NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

Dozens of Teenage Girls Have Had Three Abortions or More

    
     Screen Capture from the
     Marie Stopes TV ad.

Government data have disclosed that 89 girls aged 17 or under who terminated a pregnancy last year had had at least two abortions previously. The head of Britain's largest abortion provider said many young women were living chaotic lives that meant they could not organise contraception. Christian doctors said the statistics demonstrated the failure of liberal sex education policies. The Department of Health figures for 2009 show that, for the first time, more than a third (34 per cent) of abortions were performed on women who had already ended one or more pregnancies.
Click here for the entire article.


`Baby Killer Drug' Available Through Video Link

Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa are first in the nation to use this program

    
     Telemedicine

Like all of the 16 Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Ames offers abortion drugs to women desiring to end a pregnancy. As one would expect, a nurse begins the process with blood tests, a medical history, an exam and an ultrasound, along with counseling on matters such as what to expect from the procedure and plans for a follow-up. But then comes a twist. Since the clinic's closest licensed physician is in Des Moines, the attending doctor receives the patient's exam results via computer, and instead of meeting face to face, the doctor and the patient (at all times accompanied by the nurse) meet by videoconference over a private network.
Click here for the entire article.


N.J. Assembly Committee To Consider Bill Allowing Adoptees Access To Original Birth Certificates

    
     Joe DeGironimo

This is similar to the legisation that was going through Illinois not too long ago.

Every two years for the past three decades, a relentless group of people has told lawmakers their most personal stories in a plea for the most personal of details: They were adopted and they desperately want to know more about their background. Every time, their emotional efforts have failed to overcome lawmakers' contention that their birth mothers expected privacy. Then the legislation that would have allowed them to obtain their original birth certificates dies. Supporters are hoping their losing streak ends Monday when the Assembly's Human Services Committee convenes to debate and presumably approve the bill.
Click here for the entire article.


Doctors Should Warn of IVF Defect Risk, Says Report

   
    Fertilization treatment

Geneticists urge medical professionals to highlight possibility of malformation for children of couples using fertilisation treatment. Doctors should warn couples attempting to have children through fertilisation treatment that there is a small risk that the child will suffer some sort of malformation, geneticists said today. Scientists in France looked at the records for over 15,000 children born as a result of treatment in 33 fertility centres and found that more than 4% of them had some sort of major congenital malformation.
Click here for the entire article.


99.84% of messages to government oppose Marie Stopes abortion ad

    
     Lord Alton of Liverpool

Yesterday in Parliament Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received since 15 May about barring television advertisements for abortion services.

The response of Lord Shutt of Greetland, deputy chief whip in the House of Lords, was:

    At 26 May, 603 pieces of electronic correspondence have been received from members of the public about television advertisements for post-conception advice services. Five pieces of correspondence on the same subject have been received from MPs, and none has been received from Members of the House of Lords. Of the total received, 607 representations oppose the showing of television advertisements for post-conception advice services, including abortion services.
Click here for the entire article.


Lavish Women Deliver Meet Hijacks MDG 5, Delivers Muted but Aggressive Push for Worldwide Abortion

    
     2010 Women Deliver conference

The 2010 Women Deliver conference in the U.S. capital this week offered a rare glimpse into the heart of the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and population-control movement in its many facets. The conference drew international UN and political leaders to a 3-day marathon on several topics tied together by one ambitious theme: using Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, the reduction of maternal mortality, to promote contraception and the dismantling of pro-life laws around the world.
Click here for the entire article.

Conference sponsored by UN agencies tramples on citizens' rights.

Every day it seems Americans lose more and more of their rights. Political speech is limited in ways that would be unimaginable to our Founding Fathers. Bills are passed that slash life-saving medical treatment for the elderly and disabled. Unborn babies are denied the basic right to life.

Now several taxpayer-funded groups have done the unthinkable: censoring even information about unborn babies.

    
     NRLC materials being confiscated by "Women Deliver" staff.

At the "Women Deliver" international conference held in Washington D.C. June 7-9, National Right to Life volunteers passed out information in pink bags proclaiming the message "Celebrate Motherhood." The conference was supposedly dedicated to exploring ways to decrease the mortality of mothers delivering their babies. But pro-abortion groups have all but taken over United Nations affiliated organizations, and have no intention of hearing from anyone "Celebrating Motherhood."

The conference hosts stood inside the entrance of the Washington Convention Center, confiscated the bags and threw them into the trash. The Conference attendees were told that the information inside the bags – including beautiful pictures of unborn babies – was "anti-human rights," "anti-life" and "anti-woman."

Sponsors of the conference included the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the U.S. government's USAID program, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Planned Parenthood, all of which receive funding from U.S. taxpayers.

That is taxpayer-funded censorship right in our nation's capital!

Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Emmy Nomination

    
     Facing Life Head-On TV program

It's not every day a pro-life television show is nominated for an Emmy Award, but that's just what happened this week. Our own weekly broadcast, Facing Life Head-On, captured the attention of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences! We're one of four nominees in the Ohio Valley Chapter's "Interview/Discussion Program" category. We find out how the judges voted at a black-tie awards ceremony July 31.

This is great news—not just for us, but for the whole pro-life community. We live in a society where, if abortion is mentioned on TV, it's almost always accompanied with a veil of lies. Four years ago, we set out to change that trend, and we're succeeding!

In a short time, Facing Life Head-On began airing on cable and satellite networks across the US and Canada, reaching more than 100 million homes each week. Viewers often write in to tell us the show changed their way of thinking about the life issues—matters like abortion, adoption, stem cell treatments and end-of-life care. Women are choosing life for their unborn babies. Parents are moving forward with the adoption of special needs children. Young people are getting empowered with the information they need to speak out.

Putting together a show like this takes a big investment, but our hard work is paying off. Though we'd certainly love to win that Emmy, our greater mission is to win the hearts and minds of America. This is proving to be a successful way of doing it!

If you'd like to be a part of the journey, please visit www.facinglife.tv to learn more about the program and help us broadcast more shows that change—and even save—lives. You can also watch the full episodes online.

Contact: Bradley Mattes
Source: Life Issues Institute
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws

Top theme of conference: "unsafe abortion" the "most important cause" of maternal mortality

    
  
A Wedesday panel at the 2010 Women Deliver conference provided a fascinating peek into the pro-abortion lobby's logical gymnastics regarding their "harm-reduction" strategy for advancing abortion worldwide. While saying the strategy treats the choice of abortion as "value-neutral" in order to push the provision of better abortion facilities, the panelists went on to admit that the method was little more than a "facade" to push their own "value" of expanded abortion.

A real-world analysis of the harm-reduction strategy was provided by Leonel Priozzo, Director of Strategic Programming for Uruguay's Ministry of Health. Although abortion is illegal in Uruguay, Priozzo boasted that the "harm reduction" mantra had helped public opinion become more favorable toward abortion in his country.

Priozzo briefly claimed that "unsafe abortion was the most important cause" of maternal mortality - the top theme of the Women Deliver conference. However, as confirmed by a crucial Lancet study released in April, pro-life leaders have repeatedly said that illegal abortion has little if anything to do with maternal mortality, which is most heavily dependent on other factors such as average income and trained medical professionals aiding at birth.

Despite the altruistic introduction, the remainder of Priozzo's presentation, and those of the other panelists, focused heavily on using the strategy simply to change the social and political climate in favor of abortion.

Priozzo revealed figures showing that, under his counrty's harm-reduction model, over half (55%) the women coming to the agency eventually choose to kill thier unborn child while only 21% follow up to say they will keep their baby. 13.8% do not follow up.

"The political target of our harm reduction model is important," he noted, "and in this decade, our model advanced to force legal change by means of less resistance."  Priozzo attributed the harm-reduction approach to the Uruguay Congress approving in 2008 a bill legalizing abortion, which was vetoed by president Tabare Vazquez.

    

Dr. Joanne Csete, an associate professor at Columbia University, took the notion in a broader strategic context, defining harm reduction as "the idea that we will focus on the harms of this behavior, in this case the health-related harms, but we will not so much worry about the behavior itself," and "will not judge the behavior" or "worry about whether people abstain eventually from the behavior or not."

Csete said that a good model to follow for applying "harm reduction" to abortion was the UN's strategy for illegal drug use, which has prompted the organization to fund the distribution of clean needles for drug users. In another example, she bashed the 12-step approach to overcoming harmful behavior, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, for moralizing and having "done a very good job of convincing people that God is on their side." Csete claimed that simply controlling the timing and type of alcohol consumption is enough to "stabilize the lives of a lot of people who live with alcohol dependency."

However, because the harm-reduction model could be used to advocate for laws that bar such behavior, said the professor, it is sometimes necessary to make the concept "broader" by focusing on "the harms of criminalization of drug use" which can "cause drug users to spend a lot of time in prison" among other detriments, such as stifling information.

"Certainly we can't really talk in this framework about the excitement of drug use or the pleasure of drug use - those are completely verboten topics," she said, comparing the situation to the taboo surrounding contraception and sex.

To be successful in overturning pro-life laws, she concluded, the harm-reduction strategy must be linked to a "human rights" perspective demanding the decriminalizaiton of abortion, a theme resumed by University of Toronto professor Joanna Erdman.

"The evidence on criminal abortion laws causing harm is so overwheling that it becomes exceedingly difficult not to argue for law reform under a harm reduction model," claimed Erdman. "[A] human rights [approach will] provide us with the necessary moral grounding to say that prohibition is not only irrational as causing harm, it's impermissible. It's unacceptable."

A few commenting audience members following the panelists' presentations shed further light on the tenor of the session: one IPPF representative said that the "right to information" and doctor/patient "confidentiality" - i.e., prohibiting doctors to reveal when an abortion has been committed - are "definitely the most important" places to begin change.

Another revealing moment came when a pro-abortion advocate in the audience referred to an East Timor bill in which abortion would be legal "in cases where [a woman's] physical and mental health were to be affected - which as you all know can be broadly interpreted when need be" - and the panelists nodded in agreement.

In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.

"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Broad Coalition Opposes Targeted Attack on First Amendment

 
    
     The U.S. House of Representatives in Session

More than 50 groups are asking the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. The group letter was sent today.

The legislation comes in response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rolled back certain campaign-finance restrictions. It aims to expand the scope of such regulations to strangle free speech.

The DISCLOSE Act will place burdensome restrictions on the ability of nonprofits to engage in free speech and advocate for families and consumers. For example, the bill would force a group's top donors to appear in any political commercials, even those who aren't donors to the specific ad. It would also mean that all top donors' names would be disclosed, even if they aren't funding any part of the political communication. CitizenLink and other pro-family groups would be affected.

"The bill aims to silence political speech by intimidation and onerous regulation," the groups wrote.

The group letter is as follows...

Dear Member of the United States House of Representatives, We write on behalf of the millions of taxpayers and concerned citizens represented by our respective organizations to urge Congress to reject H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, an egregious attempt by the majority to stifle political speech.

H.R. 5175 is being sold to the public as a "response" to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. However, this bill uses the ruling as an excuse to expand the scope of campaign finance regulations to strangle free speech. The DISCLOSE Act is constitutionally dubious based on its forced disclosure of the identities of members of an organization. The Supreme Court refused to uphold this type of comprehensive disclosure in NAACP v. Alabama, recognizing that compelled disclosure can be used to intimidate speech.

This bill runs afoul of this precedent in two ways: by forcing the top donors of a group, who are not necessarily the specific donors to an ad, to appear in a political communication and by forcing groups to disclose members of their organization who are not necessarily funding communications. This shifts the regulatory paradigm away from those who are actually funding advertisements and targets, for the first time, individual membership in a group. This inclusive treatment of organizational funding reveals that the intent of this legislation is not true disclosure – it is the intimidation of speech.

The bill also marks a stark departure from the traditional treatment of corporations and unions by applying punitive measures to associations in the corporate form, but not to labor unions. Historically, these entities have been treated interchangeably in campaign finance law. The attempt now to separate these associations amounts to nothing more than partisan maneuvering for political gain and sparks constitutional concerns under the Equal Protection clause.

Moreover, in its recent ruling in Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that the identity of the speaker cannot provide justification for the inhibition of its speech. By allowing union speech while punishing the speech of similar associations, H.R. 5175 does exactly this.

The Committee on House Administration's rejection of amendments that would have subjected unions to the same treatment as corporations under this bill illustrates the intention of this act – to exclude certain groups from the political dialogue.

The DISCLOSE Act is an unequivocal ban on free speech, masquerading as an exercise in accountability. The bill's sponsors opine these regulations are necessary after the Citizens United ruling, arguing that it allows corporations to prop up "shadow groups" through which money could be funneled to air independent advertisements.

Such fears are unfounded, since current law is based on the disclosure of money, not groups. Any group, including a 527 group or a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6), must disclose its donations above a certain amount given to fund an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication. The disclosure follows the money, not the actor publishing the ad, so it is impossible for the secretive spending envisioned by the proponents of this bill to take place. Lastly, the bill takes a tenuous stance on foreign entities and their participation in elections. The legislation somewhat vaguely states that a corporation with "foreign ownership" cannot make independent expenditures. This effectively proscribes the First Amendment rights of any American citizens employed by a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation, a difficult position to reconcile with the safeguards of the Constitution. The definition of "foreign ownership" also presents pragmatic problems, as it relies on the constitution of a company's shareholders, which can fluctuate daily in the dynamic global market.

The DISCLOSE Act, while cleverly named, aims to silence political speech by intimidation and onerous regulation. Such efforts should be rejected swiftly. Thus, on behalf of the millions of Americans we represent, we urge you to reject this assault on free speech and to vote against H.R. 5175.

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Regulate Synthetic Life Science While the Horse is Still in the Barn

    
     First Synthetic Life

The CBC asked me to comment on the ethical implications of the recent scientific announcement that they have implanted an artificially created genome into a bacteria.  My main take is that the time to regulate this emerging field is now, not later, while we have time to deliberate and create proper protections that doesn't stifle science. From my piece:

    …it was an astounding scientific achievement that could lead, the scientists said, to man exerting "a new power over life." They weren't kidding. The potential safety and ethical consequences of learning to engineer new life forms—including eventually of the human variety—is hard to overstate. That being so, we had better get about the task of erecting legally enforceable safety and ethical parameters around this field while we still have time to act deliberately. And here's an important truth: If society doesn't decide where we want the science to go—and not go—the amoral inertial imperative of technological advance will fill the resulting vacuum with potentially terrible consequences.

I point out the terrible problems that fundamentally unregulated IVF has created:

    Indeed by failing to regulate IVF, it has, in effect, regulated us, leading directly to tremendous changes in the norms of family life (e.g., Octomom and aged motherhood), the reemergence of eugenics values (for example, in embryo selection), and an overall utilitarian objectification of unborn life (human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and advocacy to permit fetal farming). If that was true of IVF—which, recall, had the original limited goal of helping infertile married couples have babies—imagine the potential epochal impact broadly synthesizing life could exert over the earth's biology and human morality.

But we have time not to make the same mistake with synthetic life:

    The good news is that unlike IVF, concerns over the impact of synthetic life could become a rare field about which the political left and right, so often at loggerheads, could agree. Thus, we should applaud President Obama for directing his new bioethics advisory panel (Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues) to investigate the implications of this field and report back to him with proposed societal responses. I also urge the proposed conservative "shadow bioethics panel" now being formed —which seems designed to continue the splendid moral analytical engagement of the now defunct President's Council on Bioethics—to engage the issue and publish recommendations for proper regulatory action.

    This is not to say that the science should be wholly stifled. But it is to say that we should refuse to assume the posture of mere flotsam and jetsam floating on the currents. For once, as a powerful new science emerges, let's control our own destiny. The last thing the world needs is a synthetic life science sector Wild, Wild, West.

Naked science is amoral, and hence potentially dangerous. However science conducted within proper ethical parameters provides tremendous benefit.  Part of being human is the power of self restraint. That is certainly necessary considering the safety and ethical implications of this new emerging science.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Breast Cancer Link Raised in Victorian (Australia) Parliament

    
     The Victorian Parliament

Peter Kavanagh, DLP (Democratic Labor Party) Member for Western Victoria, urged the Victorian Parliament last night to study scientific evidence of the abortion-breast cancer link and to warn women of the risk if it is confirmed by scientific studies.

Kavanagh raised an adjournment motion in the Legislative Council after he was made aware that neither the Cancer Council of Victoria nor the Cancer Council of Australia had replied to letters sent by experts from Endeavour Forum Inc., an NGO having special consultative status with ECOSOC of the UN, of three studies published in 2009 confirming the increased risk of breast cancer caused by induced abortion.

"My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health and relates to the apparent link between abortion and breast cancer. During the abortion debate in this Parliament in late 2008 I went into considerable detail, listing some of the scientific evidence which demonstrates that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Even more recent scientific studies released in 2009 confirm such a link," Kavanagh said in Parliament on June 9, according to VicHansard.

Babette Francis and Gabrielle Whiting of Endeavour Forum Inc. expressed their concern to Kavanagh after submitting published scientific research to the cancer groups and receiving no response.

The submitted research includes "Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women" by Ozmen V. et al, published in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2009; 7:37; "A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China" by Xing P. et al, published in Medical Oncology, e-publication online, September 2009; and "Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years" by Dolle J. et al, published in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009: 18(4), pages 1157-1166.

"Apparently these important warnings are being ignored by the health authorities to which they are being reported," Kavanagh said. "It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that ideological commitment to unrestricted abortion may be preventing a proper assessment of the health risks of abortion."

"The action I seek from the minister is that he seek an objective review of the evidence of a relationship between abortions and breast cancer risk, and if such a link is shown to exist, to issue medical warnings along these lines, even if this has the effect of reducing the number of abortions," Kavanagh concluded.

To contact the Parliament of Victoria:
Parliament House,
East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002
Phone: (+61 3) 9651 8911
Fax: (+61 3) 9654 5284
Email: info@parliament.vic.gov.au

Click here for more information on the medical connection between abortion and breast cancer from the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer website.

Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

Dawn Johnsen's Failed Self-Reinvention

    
     Dawn Johnsen

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post ("Restoring Leadership and Integrity to the Office of Legal Counsel"), President Obama's former nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Dawn Johnsen writes that "There is no simple answer to why my nomination failed."  However, she argues that her "torture memo" regarding the Bush Administration's position on handling terrorists was essential to the collapse of her attempted appointment.

Perhaps her view of the way to treat combatant prisoners was a source of consternation to conservatives.  But there is another reason why ultimately she withdrew her nomination: Ms. Johnsen is a pro-abortion zealot, and a sufficient number of pro-life Senators found her views outside the mainstream that she finally gave up her more than 14 month effort to achieve Senate confirmation.
Click here for the entire article.


Homosexual Group, Planned Parenthood & Judges Keep Personhood Amendment Off Nevada Ballot
    
A Christian-based group's anti-abortion petition will not appear on the November ballot. A national leader of the Personhood movement said Thursday it will not collect the required number of signatures needed by Tuesday's deadline. The proposed constitutional amendment would halt abortions in Nevada. PersonhoodUSA co-founder Keith Mason said the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and Planned Parenthood through litigation have "run out the clock on us" and prevented the organization from collecting the required 97,002 signatures to put the issue before voters. The state Supreme Court still has not ruled on Personhood Nevada's appeal of a lower court decision that prevented the group from circulating its petition.
Click here for the entire article.


Involuntary euthanasia found widespread in Belgium

    

A new report on legal euthanasia in Belgium has found that a significant number of "terminations with request or consent." Although the country's law requires the patient to give informed consent for euthanasia, a number of nurses admitted to researchers that they had ended the lives of patients who had not asked for an earlier death. About 2% of the deaths in Belgium are classified as euthanasia; it is not clear how many of those deaths are involuntary.
Click here for the entire article.


Careless, negligent abortionist's license sought

    

An abortionist at the Gynecare Center in Maryland is under state scrutiny for the death of one of his patients.

Because of his connection with the death of a 21-year-old woman in 2006, an initial proceeding has been held by the Maryland Board of Physicians (MBP) in a quest to revoke the medical license of abortionist Romeo Ferrer.
Click here for the entire article.


Alabama abortion mill closes; 2nd "emergency" appeal issued to keep last standing Mississippi mill open

    

Operation Rescue is reporting this afternoon that Beacon's Women Center in Montgomery, AL, has closed.

An AL Dept. of Public Health source informed OR that Beacon, one of Summit Medical Center's chain of 7 mills, decided to shutter its doors rather than face a revocation hearing after being placed on probation in 2007 for numerous violations.
Click here for the entire article.


FDA Takes Issue with Genetic Tests from 5 Firms

    
     Genetic Testing

The Food and Drug Administration has put five genetic test makers on notice that they must get federal approval before marketing their products for use by consumers.
 
The regulatory letters posted online Friday are the first sign that the government agency plans to crack down on companies marketing products that claim to predict inheritable diseases using DNA samples.
 
The FDA letters notify each company that their products are considered medical devices and therefore must be federally approved as safe and effective.
Click here for the entire article.

Don't Let your Money Race off to Planned Parenthood!

Don't Let your Money Race off to Planned Parenthood!

    
 
Nancy Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever.  That promise launched the largest global breast cancer fundraising organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure. But the question can be asked, Is Komen doing everything they can to end breast cancer?  We think not, and again discourage you from supporting or participating in Quad Cities Race for the Cure.
 
The Komen website attempts to explain away the fact that a preponderance of studies shows there is a link between prior abortion and the later development of breast cancer.  For example, their website contains the following paragraph:
 
"Although there has been some debate in the past about the link between abortion and breast
cancer risk, research now strongly supports no link between the two [366]. This conclusion was further confirmed in a 2003 National Cancer Institute report [367]."
 
However, an April, 2009, paper headed by Jessica Dolle at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center included an admission from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a study headed by Louise Brinton of the NCI showed that abortion raises women's breast cancer risk by 40%.  Despite the fact Ms. Brinton had also found reported increased risk of breast cancer after abortion in a 1996 study she had worked on, she falsely assured women there was no link.  Thus, no cancer fundraising businesses, including Komen, have made any attempts to end, or at least decrease, breast cancer by warning women of the abortion-breast cancer link.  They even go out of their way to deny it!
 
Grants to Planned Parenthood
 
Komen Quad Cities gives grants to Planned Parenthood.  However, you won't find Planned Parenthood listed because starting in 2005, in an attempt to obscure the true grantee, grants for Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa began to be funneled through the Louisa County Health Department.  Also, part of the 25% that Komen Quad Cities forwards on to the national organization can be used to fund Planned Parenthood in other areas of the country by way of national grants.
 
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the U.S.  They do not tell women that the "service" they provide will put them at greater risk of breast cancer.  Komen partners with a business that increases the very disease they are fighting!  They state that Race money is not used for abortions, only mammograms, but these mammograms could be performed by any number of non-controversial providers if Komen chose to use them.
 
Grants to Researchers Involved in Embryonic Stem Cell Research
 
Komen gives grants to organizations whose research position statements show support of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).      

For further information:

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
 
Source: QC Right To Life
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Washington, D.C. Protects Abortion and Planned Parenthood Yet Crushes and Prohibits the First Amendment and Free Speech

    

 It is now more important for government and law enforcement officials to protect abortion in our nation's capital then it is for them to protect the First Amendment, free speech and civil liberties.
 
Is this the future of America?
 
Police officers arrested Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney for praying on a public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood on Tuesday, June 8.

    
     Click here for the newly released video.
 
This arrest followed weeks of Washington, D.C. police officers threatening to arrest members of the pro-life community for praying and counseling on the public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood.
 
For years, the pro-life community has prayed, counseled and held peaceful witness on the public property in front of Planned Parenthood.
 
Click here to view photo of pro-lifers peacefully praying in front of Planned Parenthood
 
This situation developed after Planned Parenthood applied for a public permit to construct an iron fence around their property.
 
Click here to view pictures of the recently constructed fence with "No Trespassing" signs

However, the construction of the fence did not change the description of the land and according to city records it still remains public.  Also, Planned  Parenthood and the City of Washington, D.C. have not presented one piece of evidence or documentation showing the property has now become private.
 
James Henderson, Senior Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice who is representing Rev. Mahoney, states,

"After we learned that Planned Parenthood installed the fence, and that police were threatening to arrest those that prayed or counseled on the public spaces within the fence, we extensively researched the status of that property.
 
"The Public Spaces Branch of the District's Department of Transportation maintains the the database of public properties in Washington, D.C.  During meetings with that department, two different sources confirmed to us that Washington, D.C. owned a 50-foot right of way along the public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood.
 
"So, we know for a fact that Rev. Mahoney was arrested on public property when he was charged with crime of unlawful entry."
 
The Christian Defense Coalition plans a major national campaign to  address this ban on the First Amendment in Washington, D.C. later this summer.

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

40 yrs+ celebrity IVF pregnancies: Celine Dion and Kelly Preston

    
     Kelly Preston and husband John Travolta

Three weeks ago 47-yr-old actress Kelly Preston and 56-yr-old actor husband John Travolta announced they were expecting a baby. (Twins denied.)

    
     Celine Dion with husband René Angélila

Then a week ago 42-yr-old singer Céline Dion announced she and 68-yr-old husband René Angélil were expecting twins.

Both pregnancies were reportedly conceived via in vitro fertilization.

(And if these things do come in 3s, keep an eye on 40-yr-old singer Mariah Carey, whose 29-yr-old singer Nick Cannon didn't exactly quash rumors a few days ago that she's pregnant as well.)

Congrats to all. We're praying for healthy babies.

Even though we recently observed in 44-yr-old Michelle Duggar that women over 40 do conceive naturally, pregnancy past 40 isn't the norm.

On May 31 OB/Gyn Dr. Jennifer Ashton described on CBS's The Early Show the staggering preborn death toll to achieve a successful 40+ pregnancy...

We're seeing this more and more among celebrities, and it appears that 40 would be the new 30 when you're talking about pregnancy and fertility. Not exactly the case.

"When you look at the numbers in terms of women and their fertility, there is no question it declines as they get older. We're meant to reproduce in our early 20s. So, when you look at women in the 20-to-24 age group, only 7% will be infertile. When you go up over 40, that number approaches 30%. That's because the quality of their eggs goes down and the number of their eggs goes down."

Outside intervention to help start such pregnancies is "pretty common," Ashton says. "Actually, there are 4 million births in the U.S. every year, approximately, and the estimates are that 1% of them, so that's about 40k babies, were conceived using what's called assisted reproductive technology. So, not totally mainstream, but very, very common.

    
     Sarah Jessica Parker, husband Matthew
      Broderick, son James with twin daughters
      Marion and Tabitha

"There's a whole spectrum of what we call assisted reproductive technology," Ashton continued, "and it could be anything from in-vitro fertilization, which could be due to anything from sperm problems or egg problems, and then it could encompass donor egg, donor sperm and, in the most aggressive cases, uterine surrogacy....." [Photo above is of 45-yr-old actress Sarah Jessica Parker, 48-yr-old actor husband Matthew Broderick, and 7-yr-old son James with twin daughters Marion and Tabitha, born June 22, 2009, via surrogate.]

How often do such pregnancies take hold and get carried to term?

"When you look at ... all cycles using non-frozen embryos, the success rate approaches about 30%," Ashton says. "Now, that is heavily dependent on age. The older you get, whether you're using your own egg or not, the success rate of a live birth goes down. Again, just because we're seeing it in the 40s does not mean it's easy."

Dion underwent 5 failed IVF fertilization attempts before the 6th took.

Now to the hard truth. While these children are all blessings, the pathway of death to get them was immoral.

More of the hard truth: Liberal feminism trampling over biological norms has brought us to this point. The fertile female human body during her early 20s as well as the simultaneous increased male and female sex drive indicates women and men were instinctively built to have babies much earlier than is now societally accepted.

Feminists have actually not told women they "can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan." They've told women to 1st get educated to learn how to bring home the bacon, then begin bringing home the bacon, and then begin thinking about the home in which to fry it up in the pan, tinkering by 5 to 10 to 15 years with their biological clocks.

Conversely, feminists have told young women and men not to strive for relational maturity during their prime reproductive cycle of the early 20s.

They say instead to sow wild oats during that highly fertile span of time. This only increases the likelihood abstinence until marriage cannot be achieved and that both parties will be bringing along damaged hearts and bodies when saying "I do." And of course there's abortion, highest in that age group, of course.

Women have been instructed to replace the desire for a husband and family with a desire for a career. They have been told children detract from rather than enhance whatever else women have going on.

This is not to say career and kids cannot coexist. The most perfect wife and mother ever described in the Bible, the Proverbs 31 woman, independently purchased real estate, planted her own vineyard, and made and sold goods.

But today's career options often separate mothers from families rather than synergize them.

And so today we see women past their child-bearing prime pumping themselves with dangerous artificial steroids to conceive and bear children they belatedly realize they long for, killing many along the way and also increasing the odds of killing themselves.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

People 'being killed for their organs'?

    
     Human Organ Transplant transporation cooler bag.

A dangerous precedent was set in Belgium, an ethicist said, when a woman chose assisted suicide and then opted to donate her organs.

Wesley Smith, a bioethics fellow at the Discovery Institute, said agreeing to harvest organs from euthanasia "raises the very realistic prospect that despairing people with terminal illnesses or disabilities (or perhaps, just despair) could latch onto being killed for their organs as a way of bringing meaning to their lives."

"This very dangerous territory, made all the more treacherous by doctors, spouses and a respected medical journal validating the ideas that dead is better than disabled and that living patients can, essentially, be viewed as a natural resource to be killed and mined," Smith wrote on the Secondhand Smoke blog at FirstThings.com in May.

The woman in Belgium was not terminally ill, Smith said. She was fully conscious but completely paralyzed, a state he called "locked-in." She asked for her doctor's assistance in carrying out her desire to die, and the day before the euthanasia procedure, she decided to allow her organs to be transplanted.

In the presence of her husband, Smith recounted, the woman was killed intravenously and her body was moved to the operating table 10 minutes after cardiac activity had ceased. Her liver and both kidneys were removed, and a year later the three recipients have responded well.

"If this doesn't set off alarm bells about how the sick and disabled are increasingly being looked upon not only as burdens (to themselves, families, and society), but potential objects for exploitation, what will?" Smith wrote. "A disabled woman was killed, even though people with locked-in states often adjust over time to their disabilities and are happy to be alive."

The woman's story appeared in the bioethics journal Transplantation, perhaps authenticating the coupling of the two procedures in the minds of some.

"This case of two separate requests, first euthanasia and second, organ donation after death, demonstrates that organ harvesting after euthanasia may be considered and accepted from ethical, legal and practical viewpoints in countries where euthanasia is legally accepted," Smith wrote.

"This possibility may increase the number of transplantable organs and may also provide some comfort to the donor and his (her) family, considering that the termination of the patient's life may somehow help other human beings in need for organ transplantation.

"Taking the organs was the easy decision. Once you've pulled medicine into the forbidden zone of active killing, finding self-congratulatory justifications becomes a most desirable quest," Smith wrote, adding that "once society accepts that the two can be joined, saving others could easily become a frequent motivation for asking to be killed."

Also in May, articles in the Canadian Medical Association Journal said about one in 25 deaths in Belgium is by euthanasia, and of those, 2 percent take place after a direct request of a doctor; 1.8 percent occur without such a request.

Voluntary euthanasia must be performed by a physician in Belgium, but it is done 12 percent of the time illegally by nurses, the report said. In 2009, Belgium officially had 700 euthanasia deaths, a jump from 500 such cases in 2008, according to a March report by Flanders News. These are officially reported figures, and experts say they represent only 25 percent of the actual totals.

Contact: Erin Roach and Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Poll: Half say abortion morally wrong

Poll: Half say abortion morally wrong

    

A new Gallup poll reports the American public takes various stands on the moral acceptability of life issues.

The survey showed the following opinions:

-- On abortion, 50 percent of Americans believe it is morally wrong, while 38 percent believe it is morally acceptable.

-- Americans are evenly divided on physician-assisted suicide, with those who say it is morally acceptable and those who say it is morally wrong at 46 percent each.

-- Regarding embryonic stem cell research, 59 percent believe it is morally acceptable and 32 percent believe it is morally wrong.

-- On human cloning, only 9 percent say it is morally acceptable, while 88 percent say it is morally wrong.

The country's major pro-life organizations oppose abortion, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide and human cloning, both for research and reproductive purposes. Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos.

The poll's results -- released May 26 -- demonstrate "how important it is to frame issues properly," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

"For example: Gallup asks if 'cloning humans' is morally acceptable or not. Framed that way, fully 88 percent of Americans say no," Perkins wrote May 27. "The poll then asks if 'medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos' is okay. Fifty-nine percent go along with this; only 32 percent oppose. What if Gallup were to ask the question this way: 'Is it morally acceptable or not to kill embryonic human beings to obtain their stem cells?' Wouldn't this greatly change the poll's response?"

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

What hath Nebraska wrought?

    
     Steven H. Aden serves as Senior Legal
      Counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund

You can't keep a good state down. Proving that its state motto, "Equality Before the Law," truly applies to all its residents, Nebraska has again stepped up to take the lead against the horrific practice of late-term abortion and its main proponent, LeRoy Carhart.

By the overwhelming margin of 44-5, Nebraska's unicameral legislature passed a bill April 13 that bans abortions after 20 weeks of gestation, except when the abortion would preserve the life or physical health of the mother. Gov. Dave Heineman signed the bill into law that same day.

Nebraska is the state that launched the "partial-birth abortion" debate by banning the procedure favored by its infamous resident, Dr. Carhart. The Supreme Court struck down the statute as an "undue burden" on access to abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, but the Bush administration soldiered on and banned the practice in all 50 states through federal legislation.

The Supreme Court finally upheld the federal ban in 2007 in a second case brought by Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, and by implication, affirmed the right of states to outlaw the procedure. In so doing, the court seemed to open the door for new state regulations of abortion by expanding the list of constitutionally legitimate state interests for regulating abortion beyond the two enunciated in Roe, the health of the mother and the interest in -- as the Court called it -- "potential" life.

LB1103, introduced by Speaker Mike Flood, requires abortion providers to determine the baby's probable post-fertilization age. Abortions past 20 weeks are prohibited, based on medical evidence that babies feel pain by that stage of development. Nebraska is betting that the federal courts -- and ultimately, likely, the Supreme Court -- will conclude that states have an interest in preventing excruciating pain to an unborn infant as he or she is ripped apart and pulled from the womb that is at least as compelling as the desire to preserve the integrity of the medical profession from the barbarous practitioners of partial-birth abortion that was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The Nebraska law also takes dead aim at the Supreme Court's virtually illimitable "health" exception that dates back to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. Doe permits doctors like Carhart to authorize abortion through full gestation: "[T]he 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," the court said.

And while Carhart claims that Nebraska's new law will result in denying abortion to "a woman who has been hospitalized and diagnosed suicidal," there is every reason to believe that the bar is not nearly that high for authorizing abortions under the constitutional "health exception." Operation Rescue reported that Dr. Paul McHugh, a psychologist who headed the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital for 26 years, examined over 30 medical records subpoenaed from abortionist George Tiller, whose practice Dr. Carhart offered to take over upon his death last year.

Dr. McHugh concluded that Tiller was authorizing abortions at 26 to 30 weeks for "trivial" reasons under the guise of "mental health" concerns, with women stating, for example, "I won't be able to go to concerts," or, "I won't be able to take part in sports." Dr. McHugh found "no evidence" that any of these abortions was truly necessary to save a mother's life or physical health.

The new law goes into effect Oct. 15, but Carhart and pro-abortion legal groups such as the Center for Reproductive Rights have already promised a court battle. "This latest anti-woman and anti-health legislation merely strengthens my commitment to fight for women's reproductive health and rights," Carhart says.

Let it come. For its part, the Alliance Defense Fund and its alliance of more than 1,600 attorneys will be standing by to defend Nebraska's new law from Carhart's attacks, as we have before. If "reproductive health" means that abortionists have the right to inflict the kind of pain and suffering on a baby in the womb that our civilized society found intolerable with convicted animal abuser Michael Vick, here's hoping that Nebraska continues to lead the way -- all the way back to the Supreme Court.

Contact: Steven H. Aden
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

The Christian Post: Most Evangelical Leaders OK with Killing Babies using 'Birth Control'

    

A majority of so called "evangelical leaders" approve of artificial methods of contraception, a new survey reveals. The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 churches in the United States, released a report Tuesday showing that nearly 90 percent approve of contraception. Several leaders, however, expressed opposition to drugs or procedures that terminate a pregnancy once conception has taken place. "Most associate evangelicals with Catholics in their steady leadership in pro-life advocacy, and rightly so," said heretic Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, in a statement. "But it may come as a surprise that unlike the Catholic church, we are open to contraception."
Click here for the entire article.


Chicago: Mother in Battle with Doctors over conjoined Twins on Life Support

    
     Brianna Manns visits her
      conjoined twins, Kameron
      (left) and Kaydon.

Lying face to face, with one arm draped around the other, Kaydon and Kameron appear to be locked in a loving embrace. But the boys, not yet 3 months old, have no choice but to hug each other every minute of every day. They are conjoined twins who share a liver and a single malformed heart. Doctors discussed terminating the pregnancy with the mother, Brianna Manns, 21, after they determined the twins were not likely to survive. But Manns said abortion was never an option. "I am a strong believer in not having abortions -- very, very strong," said Manns, taking a break from the neonatal intensive care unit at University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago, where her sons are hospitalized. "And they are my babies."
Click here for the entire article.


Pro-Life Pamphlets to be Banned in Australia?

    
     One side of the leaflet.
     Click here to enlarge.

An "offensive" anti-abortion leaflet distributed to Waverley households is under investigation and could be banned. In the lead-up to State Parliament debating a bill to decriminalise abortion, pro-life group Tell the Truth Coalition dropped 20,000 leaflets into the letterboxes of Mt Waverley MP Maxine Morand's constituents. Ms Morand, as Women's Affairs and Children's Minister, sponsored the bill, which passed through the State Parliament's lower house last Friday morning. One side of the leaflet labels Ms Morand as an "extreme pro-abortionist" and on the other side it depicts a foetus at different stages of development up to 12 weeks. The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) is reviewing the leaflet, which could be banned, but the coalition has vowed to continue its fight against the decriminalisation of abortion. 
Click here for the entire article.


Young Pro-Lifers Begin Trek Across Canada

    
The third Canadian Crossroads walk for life got off to a wet start on Monday May 24. The 6 walkers - 4 seminarians from Christ the King in Vancouver B.C., and 2 students from Our Lady Seat of Wisdom in Barry's Bay, Ontario - went to Mass and then drove in the rain out to the very edge of Vancouver, where it meets the Pacific Ocean. They dipped their hands and feet in the ocean, then turned their faces toward Ottawa and began their 5,000-kilometer trek.
Click here for the entire article.


Over 60 pro-life groups to protest abortion law outside Spanish Supreme Court

    
     Spanish Supreme Court in Madrid.

More than 60 pro-life associations will gather outside the Spanish Supreme Court on July 3 in Madrid to express their rejection of the country's new law on abortion.

The groups will also demand that the legislation be placed under an injunction until a ruling is made on a case challenging its constitutionality filed by the People's Party.

The theme of the protest will be "25 Years Are Enough! Yes to Life for All," and will take place two days before the new law is scheduled to take effect on July 5. Though abortion is already legal in the country, the new legislation allows abortion up to the fourteenth week of pregnancy and in some cases, up to the twenty-second week.
Click here for the entire article.


Abortion pill being shoved down Mexico's throat

    

Mexico's Supreme Court is taking extreme measures to force distribution of the "morning-after pill."
 
The court issued a ruling that will force all doctors in public and private hospitals to provide the morning-after pill. A Supreme Court minister stated that those who refuse to do so will suffer serious penalties, including termination, prosecution, and imprisonment.
Click here for the entire article.

Blago's crimes against sanctity of life

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Opening arguments were heard yesterday in the federal corruption trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich stands accused of attempting to sell President Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat. Blagojevich and wife Patti have recently portrayed themselves as sympathetic figures on reality television, he on "Celebrity Apprentice" and she on "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" Both attempts have worked to a degree. About Patti's on-air stint in a Costan Rican jungle Huffington Post noted:     It was image changing, too, for Blagojevich, who came off as a down-to-earth, well-liked mom. Before the show, Blagojevich was mostly known for being a foul-mouthed political spouse caught on federal wiretaps prosecutors had made of her husband. Rod even managed to win over Donald Trump. When Trump fired Rod in episode four because he didn't know how to use modern communication methods (texting, e-mail) to communicate with his team, the Chicago Sun-Times reported:     Donald Trump was hesitant to fire Blagojevich, saying he thought the impeached ex-governor was afraid to offend potential jurors while competing.     "I think Rod is being overly nice because he has some pretty big things to do when we're finished with this," Trump said. "I think he's in a very tough position. I think you're a guy with great courage." Oh, please. As governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich was anything but courageous, taking inordinate pleasure in picking on people way smaller than himself. On the life issue in particular, Blagojevich was a bully for death. In 2005, the issue of state public funding for embryonic stem-cell research was big. California had just passed Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in taxpayer funding for ESCR (estimated final cost per the California Legislative Analyst: $6 billion). In Illinois, the Democrat-controlled legislature had twice failed to pass similar legislation. But Blagojevich surprised all by taking matters into his own hands and signing an executive order, making Illinois the first and only state to date to authorize controversial ESCR public funding without legislative or public involvement. To do this, Blagojevich hid $10 million in a budget line item "for grants and related expenses of hospitals and universities for scientific research." Blagojevich's treachery angered everyone, even the mainstream media, which went on to skewer him in editorials, for instance The Daily Illini:     [I]t takes some narcissism to make a call like this. ...     Blagojevich has made a bold decision. But it does not appear that he considered the voice of anyone other than himself in this case. He was elected to make decisions on the behalf of the citizens of Illinois, but he appears to be making decisions based solely upon his beliefs. There is no excuse for circumventing the legislature and deviously allocating money from the budget to further his personal agenda. …     Regardless of what the executive order brings in the future, Blagojevich's dereliction should not be forgiven or forgotten. No worries there. To rationalize his actions, Blagojevich famously quipped at the time, "Anytime you do what is morally right … however you get there is immaterial." No clearer statement could be made that the ends justify the means. Also in 2005, Blagojevich filed an "emergency rule," making Illinois the first state to force pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptives "without delay" even if in violation of their consciences. Emergency contraceptives may cause abortions. Standing with Blagojevich when he made his announcement were NARAL President Nancy Keenan and then-Planned Parenthood President Karen Pearl. On Lou Dobb's CNN program, Blagojevich compared the moral quandary of prescribing chemical death to preborns to a vegan selling hamburger:     To suggest that somehow pharmacists should be treated differently would be to suggest, for example, that when you go to your supermarket and the clerk is checking out your food, and that clerk may be a vegetarian, that when you check through the counter to pay your bill, he's checking the asparagus and the potatoes and the pasta, but when he gets to the ground sirloin, says: I'm sorry, I have a moral objection to meat; I'm not going to sell you the hamburger.     The fact is, if he can't do his job, don't work there. And when it comes to these pharmacists who are making political statements, they can choose to fill their prescription and do their job, or they can work at a pharmacy that doesn't stock birth control. Yet I'm willing to bet Blagojevich wouldn't call Muslim refusal to eating pork a "political statement." After Blagojevich made his "emergency rule," Walgreens immediately fired four pharmacists who refused to prescribe the morning-after pill, and three other pharmacies immediately filed a lawsuit. Five years later, that lawsuit is ongoing, and Blagojevich is still named as a party. Currently, the state has a preliminary injunction ordered to keep it from forcing the plaintiffs to dispense emergency contraceptives. Blagojevich may have been involved in other hanky-panky. In May 2007, Planned Parenthood Chicago Area requested and received a bond rating as a nonprofit organization from the Illinois Finance Authority that allowed it to borrow at a cheaper rate to build its Aurora abortion mill. I smell a rat. Who knows what collateral damage will be meted in Blagojevich's corruption trial. But even if justice isn't served for Blagojevich's crimes against preborns now, it will be served eventually. And at least he has been stopped. Meanwhile, don't expend one ounce of sympathy for the guy. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: June 9, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Primary Victories Confirm Resurgence of Authentic, Pro-Life Feminism

Dannenfelser: "Tuesday's election results are the greatest affirmation of our mission in the history of the organization."           Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called Tuesday's victories for pro-life women candidates "the greatest affirmation of our mission in the history of the organization," and "proof that Americans are responding to authentic, pro-life feminism." "We applaud Americans in California, New Jersey, Nevada, South Carolina and South Dakota for taking steps to support authentic, pro-life feminism with their votes," said Dannenfelser.  "Now more than ever, we need pro-woman, pro-life leadership.  These women will usher in the year of the pro-life woman and win back critical pro-life margins in the House and Senate." "California is now a top priority race for the SBA List and a battleground that sets the tone for the rest of the country. With a pro-life leader like Carly Fiorina facing the ultimate pro-abortion advocate, Barbara Boxer, the stakes couldn't be higher." "In Nevada we experienced an embarrassment of riches, with two pro-life women running for the Senate Republican primary and taking over 66 percent of the vote combined," said Dannenfelser.  "With her victory, Sharron Angle is poised to unseat Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate and the key proponent for Obama's health care plan that included taxpayer funding of abortion." California, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina and South Dakota all saw major victories for pro-life women.  In California, Carly Fiorina defeated Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore with 56% of the vote and Star Parker of CA-37 continues on to the General Election after an uncontested primary.  Sharron Angle won the Nevada Senate Republican Primary with 40% of the vote.  While, in New Jersey's 6th Congressional District, Anna Little leads with less than 100 votes in a race that has not yet been called.  Nikki Haley won 48.9% of the vote in the South Carolina Gubernatorial Primary, qualifying her for the run-off and, in South Dakota, Kristi Noem received 42% of the vote in South Dakota's At-Large Republican Primary.  "Tuesday's successes show the clear electoral power of authentic, pro-life feminism," Dannenfelser said of the key pro-life victories. "These are the first of many victories to come." The Susan B. Anthony List plans to spend $6 million on voter education in the midterm elections, including $3 million on key Senate races.  The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of over 280,000 Americans, residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics.  Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.   Contact: Kerry Brown Source: Susan B. Anthony List Publish Date: Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

New Adult Stem-Cell Treatments for Head and Heart Advance

The University of California in Irvine New reports indicate that real hope for 'miracle' treatments using adult stem cells is on the way for those suffering from diseases afflicting both the brain and the heart. In California, researchers at the University of California in Irvine say they have discovered the method and mechanisms by which adult stem-cells can repair and replace damaged tissue in the brain. The discovery could lead to treatments for individuals with multiple sclerosis and other brain inflammation diseases. "Previously, we've seen that adult neural stem cells injected into the spinal column knew, amazingly, exactly where to go," said Tom Lane, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry, and co-author with Kevin Carbajal of the new study. "We wanted to find what directed them to the right injury spots." Lane and Carbajal's team experimented with mice whose central nervous systems were damaged by viruses in a way that imitated the effects of MS. The virus destroys myelin, a protective tissue that covers the nerves, resulting in chronic pain and loss of motor function. They injected adult neural stem cells into the mice and observed that the inflamed cells activated receptors on the adult stem cells called CXCR-4 receptors. These receptors then gathered "chemokine proteins" (CXCL-12), which guided the adult stem cells to the damaged cells in need of repair. As the adult stem cells made their journey through the brain, they transformed into precursor cells for oligodendrocytes, a key building block for myelin, that can both repair or replace the damaged tissues. Once latched onto the affected sites, the stem cells continued to differentiate, and after three weeks 90% of the cells had transformed into mature oligodendrocytes. Lane stressed that not only did the work reaffirm the power of adult neural stem cells to improve the brain's motor function, but also provided a crucial stem cell roadmap for researchers looking to develop therapies for those suffering with MS. "In this study, we've taken an important step by showing the navigational cues in an inflammatory environment like MS that guide stem cells," explained Lane. "Hopefully, these cues can be incorporated into stem cell-based treatments to enhance their ability to repair injury." While advances have been made in treating the diseases of the head, a young girl is undergoing an experimental adult stem cell treatment that, if successful, would finally allow her to overcome a rare disease of the heart called Eisenmenger syndrome. The News Tribune reports that Washington State resident Mailia Goforth, 16, has suffered from the disease since birth. The condition is caused by a structural defect in the heart, where blood flows through a hole in the heart wall. Additionally she suffers from secondary pulmonary hypertension because too much blood flows to her lungs; the blood vessels then constrict, putting even more strain on the heart. In Mailia's case, doctors identified her condition too late for normal surgical repair or even the more drastic measure of a double lung and heart replacement. The teenager, however, is being treated in the Dominican Republic with stem cells derived from her own blood, which are injected into her lungs via a small catheter. If successful, the therapy – developed by Dr. Zannos Grekos, MD – would significantly reduce the pressure on Mailia's heart, and enable her to breathe freely. It would also theoretically allow surgeons to repair her heart. The treatment has so far cost Mailia's parents $64,000. Forty-seven thousand of that amount was raised by the parents, with the rest being covered by a private charity. The family, however, expects that Mailia will need a second round of stem cell treatments in addition to the surgeries, which Grekos speculated to the Tribune could enable her to play sports one day. The Tribune reports that the family has just $33 left, but they have set up a website MailiasMiracle.com http://mailiasmiracle.com/, which lets people know Mailia's story and how they can help. Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: June 9, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

Princeton Philosopher: ‘Why Not Sterilize the Human Race and Party into Extinction?’

Princeton philosopher Peter Singer Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the world's foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea? In a blog post for the New York Times entitled "Should this be the last generation?" Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the "author of a fine book with an arresting title: 'Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.'" "To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her," explains Singer. Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood. A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book. Singer explains Benatar's antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: "everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none." Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: "So why don't we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!" "Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn't make anyone worse off, because there won't be anyone else to be worse off," he continued. Singer distances himself from Benatar's conclusions, however, and says, "I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe." Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, "Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?" Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer's work, responded to Singer's recent article, saying, "This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West's self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean. "Only the resulting mess isn't measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives." "Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to 'secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,' to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all," Smith wrote on his blog. "This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism." Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: June 8, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.