Pro-Life Memorial Day to Commemorate Casualties of Roe V. Wade on Elena Kagan's First Day on the Job

          

When abortion supporter and newest Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan begins her first day on the bench Monday, pro-lifers around the country will be holding vigils and demonstrations memorializing the more than 52 million lives lost through surgical and medical abortion -- the direct result of the Court's Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on Jan. 22, 1973.

The sixth annual Pro-Life Memorial Day will be held Monday, Oct 4, 2010, at locations around the country, including Washington, D.C. PLMD follows the Red Mass celebrated in Washington, D.C. on the Sunday before the first Monday of October, when the Supreme Court begins its new term.

PLMD seeks to call the attention of politicians and members of the legal profession attending Red Masses nationwide to the injustice of denying legal recognition of personhood to an entire class of human beings because of their size and location.

"The blood of 52 million of our brothers and sisters demands that we end the injustice of abortion and establish in law that all human beings deserve to be recognized as persons," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League.

Pro-lifers will gather to mourn, pray, remember and resolve to end the greatest atrocity of our time.

American Life League encourages PLMD participants to make a special supplication to the Holy Spirit to enlighten Supreme Court justices and all who attend Red Masses, so that the words engraved on the Supreme Court building, "equal justice under law," will become a reality for all Americans.

Contact: Katie Walker

Source: American Life League
Date Published: September 30, 2010

Ethical Stem Cell Breakthrough! IPSCs Without Genes or Viruses

      

Never underestimate the creativity and excellence of our scientists. New research seems to have overcome the difficulties of IPSCs, allowing pluripotent stem cells to be created from normal body cells without using genes or viruses. From the story in the Washington Post:

In 2006, researchers discovered that they could coax adult cells into a state that appeared identical to embryonic stem cells, dubbed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), by activating four genes. Those cells could morph into various tissues in the same way that embryonic stem cells can. But the process involved inserting genes into cells using retroviruses, which raised the risk the cells could cause cancer. Since then, scientists have been racing to develop alternative methods. Several approaches, using chemicals or other types of viruses, have shown promise. But none has completely eliminated the safety concerns, and most have been slow and inefficient.

The new approach involves molecules known as "messenger RNA," or mRNA, which the DNA inside cells use to create proteins they need carry out various vital functions. The researchers created mRNA molecules carrying the instructions for the cell's machinery to produce the four key proteins needed to reprogram themselves into iPS cells.

After tinkering with the mRNA molecules in the laboratory to make signals that the cells would not destroy as dangerous invaders, the researchers found that a daily cocktail of their creations were surprisingly fast and efficient at reprogramming the cells. The approach converted the cells in about half the time of previous methods – only about 17 days – with surprising economy – up to 100 times more efficient than the standard approach.

Moreover, detailed tests indicated the cells had not experienced any disturbing changes in their DNA caused by previous methods and were virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. In addition, the researchers went one step further and showed that they could use the approach to then coax the iPS cells they created into a specific type of cell, in this case muscle cells.

I have three observations: First, this story validates President Bush's faith in the science sector's capacity to find ethical ways to do what scientists used to claim only ESCR could accomplish. In fact, I think Bush deserves some credit for these advances because his policy kept society focused so closely on the moral issues surrounding the embryo.

Second: Even if this advance did EVERYTHING that scientists wanted from ESCR, it won't stop many from wanting to experiment on nascent human life.  Indeed, some would look at the advance, shrug, and keep on trying to clone. Why? Because stem cell advances are not the end game. As I wrote here, they are merely the opening stanza of a much longer symphony that seeks to open the door to Brave New World technologies such as genetic engineering and enhancement, that requires cloning and experimenting on the resulting embryos to perfect.

Third: Obama should restore the Bush policy he revoked giving priority to NIH funding for non embryonic research into sources of pluripotent stem cells. But he won't.  Many among his base loathe the very idea that a human embryo would have any moral standing.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: October 1, 2010

RU-486 Turns 10: What’s to Celebrate?

      

Question: If one in 600 people eating broccoli had adverse reactions, what would the government do?

If you listen closely, you can hear the sounds of celebration as abortion advocates commemorate the 10th anniversary of the abortion drug coming to America. It was 10 years ago this week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave a green light to Mifeprex®, also known by chemical names of RU-486 and mifepristone, for U.S. consumption.

Pro-life forces put up a good fight to keep the drug out of the U.S. Focus on the Family and other pro-life organizations engaged this issue early on in hopes of forming a successful strategy for keeping the drug out of the country – including a 1990 trip to Paris, France to visit the home office of the company that developed the drug. The message to Roussel Uclaf was simple: Bringing RU-486 to America would spark a firestorm of opposition.

Fast forward to January 1993 when newly elected president Bill Clinton began to fulfill his campaign promise to make the availability of RU-486 an administration priority. RU-486's highly political journey through government regulatory agencies is well documented, including the fast tracking the drug through a special approval process reserved for life-saving drugs.

The now-often quoted phrase, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare," was coined by President Clinton, who ironically promoted abortion at every opportunity in his eight years in office. And, the legacy of RU-486 is anything but a reflection of safe and rare.

Since 2000, RU-486 has caused the deaths of at least 8 women in the U.S. and injured hundreds more.

In fact according to a 2006 government report, more than 1 in 600 women taking RU-486 had an adverse reaction; one quarter of those were hospitalized, most frequently for blood transfusion.

Think about that. If 1 in 600 people eating broccoli had adverse reactions, the green vegetable would probably be removed from the market. Abortion continues to enjoy political protection, evidenced by a drug that we know puts women's health at risk.

And women aren't the only ones put at risk by RU-486. It's estimated that nearly one million preborn children have been killed by the drug in the last ten years, and the number is growing each year.

As a new twist, Iowa's Planned Parenthood is now dispensing the drug in rural areas via video teleconference with the use of a remote controlled drawer to release the pill with no doctor present — despite the fact that FDA protocol for the drug requires a physician to be able to date the pregnancy, diagnose a tubal pregnancy and ensure the woman has access to emergency care. Such "telemedicine" will be a new strategy for the abortion industry so look for it in your state in the days to come.

So much for safe and rare.

Contact: Carrie Gordon Earll

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 30, 2010

FBI, Obama Admin Join Pro-Abort Groups to Host Training Seminar against Pro-Life Activity

      

The Obama administration has teamed up with leading pro-abortion lobbyist groups to host a training seminar aimed at combating pro-life "violence" against the abortion industry, which is defined to include even free-speech activities such as pro-life picketing, boycotting, and signage.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored an August 29 seminar in the FBI's Portland headquarters. The names of Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation (NAF), and the Feminist Majority Foundation appear prominently on the front page of a document prepared for the event which compiled statistics, a list of pro-life websites, and case summaries, among other data.  The 84-page document was handed out by FBI and DOJ officials to participants, according to a source in attendance.

Although one portion of the document - on page 67 - lists "pro-life counseling centers" as among providers of "reproductive health services," the document is generally organized as a guide to the "organized assault on women's health care" by "anti-abortion extremists" since Roe v. Wade, and targets such activities as pro-life picketing and boycotting.

On page 67, a section entitled "US Department of Justice FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) presentation" includes "large graphic signs etc. not covered" among actions that constitute "intimidation," and on page 15 specifically references the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform's Genocide Awareness Project among a list of recent pro-life "violence."

The document lists pro-lifers entering abortion facilities, pro-life blockades, and "stalking" as "severe violence" directed against abortion clinics in recent years, while "intimidation" is predicated of any "noise disturbance" or "pamphlets targeting staff," which could include documents warning women of an abortionist's record injuring or killing patients.

Another part of the DOJ presentation urges trainees to "build a good working relationship with providers." "We tell providers to build good relationships with you," state the authors. "Get to know them. The more comfortable everyone is the easier it will be for you to do your job."

One portion of the document lists the websites of several peaceful pro-life groups and leaders, such as David Bereit of 40 Days for Life, Judie Brown of the American Life League (ALL), Concerned Women for America, Human Life International, National Right to Life, Priests for Life, Rock for Life, Students for Life, and The Pill Kills, the ALL project noted by authors as an "anti birth control site."

According to the appended agenda, speakers included both FBI and DOJ officials as well as representatives from NAF and Planned Parenthood. The Alliance Defense Fund notes that Julie Abbate of USDOJ, one of the speakers at the meeting, also filed a federal lawsuit in August 2010 against a pro-life advocate solely for leafleting while once allegedly crossing a driveway.

Neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice have returned calls and emails placed by LifeSiteNews.com as of press time.

Although an Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney was able to attend the meeting upon request, ADF attorney Matt Bowman told LifeSiteNews.com that "the troubling thing is that they didn't invite him in the first place."

"The resource guide is not only completely one-sided, it adopts the bias against free speech that the abortion movement has been trying to promote for years," said Bowman.

"The resource guide is not only completely one-sided, it adopts the bias against free speech that the abortion movement has been trying to promote for years," said Bowman, who called the document's targeting of peaceful pro-life groups and free-speech activities "ridiculous."

"It raises a concern that this is now the official view of the FBI," said Bowman. "I don't think they can pass the buck on this."

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America told LSN that the recent documents "show that the Department of Justice has become an arm of the abortion movement."

"They're not using objective research and definitions, but adopting wholesale the scorched-earth tactics and propaganda of abortion groups," said Wright. "This is a corrupt endeavor by the Obama administration to smear innocent pro-lifers. It harms the public's trust in our government and will be a stain on Pres. Obama's presidency."

The documents echo an April 2009 Homeland Security report on domestic terrorism in which pro-life activities were branded as indicators of dangerous "rightwing extremism." Janet Napolitano, the head of the Homeland Security Department, proved staunchly pro-abortion during her service as governor of Arizona.

Click here to read the complete document.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

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

Two More RU-486 Infection Deaths Announced by CDC

      

Almost ten years to the date after the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved the abortion drug, Mifeprex® (RU-486; mifepristone), two more medical abortion deaths have been announced by U.S. Centers for Disease Control Officials.

In a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine dated September 30, 2010, Dr. Elissa Meites et al., described two additional mifepristone-induced septic shock deaths.  Both deaths were caused by c. sordellii, the bacteria linked to a number of RU-486 deaths from 2000-2006.

One woman who died was 29; the other was 21.

Monty Patterson, the father of Holly Patterson – an eighteen-year-old who died after using the mifepristone regimen, released a statement with these three concluding paragraphs:

It has been proposed by medical professionals that the properties of the mifepristone abortion pill can seriously impair or alter a women's immune system and predispose her to serious or fatal infections.

The 9 deaths from Clostridium sordellii can no longer be ignored, particularly at the regulatory level. The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health. They need to reevaluate the risk, safety and efficacy of the drug they approved 10 years ago.

Ultimately, women will have to make the final choice based on the most accurate information they can obtain. They need to question if the risks of medical abortion pills are really in the best interest of their health, safety and welfare. Women can make informed decisions when they have timely, reliable and truthful information.

Mr. Patterson is clearly correct, and FDA also needs to re-think its policies surrounding the release of its newest abortifacient and mifepristone-twin, Ella.

Contact: Chris Gacek

Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: October 1, 2010

Embattled Abortionist Claims States Can't Prosecute over Interstate Abortion Scheme

      

A New Jersey abortionist under criminal investigation has made an attempt to slip out of prosecutors' grasp by claiming that neither New Jersey nor Maryland, where he ferried his clients mid-abortion to complete the late-term procedures, are in a position to sue him.

Stephen Chase Brigham, who once operated an empire of abortion clinics in four states, has come under scrutiny after a botched abortion last month led government officials to uncover his practice of starting late-term abortions in New Jersey and completing them in Maryland. The abortionist is not licensed to conduct late-term abortions in New Jersey, nor is he licensed to practice medicine in Maryland.

But in documents filed earlier this week, Brigham claims that New Jersey is not able to prosecute him, because he won a similar New Jersey suit and kept his license following a 1994 botched abortion. That incident led to the loss of his license in New York, where officials condemned his "inexcusably bad judgment" for slicing a woman's uterus, cervix, and uterine artery and failing to realize it until hours later.

Joseph Gorrell, Brigham's attorney, told the Courier Post that all the abortionist's actions "complied with applicable law and was in conformance with accepted standards of medical practice." Brigham also claims that New Jersey has no jurisdiction regarding the Maryland abortions, and that state had launched "no disciplinary or criminal action" against him.

However, officials dispute the claim that Brigham's case can be so easily discarded.

C. Irving Pinder Jr., executive director of the Maryland Board of Physicians, said regulators are cooperating with criminal investigators, adding that Brigham is "playing a word game."

"He hasn't been charged by the board because he's not licensed by the board. But there are criminal investigations going on. We've been in touch with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies," said Pinder, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The New Jersey Attorney General's office says that Brigham's activities "flagrantly" disregarded medical rules, and jeopardized patients' health.

The scheme was uncovered when one of the abortionists under Brigham, Nicola Riley, cut the uterus and bowel of an abortion patient so badly that she had to be flown from Elkton Md. to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The case is reportedly slated to go before the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners on Oct. 13.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

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

Appeals Court Rules Tax Dollars for Human Embryo Research ‘Okay’

      

A federal appeals court agreed today with the government's request to temporarily block the enforcement of a ruling that banned tax dollars from being used in life-destroying human embryonic stem-cell research.

 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the emergency hold on District Judge Royce Lamberth's Aug. 23 order, while awaiting Lamberth's ruling on the original lawsuit.

 An Aug. 27 Rasmussen poll revealed that only 33 percent of Americans approved of using tax dollars to fund this controversial research – a marked drop from the 52 percent that supported it when Obama signed his Executive Order on March 9, 2009. The order dramatically expanded federal funding streams and opened the gateway for new embryonic stem-cell lines to be used for research – opening the door for further destruction of human life.

 While the poll reflects a slight decrease in the number of voters who believe research on embryos is morally wrong, it does make one thing clear: People do not want to see federal funds go toward this controversial issue.

 Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, said while the news is encouraging about government intervention, he wishes more people were educated about embryonic versus adult stem-cell research.

 "The hype of embryonic stem cell research," Smith said, "the promise that was so often made that people would be out of their wheelchairs…that Uncle Charlie's Parkinson's will soon be cured – has been busted."

Contact: Catherine Snow

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 28, 2010

Adult Stem Cells–Best-Kept Secret, Treating Chronic Heart Failure

      

As noted before, Dr. Jean Peduzzi Nelson testified at the U.S. Senate hearing on the promise of stem cells, Sept. 16, 2010. Her testimony discussed published adult stem cell science and real results for patients; as she noted, adult stem cells are "the best-kept secret in the galaxy."

Adult stem cells have shown published success is treatment of chronic (congestive) heart failure. In her testimony, Dr. Peduzzi Nelson discussed the case of Doug Rice. Doug was told that he had only a short time to live due to chronic heart failure after multiple heart attacks. At that time he could hardly walk. He did not qualify for any U.S. clinical trials, so he went to Thailand in early 2006 to be treated with his own adult stem cells (using a technique developed in the U.S. by Dr. Amit Patel.) Since his treatment, Doug's heart has improved and pumps better, he has more energy and is enjoying life. He surprised even his cardiologist.

Doug Rice is not an isolated case. Recently a German team led by Prof. Dr. med. Bodo Strauer published the results of a long-term study treating a large number of chronic heart failure patients with adult stem cells. The study, published in the European Journal of Heart Failure, is the largest study to date of patients treated for heart failure with bone marrow adult stem cells. A total of 191 patients received intracoronary injections of their own bone marrow adult stem cells, compared with 200 patients who received standard care, and patient health was monitored for up to five years. The results showed that treatment with adult stem cells improves heart function based on a large number of tests, quality of life and survival in patients with heart failure.

Prof. Dr. med. Strauer presented the published evidence at a recent meeting of the European Society of Cardiology. He noted that:

"Our study suggests that, when administered as an alternative or in addition to conventional therapy, bone marrow cell therapy can improve quality of life, increase ventricular performance, and increase survival. Intracoronary therapy has been shown to be effective in acute myocardial infarction, and the STAR-heart study now indicates its efficacy in chronic heart failure."

Adult stem cells are improving health and saving lives now.

Contact: David Prentice

Source: FRC Blog

Abortionists and their legal woes

      

A Florida abortionist has been arrested for assault, while surprising information has surfaced concerning a Utah abortionist who has plied her trade in Maryland.
 
Orlando police recently surrounded a local abortion clinic and arrested abortionist Randall Whitney. Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue explains that Whitne "had earlier been charged with a felony assault for striking a pregnant woman during an abortion. He was trying to give her an injection, and he had failed several times. She started to complain, and so he slapped her. That was his first arrest."

The second arrest took place after Whitney failed to show up for the trial. Witnesses say that while the abortionist was being apprehended, he told pro-lifers they would "be sorry" for informing police that he was living there in his car, which he was doing to avoid the police.

 Meanwhile, Utah abortionist Nicola Riley, employee of Stephen Chase Brigham, has also had her Maryland license revoked. Sullinger tells OneNewsNow that Riley was "convicted as an accessory to a credit card and identity theft fraud ring that was going on under her command" when she was in the Army.

After admitting to knowing about the criminal activity, Riley served one year in the Ft. Leavenworth military prison for not reporting it in a timely manner. Following her discharge, Riley went on to receive a medical degree and took several attempts over two years to pass step one of her licensing exam, eventually scoring only five points above the failure mark. It took another 15 months for her to pass steps two and three and become licensed.

 Upon finally passing her exam, Riley went directly into the abortion business as a convicted felon who was barely qualified to practice medicine. She now admits to assisting Brigham at his secret abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland, though she was not qualified to do so -- and she is currently performing abortions at the Wasatch Women's Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Operation Rescue contends that if she was not fit to practice in Maryland, she it unfit to practice anywhere else.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 29, 2010

Judicial Watch Uncovers FDA Records Detailing 16 New Deaths Tied to Gardasil

Records Document 3,589 Adverse Reactions Related to Gardasil between May 2009 and September 2010, Including 213 Cases Resulting in Permanent Disability

      

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has received new documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), detailing reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. The adverse reactions include 16 new deaths (including four suicides) between May 2009 and September 2010. The FDA also produced 789 "serious" reports, with 213 cases resulting in permanent disability and 25 resulting in a diagnosis of Guillian Barre Syndrome.

Adverse report excerpts include:

 •A nineteen year old girl with no medical history except occasional cases bronchitis received Gardasil and in 53 days, had "Headache, Nausea, dizziness, chilling, tiredness, shortness of breath, complained of chest plain, severe cramps." She experienced an Acute Cardiac Arrhythmia. Attempts to resuscitate her resulted in a sternal fracture, but were unsuccessful and the patient died. -- V. 356938
 
•A thirteen year old girl was vaccinated on July 17th, 2009. Ten days later, she developed a fever and was treated. However, "the patient did not recover and was admitted to the hospital on [August 8th]...She developed dyspnoea and went into a coma...she expired [that day] at around 9:00 pm. The cause of death was determined as 'death due to viral fever.' ... This event occurred after 23 days of receiving first dose of Gardasil. -- V. 380081
 
•Thirteen days after vaccination, a ten year old girl developed "progressive loss of strength in lower and upper extremities almost totally...Nerve conduction studies [showed Guillain Barre Syndrome]." Case was "considered to be immediately life-threatening." -- V. 339375
 
•One mother of a 13-year old girl who died 37 days after receiving the vaccination noted in a report: "I first declined getting her the vaccination but her doctor ensured me that it was safe..." After her daughter complained of a severe headache, no feeling in her foot and a tingling feeling in her leg, a doctor's appointment was set for October 23, 2009. "My daughter never made it to Oct[ober] 23rd, which is also her birthday," the mother noted. "She passed on Oct[ober] 17th, I found her cold unresponsive in her room at 7am...." 

"To say Gardasil has a suspect safety record is a big understatement. These reports are troubling and show that the FDA and other public health authorities may be asleep at the switch," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "In the meantime, the public relations push for Gardasil by Merck and politicians on Capitol Hill continues. No one should require this vaccine for young children."

In 2008, Judicial Watch launched a comprehensive investigation of Gardasil's safety record. All previous FDA documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, as well as a Judicial Watch special report, entitled "Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records: Detailing the Approval Process, Side-Effects, Safety Concerns & Marketing Practices of a Large Scale Health Experiment," are available at www.JudicialWatch.org. 

Source: Judicial Watch
Date Published: September 28, 2010

Three Decades of Forced Abortion...and Counting: China to Continue One-Child Policy

      

On Sept. 25, 1980, the Communist Party Central Committee issued a statement saying that "in 30 years, when our current extreme population growth eases, we can then adopt a different population policy." But while the 30th anniversary of China's coercive one-child policy came and went this past week, the Chinese government has shown no signs of easing the policy, and instead expressed its intent to continue the use of forced abortion and sterilization, with no end in sight.

Chinese state-run media quoted Li Bin, head of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, saying, "Historical change doesn't come easily, and I, on behalf of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, extend profound gratitude to all, the people in particular, for their support of the national course."

"We will continue the one-child policy until at least 2015,'' she said. 

Vice Premier Li Keqiang echoed these remarks, saying, "We will stick to the family planning policy in the coming decades and advance the balanced development of population over the long term." 

Steven Mosher, the president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), who was the first Western social scientist to document the abuses of China's one-child policy on the ground, told LifeSiteNews.com today that "enough is enough."

"The policy was flawed in conception, was and is brutal in execution, and, we now learn, is to be continued for decades into the future. … It is past time to call a halt to a policy that has, by means of forced abortion and forced sterilization, eliminated 400 million people from the Chinese population."

Mosher told LSN that when he went to China in 1980, around the time when the one-child policy was first implemented, he "saw women arrested for the 'crime' of being pregnant, locked up, brainwashed, and ultimately forced to have abortions.  Such crimes against humanity remain everyday occurrences in today's China."

The 30th anniversary of the one-child policy was marked in Washington DC by a rally of pro-life activists and politicians who called for greater pressure to be put on the Chinese government over its human rights abuses.

"Unless this is marked by at least some of us, tomorrow (Saturday) will be just another day," New Jersey Republican Representative Christopher Smith, a vocal opponent of abortion and the abuse of women, told the media. (Read his complete remarks here)

"It's 30 years of the worst violation of human rights ever," Smith said. "I work on all human rights issues and I don't know of any policy that has hurt so many women and so many children and families than the one-child policy."

Rep. Smith called for Obama to address the issue with Chinese leaders. "I have not seen one word about forced abortion in China come out of the president's mouth. That is numbing in its indifference," Smith said.

Joseph Meaney, Human Life International's Director of International Coordination, strongly condemned China's decision to continue the one-child policy.

"The Chinese government is stubbornly persisting in leading their country into a demographic disaster with their population control policy," said Meaney in a press release today.

"It is simply incomprehensible that the Chinese National Population and Family Planning Commission can seriously mean to extend this destructive policy for an unspecified number of decades into the future."

Meaney pointed out that "China's population is currently projected to start shrinking in absolute numbers by 2026" and that the "coerced low fertility of Chinese women means that the Peoples' Republic of China is one of the fastest ageing societies in the world."

"There are four grandparents for each only child resulting from the 'One Child Policy.' What is the Chinese government's economic plan for paying the pensions of these hundreds of millions of elderly persons?" 

"One shudders to think what draconian measures will be implemented by the Chinese government once it becomes fully apparent that they cannot financially support the millions of disabled and elderly persons who are no longer seen as contributing to society. Coercive euthanasia cannot be far behind their renewed commitment to coercive abortion and birth control."

According to government statistics, the one-child policy has prevented 400 million births since the restrictions were first introduced into the country. This has resulted in a worker to retiree ratio of 10 to 1 in 1999 dropping to an expected 3 to 1 in 2050.

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences reported earlier this year that the policy that mandates abortion for many pregnancies, combined with sex-selection and a cultural preference for boys, has created a gender imbalance that will result in 24 million men who cannot find wives by 2020.

The Academy study said that the national ratio stands at about 119 males to 100 females, and the gap expands to as much as 130 males to 100 females in some provinces.

Researcher Wang Guangzhou was quoted by the Global Times newspaper saying, "The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40-years-old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on."

Mosher said that the decision to extend the policy "makes no demographic or economic sense." 

"China's population growth has already stalled, the population is aging rapidly, and there is a massive gender imbalance as little girls are being eliminated by sex-selection abortion and infanticide. In other words, the one-child policy is driving China over a demographic cliff."

Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 29, 2010

Mexico City Reaches 47,000 Abortions after 42 Months of Legalization

           

Almost 47,000 unborn babies have died by surgical abortion in Mexico City during the three and a half years of its legalization, according to official statistics announced this week.  However, according to one federal legislator, the numbers are understated due to a lack of reporting by private clinics.

The figures were given to the Mexican press yesterday by Maricela Contreras Julián, a representative in the federal Chamber of Deputies who intends to introduce legislation requiring private abortion providers to report the number of times they perform the deadly procedure, on a daily basis.

"The objective is to have all of the information of all institutions, public or private, that practice abortions in Mexico City, because there is an underreporting of the abortions that are practiced in private clinics, which have proliferated in recent years with the reforms that the Legislative Assembly approved in the last legislature," Contreras said.

The statistics offered by Contreras indicate that the abortion rate in government clinics has reached approximately 16,000 per year, and is often being used by unmarried women to avoid the consequences of their sexual behavior. The vast majority of abortions (70%) are performed on girls between the ages of 18 and 29, and only 17% are married. 

Rocio Galvez of Mexico's National Pro-Life Committee estimates there may be as many as 5,000 more abortions per year in private institutions, bringing the total to 21,000 annually.

Approximately 40 percent of women who inquire about abortions at government agencies never obtain one, in part because the Mexico City government informs women of the option to give birth at government expense, and to place their children in adoption.  However, abortions are also government financed, and can be obtained for any reason during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Since the passage of Mexico City's abortion law in 1997, seventeen Mexican states have passed right to life amendments to their constitutions prohibiting the procedure.

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 28, 2010

Congresswoman Calls for Repealing Hyde Amendment; Backs Assertion That Abortion is Safer than Childbirth

     

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in certain cases, should be repealed, and also said "there's no evidence" that  increasing access to abortion services encourages people to get abortions.

At an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the Center for Reproductive Rights to call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Schakowsky, "So, increasing access to abortion, you think, does not encourage some people to get abortions?" 

Rep. Schakowsky said, "No, there's no evidence of that around the world, where access to abortion is more available but somehow women are more inclined to get one."

 "What happens is that women who don't have access resort, as we heard today, to very dangerous, self-inflicted kinds of things in order to end, terminate the pregnancy," she said. "And so, you know, we go back to back alley abortions. We go back to coat hangers. And, I mean, is that what we want?"

She continued, "Women who are desperate enough to do that to themselves are going to somehow – going to try to abort that pregnancy. We don't want to do that. We don't want to put women at greater risk."

     
Click here for the video.

Terry Sallas Merritt, vice president of Whole Woman's Health, said during the event on Capitol Hill that abortion is 10 times safer than childbirth.

CNSNews.com asked Rep. Schakowsky if she agreed with Merritt.

"I'm assuming that was on a scientific finding that the insistence of mortality or illness or whatever is an adverse health affect is much more common in childbirth," the congresswoman said. "There are many more things that can go wrong than a first-trimester abortion, but, as was pointed out, in order for poor women to afford an abortion, it may take them a long time to get the money together. They're put in a more precarious health situation, the risks increase as well as the cost."

"We want to make sure this very safe, outpatient procedure is available and accessible to poor women," said Rep. Schakowsky. "That is not to say that we don't want to also increase the availability of family planning, of birth control, which again, there's sometimes discrimination even in that."

"The very same people who vociferously oppose abortion often are not in favor of sex education, they're not in favor of easy access to contraception," she said.  "None of it makes sense, and it's all discriminatory against women and their children."

CNSNews.com also asked Rep. Schakowsky if it is morally right to use the taxpayer funds of pro-life Americans to pay for abortion services.

"If we start down that path, then we say that people who don't want to fund wars don't have to pay taxes," she told CNSNews.com.

"You know, there are a number of things that are policies of the government in which many of us may disagree all over the map and, so, I would say that, you know, if as the Supreme Court did, decided that this is a right that women have, then we need to fulfill that obligation and make it accessible to all people," said the congresswoman. "Choice is about choice."

The Hyde Amendment, created in 1976, is attached each year to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and prevents any program under HHS, such as Medicaid, from paying for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

Contact: Nicholas Ballasy

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 28, 2010

Global Abortion-Expansion Bill Fast-tracked in House

           

Both chambers of the U.S. Congress plan to take up this week what purports to be an innocent bill to help women around the world. Unfortunately, the proposed International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) also would promote worldwide access to abortion services and export a hostile, anti-family, pro-gay agenda on nations, by using it as a bargaining tool.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee will likely try to take up their version of the measure (HR 4594) on Wednesday during a markup hearing. The Democrat-controlled committee could try to slip-in the billion-dollar abortion program and get it passed without a recorded vote – a preferred scenario before any election.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will also review its version of the bill (S. 2982) on Wednesday.

There is little coincidence in the timing – days before Congress adjourns until after the election – or the motive – feminists groups have an aggressive global media campaign to influence Congress to act.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, political commentator for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, said the urban myths promoted by liberal feminist groups are long-standing and dangerous.

"Further, the urban myths continue alongside the long-standing practice of feminists equating a lack of 'reproductive services' with 'domestic violence.'
…
"The I-VAWA would allocate $10 million a year to the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM (Section 201), one of the major U.N. agencies devoted to promoting the Millennium Development Goals, which prominently feature reproductive and gender rights.

…
"The broad definitions of 'violence' and the use of terms like 'psychological harm' and 'coercion' leave plenty of room for false accusations of abuse that will break up families and increase welfare dependence. The bill establishes an 'Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues' — what some have called a 'feminist czar'…

"Though these vague, nebulous goals are dressed up to sound wonderful and disguise the intent of the ideologues who promote them, their meaning can be as misleading — and disastrous — as the campaign slogan of "hope" and "change."

TAKE ACTION

Help stop I-VAWA in its tracks. No taxpayer dollars should be used to promote abortion and anti-family policies.

Finally, please call Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., the Ranking Member on the committee at 202-226-8467.

Please encourage her to resist the feminist demands to support this bill. She needs to hear from thousands of prolife Americans TODAY. 

Contact: Catherine Snow

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Study 'Debunking' Teen Abortion/Depression Link Flawed: Expert

           

A Guttmacher Institute study that concluded that teenagers suffer no psychological harm from abortion, and that has captured headlines in major newspapers today, is undermined by "a number of problems" in its methodology, according to an expert in the field.

The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, announced the results of the study Friday, claiming that "teens who have abortions are no more likely to become depressed or have low self-esteem than their peers whose pregnancies do not end in abortion."

The study, led by Jocelyn T. Warren and S. Marie Harvey of Oregon State University, and Jillian Henderson of the University of California, based its findings on data collected from 292 teenage girls who reported completing at least one pregnancy during 1994-96.

The researchers said that of the 69 girls who said their pregnancies ended in abortion there was no higher incidence of depression or low self-esteem in the second or third phases of the survey.

Based upon these findings the authors concluded that state laws mandating abortion-bound women be warned of the mental health effects of the procedure "may jeopardize women's health by adding unnecessary anxiety and undermining women's right to informed consent."

But one expert on the psychological effects of abortion on women says she finds the conclusions of the abortion-funded research institute less than credible.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University and an expert on the psychological trauma of post-abortive women, told LifeSiteNews.com that "it really wasn't a very good study. There's a number of problems."

Coleman pointed out that the sample of women who aborted was very small. The authors themselves acknowledge this fact, saying, "The lack of association between abortion and our outcomes could reflect other factors including insufficient sample size to detect an effect."

The professor also criticized the superficiality of the means to assess outcome, which used only 9 items to detect depression and 4 to measure self-esteem. In addition, said Coleman, "The comparison group could have been unintended pregnancy carried to term since the data is available in ADD Health, but the researchers chose the less appropriate and broader 'no abortion' group."

Coleman pointed out that she herself published a 2006 study using the same data, incorporating unintended pregnancy carried to term as the control group, and found that abortion history was associated with a six-fold increased risk of marijuana use, a five-fold increased likelihood of reporting having sought counseling for psychological and emotional problems, and a four-fold increased risk of experiencing sleeping difficulties (Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth:  Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. The Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 903-911.)

"Seeking professional counseling services is a more valid measure of psychological distress than abbreviated self-report measures, one of which is merely 'predictive of depression,'" she said.

Coleman also criticized the lack of control variables employed "despite the fact that ADD health contains dozens of personal history, personality, relationship, situational, familial, and demographic variables that could have been controlled."

Coleman was author of a study released in August finding high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for post-abortive women, with 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group in the study meeting the American Psychological Association's criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).

The authors of the recent study claimed to support a "professional consensus" on the issue, and prefaced the findings by pointing to a 2008 study by an American Psychological Association task force that concluded there was no meaningful association between abortion and later psychological disturbances in women.

However, the credibility of that study was seriously called into question when it was revealed by a pro-life research group that Brenda Major, the pro-abortion lead author of the study, violated the APA's own data sharing rules by refusing to release her full data on abortion and mental health effects. In her own critique of the APA study, Coleman said that the authors failed to provide accurate data by only selectively reporting previous literature reviews, ignoring large groups of studies indicating negative post-abortion effects, and giving more weight to studies that painted abortion in a favorable light.

Testimonies of deep psychological scarring following abortion, including crippling depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts are frequently delivered by women who have spoken up about their abortion experience via the Silent No More Awareness campaign.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

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

Notre Dame pro-lifer to give deposition

      

Attorneys for the defendants who were arrested for protesting President Obama's commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame are claiming a huge breakthrough in the case.
 
A judge has ruled that attorneys from the Thomas More Society can take the deposition of Bill Kirk, a pro-life administrator at Notre Dame who was recently fired. Thomas More executive director Peter Breen believes Kirk's testimony could answer key questions regarding the actions of the Notre Dame officials.

"Why were our people treated in a different way than pro-homosexual and anti-military people by an ostensibly Catholic school?" Breen questions. "One of the claims that we've made is that the university engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in arresting our anti-Obama, pro-life protestors when they left alone pro-Obama, anti-life protesters on the same day, in the same locations."

He does not think the lawyers for the university wanted Bill Kirk to be deposed. "There is something there that they do not want to come out, and our position from the beginning -- the position of the defendants -- is that the truth needs to be put forward clearly and honestly so that we can get to the bottom of this," the attorney explains.

Breen adds that he is puzzled why there has yet to be an offer to drop the charges against his clients because "that is the easiest way for this entire controversy to end."

The judge will set a date for the deposition in the coming weeks.

Contact: Bill Bumpas

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 28, 2010

Abortionist's violations 'disturbing, disgusting'

      

More alleged violations of abortion laws have surfaced in connection with a New Jersey abortionist who owns 15 clinics in three states.
 
Steven Chase Brigham is currently under investigation in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. His license has also been suspended or revoked in several states. (See related story) But Marie Tasy, legislative director for New Jersey Right to Life (NJRTL), says new developments have surfaced.

"Steven Brigham has been operating under the name of Grace Medical, and he's been performing full-term abortions -- 36 weeks, which is full-term -- and it's just so disturbing and just so disgusting," she laments.

Information shows he would begin late-term abortions in New Jersey and have the women drive to his clinic in Maryland, where he is not licensed to practice medicine, to complete them. Brigham has already been reported for the 33-week abortion he performed on a Canadian woman's baby who had Down syndrome, but the procedure did not go as planned for another late-term mother.

"He performed an abortion on a woman who was 24 weeks pregnant," Tasy reports. "[She] was sent to a hotel and started bleeding profusely and had to be taken to the hospital, where she delivered the stillborn baby."

Even if New Jersey permanently revokes Brigham's license, he will still be able to operate his abortion clinics, so the NJRTL legislative director is hopeful that the abortionist will be successfully prosecuted and sent to jail.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 28, 2010

DISCLOSE Act Fails: Pro-Life Campaign Groups ‘Dodge A Cannonball by a Whisker’

      
 
Republicans managed to beat off a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate on a campaign disclosure bill that pro-life groups said would have effectively muzzled their ability to communicate with voters in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections.

"We dodged a cannonball by a whisker," Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee's Legislative Director told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

The Senate voted Thursday to invoke cloture and proceed to debate the  "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act" (S.3628). However, they did not succeed in getting 60 votes to overcome a GOP-filibuster.

The motion failed 59 – 39. Every single Democrat, including Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), voted for the bill, but not a single Republican crossed the aisle. GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska did not vote.

"I'm not ready to declare it dead yet, but the chances of it being enacted in this congress have fallen substantially," said Johnson.

"They threw everything they had at it and they still weren't able to punch it through the Senate."

President Obama made a big push for the bill, urging Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act, alleging that "shadow groups" were trying to influence the midterm elections. He said that the bill is "about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy." 

In a rare moment of agreement with conservative and pro-life groups, the American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the bill as a threat to free speech and crippling to free participation in the political process.

The ALF-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the U.S., also said they "reluctantly" were opposing the bill, saying that the "new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations" did not have any " corresponding public benefit."

Johnson said that it was likely opponents of the bill could keep it "bottled up for the rest of the session" and that is unlikely, now that every Senator has voted twice on the matter, that their positions would change. Still, he added, anything could happen in December's lame-duck session, so pro-life groups should remain vigilant.

NRLC sent a detailed letter to the Senate in July warning that a vote for cloture would count against individual senators on NRLC's legislative scorecard.

The bill has been condemned by the pro-life organization as "a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors."

The DISCLOSE Act would force grassroots organizations - including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups – to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed. Critics of the bill say this could possibly expose donors to political retaliation by motivated groups or individuals.  

In addition, the bill requires that every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization's name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad – even if they had nothing to do with the ad's funding – must also have their names listed in the ad.  In addition, the most "significant" donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad.

Opponents of the bill say it would frustrate the ability of grassroots entities to communicate effectively with the public about public policy, and level criticism against incumbents. The disclaimer rule has been singled out for criticism by those who say the requirement would devour valuable airtime that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate's record.

The DISCLOSE Act exempts large 501(c)4 groups – like the 4 million strong NRA and 750,000 member Sierra Club – from having to report their donors if they have at least 500,000 members, over 10 years of existence, chapters in all 50 states, and if they receive no more than 15% of total contributions from corporations.

Other affected entities under the bill will likely include vocal liberal and conservative groups that communicate through the Internet. While traditional media organizations like newspapers and television stations are exempt from the bill, bloggers, the vanguard of the "new media," are not. 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

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

College Campuses are Abortion Battleground

       

As students went back to school this month across the country, they entered into the front lines of a most contentious battleground. College campuses today are the abortion battleground. Forty-six percent of all abortions are performed on college age women and on top of this, Planned Parenthood directly targets the youth in order to further its abortion agenda. At the same time that students are being targeted by Planned Parenthood, more and more young people between the ages of 18-29 identify themselves as pro-life.

In fact, young people today are the most pro-life generation yet. With numerous new polls from the Pew Research Institute, Gallup polling and the Knights of Columbus, it is amazing to see that 47 percent of those 18-29 year olds are pro-life. The rising pro-life generation is often overlooked by the pro-life movement, and that is why Students for Life of America (SFLA) has taken the lead in educating, equipping, and activating the next generation of pro-life leaders. Since its founding, SFLA has also striven to connect college pro-lifers through our Students for Life of America National conferences and state training conferences.

Today, we work with more than 541 pro-life campus groups nationwide and, this school year alone, we will be starting an additional 80 student groups. This fall, Students for Life has hired four new field agents to identify and train pro-life students who want to start and lead a pro-life movement on their campus. One of the Field Agents, Mary Kate Cavazos, will be working in New Jersey and New York this upcoming year. She plans to visit more than 30 campuses this fall. She will meet with existing student pro-life leaders to help them cultivate and grow their group, as well as reach out to students on campuses without a pro-life presence to start new pro-life groups.

In addition to assisting students in their mission of saving lives and helping women on campus, Students for Life also connects students to the larger pro-life movement. We have established two national programs to help train students in what it takes to be a full-time pro-life leader, our Missionaries for Life internship program as well as our Wilberforce Leadership Fellowship. In addition, we also hold the largest youth pro-life conference in the world every January in Washington, D.C. Each outreach looks to connect rising pro-life stars with key decision makers like members of Congress, as well as other pro-life organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List and the National Right to Life Committee.

Just four years after launching our full-time operations, Students for Life has witnessed incredible growth and success as the need for our work becomes evident each day. This generation is pro-life and is ready to save lives; it simply needs the direction and training.

This generation has seen the first-hand effects of abortion in our nation. They have had abortions, driven friends to the abortion facility, paid for abortions, and have learned they are missing brothers, sisters, and friends because of this tragedy. They understand the personhood of the preborn child as they have seen the baby kicking in his mother's womb in real-time 4D Ultrasound technology.

This coming Friday, I will speak at St. Cecilia's Parish in Rockaway on how to activate the next generation and on how students can make a difference on their campus. It is so critical at this time in our history that we train and activate the youth, and for students to take a stand for life. It is through the next generation and the pro-life campus movement that we will end abortion.

Contact: Kristan Hawkins

Source: Students for Life of America
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Ethical Stem Cells Advancing!

      

Perhaps the worst things President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's ESCR funding policy, was that he also revoked a non controversial Bush order that required the NIH to give funding priority to finding sources of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy embryos.  At the time, I found the revocation puzzling since it was the very kind "reach across our bitter cultural divides" policy that Obama promised as a candidate. But in the intervening year and a half, he has consistently refused to pursue such bridge building as a president, so I guess it is hardly surprising that he would dismantle his predecessor's good construction.

Meanwhile, IPSCs continue to advance in most categories.  Indeed, they now fulfill one of the hopes proposed for human cloning research–the ability to create tailor made, patient/disease specific cells for study. From the story in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Six months ago, Roche Holding AG scientists disrupted the rhythmic beating of heart muscle made from stem cells by adding a cancer drug to it, duplicating in the laboratory a side effect previously only seen in patients. The experiment showed that human tissue grown from stem cells can mimic side effects of medicines seen in people. Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker, and GlaxoSmithKline Plc also are testing the method to see if it can weed out dangerous products years before human trials start and save billions of development dollars.

It could also lead to a reduced need to use animals in research, which would be terrific. The cells in question are IPSCs.

More evidence that IPS cells can create heart cells for short-cut drug testing came when the Roche team used them to confirm cardiac toxicity from an antiviral medication it had been developing, said Kyle Kolaja, global head of predictive toxicology screens and emerging technologies for Switzerland-based Roche.

The company had already abandoned the drug two years ago after tests in rodents and rabbits showed it caused side effects in the heart. Had stem cell-derived heart tissue been available then, Roche could have pulled the plug early, Kolaja said. Making stem cells from the skin of adults rather than embryos also makes it much easier to create cell lines that are ethnically diverse, letting researchers better judge the safety of drugs. Human heart cells that beat in a dish have never before been available in large quantity and consistent quality, said Jason Gardner, head of the stem cell drug performance unit at London-based Glaxo.

Some will say that without ESCR, there would have been no IPSCs.  Perhaps.  But Thomson used Bush approved cell lines for his research into IPSCs and I don't believe Yamanaka used any human ES cells at all.

Be that as it may, the fighting will go on over the extend of, and rules governing, federal funding of ESCR.  Moreover, stories like this add much ammunition to those of us determined to prevent federal funding of human cloning (SCNT), and indeed, are working to outlaw that technology in the USA and elsewhere at every opportune moment.

Meanwhile, Bush's approach to finding a common way forward that combines good ethics with good science has been validated.  Perhaps Obama could learn something and reinstate Bush's policy  giving funding priority to ethical sources of pluripotent stem cells such as the IPSC.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 267th, 2010

Adult Stem Cells–Best-Kept Secret, Treating Spinal Cord Injury

      

On September 16, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations held another hearing on stem cells. The committee, chaired by Sen. Harkin, had asked to hear about the science of stem cells, but what they got was mostly politics. The witnesses praising embryonic stem cells had few facts or results, relying on hype and empty promises.

Only a single lone witness was invited to testify on the promise of adult stem cells, but Dr. Jean Peduzzi Nelson's testimony discussed real science and real results for patients. She showed five pictures of patients who had been treated successfully with adult stem cells, discussing their cases and the peer-reviewed scientific publications documenting the success of adult stem cells in each example. As she noted in her testimony:

"The progress of adult stem cells has gone so far beyond these particular patients to long term follow-up results of numerous patients in peer-reviewed published clinical trials."

The first example Dr. Peduzzi Nelson gave was that of Silvio, who was quadriplegic after a spinal cord injury at the base of his neck, "AIS Grade A". Grade A is considered the worst, indicating a "complete" spinal cord injury where no motor or sensory function is preserved in the lower body. Silvio was left with no movement of his legs and minimal movement of his fingers. At 2 years after injury, and after intensive rehabilitation failed to lead to an improvement,.he received his own nasal adult stem cells and partial scar removal.

Today Silvio can maintain a standing position and wave without help. With a walker and short braces, he can walk over 30 feet without anyone helping him. He can now move his fingers, which he could not do before.

Silvio's improvement is astounding. Usually only 5% of AIS Grade A patients improve in grade if a treatment is given at 1 year or greater after spinal cord injury. But using adult stem cells for treatment, Silvio is not an isolated case. Dr. Peduzzi Nelson has worked with Dr. Carlos Lima of Portugal on these adult stem cell treatments, publishing the results. In theirmost recent published study, more than half of the AIS Grade A patients improved at least one grade after adult stem cell treatment. When the adult stem cells are combined with an effective rehab program, 12/13 AIS A patients improved in AIS grade and all of the patients regained some muscle movement in their legs.

The results with patients have been published in the journal Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair and in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine.

Contact: David Prentice

Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: September 26, 2010

Scientists Ask Appeals Court Not to Allow Federal Funding of Research Involving the Destruction of Living Human Embryos Pending the Government's Appeal of the District Court's Funding Ban

      

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 on behalf of Americans favoring ethical stem cell research more than a year ago, will argue this morning at 10:00 am before the United States Court of Appeals that the Court should vacate its "administrative stay" and deny the government's request for an emergency stay pending their appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the government's unlawful, unethical and unnecessary federal funding of research involving the destruction of living human embryos.  Counsel will be available for comment following the hearing.

AI's General Counsel, Sam Casey, said "the government pending appeal seeks a stay of a preliminary injunction that enjoins them from  funding research using human embryonic stem cells ("hESC") -- cells derived by destroying living human beings at their embryonic stage of life.  This funding violates the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, in which Congress prohibits federal funding of "research in which" a human embryo is "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, § 509(a)(2), 123 Stat. 3034, 3280-81.  The district court correctly concluded that granting a stay pending appeal, even of short duration, would "flout[] the will of Congress," and that "the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos."

GD&C's Lead Trial Counsel, Tom Hungar, who has argued this case before the federal district court and the Court of Appeals, points out that the Court of Appeals in this case "has already held that adult stem cell researchers like Drs. Sherley and Deisher suffer 'actual,' 'imminent' injury from competition with hESC research for scarce federal funding.  Mr. Hungar adds: "if further proof were needed, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") recently confirmed the urgent need for a preliminary injunction to prevent these federal dollars from disappearing forever when it ordered last week that for the duration of this Court's administrative stay, hESC awards be "given priority" over other awards and hESC applications currently scheduled for consideration in January 2011 be expedited to October 2010.   NIH likewise instructed that in-house (or "intramural") research on hESC may resume during the brief period of the administrative stay.   As we have detailed in ourwritten opposition to the government's request for stayThese actions confirm that a stay pending appeal would lead to a flight of federal dollars into hESC research, causing Appellees and other NIH grant applicants irreparable harm." 

Mr. Casey also noted that the government has provided "no explanation based on science or the merits of the competing proposals to justify allowing hESC applications to leapfrog proposals filed by Appellees or any other NIH grant applicants.  To the contrary, there is only one explanation for NIH's actions--an ideological preference for spending as much federal money as practicable on illegal hESC research.  Because the entire purpose of the district court's preliminary injunction was to prevent the evaporation of such funds, a stay pending appeal would irreparably injure Appellants and the public interest by undermining the injunction before the Court of Appeals has an opportunity to consider and rule on the merits of the appeal."  

On September 9, 2010, the plaintiff adult stem cell researchers also asked the federal district court for entry of summary judgment in their favor on their request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research ("NIH Guidelines"), 74 Fed. Reg. 32170 (July 7, 2009), because the NIH Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3280-81, § 509(a), and are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and were promulgated without observance of procedures required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."  GD&C's Thomas Hungar, explains: "We have asked the federal district court to permanently enjoin the government from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the NIH Guidelines or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells as contemplated in the NIH Guidelines. We have also asked the Court to order the government to immediately inform any NIH grant recipients in possession or control of federal funds granted under the Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research that any remaining and unspent NIH-granted funds may not be spent on human embryonic stem cell research but must be returned to NIH to fund lawful research."

Federal district Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, in his 2-page Order, has already denied the government's request for an emergency stay pending the government's appeal of the court'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."  Then the federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a short "administrative stay" order to give it time to review the government's request for the emergency stay that the federal district court has already denied. 

The district court's opinions issuing the preliminary injunction and denying the government's request for a stay of that injunction pending its appeal 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 NIH's controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the NIH issued on July 7, 2009. 

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."

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 Orderannouncing 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 NIH 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." 

As acknowledged by Judge Lamberth in his Order denying any stay of his Order, "the length of time this preliminary injunction will be in place should be limited" because, as confirmed by plaintiffs' legal counsel Hungar and Casey, "plaintiffs are hopeful that the federal district court will favorably rule on our just filed motion for summary judgment and issue its permanent injunction before the end of the year."

Contact: Samuel B. Casey

Source: Advocates International
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Contraception is Not a “Basic Human Right”

           

"Rights Inflation," as I call it, is a growing pet peeve. Here's what I mean: Too many policy advocates these days attempt to elevate what they consider to be desirable public polices to the status of basic human rights.

That's not a good thing.  A right is something quite important and relatively rare in the total scope of human behavior and interaction.  From the Political Dictionary:

Human rights are a special sort of inalienable moral entitlement. They attach to all persons equally, by virtue of their humanity, irrespective of race, nationality, or membership of any particular social group. They specify the minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life.

As I see it, this means means that if something is a right, it really can't be opposed because "rights" prevail over "policy" disagreements every time. Thus, some readers don't like what I write here, but they don't contest my right to host this blog as a matter of freedom of speech.

In this regard, I recently groused about declaring access to pain control a right–the aggressive delivery of which I support completely as a proper policy, but not a right. Now, NYT commentator Nicolas Kristof, promoting an international push for new forms of, and access to, contraception as a method of combating poverty, has pumped up the rights volume. Here's the conclusion to his column:

Family planning has long been a missing — and underfunded — link in the effort to overcome global poverty. Half a century after the pill, it's time to make it a priority and treat it as a basic human right for men and women alike around the world.

I don't opposed contraception, nor do I oppose programs that make it widely available to poor people–if it isn't coercive, which is sometimes a big "if."  But should birth control be considered a basic right akin to the rights to life, speech, and personal autonomy, such as freedom from rape? Is access to birth control really so central to the minimum level of human existence that everyone should be legally required to have access to it?  Nope.

Of course, should birth control ever be deemed a basic human right, it would stifle ongoing debates about contraception.  For example, would that prevent people from objecting to taxpayers funding forms of contraception that prevent pregnancies by destroying embryos in some fashion?  Would churches theologically opposed to contraception be prevented from instituting policies within their institutions consistent with their beliefs?  Not if access to birth control is a right, it seems to me.  Would we be able to debate whether making contraceptives universally accessible is the smartest use of our resources?  I don't see how financial considerations trump the exercise of basic rights since human rights claims often trump issues of national sovereignty.

Again, I am not criticizing Kristof's thesis, about which I am not particularly engaged.  But I do oppose the loose use of the term "rights" and am suspicious that its misapplication is intended to embed many policies into the bedrock of universal rights application  And that stifles democratic deliberation–which truly is a basic right.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Recognition that Many Tea Partiers Do Oppose Abortion

      

There was a good article in the Thursday, September 23rd edition of the Washington Examiner by Timothy Carney.  In this commentary piece ("Tea Partiers Oppose Abortion, Not Just Deficits") Carney points out that pro-life voters were instrumental in the recent defeats of Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle ("But Castle was also vocally pro-choice."), and Arlen Specter.  He notes that "the Senate ringleader of this rowdy [Tea Party] bunch is DeMint, a passionate pro-life conservative."

Here is Carney's most interesting – and correct – observation:  "But on Capital Hill, the divide between fiscally and socially conservative is a theoretical one.  Almost without fail, the strongest advocates of limited government in Congress are pro-life, and vice-versa. Think of DeMint and Tom Coburn in the Senate and Ron Paul and Jeff Flake in the House — they top the scorecards of the National Taxpayers' Union and also have perfect scores from National Right to Life."

Aside from the Tea Party phenomena itself – the most important political development this election cycle involves Sarah Palin.  It hasn't received much press.  Sarah Palin is changing the Republican Party and making it decidedly more pro-life.  The Washington Post described a May 14, 2010 event this way:

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told a group of women who oppose abortion rights that they are responsible for an "emerging, conservative, feminist identity" and have the power to shape politics and elections around the issue of life.

Speaking to a breakfast gathering Friday of the Susan B. Anthony List in downtown Washington, Palin urged more than 500 audience members to back only those candidates for public office who are uncompromisingly opposed to abortion.

Palin is doing this by endorsing pro-life candidates only, and she is endorsing excellent female candidates.  If Carney is correct – these politicians like Carly Fiorina in California will be decidedly more conservative on all issues.  But, after several election cycles there may be a cadre of pro-life women in office who will reshape the debate about abortion.  And, this goes to show that Palin isn't just politicking, she is institution-building.

Contact: Chris Gacek

Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: September 24, 2010