Credit Bush For Stem Cell Discovery.

Here is an opinion I wrote for Nevada LIFE that was published in the Reno Gazette Journal earlier this month regarding the new stem cell technique that turns normal cells back to an embryonic-like pluripotent state wihtout killing embryos!  Researchers have done this in humans and grown them into the three cell layers of the body.  This is unbelievable news.  It undermines the need for embryonic stem cell research, kills the rationale for cloning, and President Bush deserves credit for sticking to his principles in the face of belittling comments from Harry Reid and others.  Here's the opinion.

Credit Bush for Stem Cell Discovery.

"The news that scientists were able to reprogram skin cells back into embryonic like-(pluripotent) cells and then turn them into each of the body's three cell layers without killing human embryos diminishes, if not ends, the argument for embryonic stem cell research that destroys embryos and the rationale for human cloning.

"One secret of embryonic stem cell research is that even if scientists used the embryos available in fertility labs, they would not create the genetic diversity necessary for mass cures. Human cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to create embryos for stem cells was thought to be necessary to overcome the problems of rejection and produce patient specific stem cell matches.

"This new discovery can achieve matches without cloning and without destroying human life because it reprograms a person's own cells and bypasses the complicated, expensive and immoral process of cloning.

"Now scientists should have stem cells with the properties they said for years that they needed for regenerative medicine. But after years of saying that embryonic stem cell research that destroys human embryos was the only or best option, who would have believed this discovery? President Bush.

"When President Bush vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill that would have led to more killing of human embryos, Sen. Harry Reid accused the president of "putting politics ahead of safe, responsible science." He said the veto was a "most un-American thing by turning his back on science." Bush was "putting the politics of his narrow ideology ahead of saving lives," had decided that curing diseases "was not as important as catering to his right-wing base," vetoed the bill "with the health and hope of millions of Americans hanging in the balance," and said "our best scientists continue to work with one hand tied behind their back."

"Congressman Edward Markey said the veto would "be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history." Local activists said Bush vetoed hope for sufferers.

"But while Reid was trashing the president, the "Luddite-narrow ideology" president was talking about the possibility of this new technology and funding efforts like this by presidential directive when Congress would not.

"The president was a visionary leader and believed in the resourcefulness of scientists. He deserves credit for insisting on ethical research. Had he not, more time and resources would have been spent on research that destroys human life, has not worked as scientists had hoped and appears to be ending.

"With this discovery, it's time to pass the Brownback-Landrieu cloning ban and ban all human cloning.

"This discovery, along with the incredible breakthroughs with non-embryonic stem cell research, is something we can all celebrate. Ethical science is good science."

Muscle cell therapy repairs damaged heart

The AP in Japan reports that a man who was waiting for a heart transplant was treated with his own stem cells and has now returned to a normal life.  One case doesn't make a therapy, but it is good news. 

If this was an embryonic stem cell success, it would be on the front page of every paper in the world.  Bioethicist Wesley Smith believes that the new stem cell technique, which regresses/reverts ordinary skin cells back to a pluripotent state (embryonic stem cells are believed to be pluripotent and can become any kind of cell) has popped the balloon on embryonic stem cell research.  He believes there's been an embargo on stories like this to promote the need for embryonic stem cell research.  Now that scientists have the same kinds of cells, he thinks we'll see more of this.  I don't know.  But, if he's right this is good news because there is more going on than the public could ever know. 

Do No Harm notes that there are over 70 applications using non-embryonic stem cell research and there are over 1000 trials.  Anyway, this story out of Japan is good news and hopefully we'll see more. 

Who Is Anti-Science Now?

As you know by now, there was a huge embryonic stem cell find today. Scientists announced today that they have successfully reprogrammed adult stem cells back to an embryonic-like state. The Journal Nature says today that "Shinya Yamanaka of the University of Kyoto in Japan reported that his team had created pluripotent cells from human skin cells and, on the same day, a team of researchers led by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reported the same." Pluripotent cells are stem cells like embryonic stem cells which are believed to be able to become any kind of cell.

Bioethicist Wesley Smith says that " researchers reverted human connective tissue cells back to an embryonic- stem-cell-like state - and then differentiated them into all three of the body's major tissue types. If this work pans out, there will be no need to create human cloned embryos for use in embryonic-stem-cell therapies."

This means that embryonic stem cell researchers and supporters may have a supply of embryonic stem cells to work with and according to Yamanaka, "Any scientist with basic technology in molecular and cell biology can do reprogramming." 

Embryonic stem cell supporters and researchers said we were anti-science, anti-patient, anti-intellectual boobs who let our beliefs get in the way of science.  But, Yamanaka and Thompson's work was unbelievable and wasn't where scientists were looking and saying the best hope was!  Now that they have their supply of embryonic stem cells, and ones that are easier to procure than by cloning (nuclear transfer) and probably have more genetic compatibility with the donor, we'll see if there is something more driving cloning for embryonic stem cells or if there's something ideological going on like undermining Christianity or protecting abortion.  If we can cannibalize embryos for research, how can we oppose abortion? 

We'll see how the other side responds to success.  Now they have a couple sources.  They have this regression for embryonic stem cells, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood.  Their reactions will tell us a lot about them and what they have been saying the last several years.

How Can They Do That? Why Pro-Lifers Keep At It.

I look at pictures of aborted babies and I watch steaming video.  I do it to remind me what abortion is all about.  I watched them again today at Priests For Life's site. 

I've been in pro-life, anti-abortion work for a long time.  The rejection, your disbelief that others don't want to join you... all of that hardens you.  But no matter how long a pro-life worker has been working, or how many times he or she has seen pictures and video of the unborn child, seeing these images still breaks us up.  When we think we can't go on any longer, these pictures call us forward. 

And their broken bodies should.  What kind of humanity does a person have if he or she is not moved by inhumanity to other humans?  Their helplessness, weakness and dependency don't make them disposable.  They demand that we give them more protection and care!

Yesterday I was speaking at a local Christian school.  In the section where I was showing partial birth abortion diagrams.  Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed a teen age girl wiping away a tear.  I showed other pictures found at the links below and two young ladies asked me afterwards, "how can they do that?"  How can they do that?

Images at Priests for Life.

Here are some links to streaming video I watched today at Priests For Life's Website. 

The abortion procedure is described here, with former abortionist Dr. Tony Levatino (22:00)
www.pfltv.com/sfydr

Body parts of aborted babies (5:00) www.pfltv.com/imag

Dr. Byron Calhoun examines aborted babies and describes their cause of death (14:00)
www.pfltv.com/babies 

Another Reason Pro-lifers Should Be Careful About Recommending The Pill

Most pro-life groups stay away from the contraception issue.  Our interest begins at conception and continues until natural death.  Abortion advocates want to force us into contraceptive distribution and education.  Though many pro-lifers probably support contraception, most organizations have stayed out of it. 

There are other reasons to stay away too.  More and more research is showing bad effects on women from the pill.  Not only does it cause women to gain weight, become agitated/depressed and kill the sex drive, a new study suggests it can cause 20-30 percent more clogging of the arteries for every 10 years of use.  This came up in a USA Today Article "Study Links Birth Control Pill To Artery Causing Plague." 

Jim Sedlak at American Life League notes some other problems with the pill in his November 14, 2007 STOPP (Stop Planned Parenthood) update. "It has already been proven that the birth control pill can cause health risks. The pill can cause weight gain, acne, breast and cervical cancer and infertility. It lowers immunity to STDs and can also kill the baby that is inside the mother. Not only can the birth control pill cause abortions and increase chances of breast and cervical cancer, but now it has been proven that the birth control pill can endanger a woman’s heart".

Jim also says, "of course you wouldn’t find any of these scientific facts in Planned Parenthood’s “medically accurate” sex education programs. Planned Parenthood received an estimated $180 million of its $345.1 million clinic income during the 2005-2006 fiscal year from the sales of birth control products, including the pill."

Pro-Life Endorsement Confusion Gets More Confusing

Pro-lifers are going to have a tough time figuring out who to vote for in the primary season.  Only the Republicans have pro-life candidates. 

Pat Robertson has endorsed pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani.  I can't figure that one either, but then again Robertson once claimed credit for telling a hurricane to change course from slamming into his city... too bad for the victims in other towns that took the hit.

The Republican National Coalition for Life sent out an email Sunday with an article attached from Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid that says that Fred Thompson is finished for his poor showing on Meet the Press.  Thompson unbelievably repeated a pro-abortion straw man/lie that pro-lifers would send you girls to prison for abortion and then said he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment and said he wouldn't support the pro-life platform before he said he would.  I'd say that would finish him off too.  But today National Right to Life endorsed him.

Mitt Romney has the endorsement of the senior statesman of the pro-life movement Dr. John Wilke, eminent pro-life attorney James Bopp, leading conservative Paul Weyrich, Fundamentalist Bob Jones and Mary Ann Glendon, the Catholic Harvard Law Professor, Editorial Board Member of First Things, US Ambassador to the Vatican and head of the Pontifical Council on Social Sciences, is an adviser to Romney.  Romney opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research and supports a life amendment.  Romney ran as a pro-abortion candidate for Senator and Governor of Massachusetts.

Senator Sam Brownback, who dropped out of the presidential race and is the leading pro-life leader in the United States Senate and author of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, is supporting Senator John McCain.  McCain has a good abortion voting record but supports embryonic stem cell research and has alienated activists with his free speech limiting campaign finance bill.

Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson has yet to support anyone, but the only person of the big four noted above who seem to have a chance at his support seems to be Romney.  We'll see.  National Right to Life did not think pro-life Mike Huckaby had a chance to win.

It's going to be a bizarre season.  My reaction to the Thompson endorsement makes me think I'm leaning toward Romney.  We'll see.  I saw him in Sparks last month and he's very charismatic and well spoken.  I'm not totally happy with any of the candidates, but pro-lifers were nervous about President Bush too.  He turned out to be pro-life.  Too bad he's all action and no talk.  We'd like to see him use the bully pulpit.  We'll see what happens.  There are too many pro-lifers in the campaign and I fear that Giuliani will win by default, although his poll numbers are going down. 

UPDATE: American Family Association President Don Wildemon is supporting Governor Mike Huckabee.

Click here to see read the discussion between Hugh Hewitt and National Right To Life's David O'Steen on why NRL is supporting Thompson.  It's going to be a bizarre campaign.  I can see why NRL came out and chose someone.   There are too many pro-lifers in the contest spliting the vote and Rudy Giuliani is in danger of winning by this division.  That's a no brainer. 

My feeling on the angst toward National Right to Life-which is the best of the best along with the Catholic Bishops, is that they are asking us to support a candidate who doesn't have much juice.  Really, do you get excited about Fred?  But then again, if we all remember, it was hard to get excited about GWB in 2000 because he wouldn't say where he stood.  But he wasn't Al Gore.

The other thing is that the candidates aren't that good.  NRL is a great group.  We use their stuff all the time.  I think they are suffering/getting hurt by this because they had to choose someone at this time and the lack of a good candidate to get behind.  I think no matter who they chose, choosing someone from this field was going to cause angst.  But make no mistake, they had to choose someone right now in hopes of derailing Giuliani. 

Pro-Life Christian MD Under Investigation For Sharing Pro-Life Views

British MD Dr. Tammie Downes is under investigation for helping moms reconsider abortions.  The investigation began after Downes told who she helped women rethink their decision to abortion to the UK Daily Mail in May.  So much for abortion advocates gripping about a global gag rule!  What harm is done when women choose abortion?  The answer to that question puts you inside the mind of the abortion movement.  They are upset because it shows badly on abortion when moms choose life, and other things.  How warped can someone be to protest a woman being talked into giving birth?  That speaks for itself.

Planned Parenthood Hosts College "Sex Toy" Party At UNC

If you ever wondered why Planned Parenthood opposes the abstinence message, it's because they are promoters of sex among young people.  Click here to read about the "sex toy" party they promoted at University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill.  How is this not promoting sex?  If it were anyone else besides Planned Parenthood or the Washoe County Commissioners who gave $160,000 to Planned Parenthood in Reno, I'd expect them to know better.

Anyone promoting sex on colleges campuses or any notion that there is something called "safe sex" is promoting sexual roulette.  It's dangerous.  STDs are an epidemic on college campuses.  It's also dangerous but because there's no condom that can prevent a broken heart.  Maybe we could call it "safer sex," but none of the props that Planned Parenthood offers for safe sex will guarantee that you won't get a sexually transmitted disease.  The sad reality is that STDs impact women harder.  I suspect the emotional damage impact is worse too.

You say they aren't promoting sex?  Explain this.  "The theme of the event was Hawaiian, with the tag line on Facebook: 'Get lei'd with Vox.'"  Vox is Voices of Planned Parenthood. 

That's why they NEED abortion.  They can't do free love with out it and since contraception is not full proof abortion is used as a back up for failed contraception or not being "prepared."

Teri Schindler (Schiavo) We Haven't Forgotten You

It's been 2.5 years since Teri Schiavo was killed or as my colleague Fr. Frank Pavone says, murdered, by the longest state sanctioned execution in our nation's history.  In remembrance of Teri and the importance of her case to our nation, I'm posting a Nevada LIFE Press Release from March 1, 2005 which pretty well states the facts of the case.

Press Release Terri Schiavo Is Not A Right To Die Case.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 1, 2005

The Following Statement Can Be Attributed To Nevada LIFE President Don Nelson

"The Terri Schiavo case has been described in many media articles as being “a right to die case.”  It is not.  These descriptions leave readers, viewers and listeners with the false impression that Terri wants to die and is being kept alive by her parents and right to life advocates who are denying her wishes to die and are causing her pain, suffering and forcing her to live a meaningless existence.

"Terri Schiavo is NOT dying.  She is not sick.  She has no terminal illness.  She is not in a coma.  She is not on life support.  Terri is not alone and she has not requested death.  Fourteen doctors, six of whom are neurologists, flatly contradict the court’s findings that she is in a persistent vegetative state.  If Florida Judge George Greer allows Terri’s feeding tube to be removed, this will not merely allow Terri to die.  It will kill Terri.

"This case is about who gets to choose for Terri Schiavo, what kind of care handicapped people deserve and what we think of them.  Should Terri’s still legal husband Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for ten years and with whom he has two children be able to end his helpless wife’s life?  Should this man who has refused Terri any rehabilitative treatment, severely limited access to her family, friends, spiritual caregivers, kept her in a dim little room and hidden her from the media be allowed to begin the painful process of euthanasia to end his wife’s life by starvation?

"Sworn testimony from health care professionals caring for Terri swears that Terri communicates with staff and family and that Michael Schiavo has forcefully deprived her of any therapy.  He has even refused to allow her to receive anti-biotics.  If true, these actions are abuse and neglect.  Terri’s family is willing to care for her for the rest of her life.  There is no reason to call this is a right to die case.  There is no reason that Terri Schiavo should be killed.  Michael Schiavo has no moral authority to do so.  The court and Judge Greer should know better."

Don't Blame Pro-lifers If Republicans Lose in '08-A Suggestion For Republicans To Win In '08.

If the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate for president in '08, they better be careful who they point the fingers at when they lose.  The default position is to blame social conservatives.  They tried to do this in '92 and '06, but the pro-lifers were the most reliable constituency in those elections.  In '06 it would have been far worse if it weren't for pro-lifers and pro-life candidates.

It's the other factions of the republican party who threw up their hands and stayed homes.  Who can blame them.  The Republican party threw the limited government conservatives like my friend Chuck Muth (who is not a social conservative) overboard.  They have alienated their core constituencies and the pro-life social conservatives are probably the only reliable constituency left for the Republicans going into '08.

It was that abandonment of these other constituencies, not pro-life positions, that doomed the Republicans.   

I have a solution for the Republicans if they want to win.  The Republicans have carried water for the pro-lifers.  GWB gave us two supreme court justices, has packed the lower courts, signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, re instituted the Mexico City Policy, cut funding to the UN's Population Fund for supporting China's brutal forced abortion One Child Policy, opposed treaties like CEDAW and much more. 

So Republicans, if you want to win, stop blaming pro-lifers and start treating the rest of your base like you have treated the pro-lifers.  Do what you promised them.  I'm not saying I support limited government, but if the Republicans want to win, they need to be faithful to their core values.  It's obvious to any casual observer that they thrown these other constituencies overboard.  They are not staying home because Republicans are pro-life.  They are staying home because they don't believe the Republicans when they talk about these other issues.  Uh guys, that means they think you are liars.  Who can blame them?

If Republicans are serious about winning, they should nominate a pro-life candidate and they should start rewarding their other constituencies and doing what they say.

Can Republicans Win With A Pro-Choice Candidate?

Rudy Guliani is promoting the idea that he is the only candidate who can beat Mrs. Bill Clinton-Hillary.  Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity says that the only difference that a president makes is on appointments to the Supreme Court.  Rush Limbaugh even said the same this week.

This is false and I would expect Hannity and Limbaugh to know better. Presidents Do More Than Appoint Justices On Abortion. Presidents sign and veto legislation, set policies like the Mexico City Policy, appoint officials to the CDC (Center for Damage Control), NIH and provide a presence on abortion at the UN.  CEDAW has been held off by the Bush administration and funding has been cut to the UN Population Fund for its support of China's brutal forced abortion One Child Policy. If it were not for pro-life president George W. Bush the United States would be funding abortion groups in other nations and supporting China's coercive abortion One Child Policy.  By the way, Pro-Life" Harry Reid Opposes Anti-Coercion Abortion And Sterilization Funding Amendment. 

President's also use the Bully Pulpit to advocate for and against abortion. 

So it is very wrong to say that if a pro-choice candidate agrees to appoint strict constructionist judges, which Guliani doesn't appear to have done in NYC, it's just as good as if a pro-life president were elected.   

Can Guliani win?  Is he the only candidate who can beat Hillary?  I think nominating a pro-choice Republican candidate is the best way to guarantee that Hillary, Mrs. Bill Clinton, wins.  There is such a large faction of pro-life and social conservative voters who will not support a pro-choice candidate that I see no way a pro-choice republican can win.  The single issue pro-life groups like Nevada LIFE would probably be silent on who to vote for if Guliani is nominated, but other groups are going to sit it out or look for a minor party candidate. 

The pro-life issue has had an advantage for the republicans for many elections and the Democrats let pro-lifers run for them and/or pretended to be/care about pro-life issues. 

So nominating a pro-choice candidate dooms the republicans. Pro-lifers need to get out and work for pro-life candidates and make sure that one wins so we don't face this disastrous choice.   

Ultrasound Bill Would Reduce Abortions

Life News.com is reporting that Senator Sam Brownback has introduced a bill to require abortionists to show a woman considering an abortion an ultrasound of the unborn.  That would surely reduce the number of abortions.  Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteers will tell you that the man almost always bonds with the child and the mother chooses life. 

This would be a great way to make abortion rare.  But abortion advocates won't go for it.  There are a lot of reasons, but they really don't believe in making abortion rare.  Abortion is going down because of abstinence sex education, commitments to wait until marriage (even though they are usually broken, the delayed entrance to sex makes a difference), informed consent laws, parental notification laws, partial birth abortion (the education), federal funding bans, clinic standards... all of these have reduced abortion, but abortion advocates oppose all of them and/or ridicule them.

But that's because they are not serious about reducing abortion.  And it's probably more than the money they make on abortion, though the money is a big deal.  Many of them truly believe that the worst thing for the mother, the child-as if being killed is better than being poor, abused or unwanted- and society is to have the child. 

If they really cared about making abortion rare, they would send pregnant women to crisis pregnancy centers.

And by the way, abortion advocates criticize us for talking women out of abortions.  I'll let you decide what kind of mentality that is.  It tells the kid it would be better if they were dead.  Of course they wouldn't say that.  Well, some would, but that's what their mentality says.

The fact that they think that talking a woman out of an abortion is a bad thing shows they are not serious about reducing abortions.  They will oppose the ultrasound bill because like a salesman on a used car lot (a noble profession) who knows he or she will lose the sale if the buyer leaves the lot, Planned Parenthood and abortionists know that if women see an ultrasound, they'll lose the sale.  The woman will choose life.  They'll lose their money and the woman will "do harm" to herself by having the kid.   That's who they are and how they think. 

The determinism that they preach "your life is over if something unexpected like a baby comes along when you aren't 'ready'" is paralyzing.  But that's for another time. 

Pro-choice and undecided people will support the ultrasound bill, but not abortion advocates.

Umbilical Cord Stem Cells Help Children With Type 1 Diabetes

LifeNews.com is reporting that "Another study has been published showing that adult stem cell research has just as much potential, if not more, than embryonic stem cells to help patients with various diseases. In this cases, researchers at University of Florida founds that stem cells from umbilical cord blood helped children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes."

"The study found that stem cell transfusions using the adult stem cells helped the children reduce their disease severity, possibly re-setting the immune system and slowing the destruction of their insulin-producing cells." Click here to read more.

This is huge!  It's still experimental, but it shows how wrong embryonic stem cell advocates are to say that president Bush's veto of expanded embryonic stem cell funding for destruction of human embryos shatters hope for sufferers. 

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is About Cloning

After President Bush's veto last week of an embryonic stem cell funding bill to destroy more human embryos, Molly Dillon of the Nevada Juvenile Diabetes Research said “this (embryonic stem cell research) has nothing to do with cloning…. This is about fertilized eggs from fertility clinics that would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste."

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a cloning issue because even if the president caved to the powerful biotech industry, it is not likely that these embryos would create the kind of genetic diversity necessary for patient specific matches for mass cures.  Why proceed if there are no mass cures?

To create those genetic matches, researchers believe that cloning, using the same technique that created Dolly the Sheep (somatic cell nuclear transfer-or nuclear transfer), will be necessary to create embryos almost identical to the patient.  The cloned near identical twin would be destroyed for his or her stem cells in the hope that this near match will not be rejected.

This is also a woman's issue because cloning technology requires unfertilized eggs. Dolly the Sheep was created after the 276th attempt.  Even if cloning were to become much more efficient, it would require vast and enormous amounts of unfertilized eggs to create matches for the 100+ million Americans who could benefit.  This would involve hyper-ovulatory drugs and surgery to get the eggs.  Risks include infertility.

If women are not willing to be exploited for this kind of research and therapy-if it can work, researchers are likely to use rabbits or other animals for those eggs.

Non embryonic stem cell would not require any of this.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is A Right To Life Issue

In the wake of President Bush's veto of legislation that would have expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research and funded the destruction of human embryos,   Molly Dillon of the Nevada Juvenile Diabetes Research says "this (embryonic stem cell research) has nothing to do with cloning. This is about fertilized eggs from fertility clinics that would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste. It's not a right-to-life issue, it's a right-to-quality-of-life issue."

This is a right to life issue and it is about cloning.  Human embryonic stem cell research is wrong-as we noted in the same RGJ article, because "No human being is expendable for science or anything else." Embryonic stem cell research kills human embryos.  It doesn't matter how small human embryos are.  It doesn't matter that they are going to be thrown away or that some hypothetical good could come of it.  It is offensive and demeaning to human dignity to say that any human being is "medical waste."

That's because human beings have inherent ultimate value.  This ultimate value is intrinsic to us and woven into the fabric of our being.  It's not earned, achieved, nor grown into or gradually realized.  It does not depend on our size, our circumstances, being wanted or valued by others.  We are not expendable because our demise could benefit others.  Our ultimate infinite value belongs to us by our existence as human beings from the first moment of our existence.  Once anyone becomes expendable, everyone becomes negotiable.  There's no way to firewall the proposition that certain humans are expendable and keep it from ultimately impacting others. So this is a right to life issue. That makes it an ethical issue.   

Hopes NOT Shattered By Bush Veto

On June 20th, President Bush again vetoed legislation that would overturn his embryonic stem cell research policy.  Critics of the President's veto in Nevada say that this removes hope for sufferers.  These critics cannot be taken seriously. 

In an article in the Reno Gazette Journal, Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada said President Bush, "with the stroke of a pen, struck away the hopes and dreams" of cures for chronic illnesses.  “It's a shame (Bush) is kow-towing to a very small group instead of doing what's best for the American people suffering from chronic ailments.”  Mylan Hawkins, executive director of the Nevada Diabetes Association said, “We are deeply saddened that once again the hope for so many Americans who suffer with incurable conditions has been shattered.”  Planned Parenthood's Allison Gauldin told KOH that thinking that adult stem cells are superior is naive.

It is obvious to anyone with a little knowledge about the research that embryonic stem cell research is not the only hope-if it has any hope at all.  There is plenty of hope beyond embryonic stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research appears to show NO hope at all.  When the president announced his veto a woman who had her bladder replaced with one made from her own stem cells was standing with the president.  This month we learned that diabetic participants in a Brazilian study went off of insulin for long periods of time after being treated with their own stem cells.   Another woman Carol Franz; of Las Vegas was also with the president.  She has beaten cancer twice by using her own adult stem cells.  Who's naive?

You would think that people speaking for sufferers and working for relief and cures for their ailments would know that there are over 70 benefits for human sufferers through non embryonic and adult stem cells.  There are well over 1000 human trials.  There are no human embryonic stem cell benefits or trials.

There is also hope beyond stem cell research.  Two stories have appeared in the last few days that have nothing to do with any kind of stem cell research.  One concerns an experimental Parkinson’s trial using gene therapy.  The other is about a promising Alzheimer’s vaccine which attacks the plaque build up in the brain.  Those possibilities have nothing to do with stem cell research at all. 

It is utterly irresponsible and unconscionable to crush hopes of sufferers by telling them that if the President will not expand their preferred-and for many, their politically preferred-option, that they have no hope. 

We should expect that the people above would know about these things and understand that these are huge reasons for hope.   And critics should think twice before calling pro-life ideas naïve.  What is truly naive saying there is no hope after researchers began taking back their promises this summer.  Instead of cures, they are now talking about models for understanding disease.  That is a far cry from the miraculous cures that are said to be at our fingertips if the president would open the treasury to the special interests of the biotech lobby. 

We may cure many of the diseases that concern us most before embryonic stem cells ever get a human trial.  Embryonic stem cell advocates may not notice.

Rewriting History: The FOCA Findings, HR 1964:1

HR 1964, the Freedom for Partial Birth Abortionists Act… I mean the Freedom of Choice Act is a classic example of rewriting history.  For instance, finding 5 says:

(5) These decisions (Roe v. Wade, Griswold, Doe v. Bolton and etc)have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

Give me a break.  If there were 1.2 million illegal abortions in unsanitary conditions per year before Roe, why did abortion go down to 750,000 abortions the year after Roe when those same doctors who let women in through the back alley were now legal?  There weren’t 1.2 million abortions per year until 1977.  There were probably 100-200,000 abortion a year, legal and illegal, in the years before Roe. 

Were those doctors incompetent back alley butchers?  That depends on when you ask abortion advocates.  That’s the mantra now, but in 1960 Planned Parenthood’s Mary Calderone noted that almost all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing.

What about the 5-10,000 women who were dying every year?  Didn't happen.  Bernard Nathanson one of the founders of NARAL writes,  "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible." B. Nathanson, Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193”

A thousand women a year died from abortion in the 40’s, but with the availability of antibiotics and improving trauma care, this was reduced to 39 deaths in 1972, the year before Roe. The findings are nonsense.

So Much For Choice-Abortion Advocates Are The New Totalitarians

Life News.com is reporting that "Abortion advocates in Congress have introduced new legislation that would force pharmacists across the country to dispense birth control and the morning after pill, which can cause an abortion in some instances. Under the bill, pharmacists who decline to dispense such drugs could be required to pay as much as $500,000 in fines."

So much for choice.  The mantra of choice is a fraud.  They never meant it anyway.  Don't agree with abortion advocates' choice, then you can pay.  $500,000 in fines.  These people are the new totalitarians.

What's next?  If you are a pharmacist and don't fill a prescription for suicide, or a doctor and don't want to do an abortion, or a Catholic heath network and you don't want to provide coverage against your morals-I forgot, they already are forced to do that in California, you will pay fines for that too?

In Nevada, abortion advocates wanted to fine pharmacists $10,000 and take away their licenses.  One pharmacist I spoke with in rural NV was the only pharmacist serving many thousands of people.  He said he'd leave the state and he thought no one would come to take his place, especially with the national pharmacist shortage.  But who cares about the needs of those thousands of Nevadans?  Abortion advocates want what they want when and how they want it.

There's No Defending Partial Birth Abortion

This Nevada LIFE's op-ed on Partial Birth Abortion that was recently published in the Reno Gazette Journal.  It may be available at the RGJ or you can access it at our site.

Opinion-There's No Defending Banned Procedure

May 18, 2007

In the weeks since the partial birth abortion decision, it's clear that abortion proponents are sticking to their game plan: don't say anything about the unborn child. The reason is clear: partial birth abortions are so revolting that even a clinical description causes us to shudder.

In a partial birth abortion, the unborn child is pulled feet first from the womb until only his head is left inside. The abortionist punctures the skull with scissors, inserts a tube and sucks the brains out.

Nurse Brenda Shafer's testimony of the partial birth abortion she witnessed was cited by the court. "The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his 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. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out."

How can anyone defend a procedure where a doctor kills a child dangling from the womb inches from birth?

That question led Congress to act. Congress argued that "implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life." And "partial-birth abortion " confuses the medical, legal and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life."

The court agreed that a description of the procedure "demonstrates the rationale" for the ban and that Congress can use its powers "to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn." Substantial majorities, pro-life and pro-choice, agree.

Abortion advocates usually respond that partial birth abortions happen as a result of "wanted pregnancies" going horribly wrong. But partial birth abortionists say that almost all partial birth abortions are performed for women whose unborn child poses no risk to her physical well-being.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent argued, among other things, that women's "ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to 'their ability to control their reproductive lives.' ... Thus, legal challenges ... center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." The "Casey Court described the centrality of 'the decision whether to bear ... a child,' to a woman's 'dignity and autonomy,' her 'personhood' and 'destiny,' her 'conception of ... her place in society.'"

Here Ginsburg makes the leading abortion feminist argument that partial birth abortion and abortion are necessary to fulfill a woman's potential and to achieve or protect her equal standing in society. That has to be news to most women. Ginsburg's argument is dangerous because it says that equality is not a property inherent to women. It also says that children are obstacles and expendable in the pursuit of these ends.

The gruesomeness of partial birth abortion and the arguments for it are the reasons large majorities of Americans oppose it. It's about time the court got something right on abortion.

No One Is Afraid Of The Freedom Of Choice ACT

In the wake of last week's partial birth abortion decision, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and others are promoting the reintroduction of the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA).  The act would write Roe v. Wade into law.

Last time they tried this it was 1993 or 1994.  Bill Clinton was president and he had majorities in both houses of Congress.  Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) said that if the Court tampered with Roe, the Congress would write Roe into law through FOCA.

By the way, what's Tom Foley doing now.  Just after his announcement that he was going to pass FOCA his party was swept from power and Foley was the first Speaker to ever lose an election.   FOCA is not going to make it.  Go ahead, make our day. 

Note to pro-lifers, elections have consequences.  If it wasn't for the election of president Bush and a pro-life congress, there would be no partial birth abortion ban and no new Supreme Court members to uphold it.  If it were not for the election of a pro-abortion party to congress this year, we would not be facing all of these nutty pro-abortion bills.  Elections have consequences. 

The Bush Abortion Ban?

Planned Parenthood is calling the Partial Birth Abortion ban the "Bush Abortion Ban."   Partial birth abortion is barbaric and kills the unborn during delivery by poking a hole in the unborn's head and sucking his brains out.  Leave it to Planned Parenthood to defend against that.  Planned Parenthood and the abortion establishment used to say that there were hardly and abortion bans.  Now they are saying that it's an abortion ban as if it would ban abortion everywhere.

What kind of interests does someone have where they would feel compelled to defend a brain suction abortion?

British team grows human heart valve from stem cells

The non-embryonic stem/adult stem cell successes and breakthroughs keep pouring in.  Read about this breakthrough in the UK.  Apparently, scientists have created heart valves from bone marrow blood cells.  This has been reported previously with amniotic fluid cells.  If they can make it work, it will be huge.

It will be interesting to see if US media reports this.  I wonder if there will ever be so many ASC successes/breakthroughs that one day they will report studies like this without this line, "but experts mean it doesn't mean that we should stop embryonic stem cell research.  Everyone (with a brain) knows that embryonic stem cells can become any kind of cell."  I'm not counting on it.

NOW Endorses Hillary At Pro-Life Feminist's Historic Home

The National Organization of Women has endorsed Hillary Clinton at the historic home of feminist Alice Paul.  Paul said that 'abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.'  Abortion advocates have tried to dismiss this comment.  It's not convincing.  Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and the feminist fore-mothers opposed abortion without known exception.  That's the dirty secret of the women's studies movement.

Hillary's endorsement shows how far feminists have devolved from their original aims.  It's hard to imagine that the first feminists would have approved of advancing your own interests and power on the backs of the weakest members of our society, your own unborn child.

Planned Parenthood: No Right To Choose For Doctors, Facilities, Insurers And Others.

Well, well, well.... Planned Parenthood believes in the right to choose to kill unborn children, but they don't believe in a right for doctors, insurers, medical facilities or other personnel to choose to not participate in other person's lifestyles of choice or their choices like abortion or providing abortion causing birth control pills like the morning after pill and etc.  The mantra of choice rings a little hollow when the people advocating for choice force us to comply with their choices. 

Here is a lament from Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards (Ann Richard's daughter) about how awful it is that companies like Union Pacific do not have to provide contraceptive coverage.  It's from their email update Friday March 16, 2007 "A Shocking Court Decision Against Birth Control." 

"We want to alert you that yesterday women's health suffered a significant setback. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a shameful ruling that limits access to birth control. It all started when Union Pacific, the largest railroad in North America, made a reprehensible decision to cover Viagra and deny coverage for birth control.

"Birth control is basic health care and insurance plans should cover it — just like they cover other prescription drugs. Contraceptive coverage provides women with critical access to birth control they might not otherwise be able to afford. Yet, Union Pacific deliberately chose to exclude coverage of prescription contraceptives from its health care plan. And now, in a decision made public yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has decided to let them get away with it."

Spare me your tears Cecile.

CA Begins To Dole Out Embryonic Stem Cell Money. No Need For NV Taxpayer Funding

Californians voted to spend $300 million a year for the next ten years on embryonic stem cell research and cloning-a total of $3 billion dollars.  This story in the San Diego Union Tribune says that the money is starting to flow.  This year it's up to about $88 million. 

With all of the federal monies and states like CA spending so much money on the research, there is no need for Nevadans to do so too. 

Where Do The Republican Presidential Contenders Stand On Pro-Life Issues?

Where do the current Republican candidates for office stand on pro-life issues, read The RNC For Life Report, Winter 2007-No. 62 to find out.

Note, it is not certain if former Senator Fred Thompson is going to enter the race.  His views are not included.

Robert George and Thomas Berg, Six Stem Cell Facts

Chuck Muth pointed out this article on embryonic stem cell research in the WSJ by one of my favorite guests to our radio show, Robert P. George and Rev. Thomas Berg.  The cell debate is intentionally confusing and has become so ideological that it's good to be reminded of some of these facts that George and Berg present.

Six Stem Cell Facts
By ROBERT P. GEORGE and REV. THOMAS V. BERG, L.C.
Wall Street Journal
March 14, 2007; Page A15

Americans are divided over the question of whether it is morally acceptable to authorize by law, and fund with taxpayer dollars, research in which human embryos are destroyed.

Stating that such research “crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect,” President Bush vetoed legislation last summer that would have expanded federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. This January, in a first step toward reviving that vetoed legislation, the House of Representatives voted 253-174 to pass a similar bill. The Senate is expected to consider the measure this week.

Candid observers should admit that public discussion of this emotional issue has too often lacked intellectual honesty. This has only compounded the confusion naturally arising from an issue of great scientific and moral complexity. Consequently, we propose six facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree:

- There is no “ban” on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States. This has been arguably the most muddled point in the entire debate. ESC research goes on at labs throughout the country, with no legal barriers to prohibit such research or the private financing of it. The federal government has funded ESC research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the U.S. continues to be the international leader in the field. Out of all peer-reviewed research papers published from 1998 through 2005 on original human ESC research, scientists from the U.S. published by far the most, 125 of the 315.

- We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells. James Thompson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: “I don’t want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it’s going to be very hard.” He added, “those transplantation therapies should work but it’s likely to take a long time.” Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: “I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody’s lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.”

There are currently no controlled human clinical trials underway for ESC-derived therapies. By contrast, there are currently some 1200 clinical trials underway associated with human adult stem cells (ASCs). While most treatments derived so far from ASC research apply to blood-related diseases, the broader application of ASCs for a more diverse array of maladies is likely within several more years.

- The human embryo has at least some degree of special moral status.  “We believe most would agree that human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life. . . .” So said President Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Committee, speaking of ESC research. The committee was willing to support the use of “excess” embryos from assisted reproduction clinics, but only if their use was necessary to advance life-saving research. It did not endorse the creation of embryos by cloning or other methods for use in research involving their destruction.

Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens. Surely we can all agree that the human embryo possesses the active potential to develop by an internally developed process towards maturity, and that this is morally significant.

- There are non-controversial alternatives worth exploring.It is increasingly clear that there are non-embryo destructive research alternatives that hold out the promise of providing sources of stem cells with properties equivalent to, or nearly equivalent to, embryonic cells. Such alternatives include, among others, the reprogramming of ordinary somatic (body) cells, the derivation of stem cells from amniotic fluid, and (assuming that it can be shown that the product is not an embryo), altered nuclear transfer.

- Concerns about embryo destruction are not only religious.  Charles Krauthammer, a former member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, lucidly articulated this point in a Washington Post column: “I don’t believe that life — meaning the attributes and protections of personhood — begins at conception. Yet many secularly inclined people such as myself have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation — to the point of dismemberment — of human embryos. You don’t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good.”

- While the search for cures is an important motive behind ESC research, it is clearly not the only motive. Most scientists acknowledge that ESCs will not provide therapies for many years, if ever. Their therapeutic potential is, at best, speculative. They cannot be used now, even in clinical trials, because of their tendency to produce tumors. So it comes as no surprise that many scientists now admit that their primary interest in pursuing ESC research lies not in the hope for direct cell transplant therapies, but in the desire to enhance basic scientific knowledge of such things as cell signaling, tissue growth and early human development.

We believe that embryo-destructive research cannot be morally justified, even if it really were likely to produce cures for dreaded afflictions. We fervently share the desire for cures, but we believe that biomedical science compromises its own integrity when it destroys human life in the cause of trying to save it.

We acknowledge, though, that many of our fellow citizens are people of good will who see things differently. They do not believe that a human life in its earliest stages enjoys the moral inviolability that it would acquire if permitted to develop to later stages. The disagreement here is deep and serious, but it should not be permitted to obscure the important points of agreement that should exist between citizens on the competing sides.

Mr. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. Rev. Berg is executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Study: Women Having Abortions More Likely to Engage in Child Abuse

One of the promises used to sell abortion was that it would cut down on child abuse because there would be fewer unwanted children.  That's another abortion promise that has failed.  Child abuse has exploded-probably 600-700 percent higher than before Roe-since abortion on demand became legal in America.

Well a study on this has just come out.  LifeNews.Com is reporting "that women who have a history of abortion are more likely to abuse children born from subsequent pregnancies. The study, published in the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, confirms previous research which suggests that there is a link between abortion and child abuse."

The Elliot Institute reports (email press release-can't find it at their site) that lead author "Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University and lead author of the study, suggested that the link between abortion and child abuse may be influenced by a number of key factors, including unresolved grief, having felt pressured into an unwanted abortion, and disruption in maternal bonding with subsequently born children."

"Unresolved grief issues, Coleman noted, 'may negatively impact parental responsiveness to child needs, trigger anger, which is a common component of grief, and/or increase parental anxiety regarding child well-being.' Some research indicates that grief may be more difficult to resolve if women undergo an unwanted abortion due to pressure from others. In one study, cited by Coleman, 64 percent of American women with a history of abortion reported feeling pressured to abort by others."

Pro-lifers should remember that all the bad things that abortion brings to women, families, children and men, that even if we could fix these things and make abortion an pleasant experience abortion would still be wrong because it kills and innocent human being.

For some quick facts about abortion problems, check out Abortion is... the Unchoice.  Or look deeper at the Elliot Insitute's After Abortion.

More Evidence Of Declining Teen Abortion Rate

University of Alabama political science professor Michael J. New, Ph.D says there has been a 20 percent drop in abortions since 1990 and and even greater number among teens-about a 40 percent decrease!  40 percent!

Professor New attributes parental involvement and other laws and restrictions on abortion funding as well as delaying sex to the decline.  Read his article More Evidence of Abortion Declines Among American Youth.  Read the results of his study Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors put out by the Heritage Foundation.

Abortion's Devastating Impact On Teens

Think we don't need parental notification for kids considering, being manipulated or coerced into abortion.  Check out this Teen Abortion Risks Fact Sheet from Abortion Is The Unchoice. Here are just a few facts.  See the above link for more.

Teenagers are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide if they have had an abortion in the last six months than are teens who have not had an abortion.

• Teens who abort are up to 4 times more likely to commit suicide than adults who abort, and a history of abortion is likely to be associated with adolescent suicidal thinking.

• Overall suicide rates are 6-7 times higher among women who abort.

• Teens who abort are more likely to develop psychological problems, and are nearly three times more likely to be admitted to mental health hospitals than teens in general.

• About 40% of teen abortions take place with no parental involvement, leaving parents in the dark about subsequent emotional or physical problems.

• Teens risk further injury or death because they are unlikely to inform parents of any physical complications.

Some examples of teens who died from complications or suicide after they had abortions without telling their parents:

Holly Patterson, California, died at age 18 Erica Richardson, Maryland, died at age 16

Dawn Ravanell, New York, died at age 13 Tamia Russell, Detroit, died at age 15

Sandra Kaiser, St. Louis, died at age 14 of suicide

Sandra died 3 weeks after her half-sister took her for an abortion without telling Sandra’s mother, who could have warned doctors about Sandra’s history of psychological problems that put her at risk for more problems after abortion.

• Teens are 5 times more likely to seek subsequent help for psychological and emotional problems compared to their peers who carry “unwanted pregnancies” to term.

• Teens are 3 times more likely to report subsequent trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report subsequent marijuana use after abortion.

• Among studies comparing abortion vs. carrying to term, worse outcomes are associated with abortion, even when the pregnancy is unplanned.

• 65% higher risk of clinical depression among women who abort.

• 65% experienced multiple symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among women who abort.

• 64% of women who had undergone an abortion reported that they felt pressured by others to abort.

Italian Baby Aborted After Mistaken Diagnosis

LifeNews.Com is reporting that Doctors in Italy are furiously working to save the life of a baby boy who was born alive after he survived an abortion that should never have happened. The boy was slated to become the victim of an abortion but physicians realized they had misdiagnosed a physical deformity.

"Doctors at the teaching hospital Careggi performed two ultrasounds on the boy and his mother and they said he had a defective esophagus. That's a disorder that surgery could have corrected after birth in some cases.

"However, when they went to abort the baby boy, they discovered he was healthy and desperately tried to resuscitate him."

The UPI says "The hospital said an ultrasound scan showed only the risk of a deformity and the woman decided to have an abortion after consulting a private specialist, ANSA said."

Well there's a lot here.  First, my co-host Toni Berry is always telling us that doctors make misdiagnoses and abort otherwise healthy babies.  Some people of course believe that the risk of having a deformed child is worth the risk of aborting a baby that meets their expectations.  That's where the culture is.  God help us.

I despise the idea of aborting a child because of its physical makeup.  That's bigoted and self serving.  It says that people who are deformed are so lacking in dignity and such a burden that we should abort anyone who might turn out like them or that they aren't worth the effort.  We don't want kids like that.  If you get one, you can throw it back and put your line back in the water until you get one you want.  God help us.

Second, there was no need to abort.  If the child is not what you expect or want or the type made for your specifications-where'd this idea come from-there are people who adopt special needs children and there are waiting lines.  Go to www.ninafuller.com and look around for these groups.

Third, cases like this offend me.  I'm especially offended in this case because when I was a youth pastor, the first kid I met at one church I served in was born without an esophagus.  Shawn was in the seventh or eighth grade and he had a plug in his stomach.  When he was born, he was not supposed to survive 36 hours.  But he did.  The plug in his stomach was to enable him to receive food and nutrition.  I'm not sure how long he needed that tube, but he had many surgeries to create or stretch his esophagus.  By the time I met Shawn he no longer needed it.  But even if he did, what kind of person judges people based on how they receive food?

Shawn became a diver.  On a couple of occasions I was able to be the announcer at his meets, including the Nevada State Championships where he came in second.  I later married him to his wife.  Now they have two wonderful kids.  Every time I hear about cases like this I think about Shawn and how his life could have been thrown away along with the beauty that he brings to our world.  I hope this baby survives and lives to tell about it and softens the heart of our nation and world.

Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Results Keep POURING In. Will Media Notice?

Here's an article from the indefatigable Richard Doerflinger on adult stem cell research successes and the science called 75 New Reasons To Reconsider The Alleged Need For Stem Cell Research That Destroys Human Embryos.

Okay, the title could be shorter, but it points to a truth, there doesn't seem to be any reason anymore to proceed with embryonic stem cell research.  There are over 72 human treatments/benefits successes that have been documented using non-embryonic stem cell research with over 1000 human trials underway.  There are no embryonic ones. 

My point in posting Doerflinger's new article is that reports on non-embryonic stem cell research success/breakthroughs are so common that we can't keep up with it.  You have to wonder what the buzz is with embryonic stem cell research now except ideology.  Thanks again Mr. Doerflinger for great work.

Woman Sues Planned Parenthood and Abortionist After Failed Abortion

A Boston woman is suing a Planned Parenthood abortionist and Planned Parenthood for failing to abort her child in 2004.  She is suing for wrongful birth and for the costs of child rearing. 

Let's see, she wanted to kill her child when the child was an unborn child, but now that she has delivered her child and is raising her.  The child is valuable enough to her that she wants or wanted to keep her, but she wants someone else to pay to raise her.  I'm guessing that she will not see the horror from the child's point of view when she grows up and learns her mom tried to kill her. 

It's not going to go well.  I've spoken to Gianna Jessen a couple times on our show and in person at events.  Gianna's mother tried to abort her at a Planned Parenthood in S. CA.  Gianna was about 7 months along.  They tried killing her by saline abortion.  After thrashing around in the womb, she was miraculously born and was adopted.  The miracle is that when she was born alive instead of dead the staff at Planned Parenthood didn't do her in.  Someone actually called the hospital.  Had the abortionist been there, he'd have finished her off.

Back to the story, Gianna is a wonderful lady and has a huge heart.  But even she doesn't want anything to do with her birth mom who tried to abort her.  I think this woman is going to rue the day she ever did this.  But it's the self centered, nihilistic spirit of our age and she's probably not going to think anything of it.  She'll probably think that she's gracious to have let the little one into the world and that the baby should be grateful.  Kids aren't toys, possessions or extensions of our selves. 

One of my friends says that it will be interesting to see the results of the suit.  "They will settle or end up having to defend life."

Another Stem Cell Leap. Will Media, Politicians and Science Notice?

Here's great news about adult stem cell research from the University of Minnesota. 

"University of Minnesota stem cell researchers, together with collaborators at Stanford University, have successfully used adult stem cells to replace the immune system and bone marrow of mice, offering the promise of new therapies for people in the future. With this advance and other recent discoveries, the researchers are winning over previous skeptics."

Read the rest of article by clicking here.

This has been going on since 2001 and we included it in our 2005-2006 briefings to a couple Nevada representatives.  Though breakthroughs like this make embryonic stem cell research more and more irrelevant and unnecessary, don't expect that to make a difference.

What's Wrong With The Stem Cell Bill

Yesterday the House of Representatives voted again to overturn President Bush’s embryonic stem cell policy. HR 3, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 passed 253-174.  The policy allows funding on research using stem cells from embryos killed before August 9, 2001, but it prohibits federal funding on anymore destroying of embryos research to keep us from creating life only to destroy it. 

Why does it matter that these little human beings are killed?  It matters because human life has inherent value and human beings at any stage of life have ultimate value by virtue of being human.  Once any person’s life becomes expendable, the value of every human life becomes negotiable.  It reduces human life to a mere natural resource. Human beings are not resources to be mined, crops to be harvested or commodities to be bought and sold.

The bill would set a dangerous precedent.  It says that we can use human life for experimentation and therapeutic purposes. It says there can be and will be classes of people who are expendable for others.  It also opens the door to more unethical human research.

The announcement this week of the new discovery with amniotic stem cells-which come with the gift of a baby-shows some of the wisdom of President Bush’s embryonic stem cell limitations.  The president’s policy of protecting human life has advanced, not hindered, science.  By limiting unethical embryonic stem cell research, scientists have been led to discover other stem cell sources-which appear to be superior, easier to use and are ethical.

If President Bush had caved to political pressure and “political” science to fund unethical research, it is likely that scientists may not have found these other sources of stem cells, benefits and therapies.

This vote crosses leads America into an irreversible venture into human experimentation.  President Bush has promised to veto this bill again and keep us from crossing the line into human experimentation.  He needs to veto it again.

Hyping And Lying About Embryonic Stem Cells

From Wesley J. Smith's Blog.  Arlen Spector preys on the hopes and fears of American sufferers while practicing political science.  Something's wrong with your case when you make these kinds of comments. Here's the text from Smith's blog. 

"Senator Arlen Specter has managed to top Edwards in sheer hyperbole and advocacy spin. At a press conference today, he said: "It is scandalous that eight years have passed since we have known about stem cell research and the potential to conquer all known maladies, and federal funds have not been available for the research."

"All known maladies? Every single one? The common cold? Herpes? Tooth decay?

"And as for "no federal funds" being available to fund ESCR: In 2005 the Feds put out about $50 million for human ESCR, using the Bush approved lines. But I guess to a senator, that is the same as no money at all.

"Two whoppers in one sentence: Perhaps a new record."

Another Study Says Morning After Pill Does Not Reduce Abortions

Another study, by Morning After Pill supporters, concludes that the MAP does not reduce abortions.  Elizabeth G. Raymond, MD, MPH, James Trussell, PhD and Chelsea B. Polis, write in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;109:181-188
by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

CONCLUSION: Increased access to emergency contraceptive pills enhances use but has not been shown to reduce unintended pregnancy rates. Further research is needed to explain this finding and to define the best ways to use emergency contraception to produce a public health benefit.

Don't expect this to stop abortion advocates from saying that if pro-lifers were really pro-life, they'd be joining them in passing out the morning after pill to stop abortion.