Ethical stem cell research continues to advance. The University of Wisconsin, Madison–where human ESCs were first derived–has found the IPSCs and ESCs are virtually identical. From the U of W story: A study released Sunday shows embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells are almost identical. Since human IPS cells were first produced from mouse cells in 2006 and from human cells in 2007, it has been thought they were equivalent to embryonic stem cells, which are controversial because they are derived from human embryos. But new research, directed by Josh Coon, a UW-Madison associate professor of chemistry and biomolecular chemistry, shows the proteins in the two types of cells are almost identical...Coon, whose lab did the research in collaboration with Thompson's lab, said there is less than a 1 percent difference in the proteins between one cell type and the other. As I have stated in the past, I think President Bush's funding policy had at least an indirect influence on the development of ethical "alternatives" to ESCR. Moreover, the continuing advances in IPSC research seem to show that we can have our ethics and pluritpotent stem cells too. My view as a layman who pays close attention to this field, is that IPSCs will be best used in drug testing and cell line experimentation on diseased tissues that were tailor made from specific patients–what we were once told would require human cloning to achieve. I also think adult stem cells will provide most of the clinical benefits for this field. I could be wrong. But unless they find a cure for the tumor threat, IPSCs will be constrained in medical uses just as embryonic stem cells have proven to be. Yes, there are potential ethical problems with IPSC–not because of what they are, but how they could be used. For example, they could be used in a form of cloning. They could also be used to make viable gametes, that could be used in an inappropriate matter. For example, if a skin cell could be reprogrammed into a human egg, the "egg dearth" problem for human cloning would be solved (one egg is needed for each cloning try) permitting the Brave New Worlders to get to work. But the way to handle that is to regulate the field so these ethically derived cells are not used unethically. For example, now would be a splendid time to outlaw all human cloning research, while most of the horses are still in the barn. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand smoke
Ramona Trevino has a compelling story to tell about her exodus from the nation's largest abortion provider. But in her first public appearance, she chose to emphasize what God accomplished through a vigil outside the clinic she used to manage. "My message is to glorify God, and to glorify what wonderful things all of you are doing and continue to do. I'm so excited, and honored, to hopefully be a part of that," she told 40 Days for Life participants at a recent event outside the defunct Planned Parenthood facility in Sherman, Texas. "People like me everywhere are waiting for a miracle. And that is indeed what happened … Three months later, this place is out of business." Trevino, its former manager, had already taken a "leap of faith" on May 6, "leaving behind my job … half of my family's income." It meant "having to worry about how we were going to survive, and pay the mortgage, and put food on the table." She told the assembled members of 40 Days for Life that there had been "a tugging in my heart, on and off, during the three years that I was managing. And it was a tugging that it shames me to say, I did ignore." Although Trevino's clinic did not perform abortions, she "still had a hand in the referrals. I still had to give out the number, I still had to give out the information on the locations … where they could get an abortion." "That's a truth I finally had to face. And that was a truth that would be brought to light due to the wonderful 40 Days for Life vigil that was held out here." In an interview with CNA, Trevino gave more details of her story, explaining how she tried to reconcile her Catholic faith with her work at Planned Parenthood. She also described the dramatic change of heart that coincided with the beatification of Pope John Paul II. "I was raised Catholic, but I didn't really have a lot of formation in my faith as a kid," said Trevino. "When I was a little girl … I felt like I was being called to the religious life." But she "didn't have the formation, as a young child, to elaborate on that calling." Instead of becoming a nun, Trevino became pregnant in high school. She left school, and was in a non-Catholic marriage for eight years. Two years after her subsequent marriage within the Church, Trevino learned about a part-time position at Planned Parenthood from a coworker at her former government job. She had gone through more extensive Catholic formation to prepare for marriage, but still lacked a proper understanding of issues surrounding sexuality and human life. "I think there was still a lot about my faith that I didn't know – that I didn't get," she recalled. Trevino, who says she was "always pro-life," also lacked an understanding of Planned Parenthood's leading role in the abortion industry. She associated the organization mostly with contraception, which she regarded as wrong for Catholics, but not for others. "It didn't take me long before I became uncomfortable working there," she remembered. "It was probably within the first three or four months. The thing that struck me hard was when I had to do my first referral for an abortion." "We provided pregnancy tests. So a lot of women would come in to confirm pregnancy, and if they were pregnant sometimes they would want an abortion. And we would have to counsel them on the information, the referrals, how far along they were, and that type of thing." "I remember the very first time I had to do that. I went into my office, I closed the door, and I cried. I guess it was something that I didn't think I was actually going to have to do. I was naïve, and I was too focused on the opportunity of being a manager." The referrals came relatively infrequently in the small Texas town, and other staff sometimes handled them. When they did occur, Trevino found ways to soothe her conscience. "I would say prayers for them, and I would justify my actions all the time. I'd come home a wreck, and ask my husband 'Am I guilty?' And I would talk myself out of it, to justify it: 'Really, I'm not making the decision for her; when she walks out the door or gets off the phone, it's up to her what she does. I really am not responsible for what she chooses.''" "I would constantly try to feed myself lies," she said. "Eventually it got to me. I wasn't standing up for those babies. I wasn't trying to save their lives … Over time, I couldn't deny it to myself anymore." Trevino also became disillusioned with policies she said were geared toward "pushing things on people" for financial gain. "It's about making money. You didn't get the sense that they really, truly cared about these women they way they say they did." But the clinic manager's decision to leave Planned Parenthood and its practices behind, is mysterious even to her. "I can't explain it on a human level. To me, it's all divine." The point when she says "everything began to change" was December 2010. She tuned in to her local Catholic radio station for the first time, and heard a show on women's post-abortion experiences. Almost every caller spoke of having an abortion through Planned Parenthood. She also learned about "the workings of contraception," and its ability to cause an abortion. "I began to tune in every day," she said. She learned about Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood employee who chronicled her pro-life conversion in the bestselling book "UnPlanned." One night, coming back from the clinic, "I was listening to Catholic radio … I remember a woman saying: 'One day, when we die and we meet our maker, he's going to ask: "What did you do to prevent and stop abortion?"' Right there, it was like a dagger in my heart." She began praying the Rosary during Lent, and said that on the third day, "the blinders just completely came off my eyes." She dropped her excuses about working at a non-abortion-facility, and "understood why working for Planned Parenthood was wrong." "Shortly after, the first 40 Days for Life vigil was held outside the clinic. I got the courage to go out and talk to them, and ask for their prayers." Trevino says she felt the strength God gave her through the prayers of the pro-life volunteers. And it's possible that another intercessor, whom the Church celebrated just after Easter, may have been offering his prayers as she neared her decision. "It was on Divine Mercy Sunday, the day that Blessed Pope John Paul II was beatified … At that time, I said I was probably going to leave Planned Parenthood in June. But I remember, on Divine Mercy Sunday … I just couldn't control my tears. Because at that moment I just felt God calling me." "I just took that leap of faith, and trusted God, and said: 'I'm out. I'm done.'" Trevino, who hopes to pursue a pro-life ministry in the future, will give a keynote speech in Dallas on Sept. 27 as 40 Days for Life begins its fall campaign. Source: CNA/EWTN News
An Illinois appeals court has ruled a Planned Parenthood clinic was not obligated to tell a woman who later regretted her abortion that the procedure would take the life of a human being. The woman, identified in the case as Mary Doe, had an abortion in 2004 at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago. She later filed suit against the clinic, alleging wrongful death of her unborn child, intentional infliction of emotional distress and malpractice, according to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Doe asked a Planned Parenthood counselor before the procedure if the abortion would end the life of a human being, and the clinic staff member said it would not. She said she would not have gone through with the abortion had the clinic told her the procedure would end a human being's life, according to the news report. The First District Appellate Court affirmed Aug. 22 a lower court decision dismissing the suit. "No court, regardless of where it sits, has found a common law duty requiring doctors to tell their pregnant patients that aborting an embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an existing human being," Justice Rodolfo Garcia wrote in the court's opinion, the Daily Law Bulletin reported. "The negative answer from the Planned Parenthood counselor to the plaintiff's question of whether 'there was already a human being in existence' during the plaintiff's intake evaluation simply reflects the opinion of Planned Parenthood on when life begins," Garcia wrote. "It was clear that she knew and signed a consent form that 'I know I'm here for an abortion,'" Garcia added. "She knew there was going to be a termination of pregnancy and that she would not have a child." New Jersey lawyer Harold Cassidy, who argued a similar case in his home state and helped represent Doe, said, "This is a woman's rights case. This is the right of a woman to make a decision herself and get all the information she needs and apply her own discreet, moral or philosophical beliefs as they exist. "What has happened here is Planned Parenthood replaced her judgment with theirs by denying her the scientific facts and giving her their philosophical viewpoints," Cassidy said, according to the report. "And the court is saying that at Planned Parenthood, she should expect nothing more than getting their philosophical point of view." Cassidy said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court, the Daily Law Bulletin reported. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
Students for Life of America has introduced its newest project, the Pregnant on Campus Initiative, as a response to the stunning statistic that over 46% of abortions in America are performed on college-aged women. When faced with an unintended or crisis pregnancy, many students feel forced to choose between continuing their education or raising their child. Too often, college campuses do not provide the necessary resources or environment that support pregnant and parenting students. The Pregnant on Campus Initiative aims to address this issue by helping campus pro-life groups to create effective and lasting change on their campus. We encourage and challenge pro-life groups to address this issue on their campus by engaging in service activities geared to providing necessary resources to pregnant and parenting students. Whether the project involves creating a campus support group or installing diaper decks in bathrooms, establishing an Assistance Fund for pregnant and parenting students, or securing affordable housing on campus, our goal is to increase the amount of pregnancy-friendly resources on college campuses in order to eliminate the pressure to discontinue school from pregnant and parenting students. For more information, visit http://www.pregnantoncampus.com. Contact: Jackie Anderson source: Students for Life of America
Women who have undergone an abortion have an 81 percent higher risk for mental health problems and are more likely to attempt suicide, abuse alcohol and suffer depression, according to a study in a mainstream British journal that is getting considerable attention from both sides of the abortion debate. The meta-analysis in the latest edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry examined 22 studies from 1995-2009 involving 877,000 women, including 163,000 who had experienced an abortion. The paper's author, Priscilla K. Coleman of Bowling Green State University, said there actually are "hundreds of studies" showing a link between abortion and serious mental health risks, and that three recent studies that reached a very different conclusion had major flaws. One of those studies by an American Psychological Association task force received significant media attention and concluded there were no risks. But Coleman said her analysis shows that abortion "is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems." "[T]here are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counselled prior to an abortion decision," Coleman writes in her paper before chiding the research community for not conducting unbiased research. "... The responsibility therefore rests initially within the research community to set aside personal ideological commitments, objectively examine all high-quality published data, and conduct analyses of the literature that are based on state-of-the-art data analysis procedures...." The issue of abortion and mental health problems, she wrote, too often is "shrouded in political controversy" and "has not received the scholarly attention it deserves." The fact that the study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, one of the world's leading psychiatric journals, is important, those who monitor the abortion debate say. "Its appearance in a top psychiatry journal indicates that it was carefully critiqued and evaluated by respected public-health scholars," Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, wrote at NationalReview.com. "... Hopefully, the prestige of the journal, the volume of studies included, and the consistency of the findings will encourage the mainstream media to give a second look to this important issue." Coleman's study "offers the largest available body of evidence on the psychological impact of abortion," New said. Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, said the study "reveals the indisputable truth that abortion is bad for women's mental health." FRC is a pro-life group. "With this information, doctors now have a valid and unbiased synthesis of the current research available on the relationship between abortion and women's mental health," Monahan said in a statement. "Because it is a meta-analysis, the research is much more thorough and reliable than any other single study or review to date." Contact: Michael Foust Source: Baptist Press
A study released in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology suggests 97 percent of doctors have encountered someone who sought an abortion, but that only 14 percent were willing to do so. That may seem to be a promising figure, says Dr. Sandy Christiansen of the Christian Medical & Dental Association. But she concludes that the research does not tell the whole story. "The study only looked at OB/GYN physicians -- it didn't look at family practitioners. And the study did not make a distinction between medical and surgical [abortions], and I think that's a critical point," she says. There are no numbers on the use of the abortion drug, RU486, including in telemed abortions where a doctor is not directly involved in administration of the drugs. Without being able to tap into those figures, Christiansen says she wonders about the true results of the study, especially because of studies revealing that the younger doctors are, the more willing they are to do abortions. "The 26 to 35 year olds, if you think about it, these are the ones who grew up since Roe v Wade and that's all they've known ... so they need to be shown a different way -- a better way," she states. It is Christiansen's hope that the pro-life movement will begin to have a heavy impact on the decisions from that group of physicians to reflect more of a pro-life attitude among doctors in the future. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Planned Parenthood's webcam abortion expansion campaign has been stopped in Nebraska by quick-thinking legislators. Nebraska lawmakers passed a law banning abortions in which a patient communicates via webcam with an abortionist, who may be in another town or city. Simply put, the doctor asks the patient a few questions and then presses a button, which activates a drawer that opens and provides RU-486. Julie AlbinJulie Schmit Albin of Nebraska Right to Life talks about the law, which has now gone into effect. "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced this last spring that they wanted to expand to six new college towns, and so for that reason -- with their announcement of expansion -- we thought it was a very real threat that they would try to take webcam chemical abortions to those cities," she says. Planned Parenthood uses the telemed abortion method in Iowa and reportedly had plans to spread elsewhere. But Albin says Nebraska took quick action to stop it with legislation that could be a model for other states. "I think that this is the way that Planned Parenthood is going, and so every state should look at stopping webcam abortions," adds Albin. RU-486 has proven to have dangerous side effects, including excessive bleeding and -- because it is self-administered -- women having no medical help readily available in case of an emergency. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
An Idaho law protecting unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion has been challenged in the U.S. District Court for Idaho. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was passed by the Idaho state legislature by overwhelming majorities earlier this spring. In passing the law, the legislature determined that there is substantial medical evidence concluding that unborn children are capable of experiencing pain and that the state has a compelling state interest in protecting these pain-capable children. "Unborn children recoil from painful stimuli, their stress hormones increase when they are subjected to any painful stimuli, and they require anesthesia for fetal surgery," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). "We are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree and will recognize the right of the state to protect these children from the excruciatingly painful death of abortion." A significant number of scientific studies support the state's conclusion that unborn babies are capable of feeling pain by twenty weeks (20) weeks after fertilization. On average, 18,000 abortions are performed every year in the United States on these pain-capable children, including at some Planned Parenthood clinics. An online library of research and further information is available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com. The complaint in the case claims that the law fails to contain a constitutionally acceptable exception allowing for an abortion if necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That contention is rebutted by Dr. Sean Patrick Kenney, M.D., a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist, and assistant clinical professor at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska. "The language of the law makes fully adequate provision for those rare cases, probably occurring no more than 1-2 times per 5,000 births, when medical complications require premature delivery or abortion of an unborn child after the stage at which the child is capable of feeling pain," noted Dr. Kenney. Source: National Right to Life
The Susan G. Komen Foundation, dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, is everywhere raising millions of dollars worldwide for its cause. Komen has gotten a black eye in recent years when it became public that Komen gives some of its funds to Planned Parenthood. In 2010 gifts to PP totaled $569,000, down from the $731,000 donated in 2009. When asked, Komen states that gifts to Planned Parenthood are justified because PP does mammograms. The black eye got even darker when it was revealed that PP actually does not do mammograms, but routine breast exams that a woman can do on herself. The biggest problem with the PP donation is that a legitimate abortion-breast cancer link has been documented in studies. So, Komen gives funds raised to cure breast cancer to an organization that is increasing breast cancer risk as the nation's largest abortion provider. This fall, Komen will have a "Race for the Cure" in Milwaukee. Every year, I am asked by friends to be on a team. Every year, I decline. There are better ways to fight breast cancer than to feed the abortion trough that is Planned Parenthood. Contact: Barbara Lyons Source: WI Right to Life
Imagine waking up one day to find that every single woman in the U.S. has disappeared. Picture this, writes author and scientific journalist Mara Hvistendahl, and you will come close to understanding the magnitude of over 160 million baby girls being selectively aborted in Asia and East Europe over the last few decades. Already critically acclaimed since its release in June, Hvistendahl's book, "Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men," meticulously documents the phenomenon of "missing" girls and its dire implications for the future. "It's a huge problem," Hvistendahl told CNA on Aug. 24. "What I want readers to take away is that this is a global issue on the level of something like HIV/AIDS or female genital mutilation." Hvistendahl said that aside from the basic issue of baby girls being aborted due to their gender in countries such as China, India, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, other human rights abuses are beginning to arise from the shortage of women in these regions. "Women are being bought and sold – trafficked for sex work and for marriage," she said, noting that the increase in bride-buying and forced prostitution in these countries is staggering. The author, a Colombia University graduate who has worked as a "Science" magazine correspondent in Beijing, said that her interest in the subject of gender imbalances began to increase after living in China for a few years. "I didn't understand why sex selection was happening," she said. "I just felt it wasn't very well explained." Hvistendahl set off to find out more, traveling to nine countries and interviewing doctors, mothers, prostitutes, demographers, mail-order brides and men who would be forced into lifelong bachelorhood. She began to discover a complicated web of explanations but eventually found that some of the ideological roots of the problem could be traced to zealous population control efforts from the 1960s and 70s. Through funding from western organizations such as the World Bank and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, grants were being funneled into population control initiatives in eastern countries, with sex-selective abortion seen as an effective tool. The results of these efforts show that in places such as China today, as many as 120 baby boys or more are being born for every 100 baby girls. In addition to the current problems that women are facing in these countries, "the question in my mind was, How was this going to effect society 30 years from now when this hugely imbalanced generation grows up and there are many more men than women?" Hvistendahl asked. "There is a danger in jumping too far ahead and making predictions about what will happen," she added, "but I think this will be a major issue in China and India for social stability." "The governments in both countries are very worried," she said, noting that men statistically commit more violent crimes in societies. It's a troubling prospect that Hvistendahl is not alone in noticing. Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt – a political economist, demographer and member of the visiting committee at the Harvard School of Public Health – has often referred to the problem as a "war on baby girls." He outlined for CNA the three major factors he believes have led to the current crisis of gender imbalance. The first is what he calls a "ruthless" son preference that is present in numerous cultures and religious systems. That, coupled with the second problem of smaller families due to population control efforts such as China's "coercive" one-child policy, has made couples' quests for sons even more aggressive, he noted. "When parents have five, six children, the gender outcome at birth isn't that critical," Eberstadt said. "But when parents are only going to have one or two children, the sex of that child seems to become something that parents want to have a say about." Eberstadt said that the third factor in the rise of sex-selective abortion in these countries is reliable, accessible and inexpensive prenatal gender determination technology, such as ultrasound machines, in areas with "policy environments of unconditional abortion." Despite the glaring human rights abuses caused by the practice, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has been largely silent on the issue – a fact that's been noted by Hvistendahl and other experts. Dr. Susan Fink Yoshihara, director of the International Organizations Research Group and vice president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNA that the population fund has played "a major role" in the increase of sex-selective abortion. "They do this by refusing to condemn the practice and mainly by promoting its two main causes: fertility control and increasing (the) availability of abortion." If the United Nations fund "says it promotes women's rights," Yoshihara said, "why do its leaders refuse to condemn this egregious practice of killing girls?" Its "leadership has instead issued directives to its employees time and again that show UNFPA is more concerned with promoting abortion than defending women's right to life." Adding to the problem is what many call the ineptitude of U.S. leadership in effectively addressing the issue of forced population control. Vice President Joe Biden sparked controversy during his recent trip to China where he told leaders that he "fully understood" the country's one-child policy and was not "second guessing" it. His comments came during an Aug. 21 appearance at Chengdu's Sichuan University where he was discussing the United States' dilemma of paying for entitlement programs when the number of retirees exceeds the number of workers – a problem he said China shared. The vice president's remarks in Chengdu drew widespread criticism, particularly from pro-life activists and his political opponents. "Instead of using the power the American people gave him to speak up for human rights, he ignored his responsibility," Yoshihara charged. "His scandalous comments are but one example of how easy it is for us to turn away from our responsibility toward the poorest of the poor, in this case, the unborn child." Eberstadt was equally critical of the Biden's remarks, but observed that the "silver lining" in the recent gaffe could be that more media attention is brought to the issue. He said that demographers in China estimate that half of the missing 160 million girls could be attributed to the country's one child policy alone. Eberstadt likened the problem of discrimination against baby girls to the issue of slavery during the 19th century, saying that sex-selective abortion needs to be stigmatized in the same way. "I think that the only sure way of extirpating this – and it's an abomination – is the way we've extirpated other abominations in the past," he said. "Which is through a struggle of conscience and the advent of a new moral understanding of why something like this should be absolutely anathema to a decent, civilized society." But an even deeper problem that needs to be addressed, observed Yoshihara, is the underlying human tendency towards selfishness. "The fundamental problem is that we do not love one another. We do not see that the inconvenient or unwanted person is just as valuable, just as worthy of love, as you and me." "Ideologies like radical feminism that undergird UNFPA's refusal to speak out, ideologies like communism that justify coercing or even forcing mothers to abort their children, and ideologies of utilitarianism that subtly pervade our own society," she said, "make it easy for us to say nothing in the face of unspeakable human suffering." Source: CNA/EWTN News
Several Catholics known for supporting Obama administration policies are opposing the lack of religious conscience protections in rules requiring most new health plans to cover contraception and sterilization. In an open letter issued August 26, the self-described "ad hoc group of Catholic leaders and professors" called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius "to extend conscience protection to religious charities, religious hospitals, and religious schools in regards to mandated health insurance coverage" under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The signatories - many of whom also signed an earlier letter criticizing House Speaker John Boehner in May - cited the First Amendment's protection of religious activity, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act's ban on religious discrimination, to argue for broader religious exceptions. On August 1, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that only certain religious institutions could opt out of providing contraception, under the heading of "women's preventive services," in their new health plans. To be exempt, an organization must have "the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," must primarily employ "persons who share its religious tenets," and must serve primarily "persons who share its religious tenets." The U.S. Catholic bishops, who oppose the mandate altogether, have criticized the proposed rules, while also noting the basic inappropriateness of regarding fertility as a condition in need of "prevention." The St. Gianna Physician's Guild, a Catholic medical organization, has pointed out that the mandate will increase the already substantial demand for abortion due to failed contraception. In their letter to Sebelius, the group of Catholic academics and activists - including Professors Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown, Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College, Margaret Steinfels of Fordham, and Nicholas Cafardi of Duquesne- stopped short of criticizing the mandate itself. They focused instead on its need for revision, due to religious guidelines they called "too restrictive." "Catholic charities and Catholic hospitals do not fit the rule's definition of religious organization," they noted. "Catholic schools, colleges, and universities also might not fit the current definition." The letter's leading author, who also organized the Boehner letter, is Catholic University of America Professor Stephen Scheck. In 2009, Schneck lent his support to a "Catholics for Sebelius" initiative, supporting the Obama nominee whose bishop told her not to receive Communion over her abortion record. Professors Schneck, Reese, Cahill, Steinfels, and Cafardi all signed a 2009 letter calling Sebelius "a woman of deep faith" whose "record of building the common good" made her "an excellent candidate for HHS Secretary." Unlike the recent letter to Boehner - in which Scheck, Reese, Cahill, and many others accused the Catholic speaker of proposing "anti-life" budget cuts that contradicted "the Church's most ancient moral teachings" - the letter to Sibelius took a restrained tone. It contains one brief reference to "the Catholic Church's ancient mission to the poor and the sick," and no reference to Catholic teaching on contraception and sterilization. Instead, the authors cited Title 26 of the United States Code, noting that it offered "appropriate guidance for defining religious organizations" that should qualify for an exemption from the birth control mandate. By this definition, a "non-profit religious, educational, or charitable organization" that has "bona fide religious purposes or reasons" and "holds itself out to the public as a religious organization" should qualify. The language of Title 26, they said "more fully reflects the intentions of the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act as they pertain to matters of religious conscience." Sebelius' narrow religious exemptions have also received criticism from Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who publicly supported the Affordable Care Act that led to their drafting. On August 4, Sr. Keehan said she was "very concerned" with exemptions that were "not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers." In terms stronger than those used in the academics' August 26 letter, Sr. Keehan said it was "critical" that Catholic hospitals "be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience."
It will be a little harder to abort a baby in Nebraska 
That's when two new laws kick in: One requires girls 17 or under to get written, notarized consent from a parent before having an abortion, and the other prevents doctors from prescribing and opening containers of abortion-causing drugs at remote locations over the Internet, referred to as "telemedicine." According to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 143 of the 2,464 abortions statewide last year were performed on minors. No abortions were done through telemedicine — but Nebraska Right to Life lobbied for the ban nonetheless after seeing the practice spread in neighboring Iowa. There, women can visit any of 16 Planned Parenthood facilities for a pregnancy test and ultrasound. After being examined by a nurse, the woman then logs onto the Internet on a clinic computer, and chats with a Planned Parenthood abortionist. He can remotely open a container with abortion-causing drugs near the woman's computer console and tell her how to take them. "We stopped something before it started," Nebraska Right to Life Executive Director Julie Schmit-Albin told the Omaha World-Herald. "There was a very real threat." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Another billboard campaign to draw attention to the abortion statistics among African-Americans in the U.S. is under way, and the first billboard has gone up in Atlanta. Catherine Davis of the Restoration Project tells OneNewsNow the "Betrayed" billboard campaign addresses the fact that something is wrong in the black community when it comes to abortion. "No matter what state you look at that reports by numbers, you see a horrific pattern has been established, and black women are aborting their babies at two, three, sometimes five times their presence in the population and/or five times the rate of other ethnic groups," she reports. Davis is convinced the abortion industry is targeting the black population, but she wonders why an uproar from black leaders is lacking. "If this were alcohol or tobacco, we would have African-Americans marching in the street. But because it's abortion, they are not willing to examine this question, and they're turning a blind eye, and we are asking why that is," she explains. The pro-lifer concludes that the difficult questions must be answered by the black leadership. So she has helped develop the strategy to raise billboards in several major cities to inform the black community of the devastation wrought on African-Americans through abortion. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The assisted suicide movement teaches people how to commit suicide by self starvation. To be clear, I am not talking about when people stop eating as a natural part of the natural dying process. That isn't suicide. But rather, refusing food and water, not because one can't eat, but because one wants to be dead. (The story discussed below conflates those two concepts, but I don't want to belabor that issue here.) In New Mexico, an elderly couple obtained the information they needed to kill themselves together in this way. Their family approved (!!!) and the couple began to starve themselves. But when the assisted living facility management got wind of the plan, the couple was told, in effect, "Not here, you won't," and sought their eviction. Administrators also called 911 after the 4th day of self starvation. From the NYT story "Deciding to Die; Then Shown the Door:" The Rudolphs faced increasing pain and debility. Mr. Rudolph, 92, suffered from spinal stenosis; Dorothy, 90, had become largely immobile. Both showed symptoms of early dementia. So in January, they set in motion their plan to stop eating and drinking. And the facility tried to evict the couple. The administrators, apparently on orders from the corporate legal department in Maryland, told the family the Rudolphs had to leave the next day. Current management would not comment beyond an e-mailed statement that when a resident "requires alternate placement, medical attention, or a level of care beyond the facility's capabilities, we have an obligation to notify a medical provider." I support the facility in general. They had no obligation, it seems to me, to permit suicide by slow motion in their facility. After all, other people live there and the impact of such deaths could be enormous. I also don't blame them for calling 911. People were dying who could be saved. Here's the problem: We have two mutually incompatible value systems co-existing in the culture. One embraces suicide as a freedom issue. The other respects the value of all lives, including those of suicidal people. Again and again, the former group insist that their suicides have to be respected and even facilitated–including by those who hold the latter value system. But none of us should be required to be complicit in anyone's self killing–whether a medical professional or a residential care facility. Or to put it another way, the facility's management wouldn't have been expected to stand by idly and allow the couple hang themselves. If that is so, why should they have to passively permit them to self starve to death in their facility? We are getting to the place in which assisted living and similar facilities that do not wish such deaths taking place on their premises may have to publicly declare themselves "suicide free zones," and let all residents know that all such attempts will be grounds for calling 911 and/or eviction. What a sorry world in which we live, and assisted suicide groups like Compassion and Choices–which was involved here–are very much to blame. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
Increasingly the medical intelligentsia are pushing a dual mandate on physicians in the name of cutting costs–one to patients and one to society–and when they conflict, many want the individual's needs to be subsumed to the collective. This attempt to redefine medical professionalism must be resisted at all turns. The latest example of such advocacy appears in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most energetic pushers of the "new medicine." From "The Doctor's Dilemma–What is Appropriate Care?" by Victor R. Fuchs, Ph.D.: Most physicians want to deliver "appropriate" care. Most want to practice "ethically." But the transformation of a small-scale professional service into a technologically complex sector that consumes more than 17% of the nation's gross domestic product makes it increasingly difficult to know what is "appropriate" and what is "ethical."… In an effort to address this issue, physicians' organizations representing more than half of all U.S. physicians have endorsed a "Physician Charter" that commits doctors to "medical professionalism in the new millennium." The charter states three fundamental principles, the first of which is the "primacy of patient welfare." It also sets out 10 "commitments," one of which states that "while meeting the needs of individual patients, physicians are required to provide health care that is based on the wise and cost-effective management of limited clinical resources." How can a commitment to cost-effective care be reconciled with a fundamental principle of primacy of patient welfare? They can't because once a doctor decides that what might be optimal care for the patient would interfere with his or her supposed professional obligation to the whole, he or she has entered conflict of interest territory. Fuchs sees this, but merely seeks to redefine what constitutes "appropriate" care: There is no escaping the fact that many interventions are valuable for some patients even if, for the population as a whole, their cost is greater than their benefit...If the physician is paid on a fee-for-service basis and the patient has open-ended insurance, the scales are tipped in favor of doing as much as possible and against limiting interventions to those that are cost-effective…. In contrast, if the physician is practicing in a setting that has accepted responsibility for the health of a defined population and the organization receives an annual fee per enrollee, the chances of the physician's practicing cost-effective medicine are substantially increased, even though all patients are insured…In short, when physicians are collectively caring for a defined population within a fixed annual budget, it is easier for the individual physician to resolve the dilemma in favor of cost-effective medicine [Me: and against the interest of the individual patient.] That becomes "appropriate" care. And it is an ethical choice, as defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant, because if all physicians act the same way, all patients benefit. What sophistry. The patient deprived of optimal care doesn't benefit, and hence, by definition, "all" patients do not benefit. This is just a call for ad hoc rationing at the bedside. Doctors owe fiduciary duties to individual patients, not "groups," and certainly not general society. That is the very heart of being a "professional." That duty should not depend on how doctors get paid. These intellectuals are devolving medicine into a technocracy. In doing so, they are playing with fire. Once the people's trust is destroyed, like Humpty-Dumpty, it will be almost impossible to put it back together again. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
Great opening line in this MedPage Today article, August 24: There may be fewer obstetrician/gynecologists performing abortions than previously estimated, researchers said. The good news is that only 14% of 1,031 ob/gyns responding to a new survey said they commit abortions, down from 22% in 2008. The results were published in the September issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, although the lead researcher cautioned the apparent decline "may reflect different sampling and survey techniques." But the numbers are certainly trending our way. There may be all the freedom in the world to access abortion, but if no one is willing to do the dirty deed, the result is the same as if there were no access. There were interesting finds, as shown in nice charts made by The Incidental Economist… 
The religious breakdown of physicians committing abortions… 40% of Jewish doctors 26.5% with no religious affiliation 20% of Hindus 13% of Muslims (Interestingly, none of the other online reports included this particular stat.) 10% of Non-Evangelical Protestants 9% of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox 1.2% of Evangelical Protestants The most important factor determining whether or not a doctor will commit abortions is religion, about which abortion proponent Melissa McEwan at Shakesville wrote, "I'm not surprised. I'm contemptuous." And I'm not surprised Melissa is contemptuous. There is also the stigmatism factor, according to MedPage Today: Stulberg and colleagues wrote that providers living in rural areas, especially in the South and Midwest, may be less likely to provide the service, even if they don't personally object to it, because of opposition in the community. Many try to avoid being a target of antiabortion activists, the researchers said. So God and protests work. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: jillstanek.com
Clobbered by criticism, the Obama Administration has newly declared that it "strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and forced sterilization." Vice President Biden has called these practices "repugnant." These proclamations were made in an effort to backtrack from Biden's most recent gaffe, stating that he "fully understands" China's One Child Policy and does not "second-guess" it.
By making these statements, the Obama administration has now publicly admitted it knows that forced abortion and forced sterilization are official "policies" of the Chinese Communist Party, not random acts carried out by overzealous officials, as contended by the CCP. This is progress.
Should we believe that this administration "strongly opposes" these practices?
Actions speak louder than words. If the Obama administration "strongly opposes" forced abortion in China, then why did they restore funding to UNFPA (United Nations Family Planning Fund), an "abortion provider" in China? In 2001, the U.S. cut funding to UNFPA because an investigation, headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell, found that UNFPA was complicit in the coercive implementation of China's One Child Policy. In 2008, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed that determination, and yet the Obama administration resumed funding in 2009. President Obama's FY 2012 budget requests $47 million for UNFPA.
The current administration also funds the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The IPPF works hand in hand with the coercive Chinese Communist population control machine. Their website declares, "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government . . ."
In China, a woman's body is not her own. It is the domain of the State. To fund organizations that work hand in glove with China's "womb police" does not constitute "strong opposition" to forced abortion and forced sterilization. Rather it constitutes complicity.
If the Obama administration is sincere in saying it "strongly opposes . . . forced abortion and sterilization," then it will either insist that UNFPA and IPPF cease operation in China, or it will defund these organizations.
Click here to watch a four-minute video, "Stop Forced Abortion, China's War on Women!"
contact: Reggie Littlejohn
Source: Women's Rights Without Frontiers
On Monday, a California-based biotechnology firm announced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has accepted four of its stem cell lines for federal research projects—lines all developed from human embryos. This is the first such announcement since late July, when a federal judge upheld the Obama administration's years-old practice of expanding human embryonic stem cell research (hESR). In 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order limiting the amount of federally funded ESCR to the lines that already exist at that time — drawing a clear moral line that additional embryo destruction would not be funded with federal taxpayer dollars. Obama ordered the NIH to develop new policies that would permit more taxpayer dollars to fund research involving additional lines of cells developed from embryos destroyed from 2001 onward when he abolished Bush's executive order. In July, U.S. Chief District Judge Roy Lambeth opined that the pro-life Dickey-Wicker amendment is ambiguous, so courts must rely on the NIH's interpretation of what is allowed with life-destroying embryonic research. Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Steven Aden said the research disrespects taxpayers and embryos alike. "In these tough economic times, it makes no sense for the federal government to use taxpayer money for this illegal and unethical purpose," he said. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
A former Planned Parenthood executive's promotion of ObamaCare and China's one-child policy has sparked the criticism of pro-life groups that point out population control is not "choice." Norman Fleishman recently expressed his understanding of the Chinese policy in a published editorial for the Napa Valley Register, suggesting the U.S. will eventually "strangle" its own population "among the coils of pitiless exponential growth." Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a group that fights forced abortion, decides that Fleishman is either ignorant about the one-child policy, or he supports it in spite of the facts. "The one-child policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization, and infanticide, and it's the greatest women's rights violation in the entire world today because one in every five women comes under it," Littlejohn notes. And she argues that the only way to enforce the policy is through coercion. In China, for instance, her organization says the Communist Party functions as the "womb police." So, since Planned Parenthood is publicly funded, she thinks the abortion-provider needs to clarify whether its former executive speaks for the organization on population control, or if it truly stands for choice. "If at the same time one of their former directors is saying that we should have the one-child policy, that is anti-choice; that is forcing women to abort babies that they want," the pro-lifer reasons. "So Planned Parenthood needs to answer the question: Are they in favor of choice, or are they in favor of population control -- even if that means coercion?" She further argues that governments that enforce the one-child policy treat women as second-class citizens, and Littlejohn warns that that would be the case if it were implemented in the United States. She further notes that Vice President Joe Biden has also voiced his understanding for China's enforcement of the policy. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Planned Parenthood provides over 330,000 abortions every year and brings in about a billion dollars annually, but is still fighting to protect its government subsidies -- amounting to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to its clinics every year. If today's current crop of the super wealthy can't find anything better to do with their money than support organizations that are being heavily funded by taxpayers, maybe President Obama is right when he says billionaires need to pay more taxes. Or perhaps organizations that receive five-figure and even seven-figure private donations shouldn't be demanding handouts from taxpayers. America's largest abortion provider has been crying "foul" ever since the movement to defund Planned Parenthood began sweeping the country. Voter-approved measures have stripped Planned Parenthood of state taxpayer monies in Kansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas, New Hampshire, and most recently, North Carolina. In Washington, DC, when the House of Representatives voted to slash funding to Planned Parenthood via a measure in the federal budget bill, the initiative did not pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate. An August 8, 2011, Crain's Chicago Business feature titled, "The women keeping threats to Planned Parenthood at bay," profiled the group's support by three big donors. Helen Zell, labeled by Crain's along with her husband Sam as a "billionaire philanthropist," advocates publicly funded abortion, birth control and sex education. The 69-year-old has pledged $600,000 over three years to Planned Parenthood's near north side operation, and she has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Chicago's ACLU to promote abortion. Crain's quotes her as saying, "I want to get the most bang for my buck." Along with Zell, Illinois Planned Parenthood is receiving big money from Democratic fundraiser Laura Tucker and also from one of Planned Parenthood's pro bono lawyers, Fay Clayton, who has given $50,000 to the Aurora abortion site. "With this kind of support from private donors," mused Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, "One must ask why Planned Parenthood insists they deserve taxpayer funding as well. If donors are ready to step up and fill the gap, why are they fighting tooth and claw for every dollar, claiming that their centers will close down without this funding?" Scheidler, who has long been involved in countering Planned Parenthood's promotion of abortion, pointed out, "Even people on the 'pro-choice' side have got to be wondering why an organization that can hit up the likes of Helen Zell for a million bucks needs any taxpayer funding." Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Pro-Life Action League
A new poll suggests that self-described pro-choice Americans support a range of abortion restrictions such as banning second- and third-trimester abortions -- data that puts them at odds with the nation's leading abortion rights groups and that could give support to a handful of new state laws. The Gallup poll compared the views of pro-choice and pro-life Americans to see if there is any common ground in the contentious debate and found agreement in nine specific areas. Six of those are laws promoted by pro-lifers. For instance, 52 percent of pro-choicers and 90 percent of pro-lifers favor making abortion illegal in the second trimester. Eight states have passed laws in the past 18 months prohibiting abortion beginning at 20 weeks. In addition, pro-choicers and pro-lifers favor laws: -- requiring a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion (60 percent of pro-choicers and 79 percent of pro-lifers favor it). -- requiring parental consent for minors (60 percent pro-choicers; 79 percent pro-lifers). -- banning partial-birth abortions (63 percent pro-choicers, 68 percent pro-lifers). -- making abortion illegal in the third trimester (79 percent pro-choicers, 94 percent pro-lifers). -- requiring informed consent for abortion patients (86 percent pro-choicers, 87 percent pro-lifers). Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and all the major abortion groups oppose each of those restrictions. "Planned Parenthood, in other words, doesn't even represent the views of the Americans who are predisposed to support them," Thomas Peters, of the pro-life group Live Action, wrote at LiveAction.org. "The pro-life movement has much to gain by highlighting the fact that 'common ground' solutions to reducing the abortion rate ... have support not only among pro-lifers, but by a majority (and sometimes a large majority) of people who claim to be pro-choice. Planned Parenthood always tries to paint us as the extremists -- turns out the opposite is true!" The poll also found pro-choicers and pro-lifers in agreement on: -- keeping abortion legal when the woman's life is endangered (97 percent pro-choicers, 69 percent pro-lifers). -- keeping abortion legal when the woman's physical health is endangered (96 percent pro-choicers, 68 percent pro-lifers). Pro-life leaders argue that such an exception is far too broad, because all pregnancies, they say, endanger a woman's physical health. -- keeping abortion legal when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest (91 percent pro-choicers, 59 percent pro-lifers). Gallup also found the two sides in sharp disagreement on some issues. For instance, while 64 percent of pro-choicers believe abortion should be allowed when a woman or family cannot afford a child, only 9 percent of pro-lifers believe so. And while 89 percent of pro-choicers say abortion should remain legal in the first trimester, only 35 percent of pro-lifers agree. The poll was released Aug. 8 and based on surveys conducted June 9-12 and July 15-17. Each time, just over 1,000 adults were interviewed. Contact: Michael Foust source: Baptist Press
The New York Times Magazine has published a heartbreaking article on yet another monument in the culture of death -- pregnancy reduction. In case you have never heard the term, here's what pregnancy reduction is in a nutshell. When a pregnant mother is carrying two or more babies in her womb, she can choose to kill one or more of those babies while allowing others to live. According to pro-choicers, pregnancy reduction is a practice that began years ago to reduce health risks for women carrying multiples. Pro-choicers have also reasoned that pregnancy reduction increases chances for surviving multiples to make it to term. But that was then, and this is now. What began as a misguided attempt to help women and (some!) unborn babies has now slid down the slippery slope. Now, the procedure is increasingly performed on women carrying twins. In fact, the Aug. 10 Times article focuses in particular on the increasing number of women who carry twins but, for whatever reason, only want one of them to live. The reasons for killing one and letting the other live range from finances to time management. The opening paragraphs offer a glimpse into one woman's pregnancy reduction: "As Jenny lay on the obstetrician's examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn't want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment -- and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny's abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt. "'Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn't had children already or if we were more financially secure,' she said later. 'If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn't have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there's a natural order, then you don't want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner -- in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me -- and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.'" The rest of the article goes on to describe the moral quandary that these women find themselves in. The women seem to have a sense that killing a perfectly healthy baby while letting its sibling live is wrong. Their consciences trouble them, and they do it in secret without ever telling any of their friends. They cover their tracks even though they otherwise openly support abortion rights. So why the guilt about killing a twin but no guilt about killing a single? I can imagine at least one answer to that question. The surviving twin will always remind the mother of what might have been. The surviving twin holds a magnifying glass up to the humanity of the child that was killed. The survivor is a living witness to what the human conscience already knows, and no inane euphemism (like "pregnancy reduction") can completely suppress what the heart knows to be true. Every single person -- born and unborn -- is created in the image of God. To kill innocent unborn human life, therefore, is a grave moral evil. And nothing brings that truth home more powerfully than a surviving twin. This article makes one thing clear, even if only by accident. There really is no ethically significant difference between "reduction" and abortion. Both procedures subordinate the baby's right to life to the personal convenience of the mother. The Times article says: "The reasons for reducing to a singleton are not so different from the decision to abort a pregnancy because prenatal tests reveal anomalies. In both cases, the pregnancies are wanted, but not when they entail unwanted complications -- complications for the parents as much as the child. Many studies show the vast majority of patients abort fetuses after prenatal tests reveal genetic conditions like Down syndrome that are not life-threatening. What drives that decision is not just concern over the quality of life for the future child but also the emotional, financial or social difficulty for parents of having a child with extra needs. As with reducing two healthy fetuses to one, the underlying premise is the same: this is not what I want for my life." In other words, some parents have an inviolable plan for their lives that doesn't include the intrusion of an unwanted child. That child's right to live has to give way to the mother's right not to be put-out by the burden of caring for her child. This logic is morally bankrupt, but it is all too common fare today. In this article, the euphemism "pregnancy reduction" is a ruse. It is a term that attempts to cover up a great moral evil. The expression plainly functions to deflect attention from an intolerable contradiction -- that one unborn child might be allowed to live while its perfectly healthy sibling is destroyed. But the covering is a fig leaf, and that is seen most conspicuously in the troubled consciences of the mothers and medical professionals in this article who have participated in this procedure. At the end of the day, it's not just the euphemism that is the problem. It is the heinous evil that the euphemism is trying to hide that should scandalize us. Reducing a pregnancy means killing an innocent human. Just as we don't want to give in to the mores of a decadent culture, neither should we be complicit in covering evil with clever obfuscations. Such talk is a not-too-subtle throwback to an ancient method that humans use to justify sin -- calling evil good and calling good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Make no mistake. God is outraged at that, and we should be too. Contact: Denny Burk Source: Baptist Press
