Pro-Life Legislators Oppose Morning-After Pill on Military Bases

Pro-Life Legislators Oppose Morning-After Pill on Military Bases
 


More than a dozen pro-life legislators in Congress are asking the Department of Defense (DoD) to refrain from offering the morning-after pill (Plan B) on U.S. military bases worldwide.

DoD is in the process of implementing a policy regarding the stocking of the drug on bases.

The pro-life letter reads, in part: "As indicated in the labeling, Plan B may act as an abortifacient by preventing implantation in the uterus of a living human embryo. … We would like to know more about DoD's policy for stocking and dispensing Plan B and how the Department proposes to address concerns related to the use of Plan B."

The morning-after pill is taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy. Life advocates, including many pro-life pharmacists and doctors, oppose its availability because it may cause an early abortion.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said most military doctors are pro-life.

"It (is) wrong for President Obama to force military bases to carry this drug," she said. "Sadly, it's the members of our military and their families that will be paying the price for that."

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

Missouri Becomes the 5th State to Opt Out of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion



Today, Americans United for Life (AUL) was victorious in the passage of SB 793, a Missouri bill which will prohibit insurance plans participating in new state health insurance exchanges from providing abortion coverage.  The bill also enhances the state’s existing informed consent law to ensure that women receive essential information about health risks and alternatives before choosing abortion.

“Today, the people of Missouri are closer than ever to a new law that prevents taxpayer-funded abortion,” said Mary Harned, Staff Counsel with Americans United for Life. “This outstanding bill also contains important protections for women in the state who have a right to know that they face serious health risks when choosing abortion.”
Click here for the entire article.


Mexican state celebrates after court upholds protection for unborn



Numerous organizations in the Mexican state of Queretaro celebrated a ruling by the State Supreme Court upholding legal protection to the unborn from the moment of conception.

The ruling ratified the constitutional reform approved by the Queretaro Legislature last September.
Click here for the entire article.


Pregnant mom to be charged with killing her preborn baby if DUI



A pregnant GA woman, who led police on a high speed chase, will likely be charged in the death of the 24-week-old baby she was carrying.

Police said Jessica Bruce, 21, refused to stop her car Wednesday night when they tried to pull her over for speeding. Bruce fled, struck a car, spun into oncoming traffic and was hit by another car, totaling her vehicle and killing the fetus, authorities said....

Investigators said Bruce, who was clocked by radar driving 85 mph in a 65 mph zone in a suburban neighborhood outside Atlanta, needed to be cut from the wreckage of her car and taken to the hospital. The woman in the 1st car she struck was also taken to the hospital....
Click here for the entire article.


State High Court Judgette Steps Away From Abortion Lawsuit Source



Alaska Supreme Court Justice Morgan Christen is stepping down from hearing a lawsuit against a ballot initiative that would make doctors tell a teenage girl's parents before she could get an abortion. The lawsuit against the initiative was filed by Planned Parenthood, and Christen was a board member of Planned Parenthood during the mid-1990s. The Alaska Family Council had sent out e-mail alerts Tuesday and Wednesday, urging its members to contact the state judicial conduct commission and complain that Christen had a conflict of interest and shouldn't be participating in the case.
Click here for the entire article.


How, By God's Grace, We Got The 'Personhood Amendment' On The Ballot - Round One



A few weeks ago it became "official". The Mississippi Personhood Amendment will be on the ballot in 2011. The brief meeting with the Secretary of State and small, sometimes contentious/ sometimes humorous press conference that followed was the culmination of a year of signature collection and many years of planning and preparation.
Click here for the entire article.


Pro-Aborts Rally, Urging Florida Gov. Crist to Kill Pro-Life Ultrasound Bill



Pro-abortion protestors gathered Thursday in cities across Florida to protest the pro-life HB 1143 - just one part of a barrage of pressure against Governor Charlie Crist to try to force him to veto the measure.

Crist, who has a mixed record on abortion, recently said that although he considers himself "pro-life," he may veto the landmark bill out of a reluctance to "impose my will on others."

Planned Parenthood has launched a massive statewide campaign calling on him to veto the bill since it was passed by the state legislature April 30: rallies have been held in Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee, and West Palm Beach. 
Click here for the entire article.

 

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Supreme Court Nomination and ENDA

Supreme Court Nomination and ENDA



A panel of public policy experts discusses several current political issues, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court nominee and the ENDA bill moving through the House.

Click here to listen to the broadcast.

Memo Shows Kagan Helped Clinton-Era Defeat of Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Memo Shows Kagan Helped Clinton-Era Defeat of Partial Birth Abortion Ban



Contrary to media reports, a memo authored by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for President Bill Clinton reveals that she actually helped the White House defeat a Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion in 1997, rather than upholding a pro-life position.

Both the Associated Press, which unearthed the memo from the Clinton Library archives, and Washington Post gave the impression that the May 13, 1997 memo authored by Kagan and Bruce Reed, President Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Advisor, urged Clinton to restrict late-term abortions. This has been taken as evidence that she is "moderate" on abortion.

But Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life Committee, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) on Tuesday that Kagan's memo is being "misunderstood by people who don't understand the context," and that, rather than proving Kagan is "moderate" on abortion, it may point towards the exact opposite.

Johnson explained that President Clinton was in a political bind at the time: he had recently vetoed the popular Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and a pro-life political groundswell was building to override the veto in Congress. While pro-life advocates had a two-thirds veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives to override Clinton's veto, they were just a few Senators away from getting their two-thirds majority in the Senate.

In the memo Kagan and Reed wrote to the president, they advised Clinton to endorse a "compromise" partial birth abortion ban, known as the Daschle amendment. According to Johnson, the only reason Kagan suggested endorsing the measure was to avoid the veto override of the original ban.

Not only was this "compromise" completely unacceptable to pro-life groups, says Johnson, but it was designed simply to give senators who might otherwise have voted for the veto override of the original ban due to political pressure, a "phony" ban to vote for, thereby giving them the political cover they needed.

In fact, the text of Kagan's memo itself reveals this motive: "We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act] and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," wrote Kagan and Reed.

Daschle's proposal would have allowed abortion after the sixth month when the physician "certifies that continuation of the pregnancy would … risk grievous injury to [the mother's] physical health." Grievous injury, Kagan and Reed noted in the memo, was defined as "a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by pregnancy, or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition."

Kagan and Reed admitted that while ideological "choice" groups would reject Daschle, the president's support of that measure would have the best practical chance of defeating the momentum for the veto override.

Furthermore, there was little chance of Congress actually passing legislation along the lines of the Daschle "compromise," since pro-life groups and NRLC denounced it as "all exception and no ban," and filled with loopholes.

To illustrate the point, one congressional aide on Capitol Hill told the Washington Times at the time that an abortionist would literally have to indict himself to face any kind of sanction under Daschle's proposal, because the abortionist alone was the one certifying that the abortion was necessary and lawful after the sixth month.

Johnson explained that Clinton did embrace Kagan and Reed's advice, and endorsed the Daschle amendment. This tactic proved successful, as senators who did not vote to override the veto were still able to tell their constituents that they voted in favor of a partial birth abortion ban – a ban, says Johnson, that didn't actually ban.

The Senate passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, 64-36, but fell three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override Clinton's veto. And for that, Kagan deserves some of the credit – or blame – for defeating the pro-life measure.

"Elena Kagan played a role in [defeating the ban], because it was a successful tactic," said Johnson.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

More folks think 'Roe' should go

More folks think 'Roe' should go

A new poll shows that more Americans are in support of overturning the decision reached in Roe v. Wade.


 
The survey conducted by the Washington Post and ABC shows that even though 60 percent of those polled are in favor of keeping the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in place, the number preferring its overturn has increased to 38 percent.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), tells OneNewsNow the pro-life results would be higher if respondents would have been told that the court decision "[allows] for abortions up to the ninth month of pregnancy, that it allows for sex-selection abortion, and all the other outrageous things that Roe does."

She believes polls in the future will favor life because of the increasing number of young people who are pro-life. The latest poll, however, was conducted among adults.

"As more young people fall into that category of adults, they will get polled, and it will be found that many of them are pro-life," she predicts. "They grew up seeing ultrasounds, hearing the tragic stories of women who had abortions, and they recognize how devastating abortion is to both the woman and the child."

The CWA president thinks the pro-life movement needs to continue educating the public, including youth, in order to favor life for unborn children. She also feels that pro-lifers should pursue making laws reflecting the reality that unborn children deserve protection.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: May 12, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Senator Seeks Parental-Rights Protections

Senator Seeks Parental-Rights Protections
 


U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has introduced a resolution that asks the Senate to refrain from ratifying an anti-parental rights treaty.

Senate Resolution 519 defines the Constitution as the primary safeguard for children in the U.S.  It also states that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child "undermines traditional principles of law regarding parents and children."

Parental rights supporters are also calling for a constitutional amendment that would make protection of parental rights explicit within the text of the Constitution.

"The courts have indicated to us that the Constitution is not specific as far as parental rights," DeMint said.  "That's why a number of us feel like a constitutional amendment that clarifies the rights of parents is really important at this time."

Parental Rights.org President Michael Farris said the Constitution is all about protection.

"The Second Amendment says, 'Government, keep your hands off of our guns,'" he said, "and the Parental Rights Amendment will say, 'Government keep your hands off of our children.'"

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Sex-selective abortion - a wrong 'right'

Sex-selective abortion - a wrong 'right'



Forty percent of births worldwide are taking place in countries where sex-selection abortion is a problem, and though that is troublesome on it own, another issue is on the rise.
 
In those countries, female babies are aborted more often than males, meaning the majority of the population is made up of men. "But beyond that there's a huge epidemic now in countries that are lacking women, where they go and they kidnap women, where they force them into prostitution," Joseph Meaney, director of international coordination for Human Life International, points out.

"This trafficking problem that we've heard of -- trafficking people for sex slavery and other things -- this is also related to this sex-selection abortion problem," he adds.

He believes the most astonishing aspect of the situation is that there is no outcry from feminist organizations.

"In fact, I was present at the U.N. in 2007 when a resolution was brought forward to condemn sex-selection abortion as discrimination against women, and the feminist organizations fought against it because they believe in unlimited abortion," Meaney reports. "They don't think that there's any reason why a woman should be denied an abortion, even if she wants to kill her unborn girl."

He concludes this stance is hypocritical on the part of organizations that claim to be defending women, when actually, they believe abortion is a higher right than the right of baby girls to be born.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

More Adult Stem Cells for Parkinson’s

More Adult Stem Cells for Parkinson's



Yale scientists have shown that adult stem cells from human endometrium can substitute for the brain cells lost in Parkinson's disease. Using a mouse model of Parkinson's, they showed that they could successfully transplant adult stem cells derived from one tissue, the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), into another kind of tissue (the brain) and that the adult stem cells could develop into cells with the properties of brain tissue, in particular the dopamine-secreting neurons. The adult stem cells were obtained from nine women who did not have Parkinson's disease. In the laboratory they verified that the unspecialized endometrial stem cells could be transformed into dopamine-producing nerve cells like those in the brain. When injected into the brains of Parkinson's mice, the cells migrated to the site of damage and developed into dopamine-producing cells. Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, senior author, said:

"Endometrial tissue is probably the most readily available, safest, most easily attainable source of stem cells that is currently available. We hope the cells we derived are the first of many types that will be used to treat a variety of diseases. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg for what we will be able to do with these cells."

The results are published in the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine

There may indeed be a wide range of applications for endometrial adult stem cells. Another group recently reported on use of these cells for treatment of heart damage in a patient case study.

And when it comes to Parkinson's disease, adult stem cells from various sources are moving ahead. In 2008 an Australian group has successfully treated Parkinson's in mice using adult stem cells from the nasal tissue of patients. And in February 2009, Levesque et al. published a case study showing a Parkinson's patient's own neural adult stem cells ameliorated his symptoms for almost five years.

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

US Files 1st Response to Health Care Law Challenge



The Obama administration argues in its first court response to a challenge against the new health care law that Congress can require Americans to buy health insurance.
 
According to the Obama administration's filing late Tuesday, the minimum coverage mandate is a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
 
In its lawsuit, the Thomas More Law Center says that the Health Care Reform Act imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that restrict the personal and economic freedoms of American citizens.
Click here for the entire article.


Okla. Abortion Reporting Bill Could Head To Gov. By Week's End



An Oklahoma bill (HB 3284) requiring women to complete a survey about their personal situation prior to obtaining an abortion could be sent to Gov. Brad Henry (D) this week, after gaining approval from the state Senate and House, the Oklahoman reports. The state House voted 88-8 for the legislation on Monday. The state Senate voted 32-11 on Tuesday.
Click here for the entire article.


Chinese Farmer Kills Official for Forcing Wife's Abortion



A farmer killed a family planning official in China's Jilin province and injured her two minor children, after she forced his wife to undergo an abortion. The farmer, identified as Zhang Xuezhong, killed Jiang Xiaoling May 1 because he was angry she forced his wife to abort their baby, officials said Monday. Jiang's husband, Zhao Guogui, also a farmer in Xinhua village, said Monday the alleged killer rushed to his home with a stick and beat his wife to death. He also beat his son, 15, and daughter, 11, both of whom are now in hospital. The girl is in a comatose state in the intensive care unit, hospital officials said.
Click here for the entire article.


Using Leftovers for Adult Stem Cells to Treat Hearts



Doctors at the University of Bristol have shown that adult stem cells from "leftovers" of heart bypass operations could potentially be used to treat damaged hearts. Bypass operations involve transplanting a length of the saphenous vein from the leg into a coronary artery, bypassing a blocked or narrowed segment to restore blood flow and thus oxygen to the heart muscle. Surgeons often take longer segments of the leg vein than are used for the actual operation. The Bristol team showed that they could isolate adult stem cells from the leftover bits, and that the cells could stimulate blood vessel growth in mice.
Click here for the entire article.


Healing Fractures Faster



Adult stem cells have shown the ability to stimulate healing of bone. Now Stanford scientists have used a protein that activates adult stem cells and progenitor cells to speed up the process of bone healing. A family of proteins called Wnt proteins are known to stimulate bone formation and tissue regeneration. Wnt proteins are difficult to isolate and hard to dissolve, so the scientists packaged the protein in liposomes, small lipid droplets similar to the membrane around cells. The Wnt proteins were planted like small flags in the outer surface of the liposome, so that when they contacted a cell they delivered their signal. The liposome technique allowed concentrated packaging of the proteins and easy delivery to target tissue. The Wnt-tagged liposomes were given to mice with damaged leg bones. Within three days, the treated mice showed 3 1/2-times more new bone growth than untreated animals, and had completely healed in four weeks, while untreated animals were still trying to heal.
Click here for the entire article.


Kidneying Around with Adult Stem Cells



Scientists have shown that human adult stem cells can promote kidney repair. There are currently no therapies to repair kidney damage. Patients with severe kidney damage go on dialysis while waiting for an organ transplant. The results of this recent study showed that human adult bone marrow stem cells, injected into mice with induced kidney damage, could promote kidney repair and regeneration.
Click here for the entire article.

Abortion Groups’ Newest Advocate from the Bench?

Abortion Groups' Newest Advocate from the Bench?



Americans' lives are shaped and changed by the law, but a Supreme Court Justice's role is not to impact people's lives by shaping or changing the law according to her own beliefs.  Rather, a Justice should apply the law as it is written to each case that arises before the Court.  In the past 40 years, certain Supreme Court Justices, in the name of a right to abortion, have imposed their pro-abortion views on the American people, denying Americans their right to decide this important issue through the legislative process.     

President Obama has repeatedly stated a requirement for his Supreme Court pick would be someone who could interpret the Constitution as protecting abortion rights.  Will c objectively apply the Constitution or promote a pro-abortion agenda?  

It seems unlikely.  Here's why. 

Kagan has contributed financially to the National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF), an organization whose goal, in its own words, is "to increase women's access to…reproductive health services and block attempts to limit reproductive rights…and to give every woman access to…abortion services…."[1]  Kagan "listed membership in" NPWF in a questionnaire she submitted in connection with her judicial nomination in 1999.[2]

Judith Lichtman, Senior Advisor for the NPWF, who believes "[e]fforts to limit coverage of abortion services are really attempts to deny women access to health care services,"[3] wrote a letter "wholeheartedly" supporting Kagan's Solicitor General nomination, whom she describes as a "friend and colleague."[4] 

The NPWF also shares strong ties to Emily's List, an organization that works to elect pro-abortion Democratic women to Congress, and NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL), an organization that advocates for increased access to abortion.  NPWF's president, Debra Ness, serves on the Board of Directors of Emily's List.  Prior to her position at NPWF, Ness was a high-ranking official with NARAL, where she worked to revitalize NARAL's grassroots political capability and to make it a force in American electoral politics.

After President Obama announced Kagan as his Supreme Court pick, Ness stated that Americans lost a "powerful champion for justice" with the retirement of Justice Stevens (who was an ardent pro-abortion activist while on the court), but that Kagan "offers the promise that the nation will continue to benefit from having that kind of champion on its highest court."[5] 

The Chair of NPWF's Board of Directors, Ellen Malcolm, not only served as the former president of Emily's List, but was the founder of Emily's List.  In addition to chairing the NPWF, Malcolm currently chairs the Board of Directors at Emily's List.  Emily's List current president, Stephanie Schriock, "commended" Obama's nomination of Kagan, saying that Obama had selected a "strong and independent" woman.[6]

The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), a self-proclaimed "early supporter of abortion rights,"[7] and an advocate for abortion rights both nationally and internationally, stated that it felt "comfortable about [Kagan's] commitment to reproductive rights, to Roe v. Wade, and to stare decisis," and were "confident about President Obama's commitment to find a justice that would protect those rights."[8]  NCJW believes "the most basic requirement for a lifetime seat on the federal bench is a proven commitment to constitutional rights, including reproductive rights."[9]

Conclusion:

The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to usurp the role of legislatures and force upon the American people the Justice's views on social justice and reproductive rights.  When a Justice begins to rule based on her own beliefs or those of a particular group, she fails in her duty to uphold the fundamental Constitutional principle of equal justice for all. 

If Kagan is confirmed, the American people will continue to have a pro-abortion ideology imposed upon them by a life-time-appointed Justice. 

Contact: Matthew Faraci
Source: Americans United for Life Legal Team
Publish Date: May 12, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Hints about Kagan's abortion views emerge

Hints about Kagan's abortion views emerge



Additional details are emerging about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's position on abortion, but -- ironically -- the new information won't make either pro-choicers or pro-lifers completely happy.

The Associated Press reported that in 1997 while working as a domestic policy adviser to President Clinton, Kagan co-wrote a memo urging him to support a Senate bill banning late-term abortions that was promoted as a compromise.

The news may at first seem to be good news for pro-lifers, but it likely is not, for two reasons: 1) the memo made clear that support for the bill was only a political calculation, and 2) pro-life groups in 1997 opposed the bill, arguing it had numerous loopholes -- it made an exception for the health of the mother -- and would not have banned anything.

The bill was promoted by then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D.-S.D., as a compromise to a federal bill that would have banned partial-birth abortion. The Daschle bill was defeated 64-36, while the partial-birth abortion ban passed by an identical 64-36 count before being vetoed by Clinton.

"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," the memo, from Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, said.

Kagan and Reed noted that the Justice Department believed the Daschle bill was unconstitutional, AP reported.

The Daschle bill would have prohibited abortion, by any method, of a "viable fetus unless the physician certifies that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health." That language, though, was viewed by many as toothless.

"I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause 'grievous injury to her 'physical health,'" Warren Hern, a pro-choice gynecologist and author of a textbook on abortion practice, told The Washington Times in 1997.

Pro-lifers also opposed the Daschle proposal because it would have allowed the doctor to define viability and to certify without review the pregnancy is a risk to the mother's health.

Still, the fact that Kagan OK'd a supposed anti-abortion law that she believed unconstitutional could trouble pro-choice groups. Even before the AP story surfaced, a leading pro-choice organization, NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a neutral statement saying it looked forward to learning more about Kagan's views.

President Obama nominated Kagan May 10 to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. She currently serves as solicitor general. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Associated Press that "judges confront issues differently than staff attorneys for an administration."

Meanwhile National Right to Life released a 1980 quote from Kagan that it found troubling. Writing about Republican victories from that year, Kagan expressed frustration about the "victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] ... these avengers of 'innocent life' and the B-1 Bomber ..."

National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson asked, "Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term 'innocent life' in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?"

Obama, speaking April 21, made clear he wanted to nominate someone who backed abortion rights.

"I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights," Obama said. "And that's going to be something that's very important to me, because I think part of what our core constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that."

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Good News on Multiple Sclerosis with Adult Stem Cells

Good News on Multiple Sclerosis with Adult Stem Cells



A groundbreaking new study published in the last week provides more good news for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with adult stem cells. Researchers at the University of Bristol used patients' own adult stem cells to treat their MS.

In a Phase I clinical trial, six patients with MS were treated with their own bone marrow adult stem cells and their progress followed for one year. The treatment appeared to stabilized the patients' condition and showed some benefits. As one measure of the success of the procedure, damaged nerve pathways were able to carry electrical pulses more effectively after the treatment.

Multiple sclerosis is an incurable disease, with the patients own immune system attacking the central nervous system and eventually leaving many patients in a wheelchair.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this trial was the elegantly simple procedure. Patients reported to the hospital and had bone marrow adult stem cells removed, the cells were filtered, and then given back to the patients intravenously. The patients went home before the end of the day.

The research team is led by Professor Neil Scolding, at the University of Bristol and North Bristol NHS Trust. Professor Scolding said:

"We are encouraged by the results of this early study. The safety data are reassuring and the suggestion of benefit tantalising. Research into the underlying mechanisms is ongoing and vital, in order to build on these results. We believe that stem cells mobilised from the marrow to the blood are responsible, and that they help improve disease in several ways, including neuroprotection and immune modulation."

The team is now planning a Phase II/III study. The report for this trial is published in the Nature journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

Previous studies have also had good success at stopping MS progression, and in some cases putting patients into remission. Dr. Richard Burt at Northwestern University has published several studies showing good success using adult stem cells to "reboot" the immune system of MS patients. Scientists in Australia have also used the procedure with success, and recently Dr. Mark Freedman of Ottawa, Canada has produced "long-lasting remission" in MS patients.

In these cases, patients had their bone marrow adult stem cells collected, then received chemotherapy to knock the rogue immune cells that were attacking their nervous system. Then their adult stem cells were re-injected. While recent successful treatments have used milder chemotherapy, this is still not a gentle or risk-free procedure for the patient. The new approach by the Bristol team is all the more interesting in this respect, because there is no pre-conditioning with chemotherapy.

An international group of multiple sclerosis researchers have looked at these uses of adult stem cells for treatment of MS, and propose moving forward with additional clinical trials to help patients.

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Misleading Michigan on Stem Cells

Misleading Michigan on Stem Cells



An odd, and definitely misleading, statement appeared in an article on a stem cell trial with ALS being led by Eva Feldman of the University of Michigan.

According to the story:

"Dr. Eva Feldman had to turn to a company outside Michigan for the stem cells needed for her ongoing Phase I trials on patients with Lou Gehrig's disease.

"Feldman said Neuralstem's stem cells are more developed than cells available at the University of Michigan because of the ban on research in Michigan before the 2008 passage of Proposal 2."

But there are several things misleading in that statement.

First, Neuralstem uses fetal stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Fetal tissue research and fetal stem cell research have been legal, and even federally funded, since 1993, including in Michigan.

Even for human embryonic stem cells, the University of Michigan received one of the first three federal grants for the research in 2002, using the approved human embryonic stem cell lines.

The Michigan "ban on research" only prohibited destroying embryos for research. The passage of Proposal 2 in 2008 allows that destruction to take place in the state now. But the research with the stem cell lines has been allowed, and funded, all along.

So the only accurate part of the statement is that Feldman had to look for cells other than newly-isolated embryonic stem cells, or embryonic stem cells in general, to do her study. The rest is just so much political whining.

In fact, Richard Garr, president of Neuralstem, has said:

"the use of neural stem cells isolated from humans in the fetal stage of development is better suited to the study as opposed to embryonic stem cells."

Adult stem cells are even better suited, and have already been used in promising clinical trials with ALS.

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

The FDA May Block All Genetic Test Kits



Walgreens plans to sell genetic testing kits for the first time in brick and mortar stores, but the FDA thinks this shift from labs/internet to pharmacy may be too much too fast.

The FDA has issued a warning to Pathway Genomics following their announcement to sell their saliva-based genetic tests in thousands of Walgreens stores, advising the company to first submit data proving its tests offer accurate results, lest the FDA exercise its rights to pull the kits off shelves.

(Incidentally, the kits themselves would only sell for $20-30, but the results can cost as much as $250.)

However, the plot thickens with an anonymous tip given to the Sun-Times, that the FDA was considering similar action with internet-based genetics tests, too, like Navigenics and 23andme. In other words, the FDA could put its foot down on home-based genetics testing for the first time, stopping a whole, growing industry right in its tracks.
Click here for the entire article.


Unborn Baby Murder Hearing



A Steuben County (PA) man heads to court to face charges of killing his unborn child in Bradford County. A woman claims her former boyfriend admitted to causing her to have a miscarriage. 39-year-old Orbin Tercero of Bath is charged with first degree murder of an unborn child. On Tuesday he was at district court in Sayre for preliminary hearings. Police say Tercero used a pill to force his former girlfriend to miscarry at her home in Sayre. They are both employed as pharmacists at Wegmans. The woman said Tercero wanted her to have an abortion. He was engaged to another woman at the time.
Click here for the entire article.


Okla. Senate Sends 'Babies Killed' Reporting Bill to Gov.



The Oklahoma Senate has approved a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to complete a lengthy questionnaire that includes questions about their race, relationships and reasons for getting an abortion. The Senate on Tuesday passed the bill 32-11. It now heads to Democratic Gov. Brad Henry, who already has vetoed two abortion bills this session. Both vetoes were overridden by the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Click here for the entire article.


G8 to Consider International Abortion Funding



The campaign to insert abortion funding into maternal health initiatives has dominated the media coverage leading up to the 36th annual G8 Summit, which will be held in Huntsville, Canada in late June. The host government, Canada, has come under considerable criticism from the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), pro-abortion NGOs and the Canadian media for refusing to bring abortion into the debate. The G8 Summit brings together the leaders of eight of the largest economies of the world. Traditionally, the host country has wide latitude to set the agenda. In January, the Canadian government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, announced its intention to make maternal and child health a development priority for this year's summit.
Click here for the entire article.

 

Questions Surround Supreme Court Pick Elena Kagan

Questions Surround Supreme Court Pick Elena Kagan



Given President Obama's forthright commitment to nominate justices who support legal abortion (link), pro-lifers can hardly to expect to find that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan (link), if confirmed, would vote to uphold any significant restrictions on abortion, much less to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, uncertainty remains as to how far she would let her views on a "woman's right to choose" shape her thinking on many of the abortion-related issues that have come and will again come before the Court.
 
For example, what are her views on stare decisis, the doctrine that settled law should not be overturned? Does she support the expansive use of facial challenges in cases involving abortion, i.e., should abortion providers be allowed to challenge an abortion restriction on the grounds that it poses an "undue burden" on women before the law has even gone into effect, before its impact can be measured by fact, not speculation?
 
The nominee should be probed for other signs of "abortion exceptionalism," such as:
 
• whether she believes opposition to abortion constitutes a form of discrimination against women

• whether she believes exclusion of abortion from funding sources such as Medicaid, state assistance programs, or insurance coverage constitutes a deprivation of equal protection

• whether she believes the First Amendment applies with equal force to the public sidewalks outside "reproductive health facilities," or may the government enact special speech restrictions applicable only in these areas
 
"We hope and expect pro-life senators will examine Solicitor General Kagan's record and question her at the hearings with regard to these and other issues that could impact the effectiveness of the pro-life movement's efforts to protect babies and their mothers for decades to come," said Dana Cody, President of Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Contact: Dana Cody, Esq.
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Publish Date: May 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Premiere of Abortion Industry Exposé Delayed by Pro-Abort Activists

Premiere of Abortion Industry Exposé Delayed by Pro-Abort Activists


 
The world premiere of the abortion industry exposé "BloodMoney" has been delayed by what its producers say was the pressure that pro-abortion activists put on the owner of the theatre where the film was to feature.

The Albany Times-Union reports that Roman Jaquez, a filmmaker from Troy, New York and producer of "BloodMoney," said that the owner of the Spectrum 8 Theatres called him over a week ago to inform him that he had canceled the screening after receiving phone calls from pro-abortion activists threatening to picket the theater for debuting the film.

Jaquez had rented the theater for four screenings scheduled for last Wednesday and Thursday, and personally had to turn away people who came to the Spectrum Theater on Delaware Ave. expecting to see the show. Ticket holders either had their tickets refunded or exchanged.

"I find it hypocritical that pro-abortion activists claim to be pro-choice, but don't want the public to have a choice in what films they can watch," said David K. Kyle, director of the film, in a statement.
 
The theater's owner, Keith Pickard, told the Times-Union that while it was true he canceled the opening, it was not over the potential of protestors outside the theater. However, he would not tell the Times-Union the reason for cancelling.

"It was just a private rental that didn't work out, and it's not for me to make public a private agreement," he told the Albany newspaper. "It was amicable on both sides."

However, the cancellation and controversy may have benefited the premiere of "Blood Money" rather than harmed it.

"The amount of interest to see the film has multiplied," Jacquez told the Times-Union.

The film will now premiere in the Capital District at the Madison Theatre at 1036 Madison Ave. May 14 – 20. Instead of the four screenings over two days at the Spectrum, "Blood Money" will have 20 screenings over seven days at the Madison.

According to the film's website, "Blood Money" is a documentary "that exposes the truth behind the abortion industry from the pro-life perspective." It examines "the history of abortion in America, from the inception of Planned Parenthood and the profitability of abortion clinics, to Roe vs. Wade, to the denial of when life begins, to the fight to save the lives of innocent babies, and the devastating effects it has had on the women that have had them."

Profits from "Blood Money" will go to support crisis pregnancy centers in Albany and Troy, New York.

Film-makers are hoping that a strong showing in Albany will help propel the film to other theater venues across America.


Click here to view the youtube trailer.

Click here to Register at the website.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

A 'duty to die'?

A 'duty to die'?



One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have "a duty to die," rather than become a burden to others.
 
This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it: letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.
 
There was a time -- fortunately, now long past -- when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their family and community to face their fate alone.
 
But is that where we are today?
 
Talk about "a duty to die" made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady -- a relative of ours -- was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.
 
She was called "Aunt Nance Ann," but I don't know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.
 
At that time, we didn't have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table -- and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.
 
Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had "a duty to die."
 
I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air-conditioning.
 
It is today, in an age when homes have flat-panel TVs and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites -- rather than the masses -- have begun talking about "a duty to die."
 
Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about "a duty to die."
 
Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.
 
But my son didn't have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?
 
The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from the Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.
 
Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which "a duty to die" is just one.
 
These efforts at changing values used to be called "values clarification," though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed "clarification" had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this "clarification."
 
Nor are we better people because of it.

Contact: Thomas Sowell
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

In hindsight aging sex symbol Raquel Welch advises virtuous lifestyle

In hindsight aging sex symbol Raquel Welch advises virtuous lifestyle



Writing for CNN on May 8 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of The Pill, 69-year-old sex symbol Raquel Welch had surprising reflections on the sexual revolution she helped create. I wouldn't be surprised to learn Welch is pro-life, given one of her statements.

I appreciate Welch's honesty, I'm sure in face of anticipated attacks which she - surprise - indeed got from the Left in the comments section [ex: "Wow, even a hot free-wheeling millionaire can end up a grumpy old person."] Her piece was all good, but here are key excerpts...

Margaret Sanger opened the 1st American family-planning clinic in 1916, and nothing would be the same again. Since then the growing proliferation of birth control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea change in moral values....

And as I've grown older over the past 5 decades - from 1960 to 2010 - and lived through this revolutionary period in female sexuality, I've seen how it has altered American society - for better or worse....

During my pregnancy, I came to realize that this process was not about me. I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman....

Later, I would strike out on my own, with my little ones, as a single mother to pursue a career in the movies. It was far from ideal, but my children didn't impede my progress. They grounded me in reality and forced me into an early maturity. I should add that having 2 babies didn't destroy my figure.

But if I'd had a different attitude about sex, conception and responsibility, things would have been very different.

One significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60's, was: "Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let's party!"

It remains this way. These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married 4 times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.

In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.

As a result of the example set by their elders, by the 1990s teenage sexual promiscuity - or hooking up - with multiple partners had become a common occurrence. Many of my friends who were parents of teenagers sat in stunned silence several years ago when it came to light that oral sex had become a popular practice among adolescent girls in middle schools across the country.

The 13-year-old daughter of one such friend freely admitted to performing fellatio on several boys at school on a regular basis. "Aw come on, Mom. It's no big deal. Everyone is doing it," she said. Apparently, since it's not the act of intercourse, kids don't count it as sex. Can any sane person fail to make a judgment call about that?

Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it's gotta be pretty bad. In fact, it's precisely because of the sexy image I've had that it's important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We're capable of so much better.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

National Right to Life Comments on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to U.S. Supreme Court

National Right to Life Comments on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to U.S. Supreme Court


 
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, issued the following statement regarding President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to fill the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that is being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens. This statement may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
 
On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone "who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women's rights," and that this was going to be "very important" to him as he viewed our "core Constitution" as protecting the "bodily integrity" of women.
 
In light of the President's stated intent, senators have an obligation to probe whether Elena Kagan will tolerate limits on abortion, enacted through normal democratic channels, or will seek to impose extreme pro-abortion views by judicial decree. Ms. Kagan herself argued forcefully in 1995, in a lengthy book review published in the University of Chicago Law Review, that such inquiries by senators are a legitimate and necessary part of the confirmation process.
 
In the most recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with abortion and the rights of unborn children, Gonzales v. Carhart, on April 18, 2007, a five-justice majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Yet on that occasion, four justices in dissent -- including Justice Stevens -- argued for a constitutional doctrine that would have invalidated the ban on partial-birth abortions and also, by implication, condemned virtually any other law or government policy intended to discourage abortion.   If the dissenters' position became the position of the majority of the Supreme Court, various types of laws that have been deemed permissible under Roe v. Wade could be invalidated by judicial decree, perhaps including the Hyde Amendment (restricting government funding of abortion) and parental notification laws. It is appropriate and necessary for senators to inquire into whether Ms. Kagan would embrace the extreme, results-oriented doctrines enunciated by the dissenting justices in that case.
 
(Since the Gonzales case was decided, dissenting Justice David Souter has been replaced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Most analysts believe that Sotomayor would be very likely to join the pro-abortion bloc when such issues are revisited in the future.)
 
There are troubling indications that Ms. Kagan generally favors an activist, results-oriented approach to constitutional law. For example, in her 1995 law journal article, she wrote, "The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court's decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . ." She also wrote that "it should be no surprise by now that many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value."
 
Regarding Ms. Kagan's specific views on the Court's past abortion-related rulings, there is little on the public record. But Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to "victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of 'innocent life' and the B-1 Bomber . . ."   Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?

Contact: Derrick Jones
Source: National Right to Life Committee
Publish Date: May 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Physicians tested on practices, moral principles

Physicians tested on practices, moral principles

AMA survey reveals that doctors at religious hospitals in the U.S. face ethical conflicts over patient care.
 


The Journal of General Internal Medicine performed a nationwide study of 446 family physicians and found out how frequently doctors disagree with institutional policies.

Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical Association does not believe the findings should raise concerns about access to care. But the rising problem, he says, is that physicians who oppose practices that conflict with their religious beliefs are facing more pressure to violate those values.

"This article points out the vast majority of physicians in this country realize that if a hospital doesn't provide a service, they simply take a patient to another hospital," he reports. "Only four percent of doctors said they would go ahead and violate the hospital's standing rules and provide something that has been prohibited."

Only one-in-five doctors at religious hospitals have experienced a conflict over faith-based patient care policies, such as not providing abortions. But Stevens notes there has been an effort to push religious hospitals to provide the morning-after pill.

"Unfortunately there is a blind ideology out there, almost a religion for abortion rights activists, that they want to make sure everybody participates in the deadly deeds they are so desiring to do," Dr. Stevens laments.

He notes there are really no emergency situations where a person would have to be referred to another facility based on religious practices because emergency contraception and most abortions are not immediate needs for a patient.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: May 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.