embodies the cliché “big things come in small packages.”
Despite her small package her life has and will continue to have big impact to the pro-life movement. Pro-choice advocates are no longer left to battle a faceless opponent. With every breath taken, Amillia serves as a living testament of what pro-lifers have been saying all along. For those who have closed their eyes and minds to the debate of when true life begins, Amillia is a loud voice resonating in a small body that calls out for us to WAKE UP.
The state of Iowa is synonymous with farming, but if a dangerous bill passes the House, it could be cloned human embryo farms, not traditional agriculture, that the Hawkeyes will become known for. Yesterday, legislation that would repeal Iowa's current ban on all human cloning passed through one of the state's House committees.
The issue is reaching critical importance in the state, as the Senate narrowly voted to lift Iowa's human cloning ban last week. A vote by the full House is next. Supporters of the bill are using deceptive tactics, similar to the campaign in Missouri, to convince citizens that the bill would not allow human cloning but only permit SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to generate embryonic stem cells.
Unfortunately, what some voters and legislators may not understand through the fog of scientific jargon is that SCNT is human cloning. This fact shouldn't be lost on the University of Iowa, yet school officials are urging alumni to support the bill, writing, "Opponents of the bill are saying it will lead to human cloning. It [cloning] is unethical, immoral, and we will never support it." As the University well knows, the bill under consideration will not lead to human cloning, but instead will legally protect human cloning.
At least eight states — including Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania — use public funds to subsidize crisis pregnancy centers, Christian homes for unwed mothers and other programs explicitly designed to steer women away from abortion. As a condition of the grants, counselors are often barred from referring women to any clinic that provides abortions; in some cases, they may not discuss contraception either.
Most states still spend far more money subsidizing comprehensive family planning, but the flow of tax dollars to antiabortion groups has surged in recent months, as programs have taken effect in Texas and Minnesota.
Which group doesn't like this trend of using state funds to encourage women not to have abortions? It's none other than the number one foe of unplanned childhood everywhere — Planned Parenthood. The nation's leading abortion provider is apparently sour on its newfound competition:
In 2005, Texas lawmakers redirected $25 million that was to have gone to Planned Parenthood over two years. Most went instead to primary-care health clinics (which provide contraception but not abortion). But $5 million of the money was set aside for antiabortion centers that do not provide medical care and will not refer clients to clinics that prescribe birth control.
To deal with its 62% budget cut, the Planned Parenthood clinic in downtown Austin began charging for services long offered free to low-income women. Since the fees took effect, the clinic has distributed 40% fewer birth control pills and has conducted 50% fewer Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer. Several thousand patients have stopped coming.
While the article makes Planned Parenthood seem as if it were ready to cut off the heat and make its staff work for free, it does point out that the national organization did receive over $280 million in public funds last year — hardly a pittance. The article quotes Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, as saying, "It's reprehensible that taxpayer dollars are going to organizations that regularly and deliberately deceive women."
Dignity as a Litmus Test: Why I’m a Single Issue Voter
The primaries are still months away, yet conservative Congressman Jim Nussle of Iowa is already coming out in support of Rudy Giuliani. In a note to Rich Lowry at National Review, Nussle wrote:
”Perfect” has become the enemy of the “good”, and we saw that borne out during this past November’s elections. I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.
It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I don’t agree on every issue. My support for a person who doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all issues doesn’t mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs. But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.
In examining the letter, Rick Moore makes the connection that Nussle leaves unstated:
Nussle does make the argument that there will never be a “perfect” candidate, and I fear that too many conservatives have become such single-issue voters (abortion) that they will eagerly back a weaker candidate just because of his views on that one issue alone. In doing so, they not only risk helping elect a Democrat who’s not only pro-abortion, but pro-a lot of other stuff that conservatives find abhorrent.
Yes abortion is important, but the president really doesn’t have that much control over an issue that has been decided by the courts. President Bush is anti-abortion, but has abortion stopped because he’s president? No, and it probably won’t until there’s a change in the hearts of the people, and while the president may have some effect on that, in reality the president has little to no ability to change abortion in terms of its legal standing.
I am sympathetic to the pragmatism expressed both by Rep. Nussle and my friend Rick. In fact, I agree that the President has little or no control over the issue of abortion. And certain pro-choice candidates, if elected, might even appoint a judge that would help overturn Roe. Even so, I could not endorse anyone who fails on this key “litmus test.” Why would I hold a candidate responsible for an issue that isn't under their control? Because I am an unabashed single-issue voter -- and that issue is justice.
Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.
(...)
A merciful society seeks to expand legal protection to every life, including early life. And a compassionate society will defend a simple, moral proposition, life should never be used as a tool, or a means to an end.
These are bedrock principles. and that is why my administration opposes partial-birth abortion and public funding for abortion; -- (applause) -- why we support teen abstinence and crisis pregnancy programs; adoption and parental notification laws; and why we are against all forms of human cloning.
Here is what President Bush said tonight, to the American people, about human dignity and protecting life:
The Blogs for Life Conference is underway, and we've already heard from some challenging speakers. There's more to come when the conference resumes at 2:30 PM ET, following the March for Life.
In preparation for the upcoming Blogs for Life conference, FRC Blog and ProLifeBlogs.com held a joint symposium on the merits of “incrementalism” (approaching pro-life issues on an incremental basis, gradually achieving our goals by compromise and exceptions) versus “absolutism” (settling for nothing less than full legal recognition of the sanctity for life).
One of the most intriguing entries we received comes from Michael New, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. Because Professor New doesn’t have a blog we’ve decided to post his essay here.
°°°°°°
I really appreciate Family Research Council’s willingness to allow me to post a comment on the ongoing debate in the pro-life movement between absolutism and incrementalism. Many young pro-lifers do not realize the extent to which this debate divided the pro-life movement in the years immediately following the Roe vs Wade decision. After all, in recent years, this debate has become somewhat less polarizing. Starting in the mid 1980s absolutists and incrementalists quit fighting over how to design a human life amendment and turned their attention toward changing the composition of the Supreme Court. These efforts enjoyed fairly broad support among various factions of the pro-life movement and tensions cooled somewhat.
Brownback, Hunter to Join Blogs For Life Conference
On Monday, January 22nd at 9:00 am, Family Research Council will host Blogs for Life, the second annual conference of pro-life bloggers. The event will be streamed live via webcast from FRC.org. (Visit the FRC homepage on the day of the conference for more details.)
Blogs for Life is scheduled to take place the day of the 34th annual March for Life, during which thousands of pro-life advocates gather in the Nation's capitol to celebrate life and demand the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
The conference will feature Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Other featured speakers include Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo and Ramesh Ponnuru, noted author of The Party of Death and senior editor at National Review.
Blogs for Life is an excellent opportunity for individuals and organizations to network with pro-life bloggers and develop an understanding of how weblog technology can be used to strategically promote life and transform ideas into action as we move toward a post-Roe America.
Who: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Bobby Schindler
Ramesh Ponnuru
What: The second annual conference dedicated to advancing the pro-life message via weblog technology.
When: Monday, January 22, 2007
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
2:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Where: Family Research Council
801 G. Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
The gender imbalance doesn't appear to be due to growth of the "He-Man Woman Haters Club," but to a rise in sex-selective abortions. The government's encouragement of one-child per family has prompted a society with a traditional preference for sons to illegally abort girls.
As China has about a third of the world's population, a gender imbalance like this will give rise to major problems not only for China, but the world. From the AP story:
The report predicted that by 2020 the imbalance would mean men of marriageable age — especially those with low income or little education — would find it difficult to find wives, resulting in possible social problems.
The problem is not just a rural issue, with the newborn gender imbalance also widening in cities. In the first 11 months of 2006, there were 109 boys born in Beijing for every 100 girls.
China Daily said one way to solve the problem would be to create a proper social security system so rural couples would not feel they needed a son to depend on when they get old.
Somehow a social security system doesn't seem quite adequate an answer. Perhaps it's time China revisits its population control polices before they lose their feminine side altogether!
I highly recommend reading "The Great Stem Cell Error," an oped by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator. He makes some excellent points about the hype over embryonic stem cell research. I could summarize a few of the key points, but won’t. Instead, read it!
I don't know how accurate this story is, but it is consistent with the use of adult stem cells to treat patients for heart damage. The hospital mentioned, Frontier Lifeline Hospital, is focusing on cardiac care. In fact, according to this recent story, An invaluable exposure, Frontier Lifeline Hospital is working with Iraqi doctors and surgeons to help them get up to speed on newer techniques for treating heart damage. Iraqi doctors are struggling to treat heart trauma resulting from the war in Iraq, so some of them have gone for more training in India.
The Associated Press reports that 7,000 fewer girls are born in India every day. The increased use of ultrasound in India has made sex-selection that much easier. The number of abortions of girls is staggering. Indian officials aren't pleased:
"Female feticide should be treated as a crime and not just a social evil, therefore stringent punishment and punitive action is required," said Renuka Choudhury, India's women and child development minister.
She's correct. But why isn't abortion of any child regardless of sex viewed as a form of feticide?
Our Navy chaplain told us last Sunday about a most interesting psych experiment from his college days. Student volunteers were given special goggles. These goggles blocked out the students' peripheral vision and turned everything they saw upside down--a full 180º. At first, of course, the students stumbled around, as if hopelessly uncoordinated and incapable of movement. Gradually, however, they began to accommodate themselves to the new view. In a surprisingly short time, the students, their upside-down goggles firmly attached and without peeking, found they could negotiate with ease. Apparently, some volunteers for this upside-down experiment have become so proficient they can actually pilot airplanes.
On Wednesday night, before a packed Statehouse gallery, the Iowa legislature held public hearings on an issue that has spawned debate all across the country. The three-hour proceedings on human cloning illustrated just how divided Iowans are. Most of the scheduled speakers favored overturning the state's human cloning ban, but they were clearly not representative of the crowded audience who voiced strong opposition to the bill. 
The state of Iowa is synonymous with farming, but if a dangerous bill passes the House, it could be cloned human embryo farms, not traditional agriculture, that the Hawkeyes will become known for. Yesterday, legislation that would repeal Iowa's current ban on all human cloning passed through one of the state's House committees. 
This story about a 
