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."