What Happened To Hot Air About Embryonic Stem Cells?

Last summer, embryonic stem cell advocates railed against President Bush for vetoing a bill that would have allowed more destruction of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research at taxpayer expense. It was a winning issue and local activists were quick to jump in. There was plenty of hot air.

Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada said that President Bush, "with the stroke of a pen, struck away the hopes and dreams" of cures for chronic illnesses. Fulkerson also said "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 said that thinking that adult stem cells are superior is naive.

Shattering hope? Naïve? Tell that to diabetics in Brazil, Kaitlyn McNamara who received a new bladder constructed from her own stem cells and others.

Harry Reid couldn't help himself either. Nevadans, you know what I mean. 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."

But all of the sudden, the rage of embryonic stem cell research has gone silent

Why? In November scientis ts discovered a way to create the same kind of stem cells as embryonic ones without the need to clone or kill human embryos. They are the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. President Bush believed in this science and funded it by executive order when Congress refused. It's the ho ttest thing in stem cell research.

It's cheaper, easier, more efficient and destroys the rationale for cloning or embryo killing. Dolly the Sheep cloner Ian Wilmut says the inventor deserves a Nobel Prize and that the discovery is equivalent to discovering the double-helix structure of DNA. That explains why stem cell researchers are moving away from embryonic stem cell research and politicians are suddenly quiet about it.

While there are still issues to be worked out to make them safe, last week scientists announced that not only have they been able to grow the three types of cell layers from these new stem cells, they have been able to turn them into heart cells.

Non embryonic stem cell research is motoring along quite well too. There are over 70 benefits and over 1000 human trials using non-embryonic stem cells. That number is getting higher and even JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is noticing. In February a study in JAMA noted improvement for patients with autoimmune and cardiac diseases using non-embryonic stem cell research. Last year some diabeti cs went off insulin for long periods after treatment with their stem cells and last month wounded soldiers' shattered bones were repaired using their own (adult) stem cells.

And after almost $2 billion in funding, there are still no human benefits or human trials using embryonic stem cells. The NIH budget appears to be flattening or even receding. That will make it more difficult for embryonic stem cell researchers to get more funding for their research when it has produced meager results and other scientific enterprises are competing for the same pie.

There is still danger ahead as researchers in Britain are creating human-animal hybrid clones. A bill has been put into the Congress to prevent that in America. More on that soon.

Embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are not going away immediately, but right now, the wind has gone out of its sails as other types of stem cell research are sailing past it. That's good news for all of us. This could be the beginning of a big win for humanity.

Another Vague Abortion Poll Overstates Support For Roe

Another vague poll that says Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade displays the breadth of the misunderstanding of Roe more than support for the policies laid down in Roe

A recent poll by Knowledge Networks, Yahoo and the AP asked: "In 1973 the Roe vs. Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its Roe vs. Wade decision, or would you like to see Roe vs. Wade remain in force?" 66 percent of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. 32 percent support overturning it and 2 percent don't know. This is to be expected.

This poll is vauge and useless because most people are not aware of the scope of Roe and that Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, make abortion legal throughout pregnancy. Before viability (end of second "trimester," six months in Roe) no reason is needed for an abortion. After viability abortion can be prohibited by the states, except for the "health of the mother". The meaning of the phrase, "health of the mother" explains why pro-lifers say that abortion is legal until birth.

Doe v. Bolton defines the health of the mother this way, "the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

This means that as long as a woman can find a doctor who in his are her opinion says that the woman's wellbeing may be disturbed by any of these criteria, the abortion can be done after viability for almost any reason. That's why the notorious abortionist George Tiller (AKA Tiller the Killer) has been able to abort unborn children for years when the child presents no risk to the mother's physical health, well beyond viability.

Studen ts For Life of America recorded Tiller saying he's aborted on the day before the mother's due date. This is the policy of Roe v. Wade and the policy of Planned Parenthood, not the majority of Americans.

When given accurate information about Roe and its scope, a majority adopts one of the three pro-life positions (abortion for rape, incest, life of the mother; life of the mother; no exceptions) and oppose over 95 percent of the abortions. See our article Pro-Life Views Are Mainstream at the Nevada LIFE website to view these polls.

The good news is that Americans have become more and more pro-life and our cause is making a huge impact. Our efforts to humanize the unborn and the impact of abortion on aborting women, have turned the tide in our direction.

Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood will always try to portray us as anti-science, anti-technology and anti-women. The truth is that when we are debating abortion advocates, the last thing they want to talk about is science, the impact on women or allow us to use technologies like inter uterine photography, ultrasound or pictures of abortions. NARAL Pro-choice America has even called ultra-sound a weapon. That comment speaks volumes about the mind set of the abortion movement.

Abortion advocates are not helped by their "anti-choice" tactics of trying to deny women informed consent-including ultra sounds, attempts to force personnel, facilities and insurers to participate in abortion, efforts to deny parents the right to know; nor are they helped trying to deny states the right to have abortion clinics meet the same requirements as other outpatient facilities and its refusal to report suspicions of statutory rape.

In the end, it's Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates who are the anti- technology Luddites who would impose abortion and who would keep women and parents from the truth. No wonder they keep hiding behind these vague push polls.