Take The Stem Cell Quiz

This is an interesting video sent to me by James P. Kelly, one of our recent guests on Voice For Life.  James is a science writer for the Seoul Korea Times.  He is also a patient advocate and congressional witness on stem cell research.  One qualifier, I don't think it is quite accurate to say that human embryonic stem cells caused brain tumors in all of the Parkinson's subjects.  The test mentions that the mice that received human embryonic stem cells "formed brain tumors in all the subjects instead." (claim is at 4:52).  I think it is more accurate to say that the level of tumor formation has been unacceptably high in animal studies, but not such that every subject developes tumors.  In a recent post and comment Wesley J. Smith said, "... a recent study had every mouse developing what M. J. Fox called 'residual tissue,' e.g. percursers to tumors." Test your knowledge while finding out current information on stem cell research and how to get involved in human trials ASAP

Planned Parenthood Closing Clinics

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States.  They perform more than 20 percent of American abortions.  But they are slowing closing some of their clinics.  Citizen Link reports that "Back in 1995, Planned Parenthood had 938 clinics in operation. Even though they opened hundreds since then, now there are only 817, marking a tremendous decline in services."  Jim Sedlak with the American Life League’s STOPP Campaign says Planned Parenthood has "been closing down more than a clinic a month since 1995 and they are now at the lowest level they’ve been since 1987.” 

Abortion advocates scream that there are no abortion clinics in over 80 percent of the counties in the United States.  This is a bit of info that misleads people to think that abortion is very restricted in the United States and that the right to abortion is near to being snuffed out.  If only it were true. 

The truth is that like any product or service, there has to be a demand for it.  For anyone who has been to the other 14 counties besides Washoe (Reno/Sparks) and Clark (Las Vegas) and Carson City, it is clear why there are no abortion services there.  There's little demand.  The fact that Planned Parenthood is closing clinics-some of course by consolidation, shows that the demand for abortion is decreasing. 

Another Stem Cell Success You Won't Hear About

Did you hear about the new stem cell breakthrough that stem cells have been morphed into lung tissue?  I didn’t think so.  Those stem cells were not the right or politically correct stem cells.  They are from umbilical cord blood, not from embryos. 

   

Wesley Smith says “don't expect the media or politicians to notice. There is campaign money in them thar embryonic stem cell hills. Big Biotech has spent many tens of millions in propagandizing the country and it's payback time!”  Umbilical cord blood stem cells don’t have millions and millions of dollars of investments behind them. 

   

Paraplegic stem cell patient advocate James P. Kelly tells me that there are promising efforts involving adult/umbilical cord blood stem cells that are either not getting funding or are being stopped, while boat loads of money goes to embryonic stem cell research which has shown not human results.  I’ll report more on that as I get more info.

   

Sufferers should not be surprised that big biotech may be working for their interests and against the interests of sufferers and public health.  Lots of companies have done that for profit.  Why shouldn’t the big bio-tech industry?

50 Percent Of Abortions Are Repeat Abortions. Most On Contraception.

“LifeNews.com reports that “Repeat abortions used to account for about 40 percent of all abortions in the United States, but a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that figure is on the rise. Now, about half of every abortion done annually is an abortion done on a woman who has had at least one previous abortion.”

“AGI said the typical profile of a woman having a repeat abortion is someone over the age of 30 who already has children and was using contraception at the time of the pregnancy.”

Guttmacher, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, also notes in another report that over 50 percent of aborting women are on contraception before the abortion and about 85 percent knew how to use it.  If there are 1.3 million abortion a year, more than 650,000 babies were aborted due to contraceptive failure.  You have to wonder if contraception promotes abortion more than prevents it. 

Here's what I mean.  There's a numbers game to it.  No pills or condoms works at 100 percent efficiency.  So if you have millions and millions of people engaging regularly in sex while on the pill, or using condoms, chances are a lot of people are going to get pregnant unintentionally. 

When abortion advocates talk about stopping unintended pregnancies by more contraceptive coverage, we need to remember that a large part of the unintended pregnancies are with women who have experienced contraceptive failure.  But then again, that's one of the big reasons for abortion-a back up to contraceptive failure.  So that's an option that's probably not going to work.  It may fuel more risky sex with it's promises of being safe and in the process fuel more abortion. 

What about claims that contraceptive access has reduced teen pregnancy and as a result, driven down abortion rates?  Well, 650,000 abortions due to contraceptive failure aborts that argument.  For all the talk about contraception driving down teen pregnancy, the only thing new that's been added to the mix of educational factors since that rate started going down has been pledges to wait until marriage, abstinence only education, and parental notification laws. 

Critics will say that many break their pledges.  But they kept the pledges long enough to lower the pregnancy rate.  Less sex means less chance of unintended pregnancies. Kids also know they could get pregnant and be required to tell their parents. 

With the high rate of repeat abortions, and they high rate of abortion for contraceptive failure, abortion supporters should not bristle when pro-lifers say abortion is for birth control.  But then again, what we really mean is that abortion is used to prevent birth, not for health reasons that could threaten the mother.  Those exceptions account for less than 5 percent of all abortions.

New Male Pill Prefered Because Risks of Pill To Women.

There's been big news over the weekend that there is now a male contraception pill.  You can read about it in the UK Mail.  Pro-lifers like myself really don't have a lot to say about contraception except to note that it does not make abortion go down.  Most women are on it when they have an abortion and almost all of them know how to use it.  So says Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.  No pill is going to stop STDs, and it's bad public policy to allow birth control dispensaries to pass out contraception to kids without parental notification.  If you think many of these dispensaries are going to keep girls with sexual predators for boyfriends, don't count on it.

Well, back to the point.  For years we've been told by the sexperts that the pill is safe and easy-no big deal.  Well.... now that this new male contraception pill has arrived-or may arrive, there's talk about the risks to women.  The UK Mail says, "The new contraceptive is likely to appeal to women who are uneasy about the female Pill's ability to raise the risk of strokes, heart attacks and potentially-fatal blood clots."  In the years to come the public will also learn that it presents a higher risk to breast cancer, just like abortion does.  Besides that, it makes women gain weight, become depressed/agitated and causes them to lose sex drive-sometimes with permanent loss.  That's a winner.  No wonder so many go off it within a year.

If the pill is no big deal, why would these things bother anyone?  This should lead all of us to question anything abortion and sexual revolutionaries say to us.  They swear up and down that there are no problems, then news like this comes out.  Just like abortion. 

Abortion is supposed to be safe and easy, routine and no big deal, now that it is legal.  If that's true, why are abortion advocates arguing that partial birth abortion is necessary because it is safer than other late term abortion procedures, like the dilation and evacuation technique (D & E).  The D & E tears the baby apart in the womb and then reassembles it on a table to make sure they got all the parts.  Partial birth abortion advocates argue that there's a risk of leaving parts in the womb leading to infection and that there's the risk of damaging the uterus or cervix with repeated passes to get those parts out.  Their own arguments for partial birth abortion undermine their mantra that abortion is safe.

You think you can trust these people?  Think again.

Embryonic Stem Cell Bill Is First Step To Cloning

President Bush vetoed efforts to overturn his embryonic stem cell policy this summer.  The president's policy allows federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using embryonic stem cells from embryos killed before August 9, 2001, the date of the policy.  It prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research using embryonic stem cells procured after that date.  It does not ban state or federal funding.  Look for Nevada legislators to try to pass something like this even though our neighbors in CA voted to give $3 billion dollars to an agency with no state oversite to conduct this kind of research. 

So the policy does not ban embryonic research, though I wish it did. 

Nancy Pelosi has said the Congress will resubmit the bill to overturn the president's policy.  This legislation, which was supported by every Nevada Congressman and Senator, except Senator Ensign, would overturn this policy and fund the research regardless of the date the embryos were killed.  The embryos to be destroyed would be procured from fertility labs.

There are a lot of problems with those embryos and the stem cells that could be gotten through their destruction.  About 3 percent in those clinics are available for research.  That would not provide the kind of genetic diversity necessary for patient specific matches and would cause rejection problems.

But that's not really the purpose of the legislation and the legislation feigns morality by saying that the embryos could not be produced for research.  They have to be, in so many words, left over.  The real reason is that politicians have not been able to sell cloning to the public.  For all the phony polling about cloning and killing embryos, the public doesn't want it.  They do not support creating a supply of embryos for research.  This first step of getting more embryos from fertility labs is to get the public used comfortable with embryo killing a first step to cloning.  If we can kill embryos from fertility clinics, why can't we clone and kill them that more good may result.  That's the purpose.  Each legislation must be weighed on its own merits, not necessarily because it could lead to further problems, but this is why the legislation has been proposed.  It's to anesthetize us to cloning.  Look for it to be introduced in the next Congress.

Partial Birth Abortion Is Real And Kills The Unborn During Delivery

Abortion advocates say that partial birth abortion does not exist and it does not kill unborn children during delivery.  Sometimes they will say that the unborn is dead prior to the delivery.  They say these things to discredit the ban.  You know you are desperate when you have to resort to that kind of argument.

First, is there such thing as a partial birth abortion?  Or should we say, does the term partial birth abortion describe a particular abortion procedure?  (View diagrams with step by step explanations.)  Well, partial birth abortion is now described by law.  The Congress described it this way.  Partial birth abortion occurs when an abortionist “delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.” 

Eyewitness Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer went out to work at partial birth abortion inventor Martin Haskill’s clinic.  She testified to Congress, as she has twice on Voice for Life, how partial birth abortions are done:

The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

Other PBA witnesses say the same.  In the trial before U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in New York, Dr. Carolyn Westoff testified that there is “usually a heartbeat” when she begins delivery in a partial-birth abortion, and that the fetus is living until she collapses the skull.  Leroy Carhart, the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart said that the heartbeat would continue for a short time after the brains were sucked out.  Abortionist Timothy Johnson, told the judge that when the “fetus” has been extracted, “Feet could be moving, yes.”

How do you argue with that description that partial birth abortion kills a child during delivery and that it accurately describes what happens during a certain abortion procedure?  Several years ago I had septo rhino plasti, or something like that.  You know it by “nose job” or a fixed “deviated septum.”  Is there such thing as a nose job?  Maybe not in the books, but we all know what it means.  The same would be true with partial birth abortion even if it didn’t have a legal term to back it up.

Finally, the image of a helpless baby dangling outside the womb before being stabbed by scissors and having his or her brains sucked out, is revolting and should move the court to ban this procedure and look up those who perform it.

See Nevada LIFE’s Partial Birth Abortion Myths and Partial Birth Abortion Page.

View Illustrated Images On Partial Birth Abortion.

View diagrams with step by step explanations.

Partial Birth Abortion Not Necessary To Protect A Woman’s Health & May Bring Harm.

Does the partial birth abortion ban have a health exception and is it necessary to protect a woman’s health.  Here’s what the law, which is being argued at the Supreme Court says:

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

That's a health exception, but not the kind that abortion advocates are talking about.  Most people probably think it refers to the physical threat that the pregnancy and the unborn pose to the mother.  But abortion advocates mean the health risk that doing the abortion itself presents to the mother, not necessarily the risk the unborn presents to the aborting mother.  I guess this is an admission that abortion may be legal, but that doesn’t mean it was safe in the 20 years before partial birth abortion became legal.

Americans United for Life’s Clark Forsythe says that “The medical record in these cases shows that no reliable medical evidence exists showing that partial-birth abortion is either safe or effective for any maternal or fetal condition.”  There have been plenty of witnesses, but none of those witnesses or the AMA or the College of Ob-Gyns have been able to point to an instance necessitating partial birth abortion. 

What’s worse is that it may present complications for the mother.  Forsythe says, “In addition, partial-birth abortion could have serious health risks for women.  No studies exist regarding the safety or effectiveness of partial-birth abortion.  There is no credible medical authority, except the personal, subjective opinions of individual doctors in this case, that partial-birth abortion is ever needed to protect the physical health of the mother.  The procedure is supported by nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinions of doctors who profit from the procedure.”

Mailee Smith an attorney with AUL, who co-authored the briefs in the Supreme Court, stated, “The medical evidence actually supports multiple possible dangers from partial-birth abortion.  These risks include heightened risk of placenta previa and pre-term birth in future pregnancies, heightened risk of maternal laceration, increased risk of infection, and heightened risk of uterine trauma”. 

Smith continued, “The medical evidence for partial-birth abortion presented to the three trial courts in this case never rose above the ‘poor’ grade in the scale utilized to measure scientific evidence.  Partial-birth abortion was performed on the personal intuition of a few abortion providers—the same ‘evidence’ used by the Court when it approved PBA in 2000.  The Court’s casual deference to the subjective whim of abortion providers allows abortion providers to thumb their nose at evidenced-based medicine.”

Partial Birth Abortion is never necessary, may actually harm a woman’s health and it does have a life of the mother exception

Infanticide Proposal Is Bigoted and Spiritually Bankrupt

As noted in the previous posting, an OB-GYN group is proposing infanticide for certain newborns whose existence would constitute a burden to their families, burdens that are probably economical and which keeps the family from getting on with things... self fulfillment and the like.  One of the other arguments is that it could avoid certain late term abortions.  I get it, birth is actually safer than abortion!  So let's birth the kid before we kill it. 

My co-host Toni Berry and I spoke with Senator Rick Santorum about his son Gabriel who died within hours or a day after birth. His wife has written a book on it, Letters to Gabriel. The Senator was a lead supporter of the partial birth abortion ban. We asked him about arguments that said we should abort children we knew would live short lives and suffer like his Gabriel. The Senator, who lost his re-election bid, asked us why it would matter how long his son lived or what condition he arrived in. He said he loves little Gabriel today and that he learned more from watching Gabriel struggle for his life than he had learned from anybody. He then asked us about his other kids. He had a 9 or 11 year old. What if he should die tomorrow? What if I knew before birth that he would die at 10, 20 or 30? What difference would that make? What difference does the length of anyone's life make? Should we kill them ahead of time?

I think there's a stark spiritual contrast between those who would throw these lives away and the senator who sees every life has precious, no matter how short, how it is delivered or how the package or contents look. That they are thinking that this would prevent some risky abortions (that procedure that is supposed to be safe now that it is legal) is reprehensible. It treats humans as things and obstacles to be overcome. I don't believe for one minute that these people care about the baby. They care about the baby's impact on them and how it will make demands on them and foul the perfect little society they are trying to make.

I'm amazed at the bigotry against these imperfect little people. We used to have lunch counter signs saying, "no coloreds allow." Now we are going to have hospital signs saying, "no burdensome imperfect people allowed." If you can't pass the perfect test (you have one of the 6,000 conditions we can test for), you can't live in our world. But since it's linked to abortion, it's going to be an acceptable bigotry.

Infanticide Proposed In UK.

The Times Online/UK reports that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology of Britain is asking other health professionals to consider “euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.” It “is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances.”

Well, well, well… is this because it would be cruel to let the babies live lives that would cause them to suffer?  That WAS the big argument-“it would be cruel to let them live.”  BUT, that’s not necessary anymore.  Euthanasia is needed because of the “unfit,” “burdensome” child’s impact on US.

The Times says, “The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.  Hence “A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

Don’t’ be surprised .  It used to be that abortion advocates would say that the unborn was not human.  When they lost that argument, they’d said it wasn’t a person.  They’d also argue it was unfair to bring a child into the world under handicapped conditions-handicapped physically, economically, familial and etc… But that’s given way to the impact on the young woman.  "Women have a God given right to not have their lives messed up by anyone," even if it means killing their own offspring.  After all, their lives are much more important than some fetus.

That’s not to mock women, but a straight assessment of what abortion feminists think.  It should not surprise us that in some urban areas in the United States, after 45 million abortions and passionate advocacy for partial birth abortion, that you get more jail time for cruelty to animals than killing new born kids.  You get tears of compassion for killing your baby, but jail for killing your dog.  Go figure.

The infanticide proposal is bigoted and says only certain kinds of people are welcome.  Children are not welcome into our lives unless they meet our expectations or give us what we want.  There’s no way to contain that view to babies that require extra attention.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Is Not Vague

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.  One of the arguments is that the statute is vague and that abortionists would not be able to understand what procedure the statute prohibits and would be fearful of doing other types of abortions.  The court bought that argument when it stuck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart.  That was and is hogwash... or something worse. 

In his dissent in Stenberg, Justice Kennedy cites the AMA: "the 'partial birth abortion' legislation is by its very name aimed exclusively [at the D & X.]  There is no other abortion procedure which could be confused with that description."  The court tossed that aside.

The Congress's law has an even clearer definition, but abortionists are still arguing they don't understand what they mean.  Justice Thomas also dissented in Stenberg.  He noted that these abortionists have literature in their offices describing the procedures in great detail.  But when they get into court, they don't know what it means.  Good for Justice Thomas for pointing this out.

Okay, here's a joke.... maybe you have to be familiar with the abortion issue.  If you go to an abortion clinic and ask them "what does 2 + 2 equal? what will they say?

"I don't know.  It's vague.  What do you mean by 2?  Is that a plus sign or a minus.  I can't tell."  You get the point.  When you don't have an argument in court, you say you can't understand the statute.  You'd think after all those years of medical training and residency that these guys would be able to understand the descriptions of the procedures they are doing.  This is a fraudulent argument.

Human Liver Constructed By Certain Stem Cells Can't Get Any Respect

UK Scientists have created a human liver out of stem cells.  Great news, right?  You heard about it didn't you?  Wrong...  Of course you didn't.  You didn't hear about it because it was created out of politically incorrect stem cells from umbilical cord blood...  You can't bash the President or create wedge issues with THOSE kind of stem cells.  You can't make it look like your opponents don't care about people because there are no moral objections.

Shame on the media for not reporting this.  Shame on the politicians for down playing these achievements.  Just this summer, the media jumped all over an unsubstantiated false embryonic stem cell advance.  We're still waiting for the retraction.  While embryonic stem cell promoters make wild promises and try to raid state treasuries, adult stem cells wrack up success after success.

What's So Shocking About Late Abortions For Depression

Bill O'Reilly seems surprised to discover that world famous Wichita abortionist George Tiller, also known as Tiller the Killer, does late term abortions for depression.  This has been known for so long that it's hard to imagine that someone doesn't know this, especially someone like Bill O'Reilly.  But then again, the propaganda machines of the abortion industry are pretty powerful. 

Several years ago Tiller told a National Abortion Federation Conference that only 8 percent of 10,000 abortions he had performed between 24 and 36 weeks were for some fetal anomaly.  Those are his words, not ours.  Martin Haskell says the same thing about partial birth abortion.  It's for convenience, not necessity, just like all abortions.  James McMahon, who ironically died of brain cancer, was one of the inventors of partial birth abortion-the procedure which kills a baby during the process of delivery by sucking its brains out.  He said the leading indicator for PBA is depression.  I doubt that is what people think when abortion advocates say that abortion is necessary or that this is part of what they think is meant by the health of the mother. 

November Elections No Reason To Despair

After last night's elections it would be tempting to quit and despair.  It was a tough night as pro-lifers lost their leadership in the House and Senate and as four initiatives across the country went down in flames. 

But there is room for hope.  Democrats won some of their races by running as pro-life.  They got the message from Democrats for Life after the 2004 election that abortion had cost them elections for years.  This year they cleared the field for some pro-life Democrats in primaries.  For whatever the reasons the Republicans lost, it wasn't pro-lifer's fault. 

The S. Dakota banning almost all abortions lost by 10 points.  But if we would have allowed for a rape and incest exception, it would probably have won by 10 points or more.  While I oppose these exceptions, I don't think people who support them to be pro-choice or pro-abortion.  After all, they are opposing 99 percent of all abortions. 

I've already heard some despair.  But this is nothing compare to the way things were 12 years ago.  Back then pro-lifers like me were afraid to admit to being pro-life to evangelical Christians.  People blamed us for Bush I losing in 1992.  Christians said we were alienating people and ad nauseum and that our work wasn't that important.   We were wrecking the church and the Christian message.... Really, that's what it was like.  I almost left my faith-and I was a pastor. 

So things aren't nearly as bad as they seem.  There are way more people who are pro-life.  We have way more evidence on what abortion does to the baby, does to women, the family and society.  More and more women are coming forward.  There's nothing our opponents can do to undo that or silence it.  In January there will be over 15,000 people marching in Nancy Pelosi's town of San Franciso saying that Abortion Hurts Women.   And then we have new forms of media, the internet, email and Catholic radio is on the rise all over America. 

So, don't be afraid.  Don't lose heart.  This is a big setback, but the cause of life and the culture of life is the greatest cause in the world and will continue to go forward.  It's going to take a while, but truth is truth and our opponents can't do anything about it.

Filibuster On Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act Says A Lot About Opponents

I’m sorry I’ve abandoned the blog for a month.  Now it’s back.  There’s way too much to talk about.  Sorry for going away.  In the meantime, I was doing a lot of pro-life advocacy.

The BIG news is that The Senate was unable to get enough votes for cloture to end the filibuster on the Child Interstate Notification Abortion Act before the Congress recessed.  The bill would have required any abortionist in any state to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state.  It would also have prohibited transportation of minors across state lines to obtain abortions to evade the parent's right to be notified in the home state.  60 votes were needed. The vote to end the filibuster was 57-42.  51 of 55 Republican Senators, along with 6 of 45 Democrats, voted to end the filibuster.  8 of the 14 Democrats, who voted for the legislation in a previous form, switched their vote and supported the filibuster.

Here are a few things to note.  Most kids who get pregnant, a little over 60 percent, become pregnant by adults, not their peers.  Statutory rapists routinely use abortion clinics to cover up their sexual crimes.  Abortion clinics are notorious for not reporting. 

Mark Crutcher and Life Dynamics called over 800 abortion clinics a few years ago.  A woman pretending to be a 13 year old girl fearing that she was pregnant by her 22 year old boyfriend-whom she said she wanted to protect, was told by over 90 percent of these clinics that they would not tell, did not have to report the boyfriend, or they would counsel her on how to evade parental notification laws.  Crutcher told our radio audience that it is clear from the calls and abortion clinic literature that these calls are not unusual to abortion clinics and they know how to handle them.  There’s big bucks to be made from teen and pre-teen girls who may or may not be pregnant.  They are not going to tell.  The senators know this.  But 42 voted against it.

The failure to vote for cloture and vote on the bill says a lot.  It says that for a large group of people (not all or even most pro-choice identified people), the most important thing is not the safety of the child or the well being of the family, but the fact that she got an abortion.  If your kid is afraid you’ll be mad, or embarrassed, or she is being manipulated by a man or the boy’s mother, too bad.  Don’t depend on the authorities.  It’s your fault.  You don't have a right to know.

This isn’t about choice or kid’s health.  It’s about making sure that we don’t have a bunch of “unwanted” kids running wild through our cities with teenage mothers.

How else do you explain the votes?  There were exceptions for health emergencies, for one parent not notifying another, a judicial bypass and if she said she was sexually or physically abused by her parents or neglected by them, the abortionist would have to notify authorities in her home state, not tell the parents.  All the objections were met.  The senators chose to shill for the financial interests of the abortion industry instead of standing for families and child safety.

When Does Pregnancy Start? Can Abortion Occur Without Terminating Pregnancy?

These questions sound bizarre, but it shows how distorted the abortion debate has become and how abortion advocates mislead the public.  Advocates of the Plan B/Early Contraception/Morning after pill say that the pill will not terminate pregnancy.  This leaves the hearer with the impression that Plan B does not take a human life.

It is true that the common medical definition of when pregnancy begins is when the newly conceived human being implants him or herself into the womb.  This definition means that you existed for a few or for several days before making your mother pregnant!

This definition is used to evade an important point. It is a biological fact that each human life begins at conception, not at implantation. This is true even if pregnancy is technically defined as beginning at implantation of the unborn into the womb.   This explains how abortion advocates can make it appear that the Plan B/Morning After/Early Contraception pill does not cause an abortion because it technically does not "terminate pregnancy" under this definition.  It leaves the impression that no life exists prior to implantation.

Whether or not pregnancy is defined as beginning when the unborn implants into his or her mother's womb does not change the fact that a unique human being exists several days before implantation. A chemical abortion of a newly created human's life can occur by using Plan B without "terminating pregnancy" or before pregnancy occurs. 

This illustrates the absurdity of the abortion debate and how abortion advocates mislead the public to keep them from knowing that Plan B does sometimes cause an abortion and that forcing pharmacists to fill Plan B prescriptions makes them participants in ending the life of a new person.

This fact must matter and abortion advocates must know that, otherwise they would not try to evade this point. Unfortunately yesterday's RGJ editorial uses this same logic to say that the Plan B pill does not cause an abortion.

Does The Morning After Pill Cause Abortions? Sometimes

Today's Reno Gazette Journal editorial is either uninformed or disingenuous.  The RGJ says "This contraception pill does not interrupt a pregnancy but prevents fertilization, if taken soon enough, within 72 hours. It does not cause abortion."

They need to tell that to the manufacturer.  They say that the Plan B/Emergency Contraception/Morning After Pill works to prevent contraception, and it works to kill the newly formed human being after conception has occurred and on the way to implantation in the womb.  It also works to make the womb inhospitable to the unborn.  So does this pill cause abortion?  Of course it does.  Not all the time, but sometimes it does. This is public information.  If the RGJ doesn't know this after having a former Planned Parenthood rep on their board, then they need to quit opining on it.

The RGJ also complains about the politicization of this pill.  If they don't know how the pill works or are unwilling to tell the public how it really works, then their complaints about politicizing this are hollow.

1.3 Million Abortions And 98 Percent Of US Women Use BC?

NARAL Pro-Choice America says that 98 percent of American women use contraception.  Something's wrong here.  Why do we have 1.3 million abortions every year when 98 percent of women use contraception?  See my previous post at http://nevadalifeissues.typepad.com/files/2006/07/13_million_abor.html#comments

FDA Succumbs To Political Pressure Again.

Just before the 2000 elections, President Clinton got the FDA to approve RU-486 before necessary trials were finished.  Even the notorious Reno abortionist Damon Stutes says that he won’t give out RU-486 because of health concerns.

This week history repeated itself.  In the face of intense political pressure from Hillary Clinton, the FDA has approved over the counter (OTC) use of the Plan B/Morning After/Emergency Contraception pill for women 18 and over.  Barr Pharmaceuticals and Planned Parenthood still want it to be available to all women, even young teens.

Plan B is a glorified oral contraceptive about 15 times the dosage of oral contraceptives.  Senator Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) notes how bizarre this is.  Oral contraceptives require a prescription.  The FDA has never approved a drug for OTC use when a prescription was required for a lower dose.

Well, why would pro-lifers oppose OTC use of Plan B?  Sometimes it functions as an abortifacient.  In addition to preventing conception, it also works by killing newly conceived human beings on the way to being implanted in the womb and by making the womb inhospitable. Both cause abortions.

Abortion advocates argue that if pro-lifers were really interested in stopping abortion, they’d support Plan B.  They are also pushing Plan B to keep people from talking about abortion… Well, well, well…. Their own study out of UCSF shows that availability of Plan B did not reduce abortion or “unintended pregnancy.” Concerned Women of America’s Wendy Wright notes that Scotland, which made the morning-after pill nonprescription in 1999, reported its highest number of abortions since abortion was legalized in 1967, in 2005.

Wright also says that in England, abortions increased from 176,000 in 2002 to 185,400 in 2004. In four years, chlamydia went up 76 percent. Gonorrhea went up 55 percent. Syphilis went up 54 percent. Genital warts went up 20 percent.  Human Life of Washington reports that · “The British Government issued a warning to doctors to be especially aware of a potential complication of ectopic pregnancies following emergency contraception use. The post marketing surveillance experience in the United Kingdom, with specific reference to 201 emergency contraception failures, found 12 ectopic pregnancies, or a 6% rate‹triple the expected rate for both the UK and the US. (See: CMO update #35, dated 4-2-03, content # 20 at HERE)

So much for that argument.  But then again, if you are an abortion zealot, who cares?  As long as you keep as many of those little unwanted babies from off the street and mucking up society and going on welfare, an uptick in STDs is an acceptable cost to them.

You don’t have to be a pro-lifer to know that it’s not going to be hard to get this into the hands of young women.

When I think about abortion advocates opposition to parental notification laws in the face of our statutory rape epidemic, their unwillingness to root out third rate and sometimes sexual harassing doctors from the industry, their opposition to women’s right to know laws, their unwillingness to acknowledge (and warn) that many, many women suffer physical, spiritual and emotional by abortion, their covering up of abortion deaths and their willingness to expose girls to Plan B and etc, I think that they believe that a certain women, or a certain amount of women are expendable for their ends and goals.  At the end of the day, it is the pro-life advocate who is looking out for women, not the self anointed abortion feminist woman’s advocate.  We'll take the fight with abortion advocates over who is most pro-woman any day.

Embryonic Stem Cell Story Blowing Up On The Media

Embryonic stem cell research claims are blowing up in the face of the media-again. On Wednesday, headlines around the world trumpeted news that Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) had been able to take a single embryonic stem cell (a blastomere) from 8-10 cell embryos without killing the embryos and at the same time grow embryonic stem cells lines from those single cells. That IS news.

Well, that’s what ACT reported in their press release to the media. That press release announced these as results of a study of their experiment in the science journal Nature. The media should have checked the actual study because the Nature article tells a different story. Not only were all of the human embryos killed, ACT scientists used 4-7 stem cells from each embryo, not just one. ACT grew 2 stem cell lines, but not from single cells plucked off an embryo. Another experiment suggests that it may not be possible to grow human embryonic stem cells from just one blastomere.

Embryonic stem cell research and reporting is increasingly fraudulent. Last year Science, a leading scientific periodical, published peer reviewed claims of South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk that he had cloned human embryos and had developed human embryonic stem cell lines from those cloned embryos. Woo-suk’s claims were completely fabricated.

Embryonic stem cell research is increasingly politicizing science. Even The New England Journal of Medicine has announced it will publish in the area of stem cell research with an eye to impacting the political debate. This is inappropriate and diminishes The NEJM’s reliability.

Urban Legend Resurfaces: Abortion Up Under Bush

An urban legend that says abortion rates have gone up under President Bush's term in office keeps poking up its head.  In today's Reno Gazette Journal, letter writer Lynda Allan of Reno says, "Abortion rates are directly tied to the economic state of the country. That's why abortions have gone up during Bush's presidency, and went down during Clinton's."

Fortunately Allan is wrong.  Abortion is still going down. Factcheck.org and abortion leader Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute say that abortion has continued to decline under the Bush administration.  Factcheck.org also tells where this legend originated.

Allan is sort of on the right track when she says that "If people in this country want to stop abortion, then make your elected representatives raise the minimum wage instead of giving themselves raises. Reinvest in school lunch and breakfast programs. Teach more sex education, not less, and make inexpensive birth control methods available to everyone."

I don't know if any of that is going to help, especially birth control and sex ed. Abortion clinics say that more than 50 percent of women aborting are on BC and over 80 percent know how to use it. NARAL says 98 percent of women use it. So BC is not stopping abortion.  Kids taking comprehensive sex ed become more sexually active.

But she's right that we should do what we can to make sure that women do not have to choose between their careers/education and their kids.

Feminists for Life says that colleges need to start being more pregnancy friendly. They say that one in five abortions is done on college women.  College girls only have one choice, abort or drop out. We need to make it easier. Start by having changing rooms, day care, telecommuting, pregnancy insurance, special housing and etc.

Fiscal conservatives might object, but when we consider the long term health and emotional as well as economic impact of abortion, fiscal conservatives may see this as a good expenditure.  It is in our nation's best interest for the college women to have their kids (not abort) and we do not want them to drop out of school.

Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning Myths

This is a press release from Nevada LIFE on Embryonic Stem Cell Myths in 2005.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research And Cloning Myths

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 4, 2005

The Following Statement Can Be Attributed To Nevada LIFE President

Don Nelson

The furious debate and “political science” surrounding embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cloning has generated several myths, which have led to confusion about ESCR and cloning.  Comments last week by Majority leader Frist only added to the confusion.  If the nation is going to have a serious debate about embryonic stem cell research, it must be done with clarity and truthfulness.  Here are some myths about embryonic stem cell research and cloning.

Myth # 1 President Bush created new restrictions to federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR).  President Bush did not restrict human ESCR funding.  He liberalized it.  Prior to August 9, 2001 it was illegal to use federal funds for research requiring the destruction of human embryos.  President Bush’s policy provides federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines in existence before August 2001.  Last year over $200 million was spent for stem cell research, of which about $190 million was allotted for research on adult stem cells and nearly $25 million for research on embryonic stem cell lines that existed prior to August 9, 2001.  There is no ban on private or state funded ESCR.  ESCR is not illegal in the United States.  Only federal funding on embryos destroyed after 2001 is banned.  In fact, there are no limits on fetal farming, or human and animal hybrids.

Myth #2 ESCR and cloning are illegal in the United States. Only federal funding of ESCR using embryos destroyed after August 9, 2001 is prohibited.  Several states have moved in to provide money for ESCR and cloning.  There’s nothing the government can do to stop state, local and private organizations from funding or engaging in ESCR and cloning. 

Myth #3 All stem cells come from the same place.  All stem cells are embryonic.  ESCR advocates blur the distinctions between the types of stem cell research to make it appear that all stem cell research is the same, that it all has the same moral significance and that ESCR opponents are anti-stem cell research.   Stem cell research can generally be divided into two types, embryonic stem cell research and “adult” (non-embryonic stem cell research-ASCR).  The moral difference is the source of the stem cells. 

1. Adult stem cells (ASCs) are cells that are derived from the patient’s own body, or from umbilical cord blood, placental tissues, amniotic fluid and other tissues as well as cadavers.   They are found all over the human body, and new research shows that they can be transformed into any other kind of cells. 



2. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are derived from human embryos-human beings in the embryonic stage of development.  There is no other way to obtain embryonic stem cells than to destroy the life of an embryonic human being.

Myth # 4 ESCR has shown the most promise in developing treatments and cures. After billions of private investment dollars and years of promises about cures, ESCR has not treated any human beings and there are no human trials.  ESCR in animal studies has caused teratomas and has proved to be too dangerous for human trials.  Private investment has deserted ESCR for ASCR because ASCR is already helping and curing thousands of people, there are over 80 ASCR cures or treatments including sickle cell anemia, and over 300 human trials on the way (2006-over 1000 trials).  Bio-tech companies engaged in ESCR are broke and looking for the taxpayer to bail them out.

See pp 21-27 of Dr. David Prentice’s Powerpoint presentation testimony to Congress regarding the current applications and clinical trials regarding ESCR and ASCR at http://www.cloninginformation.org/congressional_testimony/prentice_2005-01-03.pdf.

 

Myth #5. Opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) oppose all stem cell research.  Nevada LIFE and other opponents of ESCR like the Catholic Bishops and other right to life groups are strong supporters of almost all stem cell research.  These supporters of stem cell research only oppose that small part of stem cell research that creates and destroys human life.  A person can be a strong supporter of stem cell research and oppose embryonic stem cell research at the same time.

 

Myth #6, There aren’t enough existing embryonic stem cell lines for research and they are in poor condition. Leon Kass PhD is the chairman of the President’s Council on Bio-Ethics.  Chairman Kass says there is no shortage of embryonic stem cells.  “…22 lines of eligible stem cells are available, up from just one line in the summer of 2002, with more coming -- enough lines for years of essential basic research that must precede any future therapy. Nearly 500 shipments of cells have already been made to researchers; 3,500 more sit ready for delivery upon request. There is no shortage of embryonic stem cells.” (Washington Post, October 8, 2004; Page A35).  Nevada LIFE does not support the use of these embryonic stem cells, but we support the funding restrictions on any new killing of human embryos for research.

 

Myth #7 ESCR Opponents Are Extremists. A poll by International Communications Research posed the question “should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?  13.3% said Yes:  79.8% said no.  Wilson Research Strategies, Inc. asked respondents “which of the following comes closest to your view?” in regards to human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. 24% said cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research, which would kill the embryos, should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction should be banned.  69% said all human cloning should be banned.  74 percent of Americans said that they support using tax dollars to pay for the kind of stem cell research that does not require the killing of human embryos, while only 20 percent opposed.   A majority of Americans support a ban on both reproductive and research cloning. Many countries and international organizations, including the U.N, Germany, Switzerland, the European Parliament, and others, have banned all human cloning.

 

Germany Has No Christian Right But Still Wants EU To Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Funding

Germany is asking the EU to ban funding on embryonic stem cell research.  They don't have a "Christian Right" but they still remember their legacy of human research from 60 years ago. 

This is probably an instance where politicians don't care what the Europeans or the world think about us.

Paralysis, Spinal Cord Stem Cell Improvement

Wesley Smith notes that Dr. Carlos Lima had a peer-reviewed study using stem cells to treat spinal cord-paralysis patients.  Click here to read Wes's brief comments.  Click here to check out the 16 page study.

This is still experimental and it is not a cure, but if it were the result of embryonic stem cell research, we wouldn't hear the end of it.  This did not involve the kind of research Harry Reid says would help millions of Americans and thousands of Nevada.  Harry's science hasn't made it to the starting line.  Embryonic stem cell research has no successes and no human trials.  Adult stem cells have at least 70+ and over 1000 trials.  That's why we call Harry's science, political science.

NARAL Calls 82 Percent Right Wing Extemists

You know someone is on the wrong side when they attack the majority as extremists.  NARAL says "anti-choice leaders" like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are trying "to score political points with their far-right base."  NARAL says that "Earlier this month, Frist tried to attach the so-called "Child Custody Protection Act" to a vote on the minimum wage, but he was forced to back down from this blatant attempt to pacify his right-wing base."   

The Child Custody Protection Act would “prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.” A poll by the Polling Company July 11, 2006 asks

“Do you agree or disagree that a person should be able to take a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge?"  82 percent said no.   Since when is 82 percent appealing to the extremist base?  15 percent said yes. 

You can tell when someone is losing their minds when they call everyone extremists. 

NARAL knows that girls are more likely to be impregnated by a man than a boy.  They know that clinics are used to cover up for statutory rapists.  They know clinics almost never report.  They know that parents of teen fathers of the child use clinics to cover their son's responsibility.  The one thing they don't want is for parents to know.  They could ruin the whole thing.  They'd lose their abortion. 

Parents need to know in order to be responsible and to be true parents.  Shame on groups like NARAL who undermine parents.

Does Hiding Abortion From Parents Make Them Bad Parents?

Abortion advocates insinuate that if a girl doesn't want to tell her parents about her pregnancy that they somehow don't have the right to know or that they are not good parents.  HOGWASH.

We are talking about an invasive surgical procedure with life changing and emotional and physical consequences, not smoking behind the gym.   Girls are most likely to be impregnated by men, not boys.  The younger the girl, the older the man.  Many times the manipulative predator or other parents are pressuring the girl.  Does anyone besides hard core-abortion is the answer to everything abortion activists really believe that we should leave the decision of whether  impressionable, vulnerable and manipulated young girls, should decide if parents should know?   Does anyone believe we should leave them to the intentions of the child predator or to the parents of a teen father who stands to be cleared of his responsibility at the girl's expense, or the abortion clinic which profits from the abortion?

Many times the girl is ashamed and doesn't want to embarrass her parents.  But parents want to know to protect their children. If parents are going to be responsible for their children, they need to have the authority to be responsible.  They can't help if they don't know.  Parents resent the notion that life changing decisions can be best handled by people who stand to benefit from their daughter’s abortion and not them.

There will be SOME parents who will be abusive, but that doesn't mean we PUNISH ALMOST ALL parents to prevent abuse by some.  We have laws to punish child abusers and we have scores of agencies working to protect kids.

Do We Need The Child Custody Protection Act?

Do we need Nevada Senator John Ensign’s bill “The Child Custody Protection Act (S 403) that would “prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?"  Of course we do.

1. If girls are not mature enough to gone on school field trips, get aspirin from school nurse, go to R rated moves, get tattoos, or have other elective surgery without parental notification and consent, then they are not mature enough to have an a serious surgical procedure with life changing as well as physical and emotional consequences like abortion.  If parental consent is necessary for these other things, it’s mandatory for abortion. 

2. We have an epidemic of statutory rape.  Most teen and pre-teen girls are impregnated by adult men… These men use abortion to cover up and continue their crimes.  The parent’s of teen father’s also use abortion to get rid of their responsibility. And abortion clinics almost never report suspicions of statutory rape and Clinics in states without parental laws advertise to girls in states with parental laws. 

Right now Planned Parenthood is being sued for violating parental notification laws involving statutory rape and is suing in at least three states to keep investigators from looking into their records to see if they are failing to report suspicions.  We need to make clear that we will not tolerate the exploitation of girls.  This law will go be a powerful curb to prevent that. See my friend Mark Crutcher's site at www.childpredator.com on how abortion clinics handle statutory rape reporting and the horrifying impact of sex with older men on girls.

3. No one has the best interests of the child at heart like her parents-not the sexual predator; not the teen father’s parents and especially not the abortionist who the child sees for five minutes and who possesses no knowledge of her medical history nor has any reason to be concerned about her welfare.  Opposing this law deprives parents of their authority to be responsible.  It abandons girls to those who do not care and who will gain from her abortion.The Child Custody Protection Act will help parents have the authority necessary to be responsible for their children.  Parents who don’t know do not know how to help children who experience complications.  Exceptions are made for parents of the child, the child, and medical emergencies. 

Is Democrat Outreach To Pro-lifers Over?

Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are considering preventing crucial parental notification legislation sponsored by John Ensign from coming to a vote.  The Child Custody Protection Act (S 403) would “prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions."

A Polling company survey shows that 82 percent oppose taking a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge.  Only 15 percent support these actions.  Is this how Democrats reach out to pro-lifers-by opposing legislation that most abortion supporters support?  Is Democrat outreach to pro-lifers over? It seems so, if not a ruse to begin with.

Opposing such a broadly supported bill is bizarre for a party “reaching out” to pro-lifers.  If Reid blocks this he has lost any pro-life credibility and has become a surrogate to advance the agenda of radical abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL who oppose this legislation.

This is an EXAMPLE of what Democrats for Life mean when they blame abortion militancy for making the Democrats the minority party and hindering other democrat issues.  Pro-lifers need a strong pro-life democratic party so we will not be taken for granted. I hope the 43-47 percent of Democrats who Democrats for Life say are pro-life will stand up and take their party back so neither party will be able to take pro-lifers for granted.

Do We Need More Embryonic Stem Cell Lines?

Do we need more embryonic stem cell lines and do we need newer ones because the existing ones are contaminated?  Not according to the former chairman of the president's council on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. 

As early as 2004  Chairman Kass said there is no shortage of embryonic stem cells.  “…22 lines of eligible stem cells are available, up from just one line in the summer of 2002, with more coming -- enough lines for years of essential basic research that must precede any future therapy. Nearly 500 shipments of cells have already been made to researchers; 3,500 more sit ready for delivery upon request. There is no shortage of embryonic stem cells.” (Washington Post, October 8, 2004; Page A35).  Nevada LIFE does not support the use of these embryonic stem cells, but we support the funding restrictions on any new killing of human embryos for research.

Chairman Kass’s comments show that targeting more embryos for destruction is unnecessary. There are plenty of lines now available for basic research and the President’s policy does allow for funding of embryonic stem cell lines in existence before August 9, 2001.  $25 million was allocated last year for this type of stem cell research.  The policy sets no cap on further increases.  The United States leads the world in funding of ESCR and in research.

  The anticipated brain drain has not occurred.

Do We Need More Embryonic Stem Cell Money

Embryonic stem cell (ESC) researchers are pleading poverty as if the Bush administration had cut off ESC funding.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Bush policy liberalized ESCR.  There was no funding from any ESCR prior to August 9, 2001, the day the policy was instituted.  The policy restricts federal funding to ESC lines created from embryos destroyed before the date of the policy and only prohibits federal funding of research destroying embryos after August 9, 2001.  It does not restrict state or private funding of any type of ESCR.  The federal government funds this ESCR and the state of California approved $3 billion dollars for this kind of research and cloning.

Why Continue Embryonic Stem Cell Research 2?

Embryonic stem cell researchers have been parading a lot of people in front of cameras who could possibly be helped by embryonic stem cell research.  Yesterday I saw Parkinson's suffer Frank Carlucci who worked in the Reagan administration and a girl suffering from diabetes.  Nancy Reagan has also been talking about President Reagan's Alzheimer's. 

Adult (non-embryonic) stem cell research is helping Parkinson's sufferers already and mice have been healed of diabetes in animal studies at Harvard, but the Harvard researcher's work couldn't get funding for human trials from groups like The Juvenile Diabetes foundation.  What's going on with embryonic stem cell research promoters and groups like JDF when there is ethical and far more promising research which could help the people they are supposed to speak for? 

It's clear that the PR campaign of embryonic stem cell researchers and big bio-tech has had a mesmerizing impact.  If they want to fight about it or criticize, just point to the 20 year scoreboard.  There are over 70 stem cell successes and over 500 human trials underway... Michael Fumento says it's over 1000.  None of these are embryonic stem cell successes or trials.

Why Continue With Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

The current fight about "stem cell research" is about a kind of stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research which kills human embryos to obtain those embryonic stem cells.  Embryonic stem cell supporters have promised to paint opponents as anti-patient and anti-science.  I'd like to know what those people are smoking or drinking to say that with a straight face.  They've had 20 years to come up with some cure, but they haven't.  There are over 70 stem cell successes and over 500 human trials under way.  Not a single one is embryonic stem cell research.  All of the successes and trials are adult/non-embryonic stem cells successes.  This accusation of pro-life opponents is an instance of the accuser being guilty of the charge.

Why the push for embryonic stem cells (ESCs).  They are theoretically supposed to have the advantages of being easier to grow and being able to become any type of cell.  Adult, or non-embryonic stem cells have met this challenge and they are easier to work with.  ESCs seem to have inherent problems.  They are made to work in embryos, not mature tissue.  They seem to be rapid construction cells and when put into mature tissue in animal studies, they cause tumors and teratomas far too often.  So why are we still pursuing this unproductive research unless there are researchers out there whose jobs depend on it?

Debate Is On "Embryonic Stem Cell Research" Not "Stem Cell Research."

Too many news organizations are describing the embryonic stem cell debate as a debate about “stem cell research” when it is really about a kind of stem cell research called “embryonic stem cell research”. There are two kinds of stem cell research, embryonic and non-embryonic or adult stem cell research.  Most stem cell research is not embryonic.  Embryonic stem cell research is morally contentious because it requires destroying human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells.  Non-embryonic or “adult” stem cell research does not destroy human embryos or human life and poses no ethical problems. 

To use the general term “stem cell research” to describe embryonic stem cell research leaves the readers, listeners or viewers with the impression that pro-lifers oppose all stem cell research.  The fact is that pro-life groups support almost all stem cell research.  We only oppose “embryonic stem cell research.”

There are over 70 stem cell successes with over 500 human trials under way.  None of those success/cures or human trials involves embryonic stem cells.  The use of the term “stem cell research” to describe “embryonic stem cell research” creates the impression that there are embryonic stem cell successes that warrant further embryonic stem cell research, when after 20 years, there are none.  If this were mining, embryonic stem cell research would be an abandoned mine.

The importance of this issue and the need for accurate descriptions of what is being debated cannot be overstated.  It poses the questions, “can we experiment on classes of human beings for the benefit of others without consent?”  “Can we create and destroy human life to benefit others?”  Accurately distinguishing the types of research is necessary for public discussion and public input for setting public policy on these serious issues.  The public needs to know exactly what is being discussed.  The media needs to step up to the plate and accurately describe the debate. 

Embryos Are So Small. What's The Big Deal?

The Senate, following the House, is going to overthrow President Bush's Stem Cell Research Policy which bans using embryonic stem cells from embryos killed after August 9, 2001.  It does not limit funding, federal, private or state on research on embryos destroyed before the policy.  Those stem cell lines are being used by researchers all over the world.  President Bush has promised to veto this bill, HR 810.

"What's the big deal with embryos? They are so small."  That argument won't work because neither size nor lack thereof confers any greater or lesser degree of personhood or rights.  But another point is missing here.  Humans in the embryonic stage of life are human beings regardless of their size, the means by which they have come into existence, their location in lab freezers/Petri dishes, or the fact that they are left over, not wanted, or were not intended to be implanted.  Those are ridiculous arguments, but here's the larger point:

HR 810, the bill to overthrow the policy, tells us that there are classes of human beings who can be experimented upon and used as means to an end for others.  Not only is this wrong in and of itself, excluding a class of human beings from the inalienable right to life and the right not to be harmed, makes everyone else's rights negotiable and subject to the power of those who can declare who is or is not a human being.  That's intolerable and undermines universal human rights.

The president says he wants “to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”  He also has said “Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics: that no human life should be exploited for the benefit of another.”

It's good that the President is going to veto this.  But a dangerous precedent will be set with this Congressional action.  Click here to see the Nevada LIFE press release on this and other bills before the Congress.

1.3 Million Abortions And 98 Percent Of US Women Use BC?

Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards begins today's email alert this way:

"Birth control. It's used by 98 percent of American women. It's healthy, safe, and effective. It reduces the number of abortions. It's basic health care."

There's some fuzzy math going on here.  If 98 percent of women use birth control, then why do we have 1.3 million abortions every year?  If these numbers are correct, then it's pretty clear that birth control is not very effective at preventing pregnancy.  But then again, maybe those numbers are skewed by people getting their condoms at Planned Parenthood.  Some of their condoms have been rated as the poorest by Consumer Reports.

98 percent is probably not the real number of women currently using contraception.   This is another example of how abortion advocates use wild numbers and make wild claims-like the 10,000 women dying a year from illegal abortion before Roe, or that abortion is safer than child birth-to make their case.

The Personally Opposed BUT... Pro-Choice Political Position

          Very important primary elections are right around the corner for Nevada, and the way candidates try to spin their position on abortion can make you dizzy.  The most mesmerizing position says, “I am personally opposed, BUT…. I think 1.) the government should not be involved,” or 2.) “that we should not interfere in private personal family matters,” or 3.) “that we should not tell women what to do with their bodies,” or 4.) “I don’t think I can impose my personal beliefs on others.” 

 

          This personally opposed pro-choice position is the easiest abortion position to deconstruct and the least serious because it is clear that killing innocent human beings is NOT permissible when or because it is done in private and/or the decision to do so was agonized over and agreed to by family members.  Abortion is a public (not private) act because it involves two people not one.  An unborn child is never his or her mother’s body or part of it.  And since abortion involves the destruction of one person by another, a just government is duty bound to intervene in these “private” affairs to protect the right to life of defenseless human beings.  They are duty bound no matter how personal the decision is or how much deliberation or agony a woman and her family have put into or experienced over the decision to abort unborn children.

 

No serious person believes that parents are free to abuse or dispose of their children as long as it’s done in private and handled by the family.  But personally opposed politicians are in the bizarre position of saying people are free to destroy unborn human beings for THOSE reasons.  That is why the “personally opposed (because abortion takes a human life) BUT…” position is the least respectable of all positions on abortion.  Personally opposed BUT politicians are telling us that they do not have the will to assert and impose their belief that aborting innocent human beings is wrong.  Every law or regulation proceeds from someone or some group’s morality-their sense of right and wrong.  Why then are personally opposed candidates running for office if they are not willing to impose morality?

 

          There’s another flaw with the “personal opposed BUT”… pro-choice position.  Princeton Professor Robert George says the personally opposed BUT… pro-choice position suggests “that someone can will for others the freedom to have an abortion without being responsible in any morally significant way for the abortions sought or performed by people exercising that freedom.”   

 

That flight from responsibility is impossible.  You cannot as a public official will that one person or a class of persons' rights not be protected and escape responsibility when others seek and accomplish their demise because of your actions just because you hope or prefer it doesn’t happen.  Professor George says any public official “who acts to establish or preserve a legal right to abortion necessarily wills that unborn human beings be denied the legal protection against direct (and other forms of unjust) killing that he wills for him and others whom he considers to have lives worthy of protection of the laws.  … in this way, he renders himself complicit in the injustice of those abortions that his actions help to make possible.  However sincerely he may hope that women will forgo the freedom to abortion and opt instead for pro-life alternatives, the blood of abortion’s unborn victims is on his hands.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, p. 247).

These are things for the pro-life voter to consider in the imminent elections.