State's attorneys support parental notice

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

     
     Last year's demonstration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Ethics

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRR pushing for easier access to Plan B

     
     The "morning-after" pill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
     Late Term (Partial birth) Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, no, I am not making this up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Return Shows Planned Parenthood Salaries, Much More

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of the federation is:

(A) To provide leadership:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Direct Conversion” May Make Embryonic Stem Cell Research Obsolete

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortionist calls it quits

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
     European Court of Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restricting pro-life clinics out of business

     
     Advertsing for EMC Frontline Pregnancy Center

New York City is taking expected steps to restrict speech of pro-life pregnancy centers, but pro-lifers are fighting the suggested measures.
 
Chris Slattery runs many of the Expectant Mother Care FrontLine Pregnancy Centers (EMC) in New York and tells OneNewsNow the city council did not get away with its attempted slam dunk in favor of the measure. "Over 50 pro-lifers came out in strength from all over the country to defend our work," he reports.

The proposed bill is designed to shut down pro-life centers by crippling them with requirements to post disclaimers that will be monitored by the Department of Consumer Affairs. In bold letters, both in English and in Spanish, crisis-pregnancy centers must make it known "that we don't do abortions or refer for them, we don't do contraceptives or refer for them," and they must display the days the doctors are not physically at the clinics.

But Slattery adds that "they also have onerous confidentiality restrictions that don't even allow us to report rape to the police or uncovering child abuse to child abuse hotlines." Fines for violating the ordinance range from $200 to $2,500 apiece.

Council Member Jessica Lappin, the bill's primary sponsor, says the legislation is imperative to protect women who go to crisis-pregnancy centers without realizing the mission is to counsel against abortion. Yet at the same time, abortion clinics are not regulated. So the New York pro-lifer believes the rules are unconstitutional, which is why he plans to fight against approval.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 26, 2010

Council Bluffs says 'no' to Carhart

     
     Council Bluffs, Iowa

An Iowa town has taken a step to block a late-term abortionist's plans to set up shop there.
 
Omaha abortionist LeRoy Carhart recently announced plans to expand his business to Maryland, Indiana, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. But Steven Brody, executive director of Dubuque County Right to Life, tells OneNewsNow approximately 300 pro-life citizens showed up for a city council meeting and asked that Carhart not be given a pass to proceed.

"One of the decisions that they made was they voted unanimously to place a deed restriction on a certain parcel of land to prevent that land from being used as an abortion clinic," Brody reports.

So Avenue G and North 15th Street, the lot Carhart was reportedly considering, will not be utilized as an abortion facility. However, that does not block him from choosing a different location. But according to Brody, the pro-life citizens and city council sent a loud message to the abortionist. So he believes people in the two other states where Carhart hopes to open shop should feel emboldened to take action.

"Certainly, pro-lifers in Indianapolis and in Maryland, where Carhart is hoping and wishing to open up those late-term facilities there... there should be no reason why good folks in those areas can't muster their forces together and produce similar results," the pro-life spokesman contends.

He thinks the primary reason why the Omaha abortionist may want to take his business to new locations is because the legislature passed a bill last session that basically prohibits abortions beyond 20 weeks.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 26, 2010

Pope Benedict thanks the pro-life movement and confirms the personhood of the human embryo

     

Pope Benedict, in his homily at Saturday night's vigil for all nascent human life, said:

"Dear brothers and sisters, our coming together this evening to begin the Advent journey is enriched by another important reason: with the entire Church, we want to solemnly celebrate a prayer vigil for unborn life. I wish to express my thanks to all who have taken up this invitation and those who are specifically dedicated to welcoming and safeguarding human life in different situations of fragility, especially in its early days and in its early stages."

"[T]here is no reason not to consider [the human embryo] a person from conception."

"I urge the protagonists of politics, economic and social communications to do everything in their power to promote a culture which respects human life, to provide favorable conditions and support networks for the reception and development of life."

Pope Benedict echoed his vigil homily this morning in his address to the bishops of the Philippines on their ad limina visit. In a clear reference to the Reproductive Health bill which the bishops are fighting, Pope Benedict said [my emphases in bold]:

"Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".

"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will."

Warren Buffett Says Tax the Rich, but Sterilize the Poor

     
     Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest men, is in the news for saying that he wants the rich to pay more in taxes. But according to the continuing research of the Population Research Institute (PRI), Buffet prefers to spend his money ensuring that the poor have as few children as possible.

Over the years, the Buffett Foundation has funded some of the most hard-edged, even fanatical, population control programs around:

- Back in 1994 Buffet provided $2 million to fund the clinical trials of RU-486. This human pesticide has resulted in the deaths of countless unborn children and several dozen women.

- Buffet also provided $2 million to the Family Health International (FHI) for quinicrine hydrochloride, a drug which is used to perform chemical sterilizations on women. Inserted into the uterus, the powerful acid burns away the lining of the upper uterus and fallopian tubes, rendering a woman sterile. The Vietnamese and Indian governments have sterilized tens of thousands of poor women using this method, many without their foreknowledge or consent.

- Another favorite Buffet charity is an obscure entity called International Projects Assistance Services (IPAS), which is the principal manufacturer and distributor of the manual vacuum aspirators, or MVAs. These are used by the UN Population Fund, and other groups, to abort unborn babies up to 20 weeks gestation by hand. According to a Business Week report, the foundation's "1999 contribution of $2.5 million is part of a five-year, $20 million commitment, which will enable IPAS to double its capacity"

A list of Buffet's charitable contributions reads like a veritable rogue's gallery of abortion promoters and providers. Such groups as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Pathfinder International, and Catholics for Choice figure prominently. And in a particularly nasty twist, his funding to Planned Parenthood is specifically earmarked to enable particular clinics around the country to perform abortions.

"People wonder why Buffet is spending his money this way," says PRI president Steven Mosher. "Behind Buffet's folksy persona and obvious business acumen, lies an obsession with ridding the globe of "excess" baby humans. His biographer, Roger Lowenstein, wrote that he has "a Malthusian dread that overpopulation (will) aggravate problems in all other areas -- such as food, housing, even human survival." 

"I have met with Buffet in Ohama," recalls Mosher. "I see Buffet lounging in his office in Omaha, sipping cherry Cokes and plotting billion-dollar investment strategies, while tens of thousands of poor women around the world are being scarred for life with quinicrine, or have their babies sucked out of their wombs by manual vacuum aspirators that he has helped provide." 

Says Mosher, "It is sad that this Midas-like character, so blessed with material goods, should take so misanthropic a view of the people with whom he shares the planet, and from whose existence he profits. Even if he doesn't recognize the Indian as a fellow creature of God, surely he knows that they are tremendous consumers of Coke."

Contact: Colin Mason
Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

The Physician’s Crusade Against Abortion: A Review and a Prayer

     

"Life begins at conception" is the cry of Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer and many other physicians in the mid-nineteenth century, who crusaded to educate their society in the midst of an abortion epidemic.  Frederick Dyer's, The Physicians' Crusade Against Abortion meticulously documents the passionate campaign waged for the unborn by Dr. Storer and other physicians. This crusade was directly responsible for influencing abortion laws in the United States, as well as educating women to the fact that abortion is murder, at any time of pregnancy.  Dyer's employment of biology, medical terminology and practices, as well as the Hippocratic Oath "I will do no harm or injustice " is fundamental to the argument for life.

Dr. Frederick Dyer gives a detailed account, utilizing letters, essays and speeches to major medical journals and societies that laid the ground work for new laws to protect the unborn, as well as the protection of women, who many times sought abortions, not recognizing the moral and physical ramifications. Storer also reprimands the clergy for not standing against criminal abortion in their churches, and calls on the newspapers to condemn the advertisers of abortion and quack abortion remedies.  Dyer states that we have Storer to thank for our very lives, as statistically speaking, many would not be alive today had not the efforts to stop this abortion epidemic been waged in earnest.

Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer passionately states,

"And now words fail. Of the mother, by consent or by her own hand, imbued with her infant's blood; of the equally guilty father, who counsels or allows the crime; of the wretches who by their wholesale murders far out-Herod Burke and Hare (William Burke and William Hare were indicted in 1828 for 16 murders in one year in Scotland); of the public sentiment which palliates, pardons, and would even praise this so common violation of the all law, human and divine, or all instinct, or all reason, all pity, all mercy, all love, -we leave those to speak who can."

The battle against abortion is not limited to the twentieth century and Roe v. Wade, but strikes at the heart of a Christian nation.  The Physicians' Crusade Against Abortion is a necessary read for all who are in the fight for life and the unborn.  The comprehensive details of the book may make for a lengthy read, yet it is well worth the effort.  What struck at my heart was the realization that abortion is not only tied to Roe v. Wade, but was a very serious issue in the Church during the mid 1800s.  That most abortions were attained by married Protestant women, calls into question the moral health of society in the nineteenth century and perhaps sheds light on where we are today.

Dr. Dyer's bio is impressive as found on the dustcover of the book:

"Frederick N. Dyer obtained his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from Michigan State University in 1968. He has published numerous scientific articles and two major reviews during four years as a university professor and more than twenty years as a research psychologist at the Army Medical Research Laboratory and elsewhere.

"In 1993, Dr. Dyer actively pursued a long-held interest in the history of abortion in the United States and in the key figure in that history, Horatio Robinson Storer. Dyer's biography of Dr. Storer, Champion of Women and the Unborn, was published in 1999. Storer's influence on other physicians was profound and the total of these physicians' efforts, the subject of the current book, produced a huge impact not only on abortion legislation, but on women's behavior with thousands of women changing their minds about abortion."

Contact: Mary Selby
Source: Caffeinated Thoughts
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

Real death panels coming our way

     

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and an influential New York Times columnist, also has a blog, "The Conscience of a Liberal." On ABC's "This Week" (Nov. 14), during a discussion on balancing the federal budget against alarming deficits, he proclaimed the way to solve this problem is through deeply cost-effective health-care rationing.

"Some years down the pike," he said, "we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." That would mean the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission "should have endorsed the panel that was part of the (Obama) health-care reform."

Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the most resounding, to warn us of the coming of government panels to decide which of us – especially, but not exclusively, toward the end of life – would cost too much to survive.

She was mocked, scorned from sea to shining sea, including by the eminent Paul Krugman for being, he said, among those spreading "the death panel lie" as part of "the lunatic fringe." (Summarized in "Krugman Wants 'Death Panels'" Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Nov. 15).

Soon after he had left the ABC Studio, someone must have alerted Krugman that – gee whiz – he had publicly rooted for death panels!

Swiftly, on his blog, Krugman admitted he had indeed said those dreaded words, but:

"What I meant is that health-care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for – not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care."

"Extreme care," professor Krugman? To be defined by government commissions, right?

Noel Sheppard of media watchdog Newsbusters was not fooled by the professor's attempt to extricate himself from embarrassment.

"As the government has deep budgetary problems," Sheppard reminded Krugman, "the cost-benefit analysis will naturally morph toward financial restraint thereby further limiting a patient's options and therefore his or her rights."

Are these Obamacare cost-benefit boards and commissions – for example, the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board penetratingly judging Medicare's cost-effectiveness (without judicial review) – not going to determine whether certain Americans are going to continue living?

Fess up, Krugman, you owe Sarah Palin an apology for so often scandal-mongering her. Also, professor, aside from the abortion wars, don't most Americans agree that the most fundamental of all our rights is the right to life? Not the government's right to our lives.

When you said "death panels" on that Sunday morning, you knew and meant what you were saying. As an economist dedicated to deficit-reduction, you were not lamenting the coming of death panels. Clearly, you were affirming their inevitability under President Obama's determination to prevent government subsidization of "extreme care."

As you said on ABC, this is "reality therapy."

Wesley Smith, who has been the Paul Revere of investigating and documenting the radical root of Obamacare – government's invasion of the doctor-patient relationship – has revealed how far Obama's Medicare czar, Dr. Donald Berwick, intends to go to foreclose the great majority of our visits to our doctors' offices.

In his regular fact-based commentary ("Secondhand Smoke," Nov. 16), Smith's headline is: "Berwick Wants to Do Away With 80% of 'Dinosaur' Patient/Doctor Office Calls."

He reports that in Berwick's "Escape Fire: Lessons for the Future of Health Care" – which he wrote in his former role as head of the Institute for Health Care Improvement – Berwick promised us that "healing relationships ... can be fashioned in many new and wonderful forms if we suspend the old ways of making sense of care."

Huh? Which "old ways"? You may not have realized it, but, he emphasized, "the health-care encounter as a face-to-face visit is a dinosaur." In the wondrous new world of immediate health care for everyone in need, Berwick writes, "I think it rarely means … reliance on face-to-face meetings between patients, doctors and nurses."

Have your computer ready, folks.

What's next, a death-clock countdown for your desktop? 

"Tackled well," President Obama's cost-efficient physician-in-chief foresees, "this new framework will gradually reveal that half or more of such of our encounters – maybe as many as 80 percent of them – are neither wanted by patients nor deeply believed in by professionals.. .."

Am I a dinosaur in my apprehensiveness about troubling symptoms – and odds of survival – because I feel I need to talk face-to-face with another human being whose calling is diagnosis? As Wesley Smith says, speaking for me and, I expect, many of us:

"Doctors use face-to-face meetings for more than exams. Sometimes, a doctor (not a computer) can take one look at a long-time patient (or not long-time) and tell that something is amiss."

Because President Obama did not want Dr. Berwick to be subjected to probing questions at a congressional hearing, this czar of the future is a recess appointment, but he finally was inconsequentially heard. Will Obama, in 2012, turn out to be a recess president, in considerable part because of his messianic, unyielding devotion to Obamacare? Then, if he's in distress, when he's out of office, maybe Berwick will consent to care for him privately.

Presidents retain their health insurance for life, so Berwick will be appropriately compensated without being limited by Medicare rates. But will the next president and Congress rescue us from Obamacare?

Contact: Nat Hentoff
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

The peril of denying the obvious

     

One of the raging controversies in the 2010 election was a simple question about a profound issue: Is abortion covered in the health care reform law or not? "No," say the president and the congressional Democrats. "Yes," says the collective pro-life community, including ourselves.

More importantly, "Yes," said a majority of voters in the districts of pro-life Democrats who pledged themselves to vote against any bill that paid for abortions. In the end, they gave in to pressure from their leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the toll on them was high. These were the "Stupak 20," but now only nine remain. Their leader, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, didn't even bother to run for re-election. One didn't survive his primary. The others lost on Nov. 2.

During his State of the Union message on Jan. 27, 2010, the president looked the nation in the eye and said that in the health care bill, no federal dollars would be used to pay for abortion. On March 24, he signed an executive order to declare the same, because the pro-life members of the president's own party weren't buying what he had said, and without their votes the bill would die.

About that executive order, let me quote one of the ablest pro-life analysts in D.C. — Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC): "It has the appearance of having been very carefully crafted to provide … political cover for certain members of Congress. …" Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, called the order "a symbolic gesture." It had no teeth.

The bill (now the law) does cover abortion. And it does so in four ways:

1. Through so-called "high-risk" insurance plans operated by the states. The feds quickly approved three such plans over the summer, from Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland. All of them included abortion coverage, until the NRLC pointed this out publicly. When the whistle blew, the administration quickly stripped out the abortion funding.

By the way, when the White House removed the coverage, the American Civil Liberties Union objected, saying, "…There is nothing in the (health care) law that requires … this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban." (For once, we agree with the ACLU.)

2. Through private health insurance plans that are subsidized with tax money to make them more affordable. People who sign up for these must write two checks — one for the premium, and another that goes into a special pool to cover abortions. Why two checks? It's a cosmetic cover-up to allow the president to say what he did in his State of the Union speech. Even if you oppose abortion, you still must write that second check.

3. Through direct subsidies to Community Health Centers around the country. In this $7 billion slice of the law, there are no prohibitions against abortion coverage in the range of health services to be offered.

4. In the multi-state plans to be offered by private companies and regulated by the federal government. There must be at least one plan that does not cover abortions. So what about the other plans? You take a guess.

We had hoped that pro-life Democrats could have resisted the terrific pressure that was applied to them by the Democratic leaders who badly needed abortion in the bill in order to appease the pro-aborts in their political base. In order to do that, lawmakers had to pretend that abortion was not covered, because a clear majority of the country does not want abortion paid by tax dollars — no matter their personal opinion about the issue.

The election shows that the political cover-up has largely failed, thanks to the Susan B. Anthony List, NRLC, FRC Action and CitizenLink, all of which helped expose the ruse. When the Republican leaders take control in January, we pray they will acquit themselves in much better fashion, and we have high hopes they will.

Contact: Tom Minnery
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 24, 2010

What makes a doctor become an abortionist?

What makes a doctor become an abortionist? 

     

For many reasons, I don't give as many talks on abortion as I did when I first started in the Movement. But to this day what sticks out in my memory is one of the very first questions I was asked, a long, long time ago: what makes a doctor become an abortionist?

Although I don't claim to have the answer, a lengthy tribute to the wonderfulness of abortion (especially second-trimester) that appeared in the Toronto Star Saturday summarizes many of the reasons today's crop of abortionists ply their ugly trade.

A little background that appears in all these stories--the ones whose real agenda is to promote wider and deeper abortion "training" and the notion that the abortionist is courageous--is that you need something special nowadays to perform abortions. The older abortionists, we are told, were motivated by witnessing the complications that accompanied illegal abortions (as if there are not as many, if not more today, with legal abortions that are so plentiful).

So stories such as the one written by the Star's Megan Ogilvie paint a rosy picture of physicians who are deeply committed to their patients' "well-being."

Not a word about how lucrative performing abortions can be, or even a whiff of a worry that complications from abortion are common. All these men and women are noble and self-less.

The "young doctor" who carries the narrative is chosen because he was, for a while at least, caught in a dilemma. Gung-ho to perform abortions (after a stint at the clinic of the most infamous abortion in Canada "It turns out," he says, "that it's something I'm good at doing"), he had second thoughts when he and his partner decided it was time to adopt.

After a long round-about digression, Ogilvie gets back to "Dr. James" (not his real name), who has made his choice. Let me offer an extended quote:


Abortionist Leroy Carhart

One year after questions started to swirl through his mind, he has made his choice.

James will be an abortion doctor.

Not only that, but James plans to do second-trimester abortions as part of his practice. He will step to the very front line, the place where there is greatest need -- and greatest risk.

The decision came after a long period of reflection.

What he learned about himself is that he is not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. This means both abortion and adoption are part of the spectrum of care he believes in. With this distinction James was able to reconcile having one foot in an abortion clinic and the other in an adoption agency.

"In some ways, this wait has made me more pro-choice, because I see that women have all of these options," says James. "I don't think I'll ever have trouble being honest with my children about telling them what I do. To me, it will allow me to say to my child: your mother had a choice, and she decided that you should be here and wanted somebody to care for you."

That he is part of a profession that, at its roots, cares for people in need also helped James regain his firm stance on abortion.

To return to my original question, I still can't pretend to be able to offer a definitive answer why women and men pollute their medical skills. But as this quote illustrates, it begins with a deep confusion coupled with a kind of third-rate moral equivalency that permeates the pro-abortion mind.

You got happy babies at one end, who find adoptive homes at one end. At the other end, unborn children torn limb from limb, whose "home" is the garbage disposal. This is the infamous "spectrum of care."

If it's six of one, half dozen of the other, no wonder "James was able to reconcile having one foot in an abortion clinic and the other in an adoption agency."

Final thought. Obviously from the pro-life perspective, we find it reprehensible that doctors would choose death for their patients--and, by the way, were the child not chosen for death, no doctor would deny he/she has a second patient. But making it even worse is the congratulatory tone they adopt--aren't we just so brave.

No, no you aren't.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

Peter Singer: Views on Infanticide Nothing New–But Just as Bad

      
      Peter Singer

Defenders of Peter Singer like to say that we critics are just too dull to really understand what the great man is saying.  And hence, we distort his thinking on issues like infanticide.  But the real problem for Singerphiles is that we understand precisely what he advocates–and more importantly, where such thinking would lead.

I make it a habit not to use Nazi analogies.  Singer is not a racist or anti Semite. Nor is he a totalitarian. But he does believe that babies past the second year are not persons, and don't have the same moral status as those of us who (at least today) possess sufficient self awareness to earn that status.  He also believes that disabled infants can be killed as a matter of compassion and to serve the family's interests.

Preventing suffering and promoting the interests of family and state were the bases for advocating infanticide permissiveness policies in Germany throughout the 1920s and 1930s.  This eugenics/utilitarian/compassion meme led to the first authorized killing in the Baby Knauer.  Here's what I wrote about it in Culture of Death, quoting three notable history books that focused on the case:

The first known German government-approved infanticide, the killing of Baby Knauer, occurred in early 1939.  The baby was blind and had a leg and an arm missing.  Baby Knauer's father was distraught at having a disabled child.  So, he wrote to Chancellor Hitler requesting permission to have the infant "put to sleep."  Hitler had been receiving many such requests from German parents of disabled babies over several years and had been waiting for just the right opportunity to launch his euthanasia plans.  The Knauer case seemed the perfect test case.  He sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate.  Brandt's instructions were to verify the facts, and if the child was disabled as described in the father's letter, he was to assure the infant's doctors that they could kill the child without legal consequence.  With the Fuhrer's assurance, Baby Knauer's doctors willingly murdered their patient at the request of his father. [Burleigh, Death and Deliverance, pp. 95-96; Lifton, Nazi Doctors, pp. 50-51; Gallagher, By Trust Betrayed, pp. 95-96.]

And here's how BK's father later described his conversation with Brand about the killing of his boy, again as presented in COD:

Baby Knauer's father was quoted by Lifton in, The Nazi Doctors, as stating in 1973 that Brandt assured them "we wouldn't have to suffer from this terrible misfortune because the Fuhrer had granted us the mercy killing of our son.  Later, we could have other children, handsome and healthy, of whom the Reich could be proud." [Lifton, p. 115]

And here's what Singer wrote about infanticide to protect the interests of a hypothetical future sibling in Practical Ethics (p. 186):

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.  The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second.  Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.

Compare what Singer wrote and what Brandt told the father of Baby Knauer.  What is the difference? I can't see any. Both supported infanticide as a means of ending suffering and making a happier future possible for later-born infants.

Singer has also defended himself by stating that the German infanticide was in secret, which he opposes. That was generally true, but not in the Baby Knauer case.

Awful things said in a charming Australian accent are still awful.  Singer is our most influential contemporary thinker.  Much of what he advocates has been done–terribly–before. That is why his views must be exposed, and argued against, at all opportunities.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 24, 2010

The Worth of Every Life

     

As you get older, your life increasingly intersects with the lives of people who are much older and who are, medically, often in a very vulnerable state. I mention that at the beginning because this exposure means I am keenly aware how susceptible otherwise good people are to various rationalizations to withhold or withdraw treatment, on the one hand, and "aiding" the elderly to die, on the other hand.

What's really changed, however, is that like the virus that "jumps" from animals to humans, the anti-life virus has jumped age categories. Beyond that, the justifications for "aiding" people in dying have now predictably moved from so-called terminally ill patients to (for now) elderly people who are otherwise healthy but who are "depressed" or don't feel life is "worth living."

Canada just rejected Bill C-384, a euthanasia bill introduced by MP Francine Lalonde. According to Evan Menzies, writing in yesterday's National Post, the bill stated "that doctors would not be prosecuted if they help a person who is at least 18 years of age, who after being given or refusing treatment, continues to, 'suffer experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief,' or suffers from terminal illness."

It is of a piece with a movement in (where else?) the Netherlands "that demands that people who are more than 70 years old, and tired of life, should have the right to be killed humanely," Menzies writes. He adds ominously, "It is a movement gaining increased public support."

Menzies offers a thoughtful critique of this brand of thinking (http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/21/opinion-every-life-is-worth-the-compassion-of-saving). He begins with a thought experiment--a hypothetical with a guy threatening to jump off the roof.

Our traditional response is for the police to try to dissuade the jumper and then help him receive the kind of psychiatric help he needs.

But if a measure like C-384 passed, a police offer could say, in effect, just take a breath, step down and we'll help you "find a way to obtain physician-assisted suicide, a less messy form of self-destruction." As Menzies argues, that would not be a fanciful scenario.

In his final sentence, Menzies offers a value judgment you either gratefully accept and defend as a precious heirloom or grow annoyed at because you consider it an out-of-date hindrance that must be swept away: "No matter the physical or mental state of a person, the sanctity of their being and worth cannot be measured in quantifiable terms."

If you don't find this compelling, how far before legalized euthanasia hold sways? How long before patients have to justify NOT being killed? How long before quiet talk of "reliev[ing] the financial burdens of our families and the health-care system" becomes a loud and angry demand?

Closer to home, it is comparative easy to engage people's attention when National Right to Life explains how ObamaCare forwards the abortion agenda of the Abortion Establishment. But NRLC is one very few voices that consistently and forcefully talks about the inducements to rationing that are embedded in ObamaCare.

If you want to help repeal and replace ObamaCare, be sure to read the materials you find about ObamaCare and rationing found at http://powellcenterformedicalethics.blogspot.com.

An especially useful entry--several cogent, straightforward talking points--can be found at http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/TalkingPointsHCR.pdf.

The bottom line is, as the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics puts it, "If the Obama Health Care Rationing Law is not repealed by 2013 before its most dangerous provisions come into effect, the result will be the rationing denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequent premature and involuntary death, of an unknown but immense number of Americans. The pro-life movement must devote itself over the upcoming critical years to ensuring that the American people are given the facts needed to counter the misinformation."

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 23, 2010

The peril of denying the obvious

     

One of the raging controversies in the 2010 election was a simple question about a profound issue: Is abortion covered in the health care reform law or not? "No," say the president and the congressional Democrats. "Yes," says the collective pro-life community, including ourselves.

More importantly, "Yes," said a majority of voters in the districts of pro-life Democrats who pledged themselves to vote against any bill that paid for abortions. In the end, they gave in to pressure from their leader, Nancy Pelosi, and the toll on them was high. These were the "Stupak 20," but now only nine remain. Their leader, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, didn't even bother to run for re-election. One didn't survive his primary. The others lost on Nov. 2.

During his State of the Union message on Jan. 27, 2010, the president looked the nation in the eye and said that in the health care bill, no federal dollars would be used to pay for abortion. On March 24, he signed an executive order to declare the same, because the pro-life members of the president's own party weren't buying what he had said, and without their votes the bill would die.

About that executive order, let me quote one of the ablest pro-life analysts in D.C. — Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC): "It has the appearance of having been very carefully crafted to provide … political cover for certain members of Congress. …" Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, called the order "a symbolic gesture." It had no teeth.

The bill (now the law) does cover abortion. And it does so in four ways:

1. Through so-called "high-risk" insurance plans operated by the states. The feds quickly approved three such plans over the summer, from Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland. All of them included abortion coverage, until the NRLC pointed this out publicly. When the whistle blew, the administration quickly stripped out the abortion funding.

By the way, when the White House removed the coverage, the American Civil Liberties Union objected, saying, "…There is nothing in the (health care) law that requires … this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban." (For once, we agree with the ACLU.)

2. Through private health insurance plans that are subsidized with tax money to make them more affordable. People who sign up for these must write two checks — one for the premium, and another that goes into a special pool to cover abortions. Why two checks? It's a cosmetic cover-up to allow the president to say what he did in his State of the Union speech. Even if you oppose abortion, you still must write that second check.

3. Through direct subsidies to Community Health Centers around the country. In this $7 billion slice of the law, there are no prohibitions against abortion coverage in the range of health services to be offered.

4. In the multi-state plans to be offered by private companies and regulated by the federal government. There must be at least one plan that does not cover abortions. So what about the other plans? You take a guess.

We had hoped that pro-life Democrats could have resisted the terrific pressure that was applied to them by the Democratic leaders who badly needed abortion in the bill in order to appease the pro-aborts in their political base. In order to do that, lawmakers had to pretend that abortion was not covered, because a clear majority of the country does not want abortion paid by tax dollars — no matter their personal opinion about the issue.

The election shows that the political cover-up has largely failed, thanks to the Susan B. Anthony List, NRLC, FRC Action and CitizenLink, all of which helped expose the ruse. When the Republican leaders take control in January, we pray they will acquit themselves in much better fashion, and we have high hopes they will.

Contact: Tom Minnery
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 24, 2010

Government Approves Second Clinical Trial Using Cells From Human Embryos

    
     Embryonic Stell Cell Research Clinical Trial

For the second time in less than six months – and in U.S. history – the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the use life-destroying human embryonic stem cells in a human clinical trial.

Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) received the government's approval to people suffering from Stargardt disease, a rare genetic disorder that often leads to blindness. Only 30,000 Americans suffer from this particular disease; however, researchers say they hope to gain information for other progressive eye diseases.

Geron Corporation was the first to get the FDA's OK'd to inject embryonic stem cells in patients whose spinal cords have been crushed.

Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for Life Sciences with the Family Research Council, said ethical and medical concerns abound. Not only are pre-born humans destroyed, but tumors are commonplace.

He said that these firms are aware that their embryonic cells won't work past one or two weeks after the injury and that they should be using adult stem cells instead.
"Adult stem cells are really helping patients now," he said. "Thousands of patients, dozens of diseases and it doesn't rely on destroying human life."

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 22, 2010