Kenyans head to the polls Wednesday to vote in a referendum that will determine the East African nation's future: whether it will accept a constitution that will open the door to expanding legal abortion, or reject it and draft a new constitution that conforms more to the nation's pro-life values.
Despite an aggressive grassroots campaign by an ecumenical grand alliance of the nation's Christian churches, polls show that Kenyans will likely vote to approve the draft constitution on Wednesday.
Bloomberg news reports that a poll released by TNS Research International suggests Kenyans will vote 68 percent to 25 percent to approve the new constitution. The pollster interviewed 1600 individuals selected at random from Kenya's eight provinces between July 23-25; the poll has a margin of error of 2.45 percent.
Strategic Research, another polling firm, found that 66 percent of Kenyans would vote "yes" in the referendum, while 20 percent would vote "no." The group, which polled 2400 Kenyans selected at random between July 26-28, said their findings showed those pushing for a "yes" vote have a majority in every one of Kenya's provinces.
Nevertheless, Kenya's Christian leaders have been waging a hard-fought underdog campaign, having been outspent by their own as well as the U.S. government, and largely snubbed by Kenyan media.
But Marie Smith, Director of the U.S. Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, which has been following the Kenyan churches' campaign efforts, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the outcome of the referendum is not a done deal, as it has been represented in Kenya's press.
"It's not over til it's over, and we won't know when it's over for a couple days," said Smith, explaining that the Kenyan government will have to hand-count many ballots as well as process electronic ballots in some areas.
"The press has totally shut out the 'no' campaign," said Smith, a fact that she said has made it difficult to get a trustworthy picture about where exactly Kenyans stand on the constitution.
While Kenyan news sources made a big deal over the conservative American Center for Law and Justice offering $10,000 to the "no" effort in Kenya, they have paid far less attention to the Obama administration's $23 million dollar "education effort" in Kenya through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
This effort, which includes pay-offs to advocacy groups in Kenya lobbying for the constitution's approval, has prompted a sharp rebuke from several U.S. Congressmen, who have called into question the legality of the Obama Administration's involvement in the Kenya referendum. The congressmen have cited a U.S. statute, the Siljander Amendment, that forbids USAID funding efforts overseas that lobby for or against abortion.
Article 26 of the proposed constitution would broadly permit abortion if the "health of the mother is in danger," "or if permitted by any other written law."
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said on Friday the U.S. ought to have a "narrow role" in the August 4 referendum, to help guarantee a fair, free, and non-violent process. Instead, he said, the Obama Administration has committed the U.S. to "take sides by supporting, facilitating and funding projects designed to identify and motivate votes."
"And because the proposed constitution significantly alters existing abortion law in Kenya, expending U.S. taxpayer funds used in support of the 'Yes' campaign is also illegal," affirmed Smith.
"This Administration appears to have disregarded current law and is instead advocating for the ratification of a proposed constitution in Kenya that will expand access to abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.).
But whatever the outcome of the referendum, the "No" effort has done much to develop an unprecedented level of cooperation among Christian churches in Kenya, forging a new bond in defense of life.
Church leaders from different churches gathered last Friday at the Holy Family Basilica in Nairobi for an event hosted by John Cardinal Njue, the Catholic primate of Kenya. The various churches signed a document signifying their unified opposition to the draft constitution, as well as their intention to trust in Divine Providence, and to pray for a peaceful resolution, no matter which way the constitution is decided.
"We the Christian shepherds in Kenya reiterate our advice to all Kenyans to reject this proposed constitution in its entirety," said the document, signed by 30 churches. "It is true that there are many positive improvements in the proposed draft, but the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways. The proposed constitution does not safeguard the sacredness of human life, the sound and moral education of our children and religious equality."
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: August 3, 2010
The above headline is straight from Malcolm Ritter and the Associated Press, a story out today that highlights some of the real successes and promise of adult stem cells, as opposed to the wishful thinking and hype of embryonic stem cells [see www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/02/health/AP-US-MED-Stem-Cells.html?_r=1].
The lead story is Dr. Thomas Einhorn at Boston University Medical Center, injecting a patient's bone marrow into a broken ankle that wouldn't heal; four months later the ankle was healed.
Einhorn, chairman of orthopedic surgery at Boston University Medical Center, credits "adult" stem cells in the marrow injection. He tried it because of published research from France.
As the AP piece notes, it's an example of many innovative therapies doctors are studying with adult stem cells; stem cells taken from body tissue and umbilical cord blood, not embryos. As the AP story notes:
For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today.
An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.
A few of the examples highlighted include multiple sclerosis, heart damage, juvenile diabetes, and blindness from chemical burns.
Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.
Many of the treatments, including new ones being tested in clinical trials now, rely on the idea that stem cells can form other cell types. That seems to be the case for Einhorn's ankle-repair technique, with the adult stem cells forming new bone and blood vessels. But adult stem cells also seem to have abilities to stimulate tissue repair or suppress the immune system. According to Dr. Rocky Tuan of the University of Pittsburgh:
"That gives adult stem cells really a very interesting and potent quality that embryonic stem cells don't have."
To learn more and see some examples of adult stem cell success stories, watch the three videos at Stem Cell Research Facts (see http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org).
Contact: By David Prentice Source: National Right to Life Date Published: August 2, 2010
The Obama Administration, caught in a spotlight of publicity generated by mid-July releases from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), today issued a formal regulation that will prevent federal funding of elective abortions in just one of the new programs created by the health care bill signed into law by President Obama on March 23.
At issue is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), also known as the "high-risk pool" program, which is one of many programs created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The high-risk pool program is completely federally funded ($5 billion), and may cover up to 400,000 people when fully implemented.
"Without blinking, the Obama Administration had approved high-risk pool plans submitted by at least three states that would have funded virtually all abortions – until NRLC raised the alarms starting on July 13," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "In the regulation issued today, the Administration tells states that elective abortions may not be covered in the high-risk pool program – but simultaneously, the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that this decision 'is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program . . .'"
"This entire episode demonstrates what National Right to Life said in March – there is no language in the new health care law, and no language in Obama's politically contrived March 24 executive order, that effectively prevents federal subsidies for abortion on demand," Johnson said. "This means that unless Congress repeals the health care law or performs major corrective surgery on it, there will be years of battles, as each new program is implemented, over how elective abortion will be covered – and the White House is suggesting that today's policy will not necessarily be applied when implementing the other programs, some of which will cover far larger populations."
"Lawmakers who voted for the gravely flawed bill must be held accountable, because we warned them that it left numerous doors open for federal subsidies for abortion," Johnson said.
On July 23, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report confirming that neither the PPACA (the health care law signed by Obama), nor the March 24 executive order on abortion, nor the longstanding Hyde Amendment, prevent the use of funds in the new high-risk pool program from being used to cover all abortions, but added that the law does give the Secretary of HHS authority to impose "any other requirements determined appropriate by the Secretary" with respect to the high-risk pool program. Click here to view the CRS report.
In a July 22 report, www.FactCheck.org found that NRLC's initial July 13 warning, which focused initially on abortion coverage in the HHS-approved plan submitted by Pennsylvania, was well founded. "It would be easy to miss the fact that Pennsylvania's official solicitation called for coverage of all state-legal abortions," FactCheck.org observed. The FactCheck.org report is posted here: www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/
On July 14, the Associated Press confirmed an NRLC report that New Mexico was enrolling people in the new program with a prospectus that explicitly covered "elective abortions." On July 16, NRLC confirmed that Maryland was also signing up enrollees based on a document that pointed to abortion coverage.
Some pro-abortion advocacy groups, and some members of Congress have suggested that the Administration should allow the new high-risk pool program to pay for abortions with "private funds." NRLC's Johnson commented, "It is a political scam to suggest that a federal program can pay for abortions, or anything else, with 'private funds.' When a federal program pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion. To claim otherwise would be particularly absurd with respect to the high-risk pool program, since 'the program is entirely funded by the federal government,' as Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the White House Office of Health Reform, noted in her statement posted on the White House blog today. Any funds collected from enrollees become federal funds once the government has them, and when they are spent, that is federal spending."
150-plus Bipartisan House Members Co-Sponsor 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'
A sweeping bill to permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion in every federal program was introduced today by Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL).
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion funding. The bipartisan bill has over 150 original cosponsors and will reduce the need for numerous separate policies to prevent government funding for abortion.
"For decades, a patchwork of short-term policies have prevented abortion funding in many programs authorized by Congress, but it is time for a single, government-wide permanent protection against taxpayer funding for elective abortion," Smith said. "Abortion is lethal violence against children and exploitation of women. This legislation would establish a comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for elective abortion in all federal programs."
Lipinski said recent the health care legislation showed the existing laws to prevent taxpayer-funded abortion are too weak.
"The health care bill made it clear that the current way we prevent taxpayer funding of abortion through annual riders is dangerously fragile," Lipinski said.
"To guarantee that taxpayers are never forced to pay for abortions and the innocent unborn are protected, we must make the longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion permanent and government-wide. Protecting the sanctity of life, and preserving the individual's freedom not to be complicit in any way in abortion, is a matter of principle for me and tens of millions of Americans."
Most of the existing funding policies are limitation amendments attached to annual appropriations bills (sometimes referred to as riders), which have to be reapproved every year. This "ad hoc" approach usually results in several distinct bans on abortion winning approval each year.
This new legislation will make permanent the policies that currently rely on regular re-approval, including amendments like the well known Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act. It also would make permanent other existing laws, such as: the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas; the Smith FEHBP amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees; the Dornan amendment, which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia, and; other policies such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Peace Corps and Federal prisons.
"The comprehensive approach eliminates the need for the numerous funding protections and limitations approved every year and ensures that no program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard," Smith said. "According to every reputable poll, large majorities of Americans want no complicity whatsoever in paying for abortion."
The bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause that is part of the Hyde amendment. The conscience clause ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against health care providers, including doctors, nurses and hospitals, because the providers do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
"The conscience clause is a critical part of the law which protects health care providers who do not want to take part in the abortion business." Smith said. "Without it, people could be forced to participate in something they strongly believe to be morally wrong. Without it, faith-based hospitals could lose funding."
Activists will pray on the public sidewalk Saturday, August 14 as part of an event called "A Time to Stand" even if it means arrest and going to jail. atimetostand.org
This event follows the recent arrest of a man in Chicago for praying in front of an abortion clinic there.
For years the pro-life community was allowed to pray, counsel and hold demonstrations on that sidewalk and surrounding area in front of the Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood (see photo).
Now law enforcement officials are threatening to arrest people for simply praying on the public sidewalk and on June 8, Rev. Patrick Mahoney (pictured above) was arrested for praying and reading the Bible.
Although Planned Parenthood says the land is now "private" they have not produced one piece of evidence, documentation or notice showing the sidewalk is no longer public.
The American Center for Law and Justice, who is representing Rev. Mahoney, met with D.C. City officials who confirmed the sidewalk still remains public.
The pro-life community wants to make it clear they will not be bullied or intimidated into surrendering their First Amendment rights even if that means going to jail for prayer and peaceful witness.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the , states,
"On August 14, we are going to embrace free speech, the First Amendment and religious liberty and pray on the public sidewalk leading up to Planned Parenthood. We will not be bullied or intimidated into silence.
"It is tragic that peaceful Americans are being threatened with arrest and actually being arrested for simply praying on a public sidewalk and offering women help who are facing a crisis pregnancy.
"It is unconscionable that the City of Washington, D.C. would ban and prohibit prayer and the First Amendment on a public sidewalk while protecting abortion and Planned Parenthood.
"With the recent arrest of a man praying in front of an abortion clinic in Chicago, the question must be asked, is this future of free speech and abortion under the Obama Administration?"
Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney Source: Christian Defense Coalition Date Published: August 3, 2010
Over 200 physicians who have served U.S. soldiers have signed a letter to U.S. senators protesting a Senate bill amendment that would use U.S. military medical facilities as abortion clinics. The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association organized the letter and today sent it to the senators urging them to vote no on a National Defense Authorization Act amendment by Sen. Roland Burris that would remove restrictions on performing abortions in military facilities.
CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, who received the Gorgas Award for distinguished service in the American military, said, "If enacted, requiring military physicians to perform abortions threatens military readiness. Morale will suffer among those already serving. Morale is a key component of military effectiveness. Furthermore, just as we have seen a marked decrease in young doctors entering OB/Gyn training for fear of being forced to do abortions, this requirement will discourage young doctors from joining the military."
"In addition to facilitating further destruction of unborn life, the provision will place military physicians with life-honoring convictions in the unenviable position of either disobeying orders, abandoning their conscience, or seeking objector status."
Current law in effect since 1996 prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense (DoD) medical personnel or in DoD medical facilities (except when the life of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest). A separate provision prohibits the use of DoD funds for abortion except to save the life of the mother. In 2006, the House rejected by a vote of 191-237 an amendment similar to the Burris amendment. The Burris amendment, which would allow abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases, is even more expansive than the rejected 2006 amendment. The letter from military physicians urges senators to "vote NO on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (DoD) (S.3280) because it contains Sen. Roland Burris' amendment to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the US Code."
CMA Director of Global Health Outreach Col. Donald Thompson, MD, who recently retired from the Air Force, said, "This provision would put conscientious military medics on the losing side of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in key areas crucial to good order and discipline in the military. Chain of command, avoidance of fraternization and carrying out lawful orders are key to an effective combat force, yet this provision would require military physicians, nurses and support staff to leave their ethical convictions at the door when they join the military. When a senior officer in the chain of command 'thinks that this should be done,' then that is the same as a direct order to the subordinate. Favors and perks go to those who 'feel' the same as the boss.
"Our military exists to fight our nation's wars, not to be a ideological playground. If this provision stays in the NDAA, it will drive out of the military those who are most likely to serve their nation by going in harm's way."
A pro-life family ministry believes patience and prayer have worked to dramatically reduce abortions at a once-thriving abortion clinic in Granite City, Illinois.
The facility once averaged terminating just over 13,000 pregnancies per year, but that has been reduced to a little more than 4,000 annual abortions. Angela Michael, spokesperson for Small Victories Ministries, explains that the organization began its daily prayer vigil 18 years ago. Since that time, they have witnessed business at the Hope Clinic for Women continue to plunge.
Angela Michael (Small Victories Ministries)"This abortion mill is known for late-term abortion, and...also, no parental consent is necessary," Michael reports. "So we see, unfortunately, young, little girls being brought across state lines. A lot of these girls are victims of rape and incest, and no one is reporting this abuse."
The ministry was recently instrumental in providing evidence against an Arkansas man who brought a 13-year-old girl to the clinic to destroy the evidence through abortion. Because fewer babies are being killed, the clinic's number of abortionists has dropped from four to two, and it has been unsuccessful in finding a new doctor throughout its seven-year search.
"We know it's not us. I know God uses us and he works through us, but it's the Lord, and the Lord is dealing with this abortion mill," Michael regards.
During the 18 years of vigilance, the pro-life spokesperson has observed a dramatic reduction in abortions and has noticed faith conversions take place in some of the mothers. Also, a number of adoptions have been arranged. She feels the ministry's success should serve as motivation to others on the front lines in the pro-life movement.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 3, 2010
A journalist for the New York Times recently reported that billionaire Warren Buffett is taking steps to make sure that medical schools are producing more abortionists so that the practice will ultimately be integrated as a "seamless part of healthcare for women -- embraced rather than shunned."
Most doctors do not want to be abortionists, not only because it is a dirty business, but also because their professional purpose is to preserve the quality of life -- not death.
"These procedures are out of the mainstream of medicine," notes Dr. Donald Thompson, director of global health outreach for the Christian Medical Association (CMA). "There are no standards of care. It's a shame, but a veterinarian's office has more oversight than an abortion clinic."
Buffett is trying to work with his money behind the scenes to stop the decrease in doctors who are willing to do abortions while also attempting to bring abortion into mainstream medicine.
Dr. Donald Thompson (CMA)Central to his strategy are two training programs: Family Planning Fellowship, a two-year post-residency program designed to further equip doctors for providing abortions and contraception, and the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, which supplies medical schools with funds to train OB-GYN residents in providing abortions.
But Thompson does not think Buffett will ever reach his goal.
"I don't feel abortion will ever become an accepted part of standard medical care," he suggests. "It's well-known and available because of a lot of money and a lot of political pressure that's coming from those who have an extremist social agenda."
As for whether or not Buffett's money will make a significant difference, the CMA global health outreach director believes the billionaire would have "to dangle a huge financial carrot because of the stench that many people associate with abortions."
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 3, 2010
While the White House continues to claim that a ban on abortion funding was always understood to apply to the whole federal health care law, abortion leaders, who once hailed the health care bill as a "huge victory," are still expressing shock at the Obama administration's last-minute ban of elective abortion funding in federally-funded high risk insurance pools.
The thoughts of various abortion lobby leaders were collected in a Politico piece Friday detailing the pro-abortion confusion that followed a statement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which said that abortion would not be covered in the high risk pools established by the new federal health care legislation. The statement, prompted by a National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) investigation that revealed that Pennsylvania's proposed plan was set to federally fund elective abortions, was confirmed in new regulations issued by the HHS Friday.
While Politico's Sarah Kliff called the incident "a reminder [to abortion groups] of the health reform battle they lost," the groups' reaction to the health care bill's passage, and their current outrage, suggest that the abortion lobby never believed the health care battle was lost in the first place. After the bill was signed in March, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, called the bill "a huge victory," noting it "will significantly increase insurance coverage of reproductive health care, including family planning." Richards also dismissed Obama's Executive Order, which purported to extend Hyde-amendment restrictions to the health care bill, as a mere "symbolic gesture."
And while the HHS statement itself suggested the ban was merely reiterating current law, both Factcheck.org and the Congressional Research Service concluded that no such abortion funding ban existed for the high-risk pools prior to the HHS statement.
For pro-aborts who had claimed victory in the battle over health care – a battle during which Planned Parenthood had boasted frequent and close contact with the White House - the HHS statement was a clear instance of backpedaling.
"This is not the outcome we expected," Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood vice president for public policy, told Politico. "We now know we need to be vigilant to make sure there aren't other areas of the law where there is silence. There is a whole host of areas that we're going to be watching like a hawk."
Despite the patchwork approach to banning abortion funding, the White House continues to portray the outcome of the fiasco as simply maintaining the status quo - a line used in debate prior to the bill's passage to justify the bill's weak abortion-funding language.
Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform, claimed in a blog post Thursday that "in reality, no new ground has been broken." "This policy meets the president's commitment throughout the health reform debate to neither expand nor scale back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion and ensures that no federal funds will be used to cover abortion services other than the exceptions mentioned above," wrote DeParle.
A White House official also told Politico that "the president is committed to neither expanding nor scaling back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion."
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said that the Obama administration has been caught trying to have it both ways: courting the pro-abortion lobby, while attempting to appease widespread opposition to public funding of abortion.
"The Obama administration is trying to play both sides. It tried to sneak funding for abortion in one program. Then, when caught, they announced a 'ban,' but at the same time declared the ban as 'temporary' and 'not a precedent' for what it will do in other programs," said Wright in a statement Friday. "This leads to one obvious conclusion: temporary fixes don't work. Congress needs to pass a permanent ban on abortion funding."
Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), two top pro-life leaders on Capitol Hill, introduced legislation Friday that aims to close the loopholes once and for all with a permanent Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding that would pertain to all U.S. law.
"In announcing the temporary ban, the White House affirmed that the 'President is committed to neither expanding nor scaling back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion.' This new bill fits that promise, as it will uphold current laws, making permanent what has been for too long temporary," said Wright.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 30, 2010
There's a move afoot in Congress to ban use of federal money for abortions.
Susan Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee explains that her organization disclosed on July 13 that at least three states -- Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland -- were posed to use federal funds for abortions under healthcare reform.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that neither the healthcare law signed by President Obama, nor the president's executive order, nor the Hyde Amendment would prevent the use of funds in the new federal high-risk pool program from being used to cover all abortions," says the activist.
ObamaCare 3Muskett believes those in Congress who voted for healthcare reform need to be held accountable -- and that, she says, is up to voters. The new law, she argues, should be revoked or given major corrective surgery.
"[Voters] need to find out their congressman's position on this. Are they going to now work to remedy this?" she asks. "And those who voted for this law have to be held accountable because we warned them about this repeatedly during the enactment of the law."
Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey), a longtime defender of the unborn, has introduced a bill that would bar use of federal tax dollars for abortion.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 2, 2010
The leader of a public interest law group has filed a complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court at the behest of pro-life organization Declaration Alliance, asking that the high court disbar Elena Kagan for falsifying testimony regarding the Clinton-era partial-birth abortion ban attempt.
The complaint was submitted by Larry Klayman, the founder of corruption watchdog Judicial Watch, who also called for Kagan's actions to be investigated by the Justice Department.
Kagan has admitted that while serving as an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, she altered the wording of original testimony submitted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) regarding the necessity of partial-birth abortion.
In that document, the ACOG had originally reported that it found that partial birth abortion was not medically necessary to save the life of a woman; however, in the final version submitted by ACOG, Kagan had inserted language to say the procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." This altered report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.
Americans United for Life has also pointed to further documentation suggesting that Kagan also sought to manipulate similar testimony from the American Medical Association.
"Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court," stated Klayman upon filing the complaint. "As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?
"The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law."
From a July 30 Washington Times piece by Rita Diller of American Life League:
Where's the money? That's the question on everyone's mind after reading the recently released Government Accountability Office report. The GAO numbers on money paid out to Planned Parenthood between 2002 and 2008 reveal an unaccounted-for $1.3B.
No answers have been forthcoming. In typical Planned Parenthood style, the abortion giant has done nothing to shed light on the question. In fact, it has done just the opposite....
After weeks of investigation by ALL's Stop Planned Parenthood project, it appears the reason the GAO was not able to account for the expenditure of the great majority of the government money received is that PP will not produce its internal audits for the GAO to analyze.
Because of this, the GAO had to rely on reports filed by PP affiliates under the Single Audit Act, and those reports grossly underreport the amount of government money expended by PP.
The American taxpayers are left with more questions now than before:
- Why didn't Planned Parenthood hand over its internal audits to the GAO as it did in 2001 in the face of a similar inquiry into its spending?
- Why is the organization allowed to disregard the request of 31 U.S. senators and representatives to account for its expenditure of government funds? What is Planned Parenthood hiding?
- Why do we continue to fund PP to the tune of $349M annually and not hold it accountable for how it spends that money?
- Most important, why is an organization that kills more than 300k innocent unborn children each year sanctioned and funded by our government?...
... PP's national office used to publish 2 annual documents that gave elected officials and the general public an understanding of its operations. After all, because taxpayers provide at least one-third of Planned Parenthood's income, it is only right that we should at least know how the money is being used.
The first of those documents was PP's annual service report. It gave the reader a real inside look at PP's operation. Although that report has very valuable data and is still used within the organization today, the last time it was released to the public was 1992.
Planned Parenthood likes to portray itself as a trusted health care provider with a loyal following of clients. Yet that 1992 service report revealed that PP lost 43% of its customers in 1991. A look at other reports reveals it lost 41.9% of its customers in 1990 and 42.2% in 1989. This is not the picture of an organization with a loyal client base.
That 1992 report also told us that 42.7% of abortions at Planned Parenthood in 1991 were committed on minority women. This was despite the fact that minority women accounted for just 26% of the group's regular customers. In addition, previous service reports showed minorities accounted for 44.5% (1990), 40.7%(1989), 40.5% (1988), and 44.5% (1987) of abortions. In other words, Planned Parenthood's own data show that it targets minorities for abortion.
When these facts about client loyalty and the targeting of minorities for abortions were highlighted by pro-life groups, PP stopped making the service reports public.
Fast-forward to 2010. For the past several years, those opposed to Planned Parenthood have been making public the facts and figures from PP's annual reports. These facts have shown the ever-increasing number of abortions performed: 244,628 (2003), 255,015 (2004), 264,943 (2005), 289,750 (2006) and 305,310 (2007), and the huge increase in taxpayer funds going to the organization (from $265.2M in 2004 to $349.6M in 2008).
In the midst of all the controversy over the GAO report... it appears that PP... has decided simply to stop issuing its annual report.
We don't know how many abortions Planned Parenthood facilities performed in 2008 or 2009 because it is not releasing the numbers. We don't know the extent of government funding during its 2008-09 or 2009-10 fiscal years because it is not releasing the numbers.
If PP - a tax-exempt organization bankrolled to a staggering extent by the government - won't hand over its internal audits or let the public know the details of its operations, our government should stop handing over the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to the organization....
Contact: Jill Stanek Source: JillStanek.com Date Published: August 2, 2010
Following Friday's news that a U.S. company has been given the go ahead to experiment with embryonic stem cells on human patients, a former head of the Pontifical Academy for Life told Vatican Radio that the trials are unacceptable. He said that regardless of whether the result of testing is positive or negative, "morally it remains a crime."
Biopharmaceutical developer Geron, which has its headquarters in California, announced last Friday that it was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin testing injections of an embryonic stem cell derivative in treatments for severe spinal-cord injuries.
Geron celebrated the FDA's approval which, they said, gives them the ability to legally "move forward with the world's first clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-based therapy in man."
The clearance had been blocked since last January after preliminary trials on animals resulted in the growth of small cysts in treated regions. Further testing led to the FDA's recent approval.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, who led the Pontifical Academy for Life for more than three years, told Vatican Radio in an interview released on Saturday that the use of human embryos in treatments should be rejected, "not only from the Catholic moral code but by whoever respects the human individual."
Bishop Sgreccia noted that researchers carry out their experiments under the assertion that embryos remain only "a human being in the making." But considering that embryos are "sacrificed" for the treatments, he said, "from an ethical point of view (it) can only receive a negative judgment."
Looking at the results of embyronic stem cell testing, he said, it can be seen that, to date, the expected results have not been obtained. This, said Bishop Sgreccia, is due to the fact that embryonic stem cells are meant for the creation of a human being, not just other cells.
"In any case," he added, "in the remote possibility that there was a positive result, morally it remains a crime."
Source: CNA/EWTN News Date Published: August 2, 2010
Personhood ColoradoThe campaign for passage of the Colorado Personhood Amendment has been launched.
The battle for Amendment 62, which would define life as beginning at conception, will begin with radio ads and will eventually include television. But spokesperson Leslie Hanks reports that an all-star lineup is backing the proposal, including former U.N. ambassador and presidential candidate Dr. Alan Keyes, local pastor and former CEO of Promise Keepers Bishop Phillip Porter, California's personhood co-sponsor Pastor Walter Hoye, and Live Action's Lila Rose.
human embryo babyHanks understands the fight for passage will be a tough one.
"We're David against Goliath. We are fighting the abortion industry right here in Colorado where the whole thing started," the pro-lifer notes. "We were about the first state to liberalize the abortion laws in America, and we feel like whatever started here needs to end here."
About 130,000 Colorado voters signed pro-life petitions, making the state the only one to have a Personhood Amendment on the November ballot this year. Hanks concludes that success in passing the measure this year will depend on a strong grassroots effort.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: July 31, 2010
Yesterday Congressman Christopher H. Smith, who represents the 4th District of New Jersey, officially filed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (the Act). According to Congressman Smith, the policies codified in the Act ensure that the "American taxpayer is not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand."
If the Act becomes law it will protect life because it 1) establishes a government-wide statutory prohibition of taxpayer-funded abortion; 2) reduces the need for separate abortion funding policies; and 3) ensures that no federal program or federal agency is exempt. The Act is drafted so that abortion funding polices will no longer be debated on an "as-needed" basis. Instead the Act establishes as permanent the policies that prevent the destruction of innocent human life. Policies that currently rely on re-approval by Congress, just to name a few, are the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, and the Helms Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas.
Another important provision in the Act is the conscience clause, which codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause contained within the Hyde Amendment. The conscience clause ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against healthcare providers because they do not provide, fund, or refer for abortion. Healthcare providers protected by the conscience clause include doctors, nurses and hospitals.
"We congratulate Congressman Smith for authoring a commonsense measure that protects the unborn," states Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "Should this Act become law, Congressman Smith and those who cosponsored the bill will have taken one step toward restoring respect for human life in America."
White House admits its fix is temporary, provides reason to pass "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"
The White House announced a temporary regulation to fix loopholes discovered in ObamaCare that would allow federal funding for elective abortions. However, White House official Nancy-Ann DeParle emphasized that the ban, which applies to a program which itself is temporary, "is not a precedent for other programs or policies."
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "The Obama administration is trying to play both sides. It tried to sneak funding for abortion in one program. Then, when caught, they announced a 'ban,' but at the same time declared the ban as 'temporary' and 'not a precedent' for what it will do in other programs. This leads to one obvious conclusion: temporary fixes don't work. Congress needs to pass a permanent ban on abortion funding."
"Every year a myriad of amendments have to be reauthorized to protect taxpayers from funding abortion. This week, Representatives Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) and Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois) offered a bi-partisan solution. The 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act' solidifies existing, annual bans, including the Hyde amendment, conscience protections for health care providers, and bars taxpayer funding of abortions in other countries.
"In announcing the temporary ban, the White House affirmed that the 'President is committed to neither expanding nor scaling back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion.' This new bill fits that promise, as it will uphold current laws, making permanent what has been for too long temporary."
In New Rule Published Today, Obama Administration Backs Off Funding Elective Abortions in High-Risk Insurance Program -- But Vows This is "Not a Precedent" for Decisions on Future Health Programs
This Shows the Law Allows Abortion Funding
The Obama Administration, caught in a spotlight of publicity generated by mid-July releases from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), today issued a formal regulation that will prevent federal funding of elective abortions in just one of the new programs created by the health care bill signed into law by President Obama on March 23.
At issue is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), also known as the "high-risk pool" program, which is one of many programs created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The high-risk pool program is completely federally funded ($5 billion), and may cover up to 400,000 people when fully implemented.
"Without blinking, the Obama Administration had approved high-risk pool plans submitted by at least three states that would have funded virtually all abortions -- until NRLC raised the alarms starting on July 13," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "In the regulation issued today, the Administration tells states that elective abortions may not be covered in the high-risk pool program -- but simultaneously, the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that this decision 'is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program . . .'"
"This entire episode demonstrates what National Right to Life said in March -- there is no language in the new health care law, and no language in Obama's politically contrived March 24 executive order, that effectively prevents federal subsidies for abortion on demand," Johnson said. "This means that unless Congress repeals the health care law or performs major corrective surgery on it, there will be years of battles, as each new program is implemented, over how elective abortion will be covered -- and the White House is suggesting that today's policy will not necessarily be applied when implementing the other programs, some of which will cover far larger populations."
"Lawmakers who voted for the gravely flawed bill must be held accountable, because we warned them that it left numerous doors open for federal subsidies for abortion," Johnson said.
On July 23, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report confirming that neither the PPACA (the health care law signed by Obama), nor the March 24 executive order on abortion, nor the longstanding Hyde Amendment, prevent the use of funds in the new high-risk pool program from being used to cover all abortions, but added that the law does give the Secretary of HHS authority to impose "any other requirements determined appropriate by the Secretary" with respect to the high-risk pool program. The CRS report is posted here: www.nrlc.org/AHC/CRSReportAbortionandHighRiskPools.pdf
In a July 22 report, www.FactCheck.org found that NRLC's initial July 13 warning, which focused initially on abortion coverage in the HHS-approved plan submitted by Pennsylvania, was well founded. "It would be easy to miss the fact that Pennsylvania's official solicitation called for coverage of all state-legal abortions," FactCheck.org observed. The FactCheck.org report is posted here: www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/
On July 14, the Associated Press confirmed a NRLC report that New Mexico was enrolling people in the new program with a prospectus that explicitly covered "elective abortions." On July 16, NRLC confirmed that Maryland was also signing up enrollees based on a document that pointed to abortion coverage.
Some pro-abortion advocacy groups, and some members of Congress have suggested that the Administration should allow the new high-risk pool program to pay for abortions with "private funds." NRLC's Johnson commented, "It is a political scam to suggest that a federal program can pay for abortions, or anything else, with 'private funds.' When a federal program pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion. To claim otherwise would be particularly absurd with respect to the high-risk pool program, since 'the program is entirely funded by the federal government,' as Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the White House Office of Health Reform, noted in her statement posted on the White House blog today. Any funds collected from enrollees become federal funds once the government has them, and when they are spent, that is federal spending."
A United Nations (UN) treaty committee notorious for its promotion of abortion and ideological positions not supported by UN treaties, concludes its session this week. During the session the committee launched attacks on motherhood and traditional gender roles, while calling for an ever-expanded array of new sexual and reproductive "rights."
However, the session was especially notable for the statement by the Russian Federation, which reported that decreasing abortion rates were helping to decrease the overall maternal mortality rates in that country.
The committee, which monitors the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is composed of 23 "independent" experts and is reviewing eight nations during their 46th session.
Before the CEDAW committee, the Russian Federation delegation highlighted a new two-year program of the Ministry of Health that focused on the prevention of abortion and the protection of life. The delegation was pleased to report to the committee that for the first time in decades, the birth rate was now exceeding the abortion rate and that the "declining number of abortions was also decreasing women's mortality rates after birth or abortion."
Nevertheless, the committee expressed concern that the government was promoting motherhood and women being able to stay at home with their newborn children, instead of facilitating their quick return to the workforce. The Cuban expert warned of the negative sexual stereotypes that could result if women were only seen as "good mothers, good wives, and caretakers, while men were seen as the economic providers."
The Netherlands expert questioned Russia about whether current legislation covered discrimination against lesbian, bisexual or transsexual women. The Brazilian expert lamented that access to "transgender medical services" were not available in many regions of Russia, and called on the nation to ensure that "women's sexual and reproductive rights were based on scientific evidence and not on religion."
In other country reviews, Fiji was taken to task for not making marriage and reproductive technologies available to same-sex couples. The Thailand expert inquired of Fiji if the decriminalization of prostitution for adult sex workers could be proposed. Albania was asked, "What was the government doing to fight homophobia and violence against gays, lesbians, and transsexuals?"
As C-Fam's Friday Fax reported last year, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), the recent subject of unprecedented support from the Obama administration for special UN status, created a handbook for activists to promote the "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" ideologies through the CEDAW committee.
The CEDAW treaty does not mention abortion, nor do the words "gender," "orientation," "sexual," or "reproductive" appear anywhere in the text. The observations and recommendations made by treaty bodies are non-binding, as only States Parties to a treaty have the authority collectively to interpret a treaty. Abortion activists have brought litigation throughout the world citing the interpretations of UN human rights treaty bodies, like the CEDAW Committee, in challenging national laws against abortion.
The CEDAW committee concludes its three-week session on Friday.
Contact: Terrence McKeegan, J.D. Source: C-FAM Date Published: July 29. 2010
The 50th anniversary of the birth control pill—the Food and Drug Administration gave it final approval in 1960—has been the occasion of much media fanfare, societal reflection—and what we might call secular triumphalism. We, the Enlightened, knew all along that giving women control over their fertility was going to be simply marvelous. End of story. Some of us have tried to point out that the pill had some negative consequences, but few seem interested.
The reason for the disconnect is that the ideology surrounding the pill is more significant than the pill itself.
Behind the apparently benign goal of giving people more choices lies a deeper goal: re-creating society. And since this new society is neither appealing nor natural, its advocates are not so eager to call attention to it.
The New Contraceptive World Order holds these tenets: Sex is a sterile recreational activity. "Safe" sex (meaning sex with a condom) has no significant negative consequences. Marriage is not necessary for either sexual activity or childbearing. And unlimited sexual activity is an entitlement for everyone old enough to give meaningful consent.
But there is a serpent in this man-made paradise: All of these tenets are false.
It isn't true that sex is a sterile activity. Contraception fails—regularly. Even the pill only reduces the probability of pregnancy, but not all the way to zero. Uncommitted sex has plenty of negative consequences that cannot be prevented by contraception. Marriage really is the best place for both sexual activity and childbearing.
And, because we have been convinced that unlimited sexual activity is an entitlement, we have sex in relationships that cannot possibly sustain a pregnancy. When the inevitable pregnancies result, we fall back on abortion to continue clinging to our belief in the New Contraceptive World Order.
Thus, the attempt to create this new society cannot succeed.
The New Contraceptive World Order is an artificial creation of the state. It requires continual support and coddling from the state, including ever-increasing efforts to suppress dissent and enforce conformity.
Cheerleaders for this new heaven on earth insist that all doctors be trained in abortions, that all pharmacists prescribe all forms of birth control, that all employers provide contraception and abortion in their health plans. Suppressing the choices of doctors, pharmacists, insurers and employers makes no sense—unless the real goal is to create the new and unnatural society of sterile sex.
Public-interest law firms defending First Amendment rights report that student pro-life groups are subjected to more restrictions on their free-speech rights than virtually any other student groups.
Obviously, restricting free speech in the name of reproductive "freedom" is incoherent. None of this would be necessary if the only purpose of the pill were to give everyone more choices.
This fundamental incoherence is also the underlying cause of the contentiousness of the Supreme Court nomination process. Since this new world cannot sustain itself by the ordinary actions of ordinary people making voluntary decisions, it has to be sustained by the continual applications of force by those in power. This explains why the stakes for seats in the judiciary are so high.
You might think that consistent failures would compel people to reconsider their ideas about sex. But this cannot be left to chance. The propaganda surrounding the pill has been just as revolutionary as the pill itself. Griswold v. Connecticut, allowing married couples to access contraception to reduce the probability of pregnancy, was never enough for the radicals of the sexual revolution.
To bring their dream world into existence, contraception has to be actively promoted. The federal government finances contraception education in public schools. The sexual-revolution radicals become hysterical over the mere mention of abstinence education.
Even people who are normally not ideological have become convinced that it is more "realistic" to expect teenagers to use a condom every time than to persuade them to postpone sexual activity in the first place.
As for the great benefits to women supposedly created by contraception, consider this: In the New Contraceptive World Order, women have the freedom to participate in the labor market on the same terms as men with this proviso: We agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak reproductive years.
But it never was necessary for women to make the Faustian bargain. The trend toward the increasing participation of women in higher education and the labor force began around the turn of the 20th century—well before the pill, The Feminine Mystique and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
Women never needed contraception to be free, even according to the crabbed and truncated vision of freedom that claims that acting on impulse is the ultimate expression of human liberty.
The Catholic Church and other advocates of natural society have taken a beating for being hopelessly "out of step" with modern times.
Do not be deceived by this incessant rhetoric.
The New Contraceptive World Order is inhuman, irrational and, ultimately, unsustainable. It is time to insist that our government stop trying to create something that would not make us happy—even if it could be forced into being, which it cannot.
Contact: Jennifer Roback Morse Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 30, 2010
This week the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), one of the United States' most influential public interest Christian legal alliances, announced that it has officially been granted special consultative status at the United Nations.
This status will allow ADF attorneys to attend and intervene at treaty and convention drafting meetings and help craft language that affirms religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
"No person – anywhere - should be punished simply for holding to Christian beliefs. Receiving special consultative status at the U.N. is a major advancement for ADF and our global legal efforts to protect and preserve religious freedom," said ADF Director of Global Activities and Strategic Alliances Benjamin Bull.
"ADF can now have a say when U.N. treaties and conventions are drafted that directly impact religious liberty and important matters related to the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family," Bull explained.
"We look forward to the opportunity this provides us to increase the development of strategic alliances with other organizations and to make a positive difference for religious freedom at the U.N. and around the world. It also furthers our efforts to keep adverse international policies from improperly affecting U.S. law and legal precedents."
The Economic and Social Council of the U.N. officially notified ADF on July 20 of the council's decision to grant special consultative status. With this status, ADF attorneys can attend and participate in all compliance committee meetings and with the U.N. Human Rights Council. ADF is already accredited with the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Parliament, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"The U.N. plays a critical role in determining future policies affecting religious liberty," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. "It is vital for a legal alliance like ADF to have input on those policies to ensure they affirm real human rights and freedoms. ADF will now be able to monitor and provide input on matters affecting those freedoms."
A campaign finance bill that many pro-family groups say would limit their ability to get their message out and possibly lead to the intimidation of donors was blocked in the Senate July 27 when Democrats failed to get any Republicans to support it.
The White House-backed DISCLOSE Act needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster but got only 57, although it technically was only one vote short. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I.-Conn., was absent and said he would have voted "yes," and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D.-Nev., switched his vote to "no" at the last minute in a procedural tactic that will allow him to bring the bill up again. All 40 Republicans who were present voted against it, with one Republican -- Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev. -- being absent. A similar version of the bill had passed the House, 219-206.
A host of pro-life and pro-family groups opposed it, including Family Research Council Action, National Right to Life, Focus on the Family's Citizenlink and the National Organization for Marriage. On the left side of the spectrum, the Americans Civil Liberties Union also was opposed. The bill would apply not only to nonprofits but also to corporations, and its supporters said it was intended to shine more light on campaign ad spending.
If passed and signed by President Obama, it would have gone into effect this year, impacting this election cycle. The day before the vote, Obama urged its passage, saying it was needed to limit the power of "shadow groups" who buy millions of dollars of ads and hide behind names such as "Citizens for a Better Future" even if, he said, "a more accurate name" would be "Companies for Weaker Oversight."
"A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections," Obama said. "It is damaging to our democracy."
But Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action, called the filibuster a "victory for free speech."
"Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums," McClusky said in a statement.
The bill's restrictions would kick in when an ad mentions a candidate or a member of Congress. Such restrictions could severely hamper nonprofit-issued advocacy ads that, for example, promote or oppose a specific bill and urge viewers to contact their legislator.
National Right to Life sent a letter to senators July 23 detailing what it sees as the bill's problems. Among them:
-- The bill's requirement to release publicly every donor who gives more than $1,000. "Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their belief," National Right to Life said. Said FRC Action, "We have seen intimidation employed time and time again against Christians in states like Massachusetts, California and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman."
-- Its requirement that the top donor actually appear in the television ad, similar to how candidates do today. Radio ads would be subject to similar restrictions. National Right to Life said it is wrong for the government to require, for instance, a "75-year-old woman with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions and who wishes to promote" a pro-life bill to appear in a TV ad.
-- Its exemption of large organizations such as the National Rifle Association. While the NRA and organizations like it would be exempt, small nonprofits -- such as state-level pro-life groups -- would not be. National Right to Life asked why "much smaller state-level organizations" that have far fewer "financial, administrative, and legal resources" would be required to go through legal traps and layers of reporting requirements when larger organizations are not.
-- The fact that it would apply 120 days prior to a general election, twice as much as is the case now. "For example," National Right to Life wrote, "an organization that sponsors a single radio ad costing $10,000 or more that says no more than, 'Call Senator Jones -- urge him to support the First Amendment by voting no on S. 3628' -- would be required to publicly identify every donor of more than $1,000 to the organization (whether or not the donation was spent on the ad) throughout the year."
The bill is S. 3628 in the Senate, H.R. 5175 in the House.
Contact: Michael Foust Source: BP Date Published: July 28, 2010
Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Wednesday indicated that they are open to filibustering any and all legislation in the Senate until a confirmation hearing is held for Dr. Donald Berwick, who was recently recess-appointed by President Obama to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dr. Berwick is controversial because he supports rationing health care services, has said a "just" health- care funding plan "must redistribute wealth," and has praised Britain's government-run National Health Service.
President Obama nominated Berwick back in April and then recess-appointed him on July 7, while Congress was away on its July 4 vacation. The Senate Finance Committee, headed by Sen. Max Baucus (D- Mont.), never held a hearing for Berwick.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked Sens. DeMint and Brownback, "President Obama recess-appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, and, as mentioned, he publicly supports Britain's health care system and health care rationing. Do you believe that Senate Republicans should filibuster any and all legislation until a hearing is held for Dr. Berwick?"
Senator Brownback said, "I'll take a first shot at that. I think it's wrong what the president did in this situation -- not that he didn't have the ability to do this. But when you have this difficult of a topic, and this personal of an issue to all of the American people, to put somebody in place that has a philosophy that's counter to where the vast majority of the American public is, I think is the wrong thing to do."
"And I think we should look at whatever tools we have, to use them in this particular case," said Brownback.
Senator DeMint said, "It was pretty obvious the president did not want a hearing of Berwick because the facts would come out and Americans would become more aware of it. Republicans did not block a hearing; the Democrats didn't call one."
"What we need to do about it is what we're doing today, is to help people understand the massive complexity and destructive nature of this type of bureaucracy, and the fact that the president has put someone in charge of it who's on record as believing in socialized medicine and rationing of care," said DeMint. "We just need to make Americans aware of what's happened here and they'll take care of the rest in November."
On the issue of filibustering legislation until a hearing is held on Berwick, DeMint said: "I probably would because there's not much they [Democrats] have on the docket that I wouldn't try to stop anyway."
The press conference, sponsored by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee, was held to unveil a visual presentation and summary of the expansion of government into the health care system under the new health care law signed last March.
"We're going to unveil one of the scariest things you're going to see," said Sen. Brownback, ranking member of the committee. "Speaker Pelosi said initially of the health care bill, 'We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.' We'll we're going to reveal today to you what's in it."
The Republican composite of the new health care system points out 22 new bureaucracies, 17 insurance mandates, 19 special interest provisions, 59 new grant programs, 26 new demonstration and pilot programs, 4 new regulatory programs, and 4 loan repayment and forgiveness programs.
"If you look at these charts for a few minutes, you realize why a lot of us say that Obamacare is the end of the best health care system in the world," DeMint said. "There is no way quality health care can emerge from this type of bureaucracy."
DeMint also expressed concerns that the new bureaucracies and regulations of the health care system would discourage future physicians and health care professionals from practicing medicine due to the burdensome interference of government.
"We're going to have tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats focusing on health care, but I can almost guarantee you we will have fewer doctors to deliver that health care," said DeMint. "For decades in our country, the medical profession has attracted the best and the brightest, and the hardest working Americans, but they go to school for much past what most of us do, hoping to make a good living, but also to serve the people."
Sen DeMint said that the kind of system established by the health care law will not attract "the best and the brightest."
"They will not work for government," he said. "They will not have government bureaucrats telling them how to practice medicine, and what they're going to get paid."
"This is going to have a huge impact on health care," he said. "And not only will it destroy our health care system, but it is going to bankrupt our country."
Two Republican physicians also attended the event to express their concerns over the government's expanded role in the health care system.
"Ask yourself what's wrong with this," said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a cardiovascular surgeon, pointing to the chart. "Where is the doctor-patient relationship?"
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who practiced medicine as an OB/GYN for nearly 30 years, and chairs the Congressional Health Care Caucus, said the Obamacare plan was modeled after a plan for which Dr. Berwick is fond: Britain's National Health Service.
"But isn't it ironic that just this week we learned that the National Health Service over in Britain is now being walked back, and more power is being devolved to the doctors and to the patients," Rep. Burgess said.
As CNSNews.com reported, Britain's National Health System (NHS) is set to undergo major budget cuts and bureaucratic decentralization to give more control over health care decisions to local health care providers, and take clinical decisions out of the hands of government bureaucrats.
"We will make the NHS more accountable to patients," British Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in a July 2010 white paper. "We will free staff from excessive bureaucracy and top-down control. Healthcare will be run from the bottom up, with ownership and decision-making in the hands of professionals and patients."
Rep. Brady said the Joint Economic Committee representation of the new health care system does not represent the entirety of government expansion because the new heath care law is so complex.
"This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill," according to Brady. "It's actually worse than this."
Contact: Adam Cassandra Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 28, 2010
Two papers published online recently in Nature journals indicate that the technology to produce iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells) is still a work in progress, but also highlight the confusion among journalists and even some scientists about stem cells–iPS cells, embryonic stem cells (ES cells), and Adult stem cells..
iPS cells provide a relatively easy and inexpensive method for creation of ES-type cells directly from virtually any tissue source or individual. They were first developed in 2006 in mice by the Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka, and in November 2007 both Yamanaka's lab and the lab of James Thomson in the U.S. showed that this same technique could work for human cells as well. The original technique to reprogram a normal to become an iPS cell involves adding four genes directly to a human cell such as a skin fibroblast cell, with the genes added using a viral vector.
The iPS cells behave like ES cells, but the technique does not use embryos, eggs, or cloning, making it an ethical way to produce "pluripotent" stem cells (cells that potentially might form any body tissue.) In contrast, the usual way to produce ES cells is by taking an embryo (produced by the normal process of fertilization, or by cloning, a.k.a. "somatic cell nuclear transfer") and destroying the embryo to extract the ES cells (that's why they're called "embryonic" stem cells.) [Click here]
One question that has been posed ever since iPS cells were first announced, is whether iPS cells are truly identical to ES cells. Besides looking and growing like ES cells in the lab, iPS cells have passed all the usual tests for ES cells to demonstrate their pluripotent character:
-formation of teratomas containing various cell types when injected into mice -expression of "pluripotency" genes -formation of chimeric mice, and even whole mice, when combined with other cells to form new mouse embryos -differentiation in the lab to form specialized cells
Both of the new papers (Kim et al., rushed into online publication in Nature, and Polo et al. published online in Nature Biotechnology) compare mouse iPS cells against mouse ES cells on a deeper molecular level. Both groups found that iPS cells retain a sort of "memory" of their origins, at least for a while. Methylation of DNA, while not changing the DNA sequence itself, provides markers of which genes are turned on or off. These are "epigenetic" (as opposed to genetic) differences. The newly-created iPS cells retained some of these epigenetic marks from their tissue of origin, e.g., blood, skin, or muscle. When the researchers tried to make blood cells from the iPS cells, the ones whose origin was blood could make blood cells much more easily than the iPS cells from other tissues, actually easier than ES cells, but by the same token those iPS cells made from blood had a more difficult time making other tissues. Their residual "epigenetic memory" helped them return to their tissue of origin, but hindered their formation of different tissues.
Those results indicate that iPS cells do retain some memory of their original tissue. This would make it easier to study a particular disease in the lab if the iPS cells were made from that tissue, but could limit their use for other tissues or diseases (different iPS cells for different tissues or diseases might be preferable.)
Interestingly, the Kim et al. paper also went to the trouble of making cloned mouse embryos from which ES cells were harvested ("cloned" ES cells). In the comparisons, the "cloned" ES cells were more similar to traditional ES cells than were the iPS cells, though still not identical. The use of cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) seemed a contrived add-on to make a political point. Nature's blog picked up on the political message, and in fact, that political message was delivered in some of the interviews. George Daley of Harvard said:
"Stem cells generated by somatic cell nuclear transfer are on average, closer to bona fide embryonic stem cells than are iPS cells. This has an important political message–we still need to study the mechanisms by which nuclear transfer reprograms cells, because the process seems to work more efficiently and faithfully. Learning the secrets of nuclear transfer may help us make better iPS cells."
In point of fact, both papers show that the "memory" differences seen in the iPS cells gradually disappear with further time in culture, and/or with chromatin-modifying chemicals.
This was highlighted by the senior author of the Nature Biotechnology paper, Konrad Hochedlinger, who said:
"Our paper comes to a similar conclusion that a retention of memory reflects the cell of origin and affects the capacity of the iPS cell to differentiate into other cell types. When we let the cells go through a lot of cell divisions, they lose the memory."
Daley himself (a co-author of the Nature paper that added on the cloning aspect), admitted in a less political moment that the "memory" aspect of iPS cells could be overcome for their use: "It's a challenge to be understood and overcome. We already have strategies for overcoming this." "This study in no way challenges the usefulness of IPS cells. They remain enormously valuable."
So the results are an interesting wrinkle in the continuing saga of iPS cells, indicating that freshly-made iPS cells need some maturing in the lab before they truly resemble ES cells.
But the media are still confused on the subject of stem cells. For years there were only ES cells (made by destroying embryos) and Adult stem cells (taken from tissues without harming the donor), then along came iPS cells. While iPS cells are made from adult cells and tissues, they behave like ES cells; they are certainly NOT adult stem cells. But some still can't get the facts right.
For example, Newsweek had this erroneous title:
"Developments in Adult-Stem-Cell Research; Adult stem cells have memories"
Likewise, the Washington Times misleading title:
"Adult stem cells said to 'forget' retooling"
And ABC News got their title right but bungled the interpretation in the text, leaping from adult cells for iPS to adult stem cells that are currently used to treat diseases. They also included a quote from an embryonic stem cell scientist that indicated even he didn't understand the topic of the story (iPS cells from adult tissues, not adult stem cells):
"The take home message is that what stem cell biologist have been arguing for years is true — that we need to continue studying both stem cells, because we don't know which cells can be used for which applications," said Sean Morrison, director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Michigan.
See the figure for the differences in stem cell types.
