Court case and congressional inaction put embryonic stem cell research in limbo

President Barack Obama In August federal district judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the funding violated the 1995 Dickey-Wicker Amendment. In Dec. 6 court arguments, a lawyer for two scientists who filed the lawsuit said federal grants for the research encourage the private sector to create more of the cells. "There is now an incentive for the future destruction of human embryos," said the scientists' lawyer Thomas Hunger, according to the Wall Street Journal. Justice Department lawyer Beth Brinkmann, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, said that Congress intended to distinguish between promoting the study of embryonic stem cells and paying to create them. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding from being used to destroy embryos. President Obama's present policy holds that the research can be funded so long as the embryos were destroyed using private money. A congressional bill sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) could allow funding for the research. She told The Hill that her bill is "still not off the table" during the lame-duck session of Congress, but that  it's an issue of timing. The House leadership sees no point in passing the legislation if it will not also advance in the Senate. Co-sponsor Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) said the legislation is less likely to pass each day and he is "not exactly holding my breath." DeGette said that "real results" of the research are now becoming visible, citing two human-subject studies approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the past two months. She also was optimistic about her legislation's future, saying a recent Harris Interactive poll found 72 percent of Americans favor using embryonic stem cells left over from in vitro fertilization procedures for medical research. However, pro-life leaders were critical of these efforts. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, commented that Judge Lamberth has "exactly the correct view" of the law. "We've always said the Dickey Amendment … forbids funding any research that relies upon destroying human embryos," he told CNA on Dec. 9. While both the Clinton and Obama administrations have read the law "very narrowly," the bishops' conference and the amendment's sponsors have said its restrictions are broader. Asked whether Judge Lamberth's decision would mean a return to a Bush-era stem cell funding policy, Doerflinger said it would create "a vacuum" and result in no policy for funding research involving stem cells from destroyed embryos. "We don't know what the final decision will look like. It may be that the decision allows a window for reinstating the Bush policy. "But right now there's no Bush policy to refer to. It was canceled out," he added, saying President Obama would have to consider what is possible within the law or would have to support an effort to change the law. Doerflinger said that proponents of embryonic stem cell research have not passed legislation allowing the research funding because there is "uncertainty" about whether such legislation is necessary since the court decision is unresolved. "This court case is going to wend its way through the system for some time to come. So they don't know whether they even need to go through that battle." He added that the "lame duck" congressional session will end soon and other "must-pass" bills have top priority. "So they're tending to edge out any action on embryonic stem cells." Anna Franzonello, staff counsel for Americans United for Life, told CNA on Dec. 9 that her organization is "hopeful" that Judge Lamberth's decision will be upheld. She similarly credited the legislative failure to a political climate in which economic issues are more prominent. She also referred to a Rasmussen poll which reported that 57 percent of likely voters opposed using their tax dollars for the research. "It's not a secret that embryonic stem cell research has not been successful, but adult stem cell research has," she continued. "People are concerned about money going to things that are effective and not failed policies." Opposing the research is "sound ethics" but also "sound policy from a fiscal standpoint as well." She acknowledged the possibility that the failure of embryonic stem cell research is resonating with members of Congress and the Obama administration. "Even people who used to support embryonic stem cell research have come out and said it is not necessary, and actually obsolete," Franzonello continued. She named former National Institutes of Health director Bernardine Healy as one person who has reconsidered the need for the research. Doerflinger noted that there will be increased pro-life voting margins in both the House and the Senate in the next Congress. There will be "a decent chance" of stopping House legislation that would fund the research. "Our hope is that if the courts do the right thing and read this legislation the way it was intended, we can then stop any new legislation from coming in and changing the law to reinstate the funding of destructive research." He added that the ethical issues involved in the research are hard for many people to appreciate because the embryos are at an early stage of development and their creation in a laboratory has a "depersonalizing" effect. "But the fact is that each of us was once an embryo just that small," he said. "The educational challenge is to help people to get past their aesthetic feelings and to a real appreciation of the truth about the beginning of human life." Contact: Kevin J. Jones Source: CNA Publish Date: December 10, 2010

Rep. Hall: ‘Yes,' Jesus Had Right To Life From Moment of Conception

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) At the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) said he believed that Jesus Christ had the right to life from the moment of conception. CNSNews.com asked Rep. Hall, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ had the right to life at the moment of conception?"       Hall  said, "I believe in the right to life," and then added that, "yes," he believed that Jesus had the right to life at the moment of conception. On Tuesday, the lighting ceremony for the Capitol Christmas Tree took place on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol. At that event, both Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said they believed that Jesus received the right to life at the moment of conception. Click here for the video. Contact: Chris Johnson Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: December 10, 2010

PRI Releases Latest in Overpopulation Cartoon Series

The Population Research Institute (PRI) just released the fourth episode of their highly popular YouTube cartoon series. The series, which has to date garnered more than a half-million views, is designed to humorously refute the idea of overpopulation with stick figure animation.       The latest video, available to watch at www.overpopulationisamyth.com, is about two and a half minutes long. It tackles the root causes of poverty and how to alleviate it. All of this, while retaining the wry, humorous tone of its predecessors. "Reducing the number of people in the world would not make those who remain any wealthier," says Joseph Powell, the creator and animator of the series. "But, as we show in our video, that's not how it works, and population control won't change that." "We set out to be entertaining," adds Colin Mason, PRI's Director of Media Production and the video's editor. "The idea is to enthrall the viewer, who at the same time effortlessly absorbs certain demographic truths, chiefly, that people in their numbers create wealth, not poverty." "The fight against the myth of overpopulation does not have to be a bare-knuckled brawl," says Steven Mosher, PRI's president. "These videos are funny and easy to digest, the very opposite of Al Gore's boring pronouncements on the 'dangers' of too many people. Our viewers end up considering the science that supports our pro-people position, often for the very first time. We say to our skeptics: watch, laugh, and learn." Click here to view the latest video. Contact: Colin Mason Source: Population Research Institute Publish Date: December 9, 2010

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy is a Stem Cell Disease

Stanford researchers have identified muscle stem cells as a root problem in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a fatal disease which results from severe muscle wasting and weakness. About one out of every 3,500 boys in the U.S. is affected, though very few girls because the gene lies on the X-chromosome; males only have one X chromosome, while females have two and so have a "spare" for the affected gene. In this genetic disease the dystrophin gene, associated with the muscle fiber, is mutated. Under normal circumstances, muscle stem cells replace damaged muscle. Interestingly, in the usual mouse model for muscular dystrophy ("mdx mice"), the muscle stem cells do seem to keep up, but with human DMD the muscle stem cells can't seem to keep up and the muscle degenerates. The scientists found that in human DMD, the muscle stem cells experience what they termed "exhaustion". All cells have short sequences of DNA on the ends of their chromosomes, called "telomeres", and as cells divide repeatedly and age, these telomeres get shorter, like little fuses burning down. Because of the continuous need to cycle and replace damaged muscle, the DMD muscle stem cells burn down their fuses rapidly. To test their theory, the scientists developed a new mouse model that had both the dystrophin mutation and a problem with the telomeres in the muscle stem cells. The new mouse model showed the same problems as seen in human DMD. The authors note that this is the first time that muscular dystrophy has been shown definitively to be a stem-cell-based disorder. One co-author, Dr. Jason Pomerantz, said: "If a treatment does not replenish the stem cell compartment, it will likely fail; it would be like pushing the gas pedal to the floor when there is no reserve." Sure enough, the scientists were able to ameliorate the problems in the mouse model by transplanting normal muscle adult stem cells. Other research shows that embryonic stem cells are unsuitable for this type of repair, and that adult stem cells are needed. Previous results, including from the Stanford group, have show that adult stem cells can be useful for muscle regeneration. Click here to read the new study published online early in the journal Cell. Contact: David Prentice Source: FRCBlog Publish Date: December 10, 2010

Death threats in Rockford not taken seriously

Another Illinois pro-life group has faced a death threat, which has thus far been followed by no action from authorities.   Prayer warriors were on hand at the Northern Illinois Women's Center, a well-known abortion facility in Rockford, Illinois, with a few pro-abortion advocates who were conducting a counter demonstration, when a man and woman approached the entrance. "He started walking towards us and reached in his pocket like he was trying to intimidate us...pulled his hand out of his pocket and put it to his head like a gun and said, "What would you do if I pulled out my .45 and put a bullet in your head,'" accounts pro-lifer Kevin Rilott. "He was looking right at a couple of pro-lifers when he said this." A nearby police officer took the suspect inside and talked with him for about an hour, but apparently no action was taken. This follows a similar threat against a sidewalk counselor at the same clinic two weeks ago. So the Rockford pro-lifer says that underscores the risk counselors take in trying to save babies' lives. "It seems like the more we are assaulted and pushed by the abortion supporters, the more support we get from our local Christian community," Rilott notes. Another witness to this incident decides that "the violence of abortion breeds more violence," but those who participate are determined to continue prayer vigils and demonstrations at the clinic until it is shut down. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: December 9, 2010

States Fund Majority of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Six states–California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York–have poured large amounts of state taxpayer funds into human embryonic stem cell research, and according to a letter just published, states now fund the majority of human embryonic stem cell research conducted in the United States. According to the letter, each year since 2007 these six states have funded more human embryonic stem cell research than the federal government. In all, between December 2005 and the end of 2009, the six stem cell states awarded nearly 750 grants totaling just over $1.25 billion. California has so far given out over $1 billion. On a per capita basis, funding awarded through the end of 2009 ranges from just over $1 in Illinois to nearly $28 in California. California gave 75% of its grants for human embryonic stem cell research specificially, while Connecticut gave 97% of its designated stem cell funds for embryonic stem cell research. The authors note that they only included states with programs to provide funding specifically to support stem cell research. Other states that have funded stem cell research as part of larger bioscience programs, e.g., Massachusetts and Wisconsin, were excluded from their analysis. According to Aaron Levine, senior author: "An interesting question going forward is how committed these scientists are to stem cell research or if they are relating their work to stem cells now simply to be eligible for state funding – that's unknown right now." The authors have created an online searchable database about each grant given out by the six states. The information was published as a letter to the journal Nature Biotechnology Contact: David Prentice Source: FRC Blog Publish Date: December 9, 2010

Pro-life message spreads in China

Individuals in China are using various forms of media to communicate the pro-life message in the face of the country's coercive abortion regime. Opponents of abortion are using Internet sites, DVDs and booklets to deliver the pro-life message, according to a report by the Global Times newspaper. Chinese pro-lifers recognize, however, their mission is daunting on a variety of levels. While pro-lifers in China work against the power of the world's strongest Communist system, Christians in unregistered churches reportedly are the targets of a new crackdown by the government. Top-secret information showed the Chinese Communist Party initiated Dec. 1 a four-month campaign known as Operation Deterrence against the network of "underground" congregations, according to ChinaAid Association. Government-mandated population control -- commonly referred to as a one-child policy -- has been in effect in the world's most populous country for more than 30 years. The policy generally limits couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. Parents in cities now may have second babies if the husband and wife were only children. During the three-decade program, the state actions against women have included forced abortions, even on women in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy, and compulsory sterilizations. Infanticide, especially of female babies, also has been reported. Penalties for violations of the policy also have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes. At least 13 million abortions are performed in China each year, according to an estimate by the country's National Population and Family Planning Commission, the Global Times reported Nov. 2. There are about 20 million live births annually. Chinese women undergo an average of 3.4 abortions apiece, with some having as many as 15, said Zheng Shurong, an obstetrician at the Peking University First Hospital. Chu Yuhan, 28, who had five abortions before publishing an anti-abortion booklet and establishing an Internet discussion group earlier this year, is one Chinese citizen who is challenging the norm in her homeland. A 46-page booklet she wrote was circulated among more than 3,000 people in three months, according to the Global Times. Others who are seeking to inform their fellow Chinese about abortion, according to the newspaper, include: -- Chen Huankai, 29, a former soldier who sold 230 copies online in October of an anti-abortion DVD he produced. -- Chen Qin, a 27-year-old interior designer, who started the country's first anti-abortion website that attracts an average of 50 hits per day. -- Ye Genggeng, 45, a former software engineer who began a website named "Save Baby" and distributed more than 20,000 pro-life fliers to universities and a hospital. They are "very brave" in the face of overpowering odds, said Reggie Littlejohn, an American expert on China's one-child policy, of the Chinese who are advancing the pro-life message.  "China's pro-life movement is indeed nascent, as the [Chinese Communist Party] has poured out three decades of propaganda to the effect that a fetus is not a person -- even up to the ninth month of pregnancy -- and a woman's body is not her own," Littlejohn told Baptist Press by e-mail. She is ChinaAid's authority on the one-child policy and president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, which works to end coercive abortion and sexual slavery in China. "These two beliefs together form the basis of the coercive enforcement of the one-child policy, in which family planning police grab women off the streets or out of their homes, strap them down to tables and force them to abort babies that they want," Littlejohn said. "In such an oppressive, coercive environment, the idea that women should be allowed to choose to have babies is slow in coming." Chu and others acknowledged the handicap pro-lifers confront.  "Many Chinese are morally challenged by pro-life values but will stick to the prevailing pro-choice attitude," Chu told the Global Times. Tao Guangshi, an obstetrics professor at a university hospital in Changsha, said, "There's a medical machinery of supervisory departments, public hospitals and private clinics, all protecting this practice for vested interests." He Guanghu, a religious studies professor at Renmin University of Beijing, told the Global Times, "With a religious population of less than 10 percent, the pro-life activists will generally be stranded when trying to start up popular movements." The church, however, may soon be prepared to make an unprecedented impact on abortion in China.  An American pro-life leader recently met with more than 100 pastors of unregistered Chinese churches during three days of training. They studied what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of human life, forgiveness in Christ for those who have aborted their children and the call to rescue those threatened by abortion, he told Baptist Press. The reaction was "quite stunning," said the leader, who asked that his name not be used. "They received this with great lamentation and conviction and tears" and talked about how they could start a pregnancy help movement in China, he said. Unregistered churches face a new challenge, according to secret instructions obtained by ChinaAid. The document from the Communist Politburo labeled the unregistered church a "cult" and outlined a plan for Chinese security personnel to investigate house churches through March. ChinaAid said the directive provided the following reasons for identifying the network of unregistered churches as a "cult:" -- "The house churches advocate and promote the Christianization of China; -- "The house churches seek the unity of all churches in China; -- "The house churches seek the unity of the Chinese church with churches worldwide; -- "The house churches want to have dialogue with the government." ChinaAid, which denies those descriptions fit a "cult," expressed concern the government may use the label as part of a campaign against the unregistered church in the same way Beijing used it against the Falun Gong, a sect that practices meditation and non-violence. The Chinese government has harshly repressed the Falun Gong over the last decade, and its adherents may constitute as much as half of China's labor camp population, ChinaAid said. In an earlier development, Beijing police detained and interrogated Nov. 24 a house church pastor who also is a leading defender of the rights of Chinese Christians in what may have been a precursor to the crackdown. Fan Yafeng, who had been under house arrest since Nov. 1, was taken by force from his home and questioned for more than four hours about supposedly illegally "engaging in activities under the guise of a social organization," according to ChinaAid. Fan, director of Christian Human Rights Lawyers of China, was awarded the 2009 John Leland Religious Liberty Award by the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Publish Date: December 8, 2010

Abortionist Released from Jail Against Recommendations in Abortion Manslaughter Case

Eileen Smith, who helped bring abortionist Rapin Osathanondh to justice for killing her 22-year old daughter, Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion in Hyannis, Massachusetts, in 2007, tells Operation Rescue that Osathanondh has won a motion for early release from jail today after serving only half of his sentence.   According to Smith, Osathanondh will be fitted with a monitoring device and released today to serve out the remainder of his sentence in home confinement at his plush luxury home on Cape Cod.   The following is Eileen Smith's statement on the release of the man who killed her daughter:   "Rapin Osathanondh was granted a 'revise and revoke' motion on his sentence today by the same Judge who originally gave him the 'light' sentence. Once again the man who killed my daughter receives mercy while our daughter and family receive none. He will leave jail as soon as they get the bracelet on him for his 'million dollar home' confinement. Even though the Parole Board recently denied his parole because they said he was NOT remorseful for what he did, and he was the most 'arrogant and callous person to ever ask for parole in their experience serving on the parole board', the Judge disregarded the parole board's comments and decision and granted him freedom to go home. Where is my daughter's freedom to go home, Judge?" Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue states: "Today's decision to release Laura's killer was just plain wrong. We are very upset that Osathanondh was allowed to be released from jail early against the recommendation of the parole board. A three month incarceration for depriving a woman of her life trivializes her humanity and diminishes the human dignity of all women. As long as abortionist quacks who maim and butcher unsuspecting women and kill their innocent babies are slapped on the wrist and sent home, we can only expect their arrogant, 'above the law' attitudes to persist and the body count of dead abortion patients to rise." Osathanondh had agreed to a plea bargain on September 14, the third anniversary of Laura Smith's death, that included six months of incarceration with parole eligibility after three, to be followed by nine months of home confinement and three years probation. He surrendered his medical license and closed both of his abortion offices. Contact: Troy Newman Source: Operation Rescue Publish Date: December. 8, 2010

Dilemma in Antioch

Froedtert Hospital   The case of a 27 yr old paralyzed man from Antioch, Illinois, has made national news. Paralyzed from the neck down, due to a car accident at age 3 ,he wants Froedtert Hospital to remove his ventilator. He has battled the hospital for the last year and a half for this purpose. He says, "I have no friends - I have no education - no education prospects - no job prospects - I have no love prospects - all I want is to no longer live like this." He is physically incapable of ending his own life. "I feel I'm the only person in the country who does not have a way or an option to kill myself." At Froedtert, hospital psychiatrists and mental health professionals say, he is depressed and must be treated for it, before they will consider his request. He says, his desire to die does not stem from his depression, but from his poor quality of life and the low odds that it will improve. Depression is not uncommon for people with spinal cord injuries, who often struggle to gain control over their own lives. Their suicide rate is 2 to 6 times that of the general population. Their inability to end their lives themselves often compounds their sense of helplessness. Disability rights activists argue that the quality of life doesn't have to be inherently bad, rather, they say, society doesn't provide the resources to live a satisfying life. This young man is not dying. He is profoundly handicapped and totally dependent on others. Hospital records reveal that he has expressed concerns that his monetary problems and desire to help his mother are clouding his judgment. He refused any mental health treatment. He said, "It wouldn't change his decision and he couldn't afford the hassle and expense of visiting the hospital regularly for treatment." He has explored moving to a state where physician-assisted suicide is legal. This is the dilemma that society is facing all over the country. Should non-dying but profoundly handicapped people be assisted to end their own lives? And should it be legal? Source: Lake County Right to Life Publish Date: December 9, 2010

Co-Chairs for Congressional Pro-Life Caucus for 112th Congress Announced

      
      Rep. Dan Lipinski                 Rep. Chris Smith

Today, U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (NJ-04) and Dan Lipinski (IL03) announced that they will serve as Co-Chairs of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-life Caucus in the 112th Congress.

"Protection of unborn children must be a legislative priority in the 112th Congress and I look forward to leading this bipartisan coalition of pro-life Members with Chris Smith as we continue our work to protect innocent human life," said Lipinski, a long time pro-life leader in the House who is the prime cosponsor of H.R. 5939, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," H.R. 877, the "Patients First Act," and H.R. 5111, the "Protect Life Act."

"Dan Lipinski and I have -- and will continue to -- work hard together to provide needed protection for unborn children and their mothers,' said Smith, the Republican Co-Chair of the Pro-life Caucus since 1982. "We have an aggressively prolife legislative agenda for the new Congress which includes rolling back federal funding for abortion and the abortion industry starting with H.R. 5939 the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which Dan and I introduced in August of 2010, and H.R. 5111, the 'Protect Life Act,' which Dan introduced with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA-16)."

The Pro-life Caucus "is a bipartisan organization of House Members which provides information to Members of Congress on legislation and issues related to pro-life concerns. We understand that the taking of innocent human life must be stopped and that all persons -- regardless of age, health, sex, race, stage of development or condition of dependence -- must be guaranteed their full constitutional safe guards." (from the Pro-life Caucus Statement of Purpose)

Contact: Jeff Sagnip
Publish Date: December 8, 2010

Embryonic Stem Cell Funding Appeal Arguments Heard

     
     Embryonic Stem Cell Research

We have previously discussed the injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled that President Obama's embryonic stem cell funding policy violated federal law.  That funding cutoff was stayed on appeal, the oral arguments of which were heard yesterday. From the story:

    U.S. funding of human embryonic stem cell studies violates the law and must be stopped, a lawyer for two scientists who sued the Obama administration told a federal appeals court. The attorney, Thomas Hungar, sought today to persuade a three-judge panel in Washington to halt the flow of federal funds for research on stem cells where human embryos are injured or destroyed. A lower-court judge, ruling the research violated the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment limiting stem-cell research, temporarily barred funding during the case. The U.S. appealed.

    "There's no question they are trying to, and are, incentivizing the destruction of embryos in violation of the amendment," Hungar said. A lawyer for the Justice Department, Beth S. Brinkmann, said the spending is legal because the government isn't paying for the destruction of embryos. The stem-cell lines used in the research were created outside the government, she said. Without the ability to support research on embryonic stem- cell lines, the government said, years of progress toward finding cures for diseases and disorders will be lost and scientists will look to other countries such as Singapore and China to continue their work.

Hardly lost.  It's not as if scientists would have to shred their findings.  They would just have to rely on non federal money, which isn't exactly in short supply: Even during the Bush years, ESCR researchers received more than $2 billion in the USA.

Moreover, the question isn't what China or Singapore will do.  That is–or at least, should be–irrelevant.  The question is whether ESCR violates current federal law. And that boils down to whether embryo destruction and stem cell line derivation is one transaction–as Lamberth concluded–or whether embryo destruction can be distinguished from the research that follows, and thus, does not violate the Dickey Amendment's prohibition on the Feds funding research that destroys embryos.  It's a close question, and I think the appellate court could go either way.

However the appeal is decided, will the Supreme Court will take the case?  That depends on which side wins the appeal, but more on that later. 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: December 8, 2010

Hearings Reset in Tiller Associate's Illegal Abortion Referal Case

Neuhaus is accused of providing improper late-term abortion referrals

     
     Abortionist Kris Neuhaus
 
The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts has announced that hearings in the disciplinary case against Ann Kristin Neuhaus, who provided illegal late-term abortion referrals for the notorious George Tiller, have been delayed.
 
Hearings scheduled for December 20 and January 11 have been reset. Instead, a preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on April 12, 2011, at 9:00 AM. It is likely that the preliminary hearing will take place telephonically.

The full disciplinary hearing, which will be conducted in a trial-like format with testimony expected from witnesses, has been rescheduled for May 3, 2010, at 9:00 AM. That hearing is scheduled to last four days.

Operation Rescue's Cheryl Sullenger filed the original complaint against Neuhaus and Tiller in 2006 for what appeared to be an illegal financial affiliation.

Tiller was criminally charged and tried for having an illegal financial relationship with Neuhaus, who was the only physician providing the legally mandated second opinion verifying that a pregnancy met the strict exceptions to the Kansas ban on post-viability abortions. Tiller was acquitted of criminal charges in March, 2009, but the KSBHA was pursuing an 11-count disciplinary petition against Tiller based on Sullenger's complaint at the time of his death.

Neuhaus' petition, also based on Sullenger's complaint, does not allege an illegal financial affiliation with Tiller, but it does allege that in eleven cases of post-viability pregnancies she breached the standard of care in several ways, including:

    * Failure to perform adequate patient interview
       
    * Failure to obtain adequate patient history
       
    * Failure to adequately evaluate the "behavioral or functional impact" of the patient's condition and symptoms
       
    * Failure to meet the standard of care to the degree of constituting ordinary negligence
       
    * Failure to keep adequate medical records

Neuhaus is an abortionist who was previously disciplined by the KSBHA in 1999 and 2000 after committing numerous abortion abuses, including an incident where Neuhaus sedated a woman and forced an abortion upon her after she had withdrawn her consent. At that time the Board deemed Neuhaus a danger to the public. It was after this discipline that Neuhaus went to work for Tiller providing the second physician referral for post-viability abortions.

"We know that the Board does not file disciplinary petitions if it is not completely convinced that violations have occurred," said Sullenger. "We look forward to the resolution of this case and pray it results in the revocation of Neuhaus' medical license."

Click here to read Neuhaus' current disciplinary petition.

Contact: Troy Newman
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: December 8, 2010

Associate of Abortionist Steven Brigham Loses Maryland Medical License

     

The Maryland Board of Physicians announced December 2 that it permanently revoked the medical license of George J. Shepard Jr., an abortionist who worked at the Maryland clinic of Steven Chase Brigham. The board found Shepard "guilty of unprofessional conduct and that he had practiced medicine with an unauthorized person," according to the Courier-Post.

Brigham, who did not have a Maryland medical license, has been accused of operating a secret abortion clinic that performed late abortions in a two-step process that took place in New Jersey and Maryland, the Newark Star-Ledger reported. Shepard assisted Brigham in the Maryland clinic two days a week, according to the Courier-Post.

Brigham had a medical license in New Jersey, which was suspended in October and is currently being considered for revocation by the state board of medical examiners, the Associated Press (AP) reported. A complaint filed by New Jersey officials in September detailed Brigham's abortion procedure. In a typical incident, a pregnant woman went to Brigham's Voorhees, New Jersey, clinic, where he dilated her cervix and "administered a drug that killed the fetus," according to the AP. The woman was told to drive to Elkton, Maryland, the next day, where the now-dead baby was dismembered and removed.

After the scheme was discovered, investigators searched the Elkton clinic, "where a chest freezer held about 35 late-term fetuses," the Courier-Post reported. Maryland officials suspended the licenses of Shepard and Utah abortionist Nicola Riley, who also assisted at the clinic. The board decided October 28 to extend the summary suspension of Riley's license, according to a document on the board's web site. Riley now has the opportunity to request a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge.

The Maryland board's order to revoke Shepard's license, dated November 18, details his involvement with Brigham and the two-state abortion process. The board ruled that Shepard "practiced with an unlicensed individual, Dr. Brigham, or aided an unlicensed individual, Dr. Brigham, in the practice of medicine in Maryland."

It added, "This arrangement potentially places patients at grave risk for harm or catastrophic outcomes." Brigham's clinic, the board asserted, "poses a threat to the public, to the patients who undergo procedures there, and to the profession of medicine."

Contact: Liz Townsend
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: December 7, 2010

Will the November 2 Electoral "Thrashing" Change Obama on Abortion?

      
      President Obama

If you've had a chance to scan the newspaper, watch a little television, or surf the web even briefly, you know that pro-abortion President Barack Obama is now maneuvering to reset the button--aka, rebound from a devastating defeat ("thrashing") at the polls last month. He is getting lot of either/or advice.

Washington Post reporter Dan Balz summarized the convention wisdom in a column that ran Saturday. "What is the right strategy for Obama to regain the political initiative and put his presidency back on track?" Balz asks rhetorically.

"Should he hold firm, push a liberal agenda and provoke fights with the Republicans, as Truman did? That would reenergize his liberal base and sharpen his profile with the public. Or should he be a conciliator, as Clinton tried to be, cooperating when possible with congressional Republicans but resisting when he believes they have gone too far right? That might show the Republicans as obstructionists and bring independents back to his side heading toward 2012."

Let me offer a couple of thoughts. First, as Balz subsequently makes clear, it's not necessarily one or the other. Besides, you may never actually know what strategy Obama is employing until well after the dust has settled.

Second, Obama's modus operandi always is to look directly into the Teleprompter and insist that no matter how much it's been "my-way or the highway," in fact he's been working feverishly to find common ground. "Who are you going to believe?" Obama asks in effect, "Me or your lying eyes?"

I mention this (a) because his posturing on ObamaCare is the best possible example of Obama's saying one thing while doing the exact opposite, and (b) because there is no reason to believe he would be any the less resolutely pro-abortion in the next two years.

We will be lectured a hundred times that the "new" Obama "understands" that he must "change" on a host of issues--including abortion--and that if we don't bite when he comes back with still another pro-abortion proposal, it will be because we are opposing him just to oppose him.

But that's fine. We won't be fooled, you won't be fooled, and we will work against President Obama each and every time he works to advance the anti-life agenda.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: December 7, 2010

Saving Babies After an Abortion Starts

Pro-Life Action League Announces First-of-its-Kind Program to Help Women Who Change their Minds

     

The Pro-Life Action League is excited to announce a new alliance with Resurrection Medical Center and The Women's Center in establishing a protocol for assisting women who change their minds after initiating a second trimester abortion procedure. This groundbreaking partnership is the first-of-its-kind in Chicago and can be a model for Catholic hospitals around the country.

"Recently, our sidewalk counselors have seen several women who have changed their minds about abortion, and who wish to continue their pregnancies even once the late-term abortion procedure has started," said Ann Scheidler, vice president and director of sidewalk counselor training for the Pro-Life Action League. "This new process enables us to provide the most comprehensive medical care and emotional support for the pregnant woman who is facing this stressful situation."

The protocol was developed by representatives from the League, Resurrection and The Women's Center, a crisis pregnancy center on the northwest side of Chicago. 

In preparation for setting new guidelines, the Pro-Life Action League arranged for Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist and practicing gynecologist from Las Cruces, N.M., to advise the hospital's physicians and staff on the procedures involved in a later-term abortion and the reversal of the process. 

The newly established protocol involves the following:

When a pregnant woman encounters a sidewalk counselor and indicates she has had a change of heart, she will be directed to The Women's Center. 
 
The trained counselor at The Women's Center has a designated phone number to alert the emergency room at Resurrection that the women will be arriving shortly. 
 
The emergency room at Resurrection will handle the initial evaluation and paper work.
 
The woman is transferred to the obstetrics department where the necessary procedures will be done.
 
If needed, the hospital will refer the women for prenatal care. 
 
The Women's Center will continue to follow up with the pregnant woman throughout her pregnancy and the delivery of her baby, meeting any emotional and material needs as they arise.
Sister Donna Marie, chief executive officer of Resurrection Medical Center, said of the Pro-Life Action League, "I am so pleased the Resurrection Medical Center is able to be a small part of the beautiful work that you are all doing for the unborn. God bless you and your wonderful team, how pleased God must be with your commitment to His holy children."

"Never before have we had such a streamlined process to save the life of a child after the abortion procedure has been initiated," said Scheidler. "This alliance with Resurrection Medical Center is an example of the way Christ's Church is meant to work together for the good of His most vulnerable."

Contact: Stephanie Lewis
Source: Pro-Life Action League
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Dolly the Cloned Sheep Cloned

     

Dolly the sheep has been cloned. There are now four "Dollies."  From the story:

Named after country and western singer Dolly Parton, Dolly was created from a cell taken from a mammary gland. The rest of the sample of tissue has lain in a freezer since, until it was defrosted to make the Dollies. This means the quads are genetically identical to each other, as well as to Dolly, and to the ewe that donated the udder tissue. Professor Keith Campbell, who keeps the Dollies as pets on land at Nottingham University, said: 'Dolly is alive and well. Genetically these are Dolly.'

No. Dolly is dead.  The four new Dolly-sheep are not "Dolly," just as she wasn't the original ewe whose mammary cell nucleus was used in her manufacture.  They aren't even 100% alike since Dolly came from a different egg than her clones–meaning the donor and clones have different mitochondrial DNA.

But that's not the point of this post. I don't care much about animal cloning except as it relates to animal welfare issues.  However, people cloning–that is important.  And this is the point I want to make: Although this doesn't matter a whit in sheep–clones are different individuals, just as identical twins are unique individuals.  (This is true even at a physical level. Even though identical twins came from the same original embryo, they have different fingerprints.)

Hence, if Hitler were cloned as in the old horror movies–his clone wouldn't be Hitler.  He would probably look a lot like the original–it would be wise not to grow the Charlie Chaplain mustache–but he wouldn't be him.  For example, while he might have artistic talent, the anti-Semitism would be absent.  Ditto the megalomania.  He might not even be a good speaker.  Our personality characteristics and talents almost surely are a combination of environment and heritage, not just naked genetics.

In other words, we are not just our genes–even from the womb.  So, while this story is about sheep, if we ever clone people–which should be outlawed–it will be important to remember that should cloned children ever be born, each would be fully human beings of equal moral worth and individuals in their own right–regardless of the fame or infamy of the source of their nuclear DNA.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: December 1, 2010

Death Panels? NYC Will Send Ambulances to Save Organs of People Deemed Likely to Die

     

Some 911 Calls in Manhattan will bring out two ambulances, one hurrying to the scene in an attempt to save the patient's life, and the other arriving to save the patient's organs in case the person dies, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

"After months of grappling with the ethical and legal implications, New York City medical officials are beginning to test a system that they hope will one day greatly increase the number of organs collected for transplant," the newspaper reported.

According to the newspaper, "a specially trained team" will monitor 911 calls for people "who may be in danger of dying," such as those having a heart attack. It's the first system of its kind in the U.S.

Click here for the New York Times article.

Contact: Susan Jones
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 1, 2010 

Instead of New Clinic, Carhart Moves Late-term Abortions into Rundown Maryland Abortion Mill

Activists plan an aggressive challenge

     

Operation Rescue has confirmed that late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart is not in fact opening a new clinic in Maryland as he announced, but is instead joining up with an existing abortion business in Germantown in order to evade a new Nebraska law that prohibits abortions past 20 weeks.
 
"This is not an expansion of abortion, but a relocation of Carhart's failing late-term abortion business in a desperate attempt to avoid financial ruin," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
 
Running from the law that halted his late-term abortion business, Carhart has made an opportunistic move to capture a portion of the abortion market vacated by the notorious abortionist Steven Chase Brigham, whose Maryland abortion clinics recently closed after it was discovered that he was operating a secret illegal late-term abortion racket in Maryland.
 
Like Brigham, Carhart has no hospital privileges in any state, including Maryland where he intends to commit the risky late second and third trimester abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services, located at 13233 Executive Park Terrace.

GRHS is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation, a group of abortion mills that has an abysmal record of filthy clinics and dangerous abortionists. Convicted rapist Brian Finkel, who is currently serving 34 years in an Arizona prison for raping dozens of his abortion patients, was a proud NAF member. (View photos of a filthy NAF abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas, which was bought and closed by Operation Rescue.)

"Being an NAF affiliate only increases our belief that conditions at the Germantown clinic are such that the lives and health of women seeking Carhart's late-term abortion services would be placed at even greater risk than is usual for late-term abortions which are typically prone to complication," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Carhart plans to begin late-term abortions at GRHS on December 6, 2010. Operation Rescue is working with Maryland and Washington, D.C. pro-life groups to employ peaceful, legal means to halt Carhart's plans to do late-term abortions in Germantown.

Contact: Troy Newman
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Indiana pro-lifers hope to ban late-term abortion

     

As a late-term abortionist has shared his plans to expand his business to other states, a move is under way to thwart his efforts in Indiana.
 
Carhart has announced plans to extend his expertise from Omaha to Iowa, Maryland and Indianapolis. According to Mike Fichter of Indiana Right to Life, Carhart has only been performing first-term abortions in Indianapolis, "but, of course, his announced plan for expansion has caused great alarm because there is concern at this point that that expansion will include trying to turn Indianapolis into a late-term abortion Mecca," he explains.

Late-term abortions are legal in Indiana, so Fichter believes that would pave the way for Carhart's plans. As a result, Indiana Right to Life is encouraging lawmakers to close those loopholes and adopt Nebraska's Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which bans abortions after 20 weeks. (See earlier story)

"We think that will correct some of the serious flaws that are currently in place in Indiana's law regarding second and third trimester abortions," the pro-lifer suggests. "So we want the legislators in Indiana to send a very clear message that Indiana does not want to be known as a destination for late-term abortions, and we think we can get that accomplished here in the upcoming session."

Of the 20 freshmen legislators in the House, 18 were endorsed by his organization. Pro-lifers have also made gains in the Senate, and Fichter has received calls from lawmakers who want to move forward with the legislation.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 1, 2010

Wherefore ObamaCare?

     
     Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II

Courtesy of the November 2 elections, there is now a newly-strengthened Republican minority in the Senate and majority status in the House. Many Republicans campaigned on a theme of repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

Let's start with public opinion, which in spite of the spinning from the White House, is dead-set against ObamaCare. Yesterday Rasmussen reported on a separate but related issue: whether the public thinks repeal is at least somewhat likely.

The headline was "Health Care Law: 47% Say Health Care Repeal Is Likely, 39% Disagree." This 47% is the highest figure ever, and is a stark contrast to what Rasmussen found in April just after the law was passed when only 38% said repeal was at least somewhat likely, compared to 51% who disagreed.

Meanwhile there are challenges galore to ObamaCare in the federal courts. Much of the attention has focused on Judge Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, who was openly skeptical of the law's provision that requires most Americans to obtain insurance.

Moreover "another judge, Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., has joined Judge Hudson in writing preliminary opinions that seemingly accept key arguments made by state officials challenging the law," according to an in-depth New York Times'' piece, written by Kevin Sack and Robert Pear. To put the importance of these cases in perspective, they quoted from an article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine written by University of North Carolina political scientist Jonathan Oberlander.

"Any ruling against the act creates another P.R. problem for the Democrats, who need to resell the law to insured Americans," he warned. Such a ruling, Oberlander wrote, "could add to health care reform's legitimacy problem."

Although there are many parts of the 2,700-page long bill that have drawn criticism, the "novel question before the courts," Sack and Pear write, "is whether the government can require citizens to buy a commercial product like health insurance."

The office of Virginia''s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, argued the case before Judge Hudson on October 18. Cuccinelli made a number of fascinating observations in a recent update he sent out.

For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed the Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA), which says (he writes) "that no Virginian can be ordered to purchase health insurance against his will." This conflicts directly "with the federal healthcare law's mandate that all qualifying Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance."

Cuccinelli then went on to summarize some of what took place at the 2 and one-half hour long hearing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One way of thinking about what the feds are trying to do is that in an effort to regulate interstate commerce, they are compelling us all into commerce, i.e., ordering us to buy their mandated health insurance. Virginia's position is that those who decide not to buy health insurance aren't taking any action at all that is related to commerce. All the case law related to the commerce clause addresses people voluntarily engaging in economic activity.

"Well, if you're not doing anything (i.e., not buying insurance), there's no activity to regulate. Put differently, you are inactive.

"The feds' addressed this argument saying 'the appearance of inactivity is a mere illusion.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Hudson has promised a decision by the end of the year.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Why the Hyde Amendment So Angers Pro-Abortionists

     
     Henry Hyde U.S. Representative (R-Ill.), 1975-2007

An acquaintance sent along a link to a notice from the pro-abortion Center for American Progress. The title of an event which it is sponsoring and will take place next week is "Separate and Unequal: The Hyde Amendment as a Civil Rights Issue."

As you know the Hyde Amendment is one of the Movement's signal triumphs. Against seemingly impossible odds, in 1976 the late pro-life champion Henry Hyde was able to pass this measure which prohibits funding of abortion with money from the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Why does this so stick in the pro-abortionist's craw? For many reasons, I suspect. For one, at a minimum at least one million people --and perhaps considerably more--are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. This runs counter to the core of the anti-life philosophy: there can NEVER be enough abortions.

For another, it is the model for shutting off the governmental spigot--for example, for preventing federal funds from subsidizing abortion, or insurance plans that cover abortion, in any of the new programs created by the new health care law. Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.) have introduced a new bill that would permanently bar subsidies for abortion in all federal programs--the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 5939). If the Smith-Lipinski bill were enacted, it would no longer be necessary to win annual renewal of the Hyde Amendment or other such temporary bans.

But pro-abortionists, or at least some of them, really have persuaded themselves that the Hyde Amendment "discriminates" against poor and indigent women because it prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions in all but a few instances.

The same online notice of next week's event concludes in hyperbole overdrive--"Anyone who cares about fighting racism and poverty must realize that attacks on abortion, and especially on abortion funding, are first and foremost attacks on poor and low-income women of color."

No, they are first and foremost (a) an expression of the American people's resistance to paying to kill unborn children, and (b) an attempt to save as many lives as possible.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Federal Appeals Court Denies Pro-Life Nurse Conscience Protections

     

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a pro-life employee has no legal recourse if forced by an employer to assist in an abortion.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a former nurse at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, said she was forced to participate in an abortion against her will and threatened with disciplinary action if she did not assist in the so-called emergency late-term abortion.

The Alliance Defense Fund, representing DeCarlo, later learned that the abortion was not an emergency and that the patient was not in crisis at the time of the procedure.

When she attempted to sue the hospital, alleging it had violated the federal "Church Amendment," a lower court ruled that the law does not provide recourse for individuals who experience discrimination.

The amendment was intended to protect health care workers of federally funded businesses from being discriminated against participating in abortions on religious grounds.

Americans United for Life, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of more than 19,000 pro-life health care professionals, argued that right of conscience is a fundamental right affirmed by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Matt Bowman, legal counsel for ADF, said pro-life nurses should not be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs.

"It is illegal, unethical, and a violation of (DeCarlo's) right of conscience as a devout Catholic to require her to participate in terminating the life of a 22-week pre-born child," Bowman said. "It was not only wrong, it was needless."

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 29, 2010

State's attorneys support parental notice

The lengthy legal battle over parental notification for minors who seek abortions continues in Illinois.

     
     Last year's demonstration

The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was passed and enacted by a pro-abortion governor in 1995, but it has not gone into effect because of ongoing legal challenges from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The law requires an abortionist to notify a parent or legal guardian before carrying out the procedure, unless the minor provides a written statement that she is a victim of abuse or secures a confidential "judicial bypass."

But in response to the ACLU's challenges, the Thomas More Society recently took another step toward getting the 15-year-old law enforced.

"We have just submitted an amicus brief on behalf of a group of Illinois state's attorneys in support of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in the state of Illinois," reports Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. "As you may remember, Illinois is the only state in the entire Midwest that doesn't require either parental notice or consent prior to a child being taken for an abortion."

That amicus brief argues that the state constitution does not confer abortion rights and that numerous federal and state courts have upheld the constitutionality of parental notice. Breen is hopeful the support of many county prosecutors will add weight in the law's favor. But as the parental notice act has remained in limbo, the legal counsel laments that Illinois has become a dumping ground for children from other states who are seeking abortions.

"Since this law was passed but enjoined, 50,000 young people have been subjected to abortions in the state of Illinois, without any requirement that their parents be notified or that their parents consent prior to the procedure," he reports.

Breen understands the court may hear the case on an expedited basis, and that it may even provide a quick decision after a decade-and-a-half of litigation.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Medical Ethics

     

In medicine, technology has surpassed ethics. In religion, relativism for the most part, has replaced doctrine. In advertising, there are no holds barred any longer. In airports, anything goes. While this opening may sound flip, what was once unthinkable, is now the norm. So too with the euthanasia movement.

In 1930 it was known as the Euthanasia Society of America. It's goal was to secure legalization of passive euthanasia (death encouraged by omission, through neglect of necessary treatment & care) leading to a patient's death. The goal of which, was to change public opinion on the issue, so that active euthanasia (death caused or hastened by the act of commission, using a lethal agent ) could be accomplished and legalized. I would say, they've accomplished their goals.

When wondering, if euthanasia is taking place, one has to look at what is the intent of the treatment, or lack thereof. Remember, euthanasia can be carried out by omission (passive) or commission (active). There is no moral difference.

We've come a long way since the 1930's. Today's debate is more sophisticated, but equally lethal.
We now have bio-ethical think tanks. These think tanks are shaping public opinion and religious beliefs, as well as legislative policy. They are embedded in government regulations, state and federal laws and ethical guidelines around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI discussed a fundamental problem with bio-ethics, in his address to the Pontifical Academy for Life. He said, "Some ethicists warn that modern bio-ethics is in fact a new normative system of ethics, that, based on principles of utilitarianism can never be compatible with Natural Law's principles. Under traditional medical ethics, the guiding principle is,"do no harm". But contemporary bio-ethics abandons this ... in an effort to find the utilitarian goal of the "greatest good for the greatest number". Under these principles, preserving the life of the human patient is not considered paramount."

Source: Lake County Right to Life
Publish Date: November 29, 2010

CRR pushing for easier access to Plan B

     
     The "morning-after" pill

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) has filed a lawsuit to force the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make the "morning-after" pill available over-the-counter to girls of all ages.

After getting sued by the CRR in 2005, the FDA decided that any female under the age of 18 could have Plan B, but only with a prescription. But with the current demand, Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), tells OneNewsNow the pro-abortion legal group is apparently not looking at the facts.

"The morning-after pill has been an utter failure in reducing pregnancies and in reducing abortions, and there's indication that making Plan B easy to get only increases cases of sexually transmitted diseases," she reports.

But Wright thinks the CRR is trying to use the courts to make a political statement instead of a decision based on sound medical judgment. She also contends it is an attempt to bypass parental consent, "and that's not in girl's best interest; that's only in the interest of the drug company, which will make more money, and abortion activists, who will profit from these girls relying on a very ineffective drug, then ending up pregnant or with a sexually transmitted disease," the CWA president warns.

Moreover, Wright points out that there is still no research to suggest Plan B is safe for young girls, especially those who use it regularly.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 30, 2010

Seeking to "Boost Understanding" about "Late-Term Abortion"

     
     Late Term (Partial birth) Abortion

The Huffingtonpost.com reprinted a piece that first ran in Women's Media Center titled, "Late-Term Abortion: Filmmakers Seek To Boost Understanding."

We learn that there are two filmmakers who are producing a honorific documentary about the two most infamous "late-term" abortionists in the world: LeRoy Carhart--who reportedly has moved his late-term abortion business from Nebraska when the state said he couldn't kill unborn babies capable of feeling pain which lawmakers have recognized as beginning at 20 weeks--and Warren Hern--most famous for (in referring to his own abortion technique) the remarkable statement that "there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

This is the same Hern who once got into a heated exchange of letters over the proposed ban on partial-birth abortions. In the course of the back and forth Hern said that he did personally use this method. To which NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson responded, "He neglects to mention that this is because he prefers methods that involve the progressive dismemberment of the well-developed unborn child" (dilation and extraction).

They are so outlandish you really can't caricature what these people say or do-- in this case filmmakers Martha Shane and Lana Wilson. (The working title of their documentary is "Trust Women.")

They told Women's Media Center that they need all the money they can get, since they are only a third of the way through shooting. One way to finance their hosanna to "late-term" abortions is to sell buttons with the insignia "Trust Women."

But they also have other, more creative fundraising ideas. "We're also sending condom bouquets," Shane explained, pointing to an arrangement in a vase across the table--several condoms wrapped together with pipe cleaner stems. Wilson nodded. "Maybe we can sell them as limited edition artworks."

And, no, I am not making this up.

Nor am I making up the two-fold strategy for demonstrating the sheer goodness of what Carhart and Hern do for a living (so to speak).

There is the usual disinformation--that "late-term" abortions are practically only done for the most heart-rending of reasons. This canard was disproved during the long, LONG debate over partial-birth abortion.

The other approach is to tell us how genuinely wholesome both men are--Carhart is an Air Force veteran who is "Christian and religious," while Hern was a Peace Corp volunteer. Would such men really be likely to do something….unacceptable?

If you have any doubts, we're told the Carhart is so scrupulous in ensuring that women really do want to abort that he claims he "turns away more women than the protesters do."

So why are Wilson and Shane making the documentary? Carhart and Hern are 68 and 72, respectively, and could represent "the end of an era." So their goals are to use the film to proselytize in medical schools and to "influence a broad audience, including legislators, and hope the film will help to prevent other states from following Nebraska's post-20 weeks ban."

Indeed "our modest goal," Shane "said, is to "really affect the conversation about abortion in the United States."

They are on to a basic truth about human nature. If you "tell stories" (as they like to describe what they are about) that are warm enough, compelling enough, and avoid what's being done to whom enough, an audience can be duped.

But that's why you and I are here. To make sure the truth wiggles its way out from beneath a blanket of omissions and distortions. And because you have, you already have "really affected the conversation about abortion in the United States."

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 29, 2010

Tax Return Shows Planned Parenthood Salaries, Much More

     

We already knew that Planned Parenthood was a $1 billion dollar corporation performing hundreds of thousands of abortions at its clinics all across the U.S. Now, with the release of the groups corporate tax form we have a better idea of where some of the money coming into this "non-profit" ends up.

According to the group's Form 990, the return used for an "Organization Exempt from Income Tax," the group has 356 employees and 61 persons acting as volunteers. This apparently refers only to the national office, since according to the group's 2008 annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) staffed nearly 880 "heath centers" among its 97 affiliates and had "more than four million activists, supporters, and donors."

The return indicates that income at the national office was up over the previous year, with revenues increasing from $85,758,316 to 106,357,796 in 2008 (most from increased contributions and grants). Exactly how is unclear, but the non-profit group had a net income of $474,656 from sales of its inventory.

Planned Parenthood's top officers were well paid. For Cecile Richards, the group's politically well-connected president, total compensation from PPFA for 2008 was $346,285. She also received an additional compensation in salary, bonuses, and other reportable compensation of $38,476, from "related organizations" she did work for. In addition to being PPFA president, Richards is also heads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which promotes candidates supportive of the group's agenda. (See below.)

The return also shows the money being given to various Planned Parenthood affiliates. Though it doesn't explain whether the support is due to the affiliate's size or activities (such as building some new regional mega-clinic or launching a web-cam abortion operation), the top 15 recipients funding from the national office include:

   1.      Planned Parenthood of Houston and SE TX ... $1,187,495
   2.      Planned Parenthood of Illinois . .. $1,148,453
   3.      PP of the Rocky Mountains . .. $1,096,593
   4.      PP Southeastern Pennsylvania . .. $1,017,775
   5.      Planned Parenthood of Arizona . ..$994,422
   6.      PP of Southwest and Central Florida . .. $947,740
   7.      Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid Missouri . .. $843,658
   8.      Planned Parenthood of MN, SD, and ND . .. $820,224
   9.      PP of the St. Louis Region .. . $809,952
  10.      PP Health Systems, Inc (w/clinics in SC, NC, VA, WV) . .. $759,395
  11.      PP of the Texas Capital Region .. . $535,480
  12.      PP of Wisconsin . .. $547,297
  13.      Planned Parenthood of Indiana . .. $547,188
  14.      Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee .. . $539,835
  15.      Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina .. . $504,030 

It is worth noting that these several of these larger grants went to affiliates where there have been mergers in recent years (PP Arizona, and PP Health Systems, PP Illinois) or have recently opened or announced plans for huge megaclinics (PP Illinois, PP SW & Central Florida, PP of the Rocky Mountains, PP of MN, SD, and ND, PP Houston & SE TX).

Other interesting recipients of PP's cash grants include the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health ($30,000) and Advocates for Youth ($15,284) a group promoting teen sex education--two of the group's prime target constituencies.

For those still under the illusion that Planned Parenthood is an apolitical women's health group, in 2008 a large grant went to The Planned Parenthood Action Fund. This is the corporation's "nonpartisan advocacy and political arm" that endorsed and mobilized for pro-abortion candidates up and down the ballot in that election year.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. is one of several "related tax exempt organizations" listed on the Form 990. There is also the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. PAC, and Planned Parenthood Votes, which the Form indicates do "political act[ivity]," the Planned Parenthood Foundation and PPFA 21st Century, Inc. which do "supporting" activity.

Planned Parenthood spent $3,153,843 on overseas activities, the bulk of it devoted to the Sub-Saharan African region, where the group lists three offices and 14 employees or agents. All of its international grants were for "Repro Health."

Planned Parenthood typically refers to itself as "the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate serving women, men, teens and families" but in the Form 990, the group gives perhaps its most detailed description of its mission. Here it is, repeated in full:

The purpose of the federation is:

(A) To provide leadership:

     – in making effective means of voluntary fertility regulation, including contraception, abortion, sterilization, and infertility services, available and fully accessible to all as a central element to reproductive healthcare:

     – in achieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; - in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research;

     – in developing appropriate information, education, and training programs.

(B) To support and assist efforts to achieve similar goals in the United States and throughout the world.

The prominent place of "abortion" in this list and the federation's stated intent to make it "available and fully accessible to all" shows just how central the group believes it is to their goal of "reproductive healthcare." Remember that the next time groups like Planned Parenthood try to get "rights" to "reproductive healthcare" inserted into United Nations documents.

The statement also shows that, though the group does not speak publicly of it much anymore, population control is still very much part of the group's mentality, seen in the goal of "a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment..."

It isn't listed on the 2008 tax return, but Planned Parenthood performed 324,008 abortions at its affiliated clinics that year. For all the details about salaries, revenue, and expenses, if you want to understand what Planned Parenthood is all about, that is the real bottom line.

Contact: Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

“Direct Conversion” May Make Embryonic Stem Cell Research Obsolete

     

When George W. Bush praised scientists as having the talent and ability to discover and harness the healing potential of regenerative medicine ethically, that is, without needing to destroy embryos–his enemies scoffed.  What a dope.  His religion got in the way of the understanding that ESCR was the only hope.

That was then.  Now, scientists are working with a number of techniques that are already providing hope in human trials–adult stem and umbilical cord stem cells–as they develop astonishing techniques that can reprogram normal cells into pluritpotent stem cells–IPSC, now being used in drug testing and to study disease–or now, even skip the stem cell stage altogether with direct reprogramming or "direct conversion."  More advances have been made on the latter front.  From the story:

Suppose you could repair tissue damaged by a heart attack by magically turning other cells into heart muscle, so the organ could pump effectively again. Scientists aren't quite ready to do that. But they are reporting early success at transforming one kind of specialized cell directly into another kind, a feat of biological alchemy that doctors may one day perform inside a patient's body. "I think everyone believes this is really the future of so-called stem-cell biology," says John Gearhart of the University of Pennsylvania, one of many researchers pursuing this approach.

The concept is two steps beyond the familiar story of embryonic stem cells, versatile entities that can be coaxed to become cells of all types, like brain and blood. Scientists are learning to guide those transformations, which someday may provide transplant tissue for treating diseases like Parkinson's or diabetes. It's still experimental. But at its root, it's really just harnessing and speeding up what happens in nature: a versatile but immature cell matures into a more specialized one.

That isn't to say that that studying ES cells wouldn't have any scientific interest, as the story notes, and there is still a long way to go.  But the CURES! angle would become obsolete–and with it, the politics of hype–as the scientific focus, and the research dollars shifted–and just perhaps, the resulting ethical regenerative medicine would stall the drive toward Brave New World

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 29, 2010

Abortionist calls it quits

     

A Maryland abortionist who stood accused of negligence in the death of a patient has surrendered his license and is out of business for good.
 
Romeo Ferrer of Severna Park, Maryland, permanently surrendered his license to state medical officials on October 27 and committed not to apply for a new one in any other state.

"Romeo Ferrer killed a woman during an abortion in February of 2006. That abortion death was kept secret from the public until 2010 when the Maryland Medical Board filed a petition against him to begin the process of revoking his license," reports Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullinger.

Ferrer hired fellow abortionist Gheovant Wartanian during his suspension period in an attempt to keep his Severna Park abortion clinic open, but he quit when Sullinger's group revealed his controversial past. When Wartanian resigned, the clinic was closed and Ferrer turned in his license for good. But had there not been public pressure, the Operation Rescue spokesperson thinks the outcome might have been different.

"There were several pro-life groups that worked together to apply pressure to the medical board and to a state attorney," she regards. "We're still asking for criminal charges in the death of this poor girl. We reached out to our supporters, and we generated phone calls and e-mails to the authorities. That helped speed this process along."

She decides this outcome was accomplished because pro-life groups worked as a team and utilized available legal channels.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 29, 2010

European Court of Human Rights to Decide if a Right to be Dead

     
     European Court of Human Rights

We live in a strange era in which Jefferson's "right to life" supposedly has a concomitant "right to death."  At least, that will be the case if the European Court of Human Rights rules that Germany violated the right of a woman with disabilities to obtain a lethal dose of drugs for use in suicide. From the story:

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg began hearing the case of Ulrich Koch vs. Germany on Tuesday. A court brief said the case concerned the German authorities' refusal to grant his late wife authorization to acquire a lethal dose of medication enabling her to commit voluntary, assisted suicide. After falling in front of her house in 2002, Koch's wife was paralyzed from the neck down and required artificial ventilation and constant care from nursing staff. Koch said his wife thereafter "suffered from terrible spasms" and even had trouble "sitting in a wheelchair." Because she was paralyzed, she appealed for active help to end her life. In November, 2004, she made a request to Germany's Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices to grant her authorization to obtain the medication necessary to commit suicide, but the institute refused, arguing that her wish contravened the German Narcotics Act…

The European Court of Human Rights must now decide whether the German law banning "active" assisted suicide infringes on a person's right to privacy and a dignified death, as stipulated by Article 8 of the German constitution. If the court rules in the plaintiff's favor, it could have far-reaching consequences for the growing tide of support across Europe for assisted suicides.

Koch died at a Swiss suicide clinic. Those death purveyors never say no.

Note: Koch wasn't terminally ill, which of course, isn't want the issue is about at all–except in the USA for political expediency.  But also note: If Koch had a fundamental privacy right to lethal drugs for use in suicide that was violated by German law, so does everyone–and for any reason.  Because if suicide is a fundamental human right, how can it be limited to the dying, the sick, or people with disabilities?  Indeed, if we have a "right to die," who is to gainsay why we decide to exercise that right?

So, be very clear what a ruling in favor of a right to be made dead would mean.  And think about the abandoning message it would send to those who have a very difficult time hanging on, and the destructive forces it would unleash against the most weak and vulnerable among us.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 26, 2010