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.