Tuesday, July 25, 2006

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.



Saturday, July 22, 2006

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.

 



Thursday, July 20, 2006

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.



Tuesday, July 18, 2006

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.



Monday, July 17, 2006

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. 



Thursday, July 13, 2006

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.



Thursday, July 6, 2006

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.