Fact v Fiction on Parental Notification

Here's a document Nevada Right to Life put together on Parental Notification when we the legislature was considering a parental notice bill in regards to abortion, Assembly Bill 405 (AB 405).

Fictions v. Fact: Nevada’s AB405 - Parental Notification for Girls Under 18 Seeking Abortions

Nevada’s AB405 is a parental involvement law requiring notification of one parent or guardian prior to a girl under 18 receiving an abortion. It has a judicial bypass and exception for medical emergencies. It acknowledges the majority opinion that parents have the right and responsibility to parent their teenagers in ALL medical decisions. Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure with inherent risks and consequences.

Fiction
This is an anti-abortion bill.

Fact
This is a parental rights bill. No girl wishing to get an abortion will be denied. It merely requires a second set of eyes, whether a parent, guardian or judicial surrogate, to assist a girl in the midst of a crisis pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates see the wisdom in parental involvement. A parent knows their daughter’s medical history and has the resources to choose the best medical care for their daughter. Without the knowledge of a medical procedure, a parent will not be able to to provide necessary and proper pre- and post-operative care and caution.

Fiction
AB405 will cost the state $2million and we do not have the money.

Fact
According to the publicly available fiscal notes, there is no reported fiscal effect that would be produced by enacting A.B. 405 as amended in the Assembly.

Fiction
AB405 is unconstitutional.

Fact
AB405 is based on Minnesota’s parental involvement law that the US Supreme Court declared constitutional over 25 years ago. Over 30 states have similar laws - some much more stringent - and have seen real benefits like reduced teen pregnancy and abortion rates. Tragically, Nevada has some of the worst teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the country. This has proved to be a bipartisan solution in other states. Isn’t it time we try something new?

Fiction
AB405 will expose abused teenagers to further abuse.

Fact
Teens in severely abusive situations need help. Providing them an abortion and returning them to the abusive environment merely allows the abuse to continue undetected. Sexual predators and sex traffickers use abortion to cover their crimes. Who better than a family court judge to intervene in such a case?

Fiction
The judicial bypass in AB405 will take 21-28 days.

Fact
Again, 30 years of parental involvement laws in other states proves otherwise. The judicial bypass in other states is very effiicient and timely and rarely takes longer than a few days. Teens are not forced to stand before a judge and jury. It is merely an administrative action in front of a judge and is a private matter.

Fiction
The state can’t legislate good parenting.

Fact
This bill does not legislate good parenting, it just allows parents to do their job. The implication is that teens in crisis will ALWAYS confide in parents and as such only bad parents have communication problems with their children. As anyone with a teenager knows, this is simply not true.

Fiction
This will limit a woman’s right to choose.

Fact
The notified parent does not have the right to prohibit the physician from performing an abortion. The requirement is only that a parent must be “notified”. There is no other medical decision that an unemancipated minor can make without a parent’s consent, let alone knowledge. Why should abortion be different? An eleven year old girl is not a woman.

NVRTL Press Release on Parental Notification Bill 2015

Nevada Right to Life is running a FB campaign on parental notification.  Here's a press release from NVRTL Executive Direct Melissa Clement back in 2015 when there was a bill in the NV legislature (AB 405) to require parental notification for abortion.  Check out the campaign by clicking here.  Here's the old release.

News Release

Nevada Needs Parental Notification Bill (AB 405)

Requires Abortion Clinics Notify One Parent 48 Hours Before Abortion

For Immediate Release April 16, 2015

The following statement can be attributed to Nevada Right to Life President Melissa Clement.

In Nevada, a girl under age 18 can’t get a cavity filled or an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse without a parent knowing. But a doctor can perform an abortion on a young girl without INFORMING a parent. Abortion is a surgical procedure involving anesthesia and having the potential to cause life-long and sometimes life-ending consequences. 

• Parental notification laws - like AB405 - provide common-sense protection for teen and pre-teen girls.

• It is an undisputed fact that adolescents develop physically before fully maturing psychologically. They simply cannot make decisions that fully consider future consequences AND rarely know their full medical history. In fact, what physician would consider an unemancipated underage girl capable of giving true informed consent?
• A teen’s parent is her biggest advocate and her best protector.
• A teen’s parent has important medical information about the teen – often information the teen doesn’t know or won’t remember during a crisis.
• A majority of Americans support parental involvement. A 2011 Gallup poll found 71% of Americans – including 72% of women and 61% of Democrats – favor PARENTAL CONSENT laws, a higher standard than Nevada is considering.
•  PREDATORS and SEX TRAFFICKERS exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes.
• A majority of states already have parental involvement laws in place. With nearly three decades of real life experience in these states we know these laws have caused real reductions in teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and a marked decrease in teen abortion.
• Why should parents expect profit-making abortion clinics to have their daughter’s best interest at heart?
• Why does this procedure enjoy an exemption from common-place informed consent standards?
• A middle school or high school girl can’t get an over the counter medication like tylenol or benadryl at school without parental PERMISSION, yet she can get a surgical abortion without a parent KNOWING about it.
• How can a parent provide proper and necessary pre- and post-abortion medical care, if they are completely unaware of the procedure? They are not even able to choose the doctor who would provide the best care.
• In the rare case of possible parental abuse, AB405 provides for a judicial bypass and provides an exemption for medical emergencies.

AB 405 passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee last Friday on a party line vote.  Assembly Judiciary Chairman Ira Hansen and the Republican Assembly Caucus saved it from certain death in the Health and Human Services Committee.  The bill must be voted on by Tuesday April 21, 2015.

AB 405 is necessary to protect Nevada girls seeking an abortion.  Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure with lifelong physical, emotional/psychological and spiritual consequences.  No other surgical or medical procedure grants children the ability to provide informed consent without a parent being notified. In Nevada, boys are guaranteed parental involvement in all medical decisions. Why not girls?  

In Nevada a minor cannot get a tattoo without parental CONSENT. A minor cannot use a tanning booth, with or without parental consent.  Minors cannot miss school or go to R rated movies without parental involvement.  While Nevada law rightly requires these common sense requirements to protect a child’s health and wellbeing, it is appalling that Nevada law does not require parental notification before their teen and preteen daughters can have an abortion.  Parents should be involved in ALL medical decisions.

AB 405 insures parents the right to counsel with their underage daughter before she decides to have an abortion.  It does not allow them to stop an abortion. A parent has the responsibility to ensure the best possible care for their daughter. Before the abortion, it includes helping her choose the best doctor, not the corner chop shop. After the abortion, ensuring she receives any post operative care and follow-up. Considering the nature of the abortion procedure and the consequences, parents need to know.  They have a fundamental right to know.  The child needs the parents to know.  

Predators and sex traffickers use abortion clinics to cover up and continue their sexual crimes against teen and preteen girls.  

Parents are also needed because abortion clinics can’t be trusted to look out for their child’s interests.  So called counselors are more likely to be a salesperson who stands to benefit from selling her an abortion, not someone qualified and competent to counsel her.  Too many abortion clinic workers are unqualified to be working in a medical facility.  And too many times the abortionist is really the bottom of the barrel doctor.  Abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell who ran a filthy clinic at which he maimed and killed women are too common in our country.  Only a police investigation stopped Gosnell, not the abortion industry which knew all about him and which would even refer clients to him.  The abortion industry cannot be trusted to protect teen and preteen girls nor to look out for their best interests.  

Much has been said that laws like this can’t legislate parent child relationships, however the law should be neutral. Currently, parents are CUT OUT of this important decision during what is most-likely the greatest crisis their daughter has ever faced. Should this 12 or 13 or even 17 year old bear the burden herself? Much has also been made that good teens with good parents always tell their parents everything. Teens do not want to disappoint their parents - whether it is a bad grade, failing to take birth control consistently, or pregnancy - teens will search for the easy way out. We all did. They all do. 

Society rightly holds parents responsible for their children’s well-being, especially their health care.  No one has the best interests of the child at heart like her parents.  Parents cannot fully exercise their responsibility to care for their child’s welfare if they don’t know.  Opposing this law deprives parents of their authority to be responsible.  It abandons girls to those who stand to gain from her abortion.  To withhold information from them is offensive and says that says that parents are not competent to protect their children and cannot be trusted when it comes to their girls’ pregnancies and abortion. Abortion politics should not get in the way of protecting pregnant teen and preteen girls.  They are not expendable for political purposes. 

It’s time to pass AB 405.  It is long overdue.

-30-

Nevada Right to Life is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization.

We Need Parenthood Notification In NV. My 2015 Testimony

Nevada Right to Life has a Facebook post on sex trafficking and the lack of a parental notification law the would force Nevada abortion providers to let a parent know that their child is seeking an abortion.  I hope you'll join in.  

This led me to look back at my testimony that I submitted to a Legislative committee on a parental notification bill in 2015, AB 205.  I submitted it because there was not enough time for me to present it.  We had too many speakers that day.  80 percent of Americans supported that legislation which undermines Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry's claim that we are the extremists.  80 percent support means that substantial numbers, if not a majority, of people who call themselves pro-life on abortion support a parent's right to know.  Here's what I wrote in 2015.  More to come.

Testimony of Don Nelson

President, Nevada LIFE

Assembly Judiciary Committee

Regarding AB 405

April 10, 2015

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Don Nelson.  I am from Sparks, Nevada and President of Nevada LIFE.  I am representing Nevada LIFE (Life Issues Forum and Education).  Nevada LIFE supports this bill. 

Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure with lifelong physical and emotional consequences.  Those consequences are more profound for teen and preteen girls.  Being pregnant as a teen or preteen girl is one of the most difficult and life-changing situations a teen or preteen girl will ever face.  When young girls cannot get an aspirin without parental consent, cannot get a tattoo, cannot go to an R-rated movie without parental consent, I am shocked that parental notification is not required for her to receive an abortion in Nevada.  This abandons teen and preteen girls to the politics of abortion and all the people who stand to benefit from her abortion without the protection of her parents.

Who are those people who stand to benefit?  She is a cash cow to the abortion clinic.  And if the father of her child is another teenager, the parents of the boy are likely to think it is in their son’s interest that the abortion happen to evade years of child support and the weight they think it will be on his future.  Then there is the sexual predator.  Sexual predators routinely use abortion clinics to cover up and continue their sexual crimes against teen and preteen girls because they know that abortion clinics almost never report their suspicions of statutory rape.  There have been plenty of exposes to substantiate the charge that abortion clinics do not report and do not want to know and will do the abortion in these circumstances anyway.

The long-term impact on teen and preteen girls from sex with adult men is staggering.  These girls are more likely to drop out of school, engage in dangerous sexual behaviors, become pregnant, run away from home, be lured into prostitution, abuse drugs or alcohol, end up on welfare, be estranged from friends and family, be in physically abusive relationships, become divorced, more likely to attempt suicide and more likely to have STIs.  This bill would be a powerful protection for families and children against statutory rapists-the sexual predators. 

She also needs her parents because when a teen and preteen girl goes for an abortion she’s likely to meet a salesperson who stands to benefit from selling her an abortion, not someone qualified and competent to counsel her.  Too many times she’s going to meet people who are unqualified to be working in a medical facility.  And too many times the abortionist is really the bottom of the barrel doctor.  Abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell who ran a clinic that was too filthy to be a dog pound at which he maimed and killed women are too common in our country.  It was a police investigation that stopped Gosnell, not the abortion industry which knew all about him and which would even refer clients to him fully aware of his pathetic clinic conditions.  This is just one of many stories to show that neither society nor the young girl seeking an abortion can trust the abortion industry to protect her from rogue doctors and incompetent, unqualified people.  Nor can they trust the abortion industry to look out for her best interests. 

These are just a few reasons why it is absolutely necessary that we pass this bill now.  Society rightly holds parents responsible for their children’s well-being, especially their health care.  No one has the best interests of the child at heart like her parents.  Parents cannot fully exercise their responsibility to care for their child’s welfare if they don’t know.  Opposing this law deprives parents of their authority to be responsible.  It abandons girls to those who do not care and who will gain from her abortion.  Abortion politics should not get in the way of protecting teens.  They are not expendable for political purposes.

Please pass AB 405.  It is long overdue.

AB 336, Doctor Prescribed Suicide Bill Is Direct Assault on Sanctity of Life, Some Tactics to Watch For

March 21, 2015

 

Early this week, SB336 a Doctor Prescribed Suicide bill was introduced in the Nevada State Senate.   The bill would grant a “right” to “A person who suffers from a terminal condition… to ingest a drug to end his or her life” through a drug prescribed by a doctor.  We cannot allow this to pass.

Doctor Prescribed Suicide, also known as physician assisted suicide or described under other euphemisms such as “aid in dying,” “right to die” etc., is a direct assault on the sanctity of human life.   We cannot tolerate in any way the notion that there is anything like a human life unworthy of life, human life that is not worth living or a human life that is not inherently and intrinsically valuable.   Human life is inherently and intrinsically valuable and it does not stop being inherently valuable just because our condition becomes “terminal.”  Granting some sort of “right” to kill oneself because he or she is in a “terminal” condition sends a loud and clear message to others living with “terminal” conditions that their lives are not as worth living.  That is an unconscionable putdown.  It is no wonder that disability advocacy groups oppose doctor prescribed suicide.

Now that the bill has been introduced, opponents should expect certain tactics to be employed by doctor prescribed suicide promoters.  Here are a few things they will attempt to claim.

1. Only Christians oppose this bill.  Supporters will try to paint opponents as being a religious issue and opposed only by Christians.  Doctor Prescribed Suicide advocates have been defeated recently in states like California and Massachusetts.  Those are hardly states anyone would call right wing fundamentalist states.  If Doctor Prescribed Suicide cannot win in those states, it’s obvious that opposition is much broader than those who hold to Christian faith. DREDF, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fundsays “Many key organizations oppose the legalization of assisted suicide, including the AMA and all 50 of its state affiliates; the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization; many prominent Democrats and liberals including Bill Clinton, Ralph Nader, and noted civil liberties journalist Nat Hentoff; many disability rights organizations; and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC, national level).”

2. Polling shows doctor prescribed suicide is inevitable.  Doctor prescribed suicide often garners early heavy polling support for its position when it is first introduced.  These numbers are used to say that its passage is inevitable and that the state and perhaps the nation have come to adopt their position.  But time after time, when the arguments of doctor prescribed suicide are exposed and the details and impact of the legislation are explained, those numbers change and the legislation is defeated. Doctor prescribed suicide has been defeated many more times than ithas won.   Polling is not inevitable.

3. Doctor Prescribed Suicide is not suicide.  Doctor prescribed suicide advocates are afraid of making it appear that they are promoting suicide.  Indeed, they say they are not committing suicide.  This defies language.  SB 336 would lie about the cause of death and attribute death from doctor prescribed suicide to a terminal illness, not the taking of the pills which is the direct cause of death.  “3. The person who signs the medical certificate of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a controlled substance that is designed to end the life of the patient in accordance with the provisions of sections 3 to 26, inclusive, of this act shall specify the terminal condition with which the patient was diagnosed as the cause of death of the patient.” (Section 1.3). 

In Oregon those choosing doctor prescribed suicide were and are suffering from depression, a sense of being a burden, and a fear of a loss of autonomy more than physical pain.  Saying that the cause of death is not suicide abandons the terminally ill.  Doctor prescribed suicide is suicide and those considering such suicide should not be abandoned.  They need and deserve the same compassion and care that other suicidal people receive.  To not treat them the same says that their lives are not worth living.

Last month, Wayne Cockfield, Vice President for Medical Ethics at National Right to Life, spoke to the NVRTL Friends for Life Dinner last month.  Cockfield, who is a disabled veteran noted that proponents of doctor prescribed suicide only want to give this “right” to “… to ingest a drug to end his or her life” with the help of a doctor to only 5 percent or less of the population-that is, those with terminal illnesses.  Why not give this to others who don’t want to live?  The answer is clear.  Doctor prescribed suicide advocates believe some lives are worth saving and fighting for, but not those with a terminal condition.  It’s no wonder why disability rights groups oppose doctor prescribed suicide.  It sounds a loud and clear message that people like them do not have lives worth living.  That is an outrageous bigotry.  Human life is inherently valuable and does not lose its inherent value just because it is approaching its end. 

Doctor prescribed suicide is a direct assault on the sanctity of human life.  These are just some of the tactics supporters will us.  No on SB 336.

Opinion-Credit Bush's Veto For Stem-Cell Find

Here's an op-ed that I wrote back in 2007 for Nevada LIFE in the Reno Gazette Journal.   I'm re-posting it tonight because a Wesley Smith is reporting that a paralyzed man is walking on his own and has sensation in his legs after a non-embryonic stem cell transplant.  Do you remember all the things Harry Reid said about President Bush for not going along with embryonic stem cell supporters like Harry Reid.  It's obvious who between the two is the bigger man.

Opinion-Credit Bush's Veto For Stem-Cell Find

Don Nelson

 Reno Gazette Journal
 December 4, 2007

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.

Don Nelson is president of Nevada LIFE.

Why Pro-Lifers Care About Religious Liberty, Important Religious Liberty Conference Coming To Reno in September.

Religious liberty group LIBERTAS Nevada, in Collaboration with the Nevada Students for Life, the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society are presenting the first annual Nevada Religious Liberty Conference on September 19 at the University of Nevada in Reno. Religious liberty is important to pro-lifers. Our pro-life colleague and Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jason Guinasso asked me to share a few reasons why. Here are a few reasons why we care about religious liberty.

Why Pro-Lifers Care About Religious Liberty Important Religious Liberty Conference Coming To Reno in September.

Why are pro-lifers concerned about religious liberty and conscience rights? Because conscience rights are a tremendous curb on abortion. Abortion advocates say that the right of conscience is so pervasive that access to abortion suffers. 86 percent of American hospitals do not perform abortions and almost all doctors do not provide abortions or refer.   Abortion advocates are facing a situation where abortion is still legal from conception to birth but believe they might be hard pressed to find anyone willing to do them. The number of abortion providers is down by 2/3rds since the 90s and many are past retirement. That's why we've seen attempts to force medical residents to take abortion training to become certified or to be part of a medical program, or to force graduate programs to provide or make provision for abortion training to receive accreditation. Religious liberty and conscience provisions are effective at reducing access to abortion and thereby lowering the number of abortions. Second, even though we have some laws to protect against attacks on religious liberty and conscience we feel a sense of urgency right now because there are many efforts to chip away at conscience protections and pro-life medical professionals have felt threatened. The conscience protecting laws that we have  are for the most part yearly amendments or riders to legislation and have to be approved every year.  We've been passing them year after year for many years, but they need to be passed into law and the need is urgent and real. In 2008, the very pro-life Bush administration passed a rule on conscience protections that created regulations based on these conscience amendments to grant the most liberty possible because, the Bush administration was "concerned about the development of an environment in sectors of the health care field that is intolerant of individual objections to abortion or other individual religious beliefs or moral convictions." The Obama administration revoked the Bush rule in its first year. What about that intolerant environment? The Christian Medical Association reports that more than 40% of its membership surveyed reported having experienced pressure to violate their convictions, with "physicians . . . losing positions and promotions because of their life-affirming views" and "[r]esidents . . . losing training privileges because they refused to do abortions." The Bush administration noted that "'In May 2005, the Catholic Medical Association, an organization of Catholic physicians in the United States and Canada, reported 'receiv[ing] numerous reports of pressure and persuasion being exerted on medical students, clerkships, and residents in public and private hospitals to conform to institutional policies and 'accept their share' of duties requiring performance of participation in activities contrary to Catholic ideology.'" The administration also said "Lawsuits, editorials, and media reports have appeared throughout the United States detailing efforts to require individuals and institutions to provide controversial medicine or services in violation of their conscience and describing instances of discrimination against those who act according to their conscience." They concluded that "The foregoing examples appear to indicate an increasingly pervasive attitude toward the health care professions-namely, that health care personnel and institutions should be required to violate their consciences by providing or assisting in the provision of controversial medicine or procedures, or else face being blacklisted, excluded from practice, terminated from their jobs, or otherwise subjected to discrimination." There have been numerous attacks on institutions that we don't have time for, but let us note that in 2008 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AKA ACOG) issued a new policy that made certification contingent upon compliance with ACOG ethical principles. In regard to abortion and conscience rights it proposed that its members must mention the possibility of abortion, must refer for it, and if they can't make a timely referral and won't do them they should practice in areas where abortion services can be provided. That policy was revoked under pressure. Don't count on them not trying again. Third, pro-lifers are also concerned about religious liberty and conscience rights because pro-life doctors would be dehumanized if they are forced to participate against their consciences in an abortion. It would be obscene to force a Catholic doctor or other Christian doctor to perform an abortion after going to early morning mass or bible study to pray and worship before heading to their offices to perform their God given vocation that they believe they have called to and specially gifted for by God in which they exercise every ounce of skill and Christian compassion. But abortion advocates would do that. When you force pro-life doctors and medical personnel to violate their consciences and participate in killing, you are violating and destroying the doctor. We support religious liberty because we don't want pro-life doctors violated and destroyed. And the medical industry and public policy advocates should want that too. What good are doctors whose motivation for what they do and their consciences are destroyed? How is the public-especially the poor and elderly-served by this? Many doctors will simply leave medicine instead of doing abortions or prescribing contraception, and many pro-lifers will not go into medicine for the same reason, creating larger shortages. There's a lot more to write about, but these are some of the reasons pro-lifers are concerned about religious liberty. Please be involved. Please consider attending the Nevada Religious Liberty Conference. Click here to register.     Don Nelson Nevada LIFE

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Cloning are Unethical and Unnecessary

Many scientists and politicians have proposed for years that the United States taxpayer pay to create a supply of human embryos-tiny human beings in the earliest stages of life, for research. This research, called embryonic stem cell research, would require creating human beings only to kill them for their cells to be used in research.  Researchers believe that if they could take these embryonic stem cells they could turn them into any kind of cell in the body and use them to repair and regenerate tissue and cure diseases.

This Monday April 7 Nevada Right to Life speaks with Dr. David Prentice. Dr. Prentice has been a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University, professor at University of Indiana Medical School and was a key contributor to President George W. Bush’s Council on bio-ethics.  Dr. Prentice has been a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research and cloning and a proponent of ethical (adult) stem cell research that does not require taking of human life.

One secret of embryonic stem cell research is that even if scientists used all the embryos available in fertility labs, this would not create the genetic diversity necessary for mass cures. These researchers believed that man cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to create embryos for stem cells was necessary to overcome the problem of rejection and produce patient specific stem cell matches.  That is, a sufferer would be cloned and his clone would be killed to use the clone’s stem cells as therapy.  Others want to clone to birth a child.

Nevada Right to Life and the pro-life movement have opposed embryonic stem cell research and human cloning-for “therapy” or for “reproduction” (all cloning is reproductive) because it is unethical.  It requires the destruction of human lives and reduces human beings to raw materials and a commodity.  We oppose human strip mines, embryo farms and designer baby factories.

Proponents of embryonic research, with all the polish of faith healers, promised dramatic cures for spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s and more.  There hasn’t been a therapy or cure involving embryonic stem cell research despite over two decades of animal and human research and billions of dollars spent.

But nonembryonic (or adult) stem cell research using stem cells from umbilical cord blood, a person's own stem cells and other sources is flourishing and has produced over 70 successes and tens of thousands of people benefit from it every year.  There are well over 1,000 trials and it does not require embryo destruction nor share its tumor-forming tendencies.

Right now, treatments for spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, as well as bladder and windpipe replacement, have happened or are advancing with nonembryonic/adult stem cell research. Some of these are treatments for the very ailments promised by embryonic stem cell supporters.

Please join us for our conversation with Dr. David Prentice Monday April 7 on KXTO 1550 AM to discuss the ethics and dangers of embryonic stem cell research, the “political science,” Orwellian language, the impact that other ethical stem cell research is providing today as well as new attempts at human cloning announced last month in Oregon. 

Resources:

National Right to Life (Wesley Smith) Cloning Doubletalk

Keith Shonnard M.D, Don Nelson Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Unethical, Dangerous and Unnecessary

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  Click here to listen on line.

Hobby Lobby Case, Religious Freedom Have Pro-Life, Abortion Implications.

Just this week the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby case as to whether or not the federal government can force a for profit company or corporation to provide certain drugs through their health care plans that can cause an early abortion (not abortion drug RU 486) even when it violates their religious beliefs. 

This question is extremely important to pro-lifers.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts commented during the hearing that if we can force for profit companies to provide pills that can cause early abortions, the state could force doctors, who work for profit, to likewise provide abortions even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.  If abortion advocates had their way, Catholic doctors coming into the office after attending morning Mass would be required to do abortions.

Nevada Right to Life and the pro-life movement support conscience and religious liberty protections in part because they are tremendous curbs on abortion.  86 percent of American hospitals do not perform abortions and almost all doctors do not provide abortions or refer.  The number of doctors willing to do them is down substantially since the 1990s.  Abortion advocates are facing a situation where abortion could be legal out pregnancy but they may not be able to find many to do them.

This Monday, March 31, the Nevada Right to Life Show spoke with Nevada attorney Jason Guinasso about the Hobby Lobby religious liberty case before the court on KXTO 1550 AM in Reno.  Guinasso and his wife Kim are past recipients of the Nevada Pro-Life League Heroes of Life award for successfully and courageously representing the parents of a mentally handicapped woman who faced a court ordered abortion in Reno a little over a year ago.  Mr. Guinasso is also an attorney with the Alliance Defending Life and has been a driving force behind legislation to protect religious liberty in Nevada.

Abortion advocates have been working desperately to force doctors, facilities and insurers to provide and pay for abortions and they have opposed conscience protections for these people and entities.  Abortion advocates say the right of conscience is so pervasive that access to abortion suffers.  Forcing companies to provide drugs that can cause an abortion is just a first step to compelling others to participate in abortion. 

The Hobby Lobby case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States has wide implications for pro-lifers.  Join us for our conversation with attorney Jason Guinasso to talk about the issues in the Hobby Lobby case, the threat to religious liberty and how it could impact pro-lifers and the pro-life movement.  Please join us this Saturday for the replay of this timely show at 2 PM on KTXO 1550 AM in Reno.

 

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  

Dramatic Reduction in Abortion Rates, Numbers, Ratios Shows Ongoing Massive Pro-life Cultural Shift On Abortion

A report earlier this year from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute indicates an ongoing, massive cultural shift in America in regards to abortion as dramatically decreasing abortion numbers reflect polling data showing that pro-life is the “new normal” on abortion.  Guttmacher reports a 13 percent decrease in the abortion rate from 2008-2013.  The abortion rate, the number of women per 1000 aborting between the ages of 16-44, has dropped 42 percent to 16.9 per 1000 after peaking at 29.3 in 1981.  The abortion rate is now the lowest since 1973, the year Roe v. Wade struck down abortion laws in all 50 states and made abortion legal throughout pregnancy. 

That’s not all.  The number of abortions keeps falling.  Guttmacher reports 1.05 million abortions for 2011 or 550,000 abortions a year fewer than 1990 when abortions peaked at 1.6 million per year.  This represents a more than one-third drop in the yearly number of abortions since 1990 while the American population has increased by 25 percent.  Minorities account for more than 60 percent of all abortions.
 

Then there’s the abortion ratio, the ratio of pregnancies ending in abortion compared to live births.  The CDC reported in 2008 that “The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 (36.4 percent) in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline.”  It’s now 21.2 percent. This number is important because it tells us that fewer and fewer pregnant women are choosing abortion instead of birth.
 

This Monday March 24^rd at 1 PM Nevada Right to Life will speak with Dr. Randall O’Bannon on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno on the Nevada Right to Life show about these numbers. Click here to listen.  Dr. O’Bannon is National Right to Life’s Director of Education & Research and a leading pro-life analyst.

The dramatic reduction of the number of abortions, the abortion rate and the abortion ratio fits with changing attitudes.  The most recent Gallup poll in May 2013 found that a plurality–48%–identified themselves as “pro-life.” 45% identified as “pro-choice.” But this question doesn’t tell the whole story as to what Americans think about abortion.
 

The same Gallup poll asked respondents: “Do you think abortion should be 1) illegal in all circumstances; 2) legal in only a few circumstances; 3) legal under most circumstances; or 4) legal under any circumstances.”  39% agree that abortion should be legal under any or most circumstances.  58% believe abortion should not be legal in any or just a few circumstances.
 

The dramatic abortion numbers and polling data indicate an ongoing massive cultural change on abortion that foreshadows the end of abortion on demand in the United States.  Join us this Monday on the Nevada Right to Life show for our conversation with Dr. Randall O’Bannon on these important numbers this Monday, March 24^th at 1 PM on KXTO 1550 AM in Reno and Saturday at 2 PM.
 

Resources:
 

National Right to Life: The State of Abortion in the United States (January 2014)
 

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  Click here to listen on line.

 

Ending The Life Of Sufferers Not The Answer To Suffering

There's a sign and a phone box on the Foresthill Bridge which towers 730 feet over the North Fork of the American River just above Auburn.  The sign says “Crisis counseling.  There is hope.  Make the call. 1. Open the box. 2 Lift the handset. 3. Push the button.”  Why is that box there?  Because many people have jumped from the Foresthill bridge to their deaths.  It’s there because we believe that something immeasurably valuable would be lost to them and to us if they were to succeed in killing themselves.

Nevada Right to Life and the pro-life movement believe that every human life is worth living and that something precious and valuable is lost when people commit suicide.  That’s one reason Nevada Right to Life will be opposing a physician assisted suicide bill that NV Senator David Parks has announced he plans to introduce in the Nevada Legislature next year.  Parks says the bill “allows patients with a projected life expectancy of six months to request a prescription for self-ingested medication to end life.” Parks also says it is expected to be modeled after Oregon’s physician assisted suicide bill.

While there are massive efforts to prevent suicide and give suicidal people hope across America, there are many who believe the compassionate thing to do for people with certain conditions is to allow them to have the assistance of a physician to kill themselves.  Instead of trying to talk them out of killing themselves, when they hear people living with or suffering under certain conditions say they are considering suicide, they instead want to make sure that they are serious and know what they are doing.  But ending the life of the sufferer is not the answer to suffering.

This Monday March 17th at 1 PM Nevada Right to Life speaks with assisted suicide expert Brian Johnston on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno on the Nevada Right to Life show. Johnston is the Executive Director of the California Pro-Life Council and the author of “Death as a Salesman-What’s wrong with assisted suicide.”  Brian and the CA Pro-life Council have been coalition leaders to prevent assisted suicide from becoming law in CA three times.  We’ll talk with Johnston about what is wrong with assisted suicide and the dangers of the Oregon law Parks would model his legislation after.

At a recent public meeting, Nevada Right to Life President Melissa Clement and I noted that the disability community opposes assisted suicide.  That’s because it makes targets out of them.  When society agrees that certain conditions should allow certain people to kill themselves, it is not a long step to thinking that people with those conditions would be better off dead or extending their lives is not worthwhile.  Join us for our conversation with Brian Johnston Monday March 17^th 2 1PM on KXTO 1150 AM in Reno and on Saturday at 2 PM.

Resources:

National Right to Life: Why So-Called Safeguards Don’t Work: Physician Assisted Suicide
National Right to Life: What We Have Learned from Oregon

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  Click here to listen on line.

80 Percent of Studies Dating to 1957 Show Abortion Breast Cancer Link. Dr. Joel Brind On NVRTL Show March 10

If someone had found a risk factor for breast cancer and also found that 80 percent of studies studying this risk factor dating back to 1957 showed an increased risk of developing breast cancer, we would expect that there would be huge headlines demanding more money for research and that there would be an effort to make that factor known to as many women as possible, especially if that were the most easily avoidable risk factor. 

That hasn’t happened because that risk factor is abortion.  Studies are coming in from all over the world that show a link between an induced abortion and an increase in a woman’s lifetime risk for developing breast cancer.  But abortion advocates and their megaphones in the media are not going to admit anytime soon that abortion can do any harm to women.  That would be catastrophic to the abortion movement.

This Monday we speak with Dr. Joel Brind about the abortion breast cancer link on the Nevada Right to Life show at 1 PM on 1550 AM in Reno.  Dr. Brind is Professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of NY.  Dr. Brind has written and lectured extensively on the connection between induced abortion and breast cancer. In 1996 he published a widely read meta-analysis of studies examining the link between abortion and breast cancer in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and community Health.  He is also the co-founder of The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute with breast cancer surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi.

In her article “The Reasons Hormonal Contraceptives and Induced Abortion Increase Breast-Cancer Risk”, Dr. Lanfranchi notes that “By choosing abortion, a woman increases her risk in four ways: she creates in her breasts more places for cancers to start, which is the “independent effect”; she loses the protective effect that a full-term pregnancy would have afforded her; she increases the risk of premature delivery of future pregnancies; and she lengthens her susceptibility window.”  

Abortion poses higher risks for some.  All twelve women in Janet Daling’s 1995 landmark study who aborted their first pregnancy as teens and who had a history of breast cancer, developed breast cancer.

We will talk with Dr. Brind about this and the biological basis for the abortion-breast cancer link and why abortion elevates a woman’s lifetime risk of abortion.  We’ll also speak with Dr. Brind about the criticisms of the abortion breast cancer link, when breast cancer is discovered during pregnancy and we will talk about any link between spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and breast cancer. 

Note, when researchers say there is a link between breast cancer and abortion they do not mean that every woman who has an abortion will develop breast cancer.  It also does not mean that every woman who has had breast cancer has had an abortion.  It means that abortion has been associated with an increase to a woman’s life time risk of developing breast cancer. 

Please tune into our conversation with Dr. Joel Brind, Monday March 10th at 1 PM on the Nevada right to Life show on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno.  Click here to listen.

Additional Resources:

·        Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer: The ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) Summary

·        The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
·        Attorney John Kindley: The Fit Between the Elements for an Informed Consent Cause of Action and the Scientific Evidence Linking Induced Abortion with Increased Breast Cancer Risk,” Wisconsin Law Review, (1999)

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.