Adult Stem Cell Scientists Oppose Government's Request to Lift Federal Judge's Order Enjoining Unlawful Federal Funding of Research Involving the Destruction of Living Human Embryos

      

Responding to the government's request for an emergency stay pending appeal of federal district court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth's August 23rd decision and preliminary injunction enjoining unlawful federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," lawyers for adult stem cell scientists this evening timely filed their opposing memorandum of law and evidentiary declarations of Drs. Deisher  and Sherley that seek to correct the government's misstatements of law and fact contained in its stay request and accompanying Declaration by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, Francis Collins.

Advocates International (AI), part of the public interest legal team along with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C) who brought the case before the court more than a year ago, seeks to maintain the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia enjoining HHS and NIH from unlawfully expending taxpayer funds on research involving the destruction of living human embryos.  The district court's opinion followed the decision by the United States Court of Appeals earlier this summer finding that doctors doing adult stem cell research have 'competitive standing' to sue. Therefore, the court reinstated the doctors' federal lawsuit, filed last summer that seeks to preliminarily enjoin and ultimately overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the NIH issued on July 7, 2009. 

In their opposition, plaintiffs notified the court that plaintiffs intend to file a motion for summary judgment, seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, by September 10, and will not object to expedited consideration of that motion.  Samuel B. Casey, AI's General Counsel, explained plaintiffs' opposition to the stay request, stating that "the government's claims of irreparable harm absent a stay rest on speculation, misinformation, and hyperbole.  At every turn, the government presents this case as a choice between spending federal dollars on human embryonic stem cell research -- funding that the district court has previously determined has only speculative benefits and violates federal law against killing or discarding living human embryos -- or nothing at all.  To the contrary, the preliminary injunction frees up millions in limited grant dollars that the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") can now award to projects that promise more tangible medical benefits, raise fewer ethical issues, and comport with the law, including adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research." 
 
Since 1996, in what has been popularly known as its Dickey-Wicker Amendment to each HHS Appropriations Bill, Congress has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

According to AI's General Counsel, Samuel B. Casey, United States District Court Judge Lambreth's ruling, quoted below, "could not be clearer":

ESC research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed. To conduct ESC research, ESCs must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo. Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on the ESCs, the two cannot be separated. Derivation of ESCs from an embryo is an integral step in conducting ESC research. Indeed, it is just one of many steps in the "systematic investigation" of stem cell research. 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d). Simply because ESC research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate "piece of research" that may be federally funded, provided the step does not result in the destruction of an embryo. If one step or "piece of research" of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Because ESC research requires the derivation of ESCs, ESC research is research in which an embryo is destroyed. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, by allowing federal funding of ESC research, the Guidelines are in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

According to GD&C's Thomas G. Hungar, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs who argued the case before the Court of Appeals and before Judge Lamberth: "We are gratified that the Court agreed with our plain-language reading of the Dickey-Wicker statute.  Congress has forbidden federal funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos, and rather than seek a stay the NIH needs to start complying with the law." 

The plaintiffs contend that the NIH guidelines violate the congressional ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos."  In addition, the plaintiffs also allege that the NIH guidelines were invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research. 

President Obama, in his March 11, 2009 Executive Order announcing his Administration's policy stated he was determined to fund ethically "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research...to the extent permitted by law". Sadly, said AI's Casey, "these guidelines while claiming to 'implement' the President's directions, failed his own test because they are not only unlawful, they are based upon an ethically irresponsible misunderstanding of available scientific evidence. 

In opposing the government's request for a stay of the preliminary injunction, one of the expert stem cell researcher plaintiffs, Dr. Theresa Deisher, points out that NIH Director Francis Collin's declaration "contains numerous factual assertions and characterizations regarding the nature of and prospects for adult stem research, human embryonic stem cell research, and induced pluripotent stem cell research that are directly contrary to the evidence in the administrative record, and that do not accurately reflect the published literature on those subjects."

Casey, added:  "The majority of the almost 50,000 comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments, including the extensive scientific and legal comments submitted by AI as part of a coalition known as Do No Harm.  The so-called spare human embryos being stored in IVF clinics around the United States are not 'in excess of need,' as the NIH in its guidelines callously assert.  They are human beings in need of biological or adoptive parents."

The lawsuit was initially instituted more than a year ago by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including Dr. James L. Sherley, a former member of the MIT faculty, currently working as a senior scientist at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Dr. Theresa Deisher, the founder, managing member, and research and development director of AVM Biotechnology; Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a non-profit, licensed adoption agency dedicated to protecting and finding adoptive parents for human embryos conceived through in vitro fertilization; all individual human embryos whose lives are now at risk under NIH's guidelines; parents seeking to adopt human embryos; and the Christian Medical Association, a non-profit association of doctors dedicated to improving ethical standards of health care in the United States and abroad.  The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of attorneys and like-minded organizations defending religious freedom and the sanctity of human life, is also serving as co-counsel on the case and providing financial support.

Contact: Samuel B. Casey

Source: Advocates International
Date Published: September 3, 2010

Citizens Group Calls for Councilmember to Retract Threats and Release NOW Financial Records

      

Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government (MCRG) calls on both the Maryland Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg to release all records involving Trachtenberg's actions as NOW's treasurer from 2006 until November 2008, when Trachtenberg resigned from her position and membership with the organization. 

MCRG has anonymously received an unsettling document which purports to be a summary of a November 9, 2009, NOW Grievance Committee Decision against Trachtenberg. The grievance allegedly cites Suntrust Bank records for NOW's checking account and claims that Trachtenberg misused NOW's ATM card to make unauthorized cash withdrawals; make purchases at retail stores like Lord & Taylor, Victoria's Secret, and Filenes Basement; and write numerous checks to herself and her husband.

The grievance further alleges that at the end of her term as NOW treasurer, Trachtenberg failed to provide accounting records.

Trachtenberg currently sits on the County Council of Montgomery County, Maryland. In her infamous letter to the Department of Justice, Councilmember Trachtenberg requested transparent behavior of all public servants. "Threatening the National Organization for Women with legal action if they publicly speak about their grievance is not transparent behavior," said Dr. Ruth Jacobs, MCRG President. 

"MCRG calls on Trachtenberg to retract threats of legal action against NOW, confirm the outcome of this grievance, and produce all records concerning her actions as treasurer for NOW as the grievance allegedly demands. As Trachtenberg herself has said, Montgomery County residents deserve transparency of their public officials." 

A January 20, 2010, Gazette article documented that Trachtenberg had threatened legal action against officers of Maryland NOW for defamation and invasion of privacy if they discuss the grievance with the media. Trachtenberg's attorney also asked that NOW "dismiss a claim that Trachtenberg mishandled money while serving as treasurer of the organization."

Trachtenberg is seeking re-election this fall to her Montgomery County Council at-large seat. Both Montgomery County NOW and the Gazette have not endorsed Trachtenberg. And the alleged grievance forbids Trachtenberg from holding any leadership position with NOW. Montgomery County Now is reported to have added a new question to their candidate questionnaire -- "Is there anything in your background that might disqualify you from an endorsement by MCNOW?"

Source: Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government
Date Published: September 7, 2010

Pro-life activists call for charges against assailant

Threat alleged was to shoot sidewalk counselor 'in the heart'

      

After enduring repeated threats and physical assaults outside abortion clinics, Albuquerque pro-life activists are calling on the police and prosecutors to protect them by filing charges against a recent armed assailant.

Police responded in force on August 25 when an armed Arizona man bringing his 16-year-old daughter for an abortion at an infamous late-term abortion facility, Southwestern Women's Options, threatened to "shoot [a sidewalk counselor] in the heart."

They failed, however, to show up after being summoned in at least one previous violent incident.

"This is the first time the police have responded properly to threats we've received in front of the abortion mill," said Father Stephen Imbarrato, head of Project Defending Life, an Albuquerque-based pro-life ministry. Imbarrato recently has been reaching out to Albuquerque's mayor, district attorneys and police to improve relationships with the pro-life community.

Imbarrato plans to ask the local district attorney to press charges against the Arizona man. The man had at least two firearms in the trunk of his vehicle when, according to Imbarrato, he made two separate threats to shoot two sidewalk counselors.

Police confiscated his weapons after the incident, but apparently plan to return them, according to pro-life activist Bud Shaver.

"No charges have been pressed against the guy," said Shaver. "The police confiscated the weapons, but he may get them back. Father Stephen is trying to get in touch with the mayor's office."

Such threats are old hat to Shaver, a veteran activist who describes himself as a "pro-life missionary."

"I was threatened one week ago. A month ago a woman was choked, and the police did not respond."

Shaver described these two incidents in detail.

"A man told me to quit talking to him or 'I'm going to push you into the street and stomp you to death.' He said that within two inches of my face." In the earlier incident, "a sidewalk counselor was saying 'we care about you, God loves you and your child.' A woman who was belligerent about being spoken to ran up to a counselor, put both hands around her neck and told her to be quiet. The woman being choked called police. They did not respond."

Imbarrato contends that Albuquerque police are more sensitive to complaints from the abortionists than the pro-lifers.

"A no parking sign mysteriously showed up in front of the abortion mill. When we parked there, the abortion mill complained and the police showed up in no time at all," he said.

Imbarrato also is disappointed with the Albuquerque media. Describing the August 28 threats, he said, "Ten police cars showed up. They were there for two or three hours. They made everybody come out of the building with their hands up. Albuquerque TV only covered the story two or three days later, when they got the information from the Operation Rescue website. Then the Albuquerque Journal picked up on the TV. The media in Albuquerque don't monitor the police scanner? It defies imagination."

In spite of the threats and violence faced by activists, Project Defending Life has been very successful in its efforts to save the lives of unborn babies, according to Imbarrato.

"We've had hundreds of turnarounds, and more than a hundred babies born in our ministry in the past two years."

In addition to its work on the streets, Project Defending Life provides assistance to new mothers.

Contact: Brian Fitzpatrick

Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: September 4, 2010

Abortions suspended for unsafe practices; 1st under new law

         

The LA Dept. of Health and Hospitals revoked the clinic license of Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, LA, last week and ordered them to halt all abortions there. The action was the first immediate suspension under the new LA law that allows the State to order a clinic to cease operations.

According to a press release issued September 1, 2010, by the LDHH, they found the following violations that posed an immediate threat to the health, welfare, or safety of a client or patient:

Several violations were noted during a recent investigation of the facility, including the facility's failure to ensure that a physician performed and documented a physical exam on each patient prior to a procedure, failure to properly monitor vital signs of patients under anesthesia, failure to have proper procedures in place for administering anesthesia and failure to have properly trained professionals performing certain medical procedures related to the administering of anesthesia.

"When we see this level of egregious conduct at a facility, it is incumbent on us to take steps necessary to protect our residents," said LDHH Interim Secretary Anthony Keck. "The Legislature gave us this authority because they recognized we must have the ability to stop unsafe practices that place these already vulnerable women in danger."

Prior to the passage of the new law, known as Act 490, suspension orders could not be immediately enforced, allowing dangerous abortion mills to continue to endanger the public for months.

Such was the case in January, 2010, when the LDHH suspended the license of Gentilly Medical Clinic for Women in New Orleans operated by troubled abortionist Ifeanyi Charles Anthony Okpalobi (pronounced ok-PAH-luh-bee). The State charged Okpalobi's clinic with violating laws requiring that abortion clinics have a licensed nurse on staff, and that they have proper state and federal licensing for controlled substances. 9 months later, the clinic continues uninterrupted operations pending appeal, even though there is no evidence that the dangerous conditions were ever remedied.

At that time, Operation Rescue called on the State of LA to consider the health and safety of women and take action that would allow the State to close this dangerous abortion mill. Now, the laws give the State the ability to act on suspensions in the interest of public safety.

"Given what we know from our investigations in to Louisiana's abortion clinics, the suspension of Hope Medical Group for Women's seedy abortion operations will not be the last suspension issued by the Health Department," said Newman.

"This is more evidence that pro-life laws, when enforced, close abortion mills and save lives. We are relieved that there is now another layer of protection for vulnerable women and their innocent pre-born babies, but we cannot not rest until every abortion mill is closed and our pre-born children are fully protected by law."

Click here to read LDHH Press Release Concerning Suspension.

Source: Pro-Life Blogs
Date Published: September 7, 2010

Compassion and Choices Uses Murder/Suicide to Advertise Doctor Prescribed Death in Montana

      

The pro assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices, along with a compliant media, continues to romanticize self destruction as an answer to the problem of human suffering. Latest example: In Montana, a man murdered his wife, who had cerebral palsy, set his house on fire, and then, shot himself.  How is the tragedy treated? As an advertisement for assisted suicide.  From the story, byline Michael Jamison:

It was an act of love, Darryl Anderson said, an act of compassion and caring and bullets and arson and it didn't have to be that way. "Basically," Anderson said, "it was a mercy killing, to end the pain. They were good people, but there was terrible pain." William "Ted" Hardgrove used to visit Anderson – Lincoln County's sheriff – at work, showing off his inventions or detailing his own detective work on the latest unsolved case. He'd stay and chat and sometimes harangue, Anderson said, "and I thought he was just a super old guy."

Hardgrove was 81, just like his wife Swanie. She was known for her baking, and her gardening and her lace-making, and for the fact that she had cerebral palsy as well as other crippling medical problems. In recent weeks, the increasing pain had completely overwhelmed her medication. On the last Saturday in August, Ted Hardgrove stopped the pain. He moved their valuables out of the Libby-area house and into the garage, then left a note explaining this final, desperate act of love. He took the household chemicals from the home, took the hunting ammunition and anything else that might explode or burn too hot. Anderson figures Hardgrove was protecting the firemen he knew would come. Then Hardgrove went back inside, shot his wife, set their home afire and shot himself. "It was a very carefully planned thing," Anderson said. "He left that note, said he was tired of seeing her suffer so badly, and there was a better place."

"An act of love", "He stopped the pain:" In any other context, this would be looked at as a possible abuse scenario.

That point aside, rather than report on how this tragedy could have been avoided without death, the reporter goes to the Compassion and Choices representative–who despicably seizes upon the story to push the assisted suicide agenda:

But there was also, perhaps, a better way. "What we want people to know," said Steve Hopcraft, "is there is help and information out there." Hopcraft works with a nonprofit called Compassion and Choices, a group that offers free end-of-life planning, counseling and options. "We believe that these tragic and violent deaths are 100 percent preventable," Hopcraft said. "It's a matter, really, of getting the information out." Information such as the fact that Montana is among three states – Oregon and Washington are the other two – where doctors are allowed to provide what's known as "aid in dying." They can prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients, who can then choose whether and when to use the pills.

Talk about a clueless reporter. First, notice he buys the euphemistic "aid in dying."  Second, there is no indication that Mrs. Hardgrove was terminally ill, she was elderly and disabled, nor indeed, that she even wanted to be killed.  Third, when pain control fails, the answer isn't murder, it isn't a lethal prescription, it is to have a doctor improve the pain control.  Fourth, what could Mr. Hardgrove have done to get further help–without resorting to ending his wife's life?  Was he overwhelmed with caregiving?  What services could he have sought? Good grief, at least print the local suicide prevention phone number!

But not to worry, the reporter quotes a physician:

"No one, no matter what their condition, should feel they have to resort to violence when confronting advanced illness," said Stephen Speckart, retired Missoula oncologist. "Patients need to feel safe talking with their doctors about unbearable symptoms and their feelings of desperation and desire for a peaceful death."

Guess what? Dr. Stephen Speckart was a plaintiff in the case that brought legalized assisted suicide to Montana–and the reporter doesn't so identify him!  That is really journalistic malpractice.

This is really disgraceful: We have a story of a murder suicide, turned into a commercial for assisted suicide, in which most of the sources are assisted suicide activists, written by a reporter who treats Mrs. H's death as a necessity, and doesn't explore how people in such difficult circumstances can be helped.  Culture of death, Wesley?  What culture of death?

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 4, 2010

Pro-Life Hopes for Illinois Parental Notice Law Dashed by Court

      

Pro-life attorneys hoping anxiously for a speedy conclusion to the legal battle over the state's long-delayed Parental Notice of Abortion Act, saw their hopes dashed when the state Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to their immediate jurisdiction.

The high court denied a motion by the pro-life legal advocacy group Thomas More Society to bypass the appellate court and hear the case brought against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. The act is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"We're obviously disappointed with this ruling, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to bring these appeals to a speedy and positive conclusion," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society.

The pro-life attorneys based their motion on a Supreme Court rule that allows transfer of cases to the high court directly when the "public interest requires prompt adjudication." Without the Supreme Court's intervention, they anticipated the case would not see a decision from the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court for at least a year, meaning more secret abortions on minors would end up being performed in the state.

Two members of the state Supreme Court, Justices Robert R. Thomas and Thomas L. Kilbride, showed interest in concluding quickly the 15-year-long legal battle over the Act, and voiced their dissent to the majority's order.

With the transfer motion denied, the First District of Illinois Appellate Court will continue to oversee the case. Thomas More Society attorneys will file their opening appeal brief on Friday.

Brejcha said two courts, the 7th US Court of Appeals and Cook County Circuit Court, have both rendered judgments against the ACLU's legal challenges to the law, indicating the ACLU's case is "legally meritless." He argued that the law should be enforced, not suspended, until the ACLU's appeal was resolved.

Judge Daniel Riley of the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit brought against the Act by the American Civil Liberties Union this past March, ruling the Act constitutionally valid. While he viewed the 1970 Illinois State Constitution as including a right to abortion, he said the Act should stand since the Illinois right to abortion is not broader than the federal right, thereby allowing for certain restrictions.  
   
However, Riley issued an indefinite stay on his order for the duration of the ACLU's legal appeal.

The Thomas More Society believes the state Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of the law. Five years ago, the Supreme Court created a court bypass procedure designed to make the law constitutional in Illinois.

In November 2009, the ACLU intervened in court to strike down the parental notice law on the very day it was finally supposed to go into full effect. Both the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation had decided to enforce the pro-life law without further delay when the ACLU intervened.

Since the passage of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois girls below the age of majority have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

However, Illinois is also an abortion oasis in the Midwest for those looking to transport minors across state lines for abortion without their parent's knowledge or consent. In the Midwest, only Illinois lacks a parental notification or consent law for a minor seeking abortion. 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 2, 2010

2010 Elections Could Lead to Most Pro-Life Congress EVER

     

Remember 1994? The Republican Party released its "Contract with America" six weeks before the mid-term elections and took back Congress with a 54-seat swing on Election Day.

Absent from the Contract was any emphasis on policies that protect the unborn. When the new Congress convened, pro-life legislation was not a real priority. Protecting women and unborn babies from the violence of 4,000 abortions per day was put on the back-burner.

I have interviewed almost 100 candidates this Election Cycle.  Judging from my interviews and a detailed analysis of what looks to be the incoming Congress, I am confident it will be one of the most pro-life in history.  But we cannot take anything for granted.  We must assure them that there is a strong pro-life mandate and that Americans expect serious leadership and real progress in protecting unborn children.

We must first recover from our setbacks by moving the ball back to where it was prior to the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi regime and then begin to move the ball forward. We can't just stop and repeal the pro-abortion agenda; we must work to advance our ambitious pro-life legislative priorities in order to save unborn lives.

Once again, much like 1994, the Republican Party has an opportunity to take back Congress and is drafting a legislative blueprint similar to the original Contract with America to lay out its plans should Republicans take the majority this November.

The protection of women and their children from the violence of abortion and the protection of taxpayers from funding it must be an integral part of any legislative blueprint released by the leadership of the GOP, and should be included under a specific plank addressing family values.

Speak out for Life today by telling the Republican Party leadership that pro-life legislation must be a priority in its legislative blueprint for America.

With the majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life, and with an even stronger majority agreeing that tax dollars shouldn't fund abortion, the consensus for passage of serious pro-life legislation couldn't be stronger.

Consider these common-sense pro-life legislative initiatives that enjoy broad support across America:

Legislation such as the "Protect Life Act" which would ensure that no federal funds authorized under the health care reform law are used to pay for abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, prevent any part of the federal government from forcing insurance plans to cover abortions, and codify strong conscience protections.

67% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in health care, according to a January 2010 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University.

Legislation such as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" which would establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.

61% of Americans support a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, according to a November 2009 poll conducted by CNN.

Legislation establishing parental consent for minors seeking abortion.

69% of Americans support parental consent for minors under 18 seeking an abortion, according to a July 2006 poll conducted by Gallup.

Legislation such as the "Child Pain Awareness Act" which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

77% of Americans favor such legislation, according to an April 2004 poll conducted by Zogby.

The Republican Party needs to hear from pro-life Americans. Speak out for Life today to ensure your voice heard on behalf of unborn children and their mothers.

We showed the Democratic Party the consequences of failing to embrace the pro-life values of the American people on our Votes Have Consequences Bus Tour. Let's send a message today to the Republican Party to let them know that when the ball is in their court, we expect no less than a slam-dunk for our pro-life agenda.

Contact: Marjorie Dannenfelser

Source: Susan B. Anthony List

HHS Awards $17 Million, Continues to Build Health Care Rationing Structure

      

The divide between his rhetoric and reality continues to mount: President Obama's health care law is creating government rationed health care.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced Wednesday that $17 million in taxpayer funds would be used to create "comparative effectiveness research" –a term identified during the health care debate as a means to rationed care.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the funds would create a network of "patient-centered outcomes research" (PCOR) – the new name for comparative effectiveness research – to "improve health outcomes" for "diverse and vulnerable" populations.

In a 2009 report to Congress, the PCOR predecessor, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, outlined its priority:

"The priority populations specifically include, but are not limited to, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, children, the elderly, and patients with multiple chronic conditions," the coordinating council said.

An often-cited quote during the health care debate was made by President Obama in an interview with The New York Times:

"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here….There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for CitizenLink, urged Americans not to give up – or to consider health care 'fait accomplis.'

"CitizenLink readers are the best at reading and responding to our action alerts," said Minnery. "With 60+ days to go before Nov. 2, I encourage them to pray for our nation, stay tuned to our alerts and forward them to your friends and neighbors. Together, we can continue to protect the family."

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 2, 2010

American Academy of Pediatrics Says Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy'

      

Calling media portrayals of sex "unhealthy," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines calling on all media outlets to present human sexuality in a healthy, scientifically accurate manner.

At the same time, the group pomoted the use of contraceptives among teenagers and denigrated abstinence-only education.
 
"There is a major disconnect between what mainstream media portray – casual sex and sexuality with no consequences – and what children and teenagers need – straightforward information about human sexuality and the need for contraception when having sex," the AAP said. 
 
"Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual responsibility, and birth control remains rare," said the AAP.
 
The organization, with 60,000-plus members, said that because children and young adults spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with various media, it was important for the portrayals of sex in that media to be accurate and responsible.
 
"American children and teenagers spend more than 7 hours a day with a variety of different media. Those media are filled with sexual messages and images, many of which are unrealistic," the AAP said. "Talk about sex on TV can occur as often as 8 to 10 times per hour. Between 1997 and 2001 alone, the amount of sexual content on TV nearly doubled."
 
This proliferation of inaccurate sexual messages has had documented effects on youth sexual behavior, the AAP reported. Kids exposed to sexual material on television are almost twice as likely to engage in sexually risky behavior at a younger age than youth whose parents limit their exposure to sexually saturated media. 
 
Other studies have shown that exposure to sexualized media content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. "Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important," the AAP stated.
 
These negative trends are happening at a time when public sexual education has favored a scientifically unfounded, abstinence only approach, said the organization, adding that as public policy has avoided providing youth with accurate information about sex, the media have become the sexual educator of "last resort."
 
"Because so many sex education programs have recently been focused on abstinence only, the media have arguably become one of the leading sex educators in the United States today," the AAP said. "Yet, parents and legislators fail to understand that although they may favor abstinence-only sex education (despite the lack of any evidence of its effectiveness), the media are decidedly not abstinence only."
 
In fact, the American media can be among "the most sexually-suggestive media in the world," according to the AAP. The effect of this is that media can act as a "super-peer" on youth, exerting an influence on sexual behavior stronger than that of a child's parents.
 
One major problem – labeled "dangerous" by the AAP – with the media's portrayal of sex is the lingering myth that access to contraception affects sexual behavior patterns. Because the media play such a large role in providing information about sex to young people, this dearth of accurate information about contraceptives leaves teens at a disadvantage as they become sexually active.
 
"The United States is the only Western nation that still subscribes to the dangerous myth that giving teenagers access to birth control – and media represent a form of access – will make them sexually active at a younger age," the AAP explained. 
 
In response to these twin problems, the AAP called on media to do two things: remove some inappropriate sexual content from programming likely to be viewed by children and substitute it with accurate, educational information about sex.
 
"Pediatricians and child advocacy groups should encourage the entertainment industry to produce more programming that contains responsible sexual content and that focuses on the interpersonal relationship in which sexual activity takes place," the AAP said. 
 
"Similarly, Madison Avenue and advertisers need to be encouraged to stop using sex to sell products," said the group.
 
In addition to changing media programming, the AAP also called for comprehensive sex education in schools and increased advertisements for contraceptives.
 
"Pediatricians should urge the broadcast industry to air advertisements for birth control products," the AAP said. 
 
Dr. Vic Strasburger, the policy's lead author, said that scientific studies showed that increased advertising for birth control would lead to "one thing and one thing only" – increased use of contraception.
 
"The research is quite clear, the media represent one access point for children and teenagers about birth control and giving teenagers access to birth control does one thing and one thing only – that is it makes them more likely to use birth control when they begin having sex," Strasburger told CNSNews.com. 
 
"As parents and as adults, we couldn't be doing a worse job," Strasburger said. "We do a terrible job of preparing kids to be happy, healthy, sexual adults."

Contact: Matt Cover

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 03, 2010

Embryonic stem-cell research - money over morality

      

The Christian Medical Association (CMA) is criticizing the Obama administration for challenging a federal court decision that has blocked government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
 
CMA president Dr. David Stevens thinks politics and greed are behind the desire to fund embryonic stem-cell research, and that is why the government wants the ban lifted. He points out that some of the scientists standing up for the research are those who have conflicts of interest because they receive federal funding.

"They belong to mainly three institutions: Harvard, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University -- all of them which have patents on embryonic stem-cell lines and royalties on any findings that people get through scientific inquiry that can be turned into a commercial thing that will go to these universities," Stevens reports. "Irving Wiessman, who's been one of the main spokesmen on this from Stanford, has made over $200 million, personally developing and selling embryonic stem-cell companies."

The CMA president suggests the Obama administration should put the priority on helping to cure patients.

"It's a waste of money to put federal tax dollars into embryonic stem-cell research," he contends. "It's not going to get the cures we want. We need to put our money where we can get real cures for real people real fast."

Stevens is urging the White House to advance ethical stem-cell research without using human embryos "as lab rats."

Contact: Bill Bumpas

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 3, 2010

Pro-life leader criticizes professor’s support for coercive sterilization

      

A British professor's call to sterilize by force members of society who would be "inadequate parents" prompted criticism from the interim head of Human Life International (HLI), who warned that the view is more mainstream among academics and derives from a society where life is controlled "at our whim."

Prof. David Marsland told the BBC that "permanent sterilization" is the solution to child neglect or abuse, LifeSiteNews reports.

Attributing abuse and neglect to "a very small minority of inadequate parents," he said these parents have "a number of moral and mental inadequacies" caused by "serious mental defect," chronic mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism.

"Short of lifetime incarceration," he said, the solution is "permanent sterilization."

The professor's response came in a BBC program which reacted to an English local council that wanted to force contraception on a 29-year-old woman. Council members judged her to be incapable of making decisions about childrearing.

Prof. Marsland is Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham.

HLI interim president Msgr. Ignatio Barreiro-Carambula denounced the comments on Thursday, saying they show that "no evil is ever fully buried in the past."

"Every time we think we've seen the last of the Sangerian calls to forcibly sterilize and otherwise do away with the disabled, we are aghast at their return," he said in a Thursday press release. "Sangerian" is a reference to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who was among the many intellectuals who called for birth control to target racial minorities and other "unfit" persons.

"Our elites have established a society of contraception and abortion, wherein life itself is just another factor to be controlled at our whim," the monsignor argued. "This society in turn creates more and more people who are depersonalized and marginalized, and they think that the answer to this is to simply get rid of the people whose situations we have helped to create? This is insanity."

Msgr. Barreiro also warned that the professor should not be regarded as a fringe character.

"What many people may not realize is how mainstream Prof. Marsland's comments are in the 'progressive' academy," he commented, charging that supporters of forced sterilization are "destroyers" of life.

"Only a corrupt person could make this barbarity sound so 'reasonable'," he continued. "We are not fooled. We must all denounce this evil and stop it in its tracks."

He called on Christians and all men of good will in academia to reject the reasoning of the professor and those like him who have "again gone too far."

"We must tell them that we reject the notion that human beings are mere animals that must be controlled by those who think they know better."

Source: CNA
Date Published: September 3, 2010

Divided Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Thomas More Society's Request for Immediate Transfer of Parental Notice Challenge

      

Yesterday, a divided Illinois Supreme Court denied a request by the Thomas More Society to transfer the legal case pending against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court. Justices Robert R. Thomas and Thomas L. Kilbride dissented from the order denying the transfer.

"We're obviously disappointed with this ruling, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to bring these appeals to a speedy and positive conclusion," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The latest constitutional attack on this law by the American Civil Liberties Union was deemed legally meritless and tossed out of court by both a federal appeals court and a Cook County trial court, and yet the Attorney General agreed -- inexplicably and without any legal basis -- that the enforcement of parental notice should still be stayed, that is, suspended pending the outcome of the ACLU's appeal."

With the transfer motion denied, the proceedings will continue in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where Thomas More Society attorneys are due to file their opening appeal brief on Friday.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: September 1, 2010

American Academy of Pediatrics Rejects Abstinence, Tells Members to Promote ‘Safe-Sex’

      
Days after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services bowed to public pressure and posted a the results of favorable abstinence survey, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement Tuesday, stating it was "unwise" to promote abstinence-only education.

In its policy statement, "Sexuality, Contraception and the Media," AAP's Council on Communications and Media, indicated:

"It is unwise to promote 'abstinence-only' sex education when it has been shown to be ineffective and when the media have become such an important source of information about 'non-abstinence.'"

Chad Hills, CitizenLink's sexual health and abstinence analyst, said there are positive and negative aspects of the policy statement.

"Although it's commendable that the AAP policy is least recognizing – and addressing – the media's promotion of casual sex outside of marriage to teens," Hills said, "they failed to recognize the importance of parents, educators and the media in upholding a higher expected sexual standard –namely keeping sexuality within the context of marriage."

Melissa Henson, director of communications and public education at Parents Television Council, said, sex and marriage is portrayed in the media as something painful and that you have to do out of obligation.

"Sexual relationships that are adulterous or that take place outside of the context of marriage are always presented in a favorable light," Henson said. "The only kind of sexual relationships that really aren't addressed on television are sexual relationships within the context of a loving and committed marriage."

Even shows that attempt to show the realities of teen sexual activity are problematic.

"I have yet to see a TV show that handled these messages in a responsible way to begin with," Henson added. "It is important for parents to make it clear to their kids that there are real-world consequences that they need to be prepared to deal with."

Source: Citizenlink
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Becket Fund vs. gov't-forced abortion

      

The Becket Fund is pledging to sue the Department of Health and Human Services if it begins forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions.

Eric Rassbach, an attorney with The Becket Fund, tells OneNewsNow the current issue deals with the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) misinterpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

"The ACLU made what we consider an indecent proposal to the Department of Health and Human Services, asking them to take a law that was meant to prevent patient dumping and turn it into a command that religious hospitals perform abortions," he explains.

His firm feels the ACLU has no business in re-defining the meaning of the legislation, and believes forcing religious doctors and nurses to violate their faith would result in nationwide closures of healthcare facilities.

"It takes a little bit of chutzpa to say that this is somehow a law forcing religious people to perform abortions," Rassbach decides. But he points out that if the federal government complies with the ACLU's request, it would be a violation of "the basic rights of conscience that are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Rossbach assures that if that happens, the Health Department will find itself squaring off against The Becket Fund in federal court.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

UK’s NICE Rationers: Plush Office Remodel–YES!–Pay for Life-Extending Cancer Drug–NO!

UK's NICE Rationers: Plush Office Remodel–YES!–Pay for Life-Extending Cancer Drug–NO!

     

NICE–the rationing board for the UK's NHS–is the model that Obamacare's major supporters want for us, and the potential to create such centralized control was passed under Obamacare. For example,  Former Senator Tom Daschle, described by the NYT as the most influential outside adviser on Obamacare, loves NICE.  NICE gives Donald Berwick, now temporarily the head of Medicare, the vapors.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has  supported Berwick's views, lending her heft for health care rationing under Obamacare.  With so many powerful Obamacaricrats swooning over NICE, it is worth our time to keep a close eye on on the rationing board's many harmful actions.

In our latest chapter, NICE has spent 500,000 pounds ($769,952 - U.S. Dollars) to remodel its offices, while denying NHS coverage for a bowel cancer drug that extends life about 8 months.  From the story:

Controversial rationing body NICE has spent £500,000 on a plush office refurbishment – despite turning down life-extending cancer drugs for being too expensive. A week after causing a furore by rejecting the bowel cancer drug Avastin, it has emerged that the quango plans to expand still further by taking on more than 160 new staff. The news, which comes as the public sector is facing massive cutbacks, will fuel criticisms of ' empire building' by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The amount spent on refurbishment including an extended boardroom and the installation of plasma TVs – could pay for a month's Avastin for 240 people

This isn't based on efficacy–which is being questioned by the FDA regarding the drug's use for breast cancer–but pure cost/benefit and quality of life judgmentalism.  (Can you imagine if an HMO did this? The lawsuits would never end!) If Obamacare's cost-benefit boards ever gain the kind of power NICE wields, the same thing will happen here. And the hubris of feathering its own nest?  Par for the course for those who feel self entitled–like California's white elephant, the CIRM.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 2, 2010

Iowa medical board 'cozy' with Planned Parenthood

      

Operation Rescue wants open Iowa medical records to be just that – open. But the group is encountering opposition from an abortionist.

Operation Rescue researchers wanted public records of Planned Parenthood abortion practitioner Susan Haskell. But that request was denied, and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has now sued the Citizen's Information Center.

"Seemingly in Iowa, there are open records -- and then there are open records that can be sealed when Planned Parenthood doesn't like the information that's within them," suggests Operation Rescue president Troy Newman.

Also at issue is the fact that the medical board staff tipped off Planned Parenthood when the request was made. Newman stresses that a doctor's medical license, disciplinary action taken against him or her, and even their application for a medical license are all public documents in every state.

"But in Iowa, if you work for Planned Parenthood, the Iowa Board of Medicine will let you know that Operation Rescue is seeking your open records and then will seek a court injunction prohibiting us from getting that information," the pro-lifer laments.

Newman also decides that this lawsuit raises speculation about what Planned Parenthood has to hide. "It's corruption and collusion within the abortion industry at its worst degree," he contends.

The Operation Rescue president concludes that the relationship between the abortion clinic and the state medical board is a little too cozy, but he has a few court maneuvers in mind to ensure that public information is public.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

Church intervenes in pastor's euthanasia battle

      

A situation is unfolding in Canada that is similar to the case of Terri Schiavo, the patient who was starved and dehydrated to death in Florida several years ago.

Joshua Kulendran Mayandy, a Sri Lankan native and Pentecostal pastor at Humberlea Worship Centre in Etobicoke, suffered a heart attack and brain damage May 29. He was in a coma but came out of it and has improved. Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) tells OneNewsNow Mayandy has no family, no written instructions on what to do, and no power-of-attorney agreement that could effect those decisions.

"So the court then chose someone to make decisions for him, and the person who he had chosen had originally agreed that...he would go along with the hospital's wishes, which was no medical treatment, including no IV fluids, foods or medicines at all," Schadenberg reports.

That means that food and fluids are considered a part of medical treatment. However, members of the pastor's church agreed the hospital's decision was contrary to Mayandy's wishes. The situation changed once the EPC got involved.

"The substitute decision-maker agreed to allow a nurse, who is part of the church, to come in every day and feed Pastor Mayandy, so that has begun and it's still continuing," the EPC executive director explains.

He goes on to point out that the decision to restore food and water came after the hospital received thousands of calls protesting the removal of food and water. Schadenberg cautions that the situation is not over yet because the substitute decision-maker could change course again.

Meanwhile, the pastor is now able to swallow, and Schadenberg reports that he is otherwise healthy and could go on to live many years.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

5 questions about the stem cell ruling

     

A federal judge's ruling has thrust the issue of embryonic stem cell research back into the news. Following are five questions and answers about the decision.

-- Did the judge's ruling block all stem cell research?

No. Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction blocking only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Federal funding for the other two types of stem cell research -- adult stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research -- is still allowed, as is private funding for embryonic stem cell research. The judge said a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- which is attached to a yearly spending bill and must be renewed annually -- prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The amendment bars research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Lamberth's injunction could remain in place until he considers the case itself, in which he said the pro-life coalition that filed the suit has a "strong likelihood" of winning. Among the pro-life groups involved in the case are the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International and the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

-- What are the differences between the three types of stem cells?

1) Adult stem cells are found in various parts of the body and even in umbilical cord blood; 2) embryonic stem cells are found only in embryos; 3) induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are skin cells that are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. As the body's master cells, all stem cells have the potential to develop into other types of body tissue and cure diseases and other ailments. Adult stem cells are "multipotent," meaning they can develop into some, but not all, of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells and iPSC cells are "pluripotent," meaning they can potentially develop into all of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research and iPSC research do not involve embryos and are not controversial.

-- How does the Obama administration interpret the Dickey-Wicker Amendment?

The Justice Department says the Dickey-Wicker Amendment allows research on embryonic stem cells as long as the embryos themselves were destroyed using private money. Lamberth, though, said the two parts of the research "cannot be separated" and that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is "unambiguous." Congress' intent, he said, was to "enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed." Lamberth was nominated by President Reagan.

-- Has stem cell research led to any cures?

Embryonic stem cell research has not, and any cures could be years away, at best. In 2006 a California institute, set up to oversee $3 billion in state embryonic stem cell funding, acknowledged that at the end of a 10-year period, it simply hoped to have "preliminary evidence" from at least one embryonic stem cell trial. The research has been slowed because embryonic stem cells have a tendency to produce cancer in animal trials. The first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial in the U.S. got under way this year. By contrast, advances in adult stem cell research and iPSC research are moving rapidly. Adult stem cell treatment has led to treatments for 73 diseases and ailments, according to the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. IPSC research may be the most promising field. Dr. Oz, of "Oprah" fame, said in 2009 he believed researchers were "single-digit years" away from finding treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells. "The stem cell debate is dead," he said, noting the problems with embryonic stem cells. In 2009, Al Gore announced his partnership in a $20 million venture to fund iPSC research.

-- What's the next step in the legal case?

The Obama administration is appealing the ruling and wants the judge to stay the ruling -- meaning to prevent the ruling from going into effect -- until the appeal is exhausted. Some Democrats in Congress say they will move to pass legislation reversing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, although it is unclear whether Congress will have the time or political desire to pass such a controversial bill before the November election. It is possible it could be taken up during a lame duck session after November.

Contact: Michael Foust

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Option Line Launches Upgraded, Interactive Site for Connecting Women to Life-Affirming Help

     

Joint venture partners Carenet and Heartbeat International announced Wednesday the release of an upgraded, interactive Option Line® website featuring clean, simplified navigation and new chat technology. One of the most strategic partnerships in the pro-life movement, Option Line is the only national, multi-channel contact center providing women facing an unplanned pregnancy with information about abortion risks and alternatives.

Since 2003, the Option Line contact center has experienced incredible growth; in 2009, it received its one millionth contact from emails, calls, instant messenger and text messages, garnering more than 250,000 of those contacts that year alone.

Advertised on billboards, bus shelters, Internet, TV and radio ads, Option Line is equipped with 37 trained consultants who are available 24-7 to connect individuals with the compassionate support and practical help of a local pregnancy center.

The upgraded Option Line website features:

• Clear and simple navigation linking individuals more quickly with the help and information they need.

• A new chat feature, where web visitors are prompted to speak to a live Option Line consultant for help.

• Straight-forward messaging for key audiences: women thinking they might be pregnant, women seeking information about the morning-after pill, and women considering an abortion. All information is extensively referenced.

• Specific guidance for boyfriends, friends, and family members of a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy.

"When a young woman suspects she might be pregnant, she often goes online for help," said Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde. "We've designed our new Option Line website so that it's one of the first places she visits. By putting her in touch with a local pregnancy center, Option Line is connecting her to life-saving support for her and her unborn child."

"Option Line's new chat technology provides women a safe and comfortable way to share their fears and get connected to local help" said Heartbeat International President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D. "Three out of four women who contact the Option Line believe abortion may be their only option, but instead they receive information about positive alternatives and caring help in their local community."

Contact: Kristin Hansen

Source: Care Net
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Maryland Orders Dangerous Abortionist to Stop Practicing Illegally

     

Troubled abortionist Steven Chase Brigham has been issued a cease and desist order by the Maryland State Board of Physicians. The order demands that he stop the illegal practice of medicine, including abortions, at five locations throughout Maryland because he does not and never has been licensed in that state.
 
The order, dated August 25, 2010, indicates that Brigham has been practicing illegally in Maryland since January, 2010.
 
The document referred to an incident that occurred on August 13, 2010, where Brigham had begun a surgical procedure presumed to be an abortion, since that is the sole focus of his business. However, something went wrong and Brigham instructed the woman to travel to his abortion clinic in Elkton to complete the procedure "on an urgent basis."
 
"The health of Maryland patients is being endangered by the Respondent's unlicensed practice of medicine in this State," the order read.
 
The Maryland locations involved are located in Baltimore, Cheverly, Fredrick, College Park, and Elkton. Currently, all the clinics remain open and staffed by other abortionists.
 
Brigham operates a number of abortion centers in several states under the name American Women's Services.
 
Brigham has been under investigation and discipline throughout his entire 20-year career. He voluntarily retired his medical license in Pennsylvania while under investigation just six years after graduating from medical school. Since then, Brigham had medical licenses revoked in New York and Florida, and received disciplinary action in California and New Jersey. He served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud.
 
A judge once ordered him to stop advertising his abortions as "painless" and "safe."
 
"The only thing that will stop Brigham from committing illegal abortions that endanger the lives of women is to toss him in jail for a long time," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who said that her organization is planning on filing a complaint against the abortionist demanding criminal charges.

"Traditional means of discipline simply don't work with this guy," she said. "He has found that he can get away with just about anything without much more than a slap on the wrist. The only way to protect women from Brigham's predatory and unsafe abortion business is to criminally charge him and order all his mills closed."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Lessons from California on Taxpayer Funding of Human Embryo Research

     

Life Legal Defense Foundation, who in 2005 initiated the lawsuit People's Advocate v. ICOC, challenging the constitutionality of the governing board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to fund human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR), today warned not to fall for the same rhetoric being heard from the proponents of federal funding for embryo-destructive research. LLDF makes this warning after yesterday's request by the Obama administration before the judge -- who halted the illegal funding -- to allow the funding to continue while the decision is appealed. The recent decision halting funding is available at ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44.

CIRM was established by voter initiative in California due in large part to proponents' promises of cures for all Californians resulting from HESCR. To date, CIRM, or for that matter any HESCR research, has produced no cures or therapies while over 70 therapies for various diseases have been the result of non-controversial and life-affirming cord blood and adult stem cell research -- stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm.  

In spite of the absolute failure of HESCR and a Rasmussen Poll released on Friday, August 27, 2010, that revealed "only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research" and 57% of those polled OPPOSE taxpayer funding for controversial stem cell research that requires destruction of human embryos, it looks like Congress will consider legislation to approve taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research when the House reconvenes in September.

H.R. 4808, the legislation most recently introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), has broader consequences than legislation passed by the House in prior Congresses. Pro-Life leaders oppose H.R. 4808 because it directs federal funds to embryo-destructive research and unlike prior bills passed by Congress, provides a basis for taxpayer funding for research on stem cells taken from cloned embryos and embryos created solely for the purpose of destruction.

Perhaps Americans who oppose federal funding ofc have watched the waste of taxpayer funds in California appropriated to CIRM. CIRM funding has been used largely for kingdom building among HESCR proponents. Funds have also been used to advance HESCR rhetoric by characterizing it as science education in government schools and colleges. An analysis of how CIRM has spent millions of dollars of the California taxpayers' hard-earned cash under the guise of "cures for all" that proponents promised would result from embryo destructive research is available at lldf.org/articles/stemcell.

Contact: Dana Cody

Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Two Republican Governors Reject New Sex Ed Program, Apply for Abstinence Funds

      

Republican Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota applied for abstinence-education funding on Monday – just meeting U. S. Department of Health and Human Services' Aug. 30 deadline.

The U.S. Congress and the administration had canceled all abstinence-centered program grants for the FY2010 budget, putting at risk more than 2 million students who are expected to attend 176 abstinence programs this fall.

However, CitizenLink and pro-family organizations alerted people that the administration had refused to release a pivotal abstinence study. After protest, HHS posted the study online.

The abstinence study's executive summary indicated that:

•70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.
•70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do."
•Adolescents had similar responses for the two questions.
Chad Hills, sexual health and abstinence policy analyst for CitizenLink, said Americans deserve answers from President Obama and his administration about its lack of transparency of the survey results.

"Why were the results of this publicly funded national survey withheld from the public, researchers and policymakers?" said Hills. "And, why is our elected, "representative" form of government choosing not to reflect the desires of its constituents in this instance? We're submitting another Freedom of Information Act rquest to the HHS to collect more information about this suspicious delay."

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: August 31, 2010

'Marked for Death' - An Abortion Survivor's Story

     

In August of 1977, Melissa Ohden was 'marked for death,' but miraculously she survived.

Facing Life Head-On, the weekly pro-life television program of Life Issues Institute, and recent Emmy award winner for "best of the best" in the category of Interview and Discussion, features saline infusion abortion attempt survivor, Melissa Ohden on its award winning show the week of August 29th and September 6th.

In this two part series, host Brad Mattes takes the Facing Life Head-On audience on the journey of Melissa's remarkable survival, how her tragic beginning quickly turned into a story of love through adoption, her search for the truth and for her biological family, and how being a survivor has impacted her now as a parent, herself.

Interviews with Melissa's adoptive mother and with a doctor regarding late term abortion attempts and the impact of these abortions on babies like Melissa give depth to a story, and a life, that is often unheard of: the story and life of the unborn.

To view episode 1 of 'Marked for Death' or to find out how you can tune into episodes 1 and 2 of 'Marked for Life,' please visit www.facinglife.tv/episode/index.html.

Contact: Melissa Ohden

Date Published: August 31, 2010

Teen Pro-Life Phenomenon 'Lia' Defends Rights of the Unborn

    

Pro-life prodigy Lia Mills, whose Youtube orations have amassed nearly a million views, has set out to prove the humanity of the unborn in a new video, part of an ongoing campaign to promote the message of life.

If the unborn are not human, the 13-year-old Toronto-native explains in her ten-minute address, then abortion is simply a matter of personal preference.  But, she says, "if the unborn are human, then they have value and rights."

She points out that textbooks on embryology clearly state that life begins at conception and human development begins at fertilization.  "At conception, a new life with its own unique DNA begins," she explains.  "All of the body parts of the mother share the same DNA, the mother's DNA.  But an unborn baby has an entirely different DNA.  He or she is separate from the mother."

"It should be clear that when two living beings from the same species mate, the product will be the same species as the parents," she adds.

Lia argues that all of the claims against the humanity of the unborn distinguish them from the born based on (1) size, (2) level of development, (3) environment, or (4) degree of dependency.  She goes through each one and points out that we do not devalue born people based on these differences.

To take the fourth, for example, she observes that many argue the unborn should not be given the same rights as others because they depend so completely on their mother for life and sustenance.  But Lia points out that a one-week-old baby is totally dependent on her parents, and the infirm are dependent on medical implements.

"Really if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we should be able to kill those who are on welfare, because they depend on the government," she asserts.  "We are all dependent on someone to a degree and no one goes around saying that those who are more dependent aren't human or are somehow less human than others."

In the end, she admits that abortion advocates now accept the humanity of the unborn, but rely instead on the claim that the unborn are not persons.  "They acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, but are now denying them their personhood, and thereby denying them their rights," she says.  "Is it possible to be a human and not a person?"

Having shown the humanity of the unborn, Lia's next video, which should be issued shortly, will answer the question "Are the unborn persons?"

    
Click here to see the video, 'Are the Unborn Human?'

Contact: Patrick B. Craine

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Congressmen Seek to Undermine Embryonic Stem Cell Ruling by Changing Law

Senate aide: codifying Obama order "wouldn't do the trick"

     

Members in both chambers of U.S. Congress are angling to alter federal law in order to undermine a district court judge's temporary injunction that effectively puts a stop to the onset of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled last Monday that Obama's March 2009 Executive Order, which permitted public funds for the research involving the destruction of embryonic human beings, directly conflicted with federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The amendment prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The Obama administration plans to appeal the decision, which followed a decision in June declaring that pro-life researchers and a Christian adoption group had standing to contest the new funding guidelines in a court of law.

But others are looking for a more direct route: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee aides cited by the National Journal Monday indicated that lawmakers were gearing up to alter the pro-life law cited by the judge "to get at the heart of the problem."  "Simply codifying President Obama's Executive Order wouldn't do the trick," said one aide.

In the House, Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado is planning to re-introduce legislation to eliminate the ban on taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research, according to news reports in Colorado. The Democrat had sponsored the same legislation previously, but it was vetoed by President George W. Bush.

"For most members of Congress, it's not really a political calculation as much as a realization that this research has been pretty halted by this court decision and we need to act quickly to reverse that," said DeGette, a leading pro-abortion voice in Congress.

While DeGette and other Democrats argue that experimentation on cells derived from destroyed embryos is permitted under the law, Lamberth's decision on Monday emphasized that attempting to separate the origin of such cells from research later conducted on them was misguided.

"ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo. Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on ESCs, the two cannot be separated."

Richard Doerflinger, a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, agreed in a New York Times article last week, saying that attempts to make such a distinction were "implausibly narrow."

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that public opinion has shifted against taxpayer funding for embryonic stem-cell research since Obama signed the Executive Order last year.

Fifty-seven percent of U.S. voters say that embryonic stem-cell research should not involve taxpayer funds, while only 33 percent believe the research should receive public monies. The numbers are nearly flipped from when Obama signed the Order permitting public funds for embryo-destructive research in March 2009: 52 percent favored the move, and 38 percent were opposed.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Government Study Withheld for Year: 70 Percent of Parents and 54 Percent of Teens Say Sex Before Marriage is Wrong

     

Seventy percent of American parents and 53.5 percent of American adolescents believe sex before marriage is wrong, according to a federally funded study released Monday by the Administration of Children and Families, an agency within the Health and Human Services Department.

The survey asked American parents and adolescents whether they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed wih the statement that "having sexual intercourse is something only married people should."  Among parents, 47.6 percent strongly agreed and 22.2 percent somewhat agreed, while 17.8 percent somewhat disagreed and 12.3 percent strongly disagreed.  Among adolescents, 38.5 percent strongly agreed and 23.0 percent somewhat agreed, while 21.5 percent somewhat disagreed and 17.1 percent strongly disagreed.
 
Although the report on the study was completed by February 2009, HHS did not release it until last week, even when asked to do so--prompting speculation that the Obama administration did not like the report's conclusions.
 
"I think it tells us that abstinence education is the center of cultural norms for parents and teens," Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA), told CNSNews.com. "That doesn't mean that the current teen behavior is exactly in that sweet spot, but it shows that that should be our goal – not just for health reasons but because that is exactly what parents and teens want in terms of sex education."
 
Huber pointed out that the results of the study contradict the Obama administration's stance against abstinence education. "President Obama, in submitting his first budget to Congress in 2010, specifically made note that he wanted to eliminate all funds for abstinence education," Huber said. "That is not in keeping with public health guidelines and not in keeping with research."
 
The study also found that "the majority of parents surveyed favor their adolescents receiving abstinence messages from multiple sources," including places of worship, doctors' offices, schools and the Internet.
 
"I think it's striking that the study found that large majorities – both of parents and adolescents – believe that having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do," Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council Peter Sprigg told CNSNews.com. "Seventy-two percent of the parents and 62 percent of the adolescents either strongly or somewhat agree with that statement. And that's the message that abstinence-until-marriage programs seek to send."
 
The report suggests that parental attitudes do matter to teenagers: "More conservative parent attitudes about sex and abstinence were broadly associated with more conservative attitudes among adolescents, adjusting for other factors."
 
Sprigg pointed to one finding in the study indicating that students involved in abstinence education programs were more likely to communicate with their parents about such topics: "So I think a strong message from parents and a strong abstinence message from a curriculum or program are mutually reinforcing influences," Sprigg told CNSNews.com.
 
In addition to parental attitudes, peers also had a significant impact on adolescent attitudes. "Adolescents with more conservative peers expressed more conservative attitudes about sex and abstinence and more restrictive views about their own sexual behavior," the report said.
 
"What the research is really showing is that, parents -- you need to step up to the plate here," said the NAEA's Huber. "And we know it's a tough decision – but the reality is the teens are listening even if they're pretending they're not, and they want to hear from mom and dad. If mom and dad aren't saying anything, then they're going to get that information elsewhere, and they're going to take their behavioral cues from people who might not have their best interest in mind."
 
Sprigg noted that religious participation has a powerful influence on attitudes toward abstinence and premarital sex: "There were very striking differences between those who never attend worship and those who attend worship weekly – both among the parents and among the adolescents," Sprigg said. "Those who attend worship weekly [had] much more conservative or restrictive attitude towards sex before marriage," he noted.
 
Sprigg believes the study "provides proof that a strong majority of American families support the abstinence until-marriage-message." Maybe that's one reason the Obama administration was not eager to release it, he said.
 
"I think this study is an embarrassment for the Obama administration," said Sprigg, "because it offers significant support for the type of abstinence education that they have stopped funding. But I will add that I think it's shameful that they repressed the report and failed to release it for a year and a half. Oftentimes liberals will say we need to implement policies that are evidence-based. But it's clear that when the evidence goes against their ideological preconceptions, then they don't want the evidence to be the basis for the policy anymore."
 
Dr. Gary Scott, a senior research fellow at Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), told CNSNews.com he believes the study "will exasperate both liberals and conservatives."
 
According to Scott, the report indicates that government abstinence programs are ineffective. "While most parents and children oppose pre-marital sex, government programming to reduce unwanted adolescent pregnancies through abstinence education have mostly failed to steer teens away from the lingering temptation toward premarital sex," Scott said.
 
"Those wading deeper into the statistics will discover that religious institutions are more successful; a teen's peers matter a great deal, especially for boys; parents' brief and substantive talks are better than lots of sex talk; attitudes vary systematically across so-called red and blue states," Scott said.
 
Under the "conclusions" section, the report discusses the importance of abstinence education. It states, "In general, our findings indicate that adolescent attitudes about sex and abstinence are more subject to influence from parents and peers than to messages about sex and abstinence delivered in the context of classes or programs. However, adolescent receipt of information about sex, abstinence, and sexual values in a class or program was associated with increased levels of adolescent communication about sex and abstinence with both parents and peers. Furthermore, adolescent exposure to some specific topics related to sex and abstinence in a class or program appeared to increase the likelihood that adolescents heard and reported similar messages about sex and abstinence delivered by their parents."
 
According to the report, HHS administered a federal grant program to fund abstinence education for states "with the ultimate goal of preventing unwed childbearing, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases." The survey sampled 1,000 pairs of adolescents (ages 12-18) and parents to "learn more about the public's views."
 
The report states that the findings of the survey "can be used in the future to inform public education campaigns and abstinence education programs as well as to assist [the Administration of Children and Families] with grant administration and technical assistance activities."
 
The researchers conducted the survey by telephone, allowing participants to key in their responses on a touch-tone phone to protect their privacy. The survey also asked to speak to the "most knowledgeable parent," who would best know the teen's attitudes toward sex and abstinence.
 
Long delay in releasing the report

The final report on the study, prepared by the research and consulting firm Abt Associates, is dated Feb. 26, 2009, a full year and a half before it was released in its entirety by ACF on Monday, Aug. 23, 2010.
 
In March, Dr. Lisa Rue of the University of Northern Colorado requested the full study for a report she was preparing for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program. She says the ACF denied her request and told her it would not be releasing the report.
 
Dr. Rue told CNSNews.com that she heard about the study in a presentation and requested the full report from Abt Associates. Having been told that the administration had not released the report, she contacted ACF. "ACF said, 'Well, we're not releasing the report,'" reported Rue. "I asked why, and they wouldn't tell me why."
 
After discovering the study's initial findings on the American Public Health Association (APHA) website, Dr. Rue filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the full report. In June, she received a denial for the FOIA request, because the report was under "pre-decisional and deliberative" status.
 
Rue appealed the decision, based on the fact that the ACF study had been presented in public twice and because APHA had published the initial findings. However, by August, "someone had pulled the executive findings off the American Public Health Association Web site and only the abstract was available," Rue informed CNSNews.com.
 
"I've never gotten a response back from my appeal," said Dr. Rue, "so I was pretty upset about that, given that this was a taxpayer-funded study and it's relevant to the research work that I do, and it's relevant to the new policies that they've got."
 
When asked about the 18-month delay in publishing the report, the National Abstinence Education Association's Huber said, "You know, that is very curious to me, because this was a study that was done with taxpayer dollars. It took a while for them to compile the results, that when it was finally finalized, the next natural step would be that it would be shared with the public – that it would be posted on their Web site, and that their public policy decisions would be informed by those results."
 
She continued, "The fact that a university professor came across this research and wanted to access it for her research studies and for some reports she was writing and she was denied -- that was startling to us and of great concern."
 
Huber also noted that both Democratic and Republican presidents have supported abstinence education in the past. "So now he has an opportunity – if he hadn't seen these research results before now – to look at them and see that those policy positions are clearly out of step with where parents, taxpayers, who are by the way also voters, want sex education to go," said Huber.
 
CNSNews.com sent HHS an email asking for an explanation of the delay in publishing the study and inquiring whether the results will encourage the department to support abstinence education. Although there was no response to the latter question, an HHS spokesman responded via email to CNSNews.com about the delay in publication:
 
"In February 2009, Abt Associates delivered the study to ACF for review.  In November 2009, Abt Associates also reported on the study and its findings at a meeting of the American Public Health Association. In March 2010 a FOIA request for the study was submitted to ACF.  It was not made available at that time because the recently confirmed commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) had not yet had an opportunity to review it. The report was posted on the ACYF website on August 23, 2010."

Contact: Jane McGrath

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Later Abortions Linked to Psychological Problems: Study

     
   
Springfield, IL, A study from of women who had abortions has found that women undergoing later abortions face increased psychological risks, are more likely to be ambivalent about having an abortion and are more likely to need counseling and support. The study, "Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms," was published in the August issue of the Journal of Pregnancy.
 
The results came from an online survey of 374 women who answered a detailed questionnaire about the circumstances leading to their abortions, their previous mental health history, or physical or sexual abuse and emotional state following abortion. The small study is the first to compare the experiences of women having early abortions compared to women having later abortions (in the second or third trimester).
 
The study, lead by Prof. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, found that women having abortions after 13 weeks were more likely to report that:

- their partner desired the pregnancy (22.4 percent of women who had later abortions vs. 10.3 percent of women who had early abortions);
- that they were pressured by someone other than their partner to abort (47.8 percent vs. 30.5 percent);
- their partner didn't know about the abortion (23.9 percent vs. 12.5 percent);
- they had left their partner before the abortion (28.3 percent vs. 15.6 percent);
- physical health concerns were a factor in having the abortion (29.8 percent vs. 14.7 percent).
 
Ambivalence about the abortion, unwanted abortion and poor pre-abortion counseling were also commonly reported in the late-term abortion group. Nearly 40 percent said they desired the pregnancy and only 30 percent said both they and their partner supported the abortion, while less than 14 percent said they received adequate pre-abortion counseling or information on alternatives or physical and emotional risks.
 
"In general, these results are indicative of more ambivalence and conflict surrounding the decision and the likelihood of less stable partner relationships among women who obtain later abortions," the authors wrote. "Logically, women who are unsure about how to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy are more likely to put off the decision to abort, perhaps hoping their circumstances will improve and enable them to carry to term."
 
A survey of American and Russian women who had abortions, published in the Medical Science Monitor in 2004, found that 64 percent of the American respondents reported feeling pressured to abort, while more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the decision and more than 80 percent reported receiving inadequate counseling beforehand.
 
Emotional Effects of Abortion
 
The study also found high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for women having both early and late abortions, with 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group meeting the American Psychological Association's criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).
 
One possible cause may be a high number of women having unwanted abortions due to the reactions of those around them, the authors said. "Concern regarding reactions of others to having a child" was the mostly frequently cited reason for abortion for both early (69.1 percent) and late (62 percent) abortions.

The authors wrote, however, that many likely had abortions "despite ambivalence or actually desiring to continue the pregnancy." Feelings of ambivalence or having an unwanted abortion are known risk factors for psychological problems after abortion.
 
Additionally, women having later abortions were more likely to report having disturbing dreams, reliving the abortion, having trouble sleeping and experiencing intrusion, a PTSD symptom that involves having recurring memories, flashbacks or hyperactivity when confronted with reminders of the trauma.
 
The previously mentioned Medical Science Monitor survey found that 65 percent of American women who had abortions reported experiencing symptoms of PTSD, which they attributed to their abortions. Other studies have also linked abortion to increased rates of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders and other mental health problems.
 
The authors said that their study is best viewed as a "pilot" study on which to base future research on the psychological impact of late-term abortion, and called for more counseling and support for women undergoing later abortions.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 27, 2010