Monday, January 15, 2007

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.



Friday, January 12, 2007

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.



Tuesday, January 9, 2007

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."



Sunday, January 7, 2007

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.