"The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, and a major waste of money," says Dr. Joseph Mercola. 
A well-known doctor who has repeatedly warned about the dangers of vaccines and who is particularly concerned about the Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, has released two video testimonies by young women who were severely harmed after having been injected with Gardasil. Dr. Joseph Mercola notes that the U.S. government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database indicates that Gardasil has been linked to 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, 41 reports of cervical cancer, and thousands of adverse events reports, ranging from headaches and nausea, to outbreaks of genital warts, anaphylactic shock, grand mal convulsion, foaming at the mouth, coma and paralysis. Dr. Mercola also says it is concerning that HPV vaccines protect against only two of the more common strains of HPV associated with cancer, HPV-16 and HPV-18, even though there are more than 100 different types of HPV, at least 15 of which cause cancer. Charlotte Haug, writing in the September issue of New Scientist noted, "Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18 … what effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer? Results from clinical trials are not encouraging." In the first of the video testimonies a young lady named Brittney reveals that she was frightened into receiving the Gardasil shot just after she turned 21. Following the second of the two recommended doses she lost the use of her legs. She then provides a shocking list of medical problems that resulted from receiving the injections. In the second video, Ashley recounts the journey from being a healthy active teenager to a life of hospital visits, 911 calls, severe pain, nausea, difficulty breathing and not being able to walk from numbness in her legs. "If I had never gotten this shot I would be a normal teenager. I wish I could go back," Ashley says in the video. "Deadly blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and 'sudden death due to unknown causes' have all occurred in girls shortly after they've received the Gardasil vaccine," Dr. Mercola explains. "These are atrocious risks to potentially prevent cervical cancer one day down the road. Because let's not forget that the HPV vaccine has not yet been proven to actually prevent any kind of cancer." "The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, and a major waste of money," Dr. Mercola concludes. The videos, and further information, are available here. Contact: Thaddeus Baklinski Source: LifeSiteNews.com
A ruling handed down this week means that one of the most notorious abortion clinics in the country, the Northern Illinois Women's Center (NIWC) in Rockford, Illinois, will remain closed until January 4, 2012, when a formal public hearing will be held. The ruling on the suspension of the clinic's license was made by an Administrative Law Judge at the behest of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). In addition to its health violations, the abortion facility is known for routinely displaying anti-Christian symbols, such as a nun in a coffin and a crucified rubber chicken, as well as taunting signs in its windows. The judge announced her ruling during a teleconference yesterday, when the department of health advised the judge that health concerns stemming from inspections of the facility remained unresolved. "Every week an estimated 25 children were killed in the Rockford abortion mill," noted Kevin Rilott, a veteran pro-life activist who regularly witnesses outside the abortion facility, at prolifecorner.com. "That's approximately 100 human lives a month destroyed in Rockford by abortion. "This means for the three months the Rockford abortion mill has been closed, up to 300 human lives may have been saved. Yes, some of these mothers may have gone to other cities to end the lives of their children - but many may have chosen life as well." Last week, attorneys Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, and Jason Craddock, special counsel for the Society, wrote a lengthy letter to the health department, expressing grave worries about a possible premature reopening of the NIWC. The Thomas More Society attorneys were retained in the case by concerned citizens residing in the Greater Rockford area, including the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative and a Registered Nurse, who had been instrumental in persuading the public health authorities finally to conduct a series of inspections of the NIWC abortion facility after a protracted period of nearly 14 years — during which no inspections had taken place. The Society's letter pointed out that IDPH's long overdue inspections of the facility had uncovered a laundry list of "egregious health and safety violations," including gynecological cannulas (surgical instruments inserted during abortion procedures) that were stained with a "brown substance," "failure to prevent contamination of clean surgical equipment" and "repeated deficiencies in record keeping." Inspectors at the clinic had found shoes stored inside a box of survigal gloves, while "autoclave equipment used to sterilize medical instruments failed biological testing on at least two occasions." They also found that the abortionists did not have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and failed to meet requirements for a registered nurse to be present in the operating room, "leaving unqualified and unlicensed personnel to do tasks reserved by law for licensed, qualified professional personnel." "We pray that this Christmas season may mark NIWC's permanent closure," said the Thomas More Society's Tom Brejcha. NIWC's lawyers are claiming that its patients are "safe" despite its failure to abide by legal requirements. Contact: John-Henry Westen Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Common Sense Will Prevail 
The Obama Administration will announce shortly the final rule for the contraception mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Pro-Life Democrats are expecting a religious exemption that is consistent with longstanding public policy and current law. "The Administration is already unfairly under attack by Catholic conservatives who are using the proposed final rule to spread anti-Obama sentiment to lay Catholics," said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life. "The Administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters." Current law does not mandate private insurance coverage for contraceptives nor does it require free birth control. Under the current law, employers who oppose birth control on moral grounds may choose insurance without such coverage. But such employers certainly do not forbid birth control for their employees; they simply do not pay for it because it is against their religious beliefs. The PPACA included a provision requiring that insurance plans include free contraception coverage. But, when passed, PPACA also proposed to continue to allow employers an exemption to mandated contraception in offered health insurance plans if the employer objected on moral or religious grounds. This was part of the agreement reached by pro-life Democrats. The issue for pro-life Democrats is that certain types of birth control cause abortions of new embryos. "I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception," said former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage." Women's groups scored a tremendous victory with a contraception mandate that requires all health insurance companies to provide free birth control. Some group, such as Emily's List and NARAL are now attempting to push the mandate beyond its hard won legislative intent by forcing employers who oppose contraception for moral reasons to include free birth control in their plans as well. They are also using scare tactics to convince their supporters that they are in jeopardy of losing coverage for birth control. "The campaign by Emily's list to scare women into thinking that they will no longer have access to birth control is as dishonest as the Republican campaign to convince voters that the PPACA funds abortion," said Stephen Schneck of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholics Studies at The Catholic University of America. "The PPACA does not fund abortion and not one woman will lose access to birth control under the new law. In fact, millions of women will now receive free birth control under that law." NARAL's and Emily's List dishonest campaign may well mean that millions of Americans could lose their access to employer sponsored health care. Notre Dame President, Father Jenkins expressed concern that the mandate "would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the church's moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the church's social teaching," "This is more about business as usual in Washington with special interest groups trying to create controversy to raise money," said Dahlkemper. "Common sense would say health insurance, even if it does not include contraception coverage, is better than no insurance at all. If common sense prevails, the final rule will allow fair conscience protections that will not force religious institutions choose between social teaching and moral teaching." Contact: Kristen Day Source: Democrats For Life of America
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that an Armenian study-whose authors examined diabetes mellitus type 2, reproductive factors, and breast cancer-found a statistically significant association showing a 2.86-fold increased breast cancer risk from one induced abortion. [1] The study, led by Lilit Khachatryan, included researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania. Khachatryan's team reported a statistically significant 13% increased breast cancer risk for every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP), with delayed FFTPs until ages 21-30 or after age 30 resulting in 2.21-fold and 4.95-fold increased risks respectively, as opposed to women with FFTPs before age 20. (Abortion is often used to delay FFTPs.) Giving birth resulted in a 64% reduced risk. Due to political correctness, the authors also inaccurately claimed, "Most evidence (of an abortion-breast cancer link)...points to no effect." Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York) said that is "plainly false." [2] Fifty-one of 68 epidemiological studies since 1957 report an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link (not counting biological and experimental evidence). Khachatryan's team cited only one (severely criticized) study, Melbye et al. 1997, to support their false claim of "no effect." [3,4,5] Although Melbye's team found no overall increased risk, they reported a statistically significant 89% increased risk for those having abortions after 18 weeks gestation. Khachatryan's group cited recall bias as a possible limitation of their study, but tellingly provided no citations to support that claim. According to this hypothesis, the only reason that scientists find an ABC link is not because abortion really does raise risk. Rather, more women with breast cancer accurately report their past abortions than do healthy women. Dr. Brind said, "The recall bias argument has been repeatedly disproved in the literature." [2,6] Similarly, authors of the Uzbekistan Health Examination Survey (which received financial and technical assistance through the US AID-funded MEASURE DHS+ program) said induced abortion is not negatively stigmatized in former Soviet states and that the collection of data is, therefore, successful. They wrote: "However, in the republics of the former Soviet Union and in many Eastern European countries, induced abortion is an accepted means of fertility control, and data on this topic have been collected in households in a number of these countries with apparent success (Sullivan, et al., 2003; Westoff et al., 1998, 2002)." [7] National Cancer Institute (NCI) branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton and her colleagues admitted in a 2009 study led by Jessica Dolle that abortion raises risk. [8] They demonstrated that they know recall bias is a red herring used to prop up abortion. After Brinton and the NCI told women during the agency's 2003 workshop to disregard retrospective studies because they were flawed due to recall bias, Brinton and Jessica Dolle and their colleagues subsequently used supposedly "flawed" data from their group's 1994 and 1996 studies for their 2009 study. [9-11] Dr. Brind concluded that Khachatryan's team "did not-and perhaps were not allowed to-characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all." [2] Khachatryan's team also reported statistically significant results associated with breast cancer and diabetes mellitus type 2 (5.53-fold increased risk) and obesity (2.4-fold increased risk). The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. References: 1) Khachatryan L, Scharpf R, Kagan S. Influence of diabetes mellitus type 2 and prolonged estrogen exposure on risk of breast cancer among women in Armenia. Health Care for Women International 2011;32:953-971. Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07399332.2011.569041>. 2) Private communication from Dr. Joel Brind to Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer on November 15, 2011. 3) Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85. 4) Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>. 5) Brind J, Chinchilli VM. Letter. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1834-1835. 6) For a discussion of the research conducted on recall bias, see: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/bias/index.htm>. 7) Uzbekistan Health Examination Survey 2002. Analytical and Information Center. Ministry of Health. Republic of Uzbekistan. State Department of Statistics, Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics, Republic of Uzbekistan. ORC Macro, Calverton, Maryland. J.M. Sullivan and A.I. Kamilov. Ch. 6. "Induced Abortion." April 2004. p. 63. Available at: <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACX976.pdf> 8) Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf> 9) To learn more about the U.S. National Cancer Institute's sham workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link in 2003, see a letter to President Obama signed by scientists, physicians and the leaders of medical groups and pro-family organizations. Available at: <www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/ObamaLetter.pdf>. 10) Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505-514. 11) Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF, et al. Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-380.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a pair of reports Thursday showing that among teens, birth rates have dropped over the last year — but sexually transmitted disease rates are increasing. According to the reports, babies born to teen moms dropped 9 percent in 2010 — the biggest single-year decline since 1946-47. And over the last two years, teen birth rates have dropped 15 percent. Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said that's entirely surprising, since the CDC also reported recently that nearly 75 percent of kids between the ages of 15 and 17 are remaining sexually abstinent. But the other 25 percent are more at risk than ever for sexually transmitted infections. According to the other report, chlamydia rates have increased 24 percent since 2006 — the highest they've been in 20 years. And most of the cases are found among teenage African-American girls. "The current sex ed policy as created by the Obama administration is almost solely focused on teen pregnancy prevention. So when they release these twin reports, but only one gets the headlines, it supposedly shows their teen pregnancy programs are successful," Huber said. "It's great that birth rates are down, but it's when teen sexual activity rates drop that we'll get real prevention. This shows me that the current policy is not taking care of the problem." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Representatives of the Thomas More Society and the Pro-Life Action League say the defeat of Mississippi's "personhood" initiative does not mark a serious defeat for the pro-life movement. "The number one argument we hear, is that this is the 'silver bullet' that is going to overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion in America. I'm not convinced that is at all the case," said Pro-Life Action League Executive Director Eric Scheidler. "If one were to be passed, would it survive a federal court challenge? There's really no good reason to think it would," Scheidler told CNA on Nov. 11. The Pro-Life Action League's executive director supports the intentions of the "personhood" movement, which seeks to end abortion by extending legal rights to all humans from the moment of conception. But he is skeptical about the personhood approach. So were Mississippi's Catholic bishops, who did not take a position either for or against the recent personhood initiative "Proposition 26." Supporters of that proposition lost their bid to amend Mississippi's constitution, when 58 percent of voters opposed it on Nov. 8. But even if such a measure succeeded, Scheidler noted that it could only serve to overturn Roe v. Wade if a majority of Supreme Court justices were willing to question that ruling. Without such a majority, the court could end up re-affirming a constitutional "right" to abortion as it did in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. "It seems unlikely that Justice Anthony Kennedy would join a five-vote majority in upholding the personhood of the unborn," Scheidler observed. Justice Kennedy upheld a right to abortion in the 1992 case. Some personhood proponents have told Scheidler that such calculations show a lack of faith. But he pointed out that God calls believers to be prudent and careful. "God gives us the wisdom to look at the tools available to us, in the time in which we live, and choose what we think are the most appropriate tools to use for the task at hand," he reflected. In the view of Thomas More Society Special Counsel Paul B. Linton, personhood proposals are the wrong tools for the task of ending abortion. "No justice on the Supreme Court – including the justices who dissented in 'Roe,' and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito – has ever expressed the view that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a 'person' as that word is used in the 14th Amendment," Linton said in a Nov. 11 interview. "Whatever you, or I, or anyone else, thinks about whether unborn children should be regarded as persons, what's important is what the justices think," Linton pointed out. "And not one of them has ever expressed the view that the unborn child should be regarded as a 'person.'" "That's why there's no support on the court for personhood – they just don't think the Federal Constitution addresses the issue one way or the other." Even the court's most conservative justices, he said, view the Constitution as neutral on the matter of personhood and conception. "Justice Antonin Scalia filed a partial dissent in the 'Casey' case in 1992," Linton said, recalling a dissent joined by others including Justice Clarence Thomas. "In the opening paragraph, he said: the states may allow abortion on demand, if they so choose, but the Constitution does not require them to do so." Linton also said it was "naive" for personhood supporters to imagine they could "force the court to revisit" the abortion question. "You cannot force the court to do anything. Their jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary, and it would be with respect to any case like this. So I don't see a case like this even getting up to the Supreme Court." "If you had a state that passed a Mississippi-style measure, and it were challenged and struck down by a federal district court, that could be appealed to the court of appeals for that particular district," he explained. "However, once you're past that initial appeal, you no longer have a right to further review. You can only seek discretionary review from the Supreme Court." And Linton shares Scheidler's view that a review of Roe v. Wade might end badly in the current court. "I think the court would reaffirm 'Roe.' It would be the fourth time for them to reaffirm it." Linton also criticized personhood supporters' inconsistency on the question of what their proposals would actually do if passed. "Does this 'personhood' language have any effect in and of itself on state law? Or does this require the legislature to enact specific pieces of legislation to give it effect?" he asked. "That's unclear. We don't know if it's self-executing or if it requires some sort of implementing legislation. If it's not self-executing, then what does it do? Does it do anything?" "No one really knows what these amendments would do," said Linton. "And the supporters of these measures don't seem to have a consistent position on that." Despite these concerns, the push to enact personhood has momentum. Alabama State Senator Phil Williams is already working on a similar proposal in his state legislature. Scheidler remains unconvinced. "Maybe a better method is needed," he said. "Maybe we need to bring people first to recognize the humanity of the child at 20 weeks, at 10 weeks, at 5 weeks, and save all the babies we can right now." Such measures, he said, have been "successful in backing the abortion industry into a corner in many states, especially since the 2010 election." Scheidler says these incremental methods are not a form of compromise, but a realistic way of working toward the pro-life movement's goal. "We are all fighting for the same goal, which is an end to abortion," he said. He hopes activists focused on personhood can maintain good relations with those who choose other strategies. "The folks working for personhood, and those in the pro-life movement who have expressed opposition to these measures, all share a common goal," Scheidler said. "If we can't agree on that, then I think the movement's in big trouble." "But we can. We need to respect the fact that there are going to be differing opinions about the best strategy to use, to achieve that common goal." Source: CNA/EWTN News
While calls continue for Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from upcoming arguments over ObamaCare, experts say recusals are not uncommon. Kagan's fellow Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor had to recuse herself from a climate-change case in the previous term. Hans Von Spakovsy of The Heritage Foundation explains. "This was the American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut case [Docket No. 10-174]. The Supreme Court was reviewing the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit when that decision was made," he shares. "[Recusal] happens not that rarely." Spakovksy agrees that Kagan should recuse herself from hearing arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare"), based on the fact that Kagan's impartiality can be questioned with her having worked as solicitor general when the bill was debated in Congress and signed into law. Terry Jeffrey, author and editor of CNSNews.com, agrees. "Thurgood Marshall, who was solicitor general of the United States -- the same position that Elena Kagan was and for whom Elena Kagan clerked -- recused himself from many cases that came before the Supreme Court," Jeffrey tells OneNewsNow. The journalist explains that U.S. Code Title 28, Section 28 "dictates when a Supreme Court justice must recuse from a case when their impartiality can be reasonably questioned, and if they ever expressed an opinion about the merits of the case while in governmental employment." Prior to becoming solicitor general, Thurgood Marshall worked for the NAACP. Contact: Chris Woodward Source: OneNewsNow
Reports that one in six disabled persons in New York over the last decade have died from preventable causes has drawn sharp criticism from local media and disability advocates. "We are devaluing these people," Bobby Schindler of the Life and Hope Network told CNA, and "we are seeing" this kind of treatment "rationalized and justified everyday." The New York Times outlined death reports on Nov. 5 of developmentally disabled persons throughout the last 10 years. The newspaper found that those receiving care in New York died from unnatural causes at what appears to be an unusually high rate. One in six deaths, around 1,200 total, within state and privately run homes were blamed on unnatural or unknown causes. These numbers compare with one in 25 in Massachusetts and Connecticut which are two of the few states that track similar data. The New York case files suggest that the deaths were caused by neglect and could have been easily prevented, as they involved scenarios of disabled persons drowning, choking on food or falling down stairs. The paper profiled a story of 41-year-old James Michael Taylor, whose evening bath in 2005 "became a death sentence" when a caretaker placed him in a tub, turned on the water and left the room. Taylor, a quadriplegic who had the ability of a newborn to lift his head, slowly drowned in the next 15 minutes as the water rose over his body. Editors from Albany's Times Union newspaper called the situation a "disgrace," especially given that the state spends $10 billion a year in attempt to take care of the developmentally disabled. "New York should be doing more than just starting to catch up to other states," the editors said in a Nov. 9 blog post. "Its system should be a national model." In an interview with CNA, Bobby Schindler—whose sister Terri Schiavo died of starvation in 2005 after her husband won the right in court to remove her feeding tube—said that the figures reflect society's growing callousness toward the disability community. "It's always really disturbed and troubled me that because a person's physical appearance changes, because a person isn't able to do all the things an able bodied person can do, somehow their life is devalued," he said. "We saw this in Terri's case," Schindler added. "She was simply a woman with a disability and something that would have been thought of as barbaric not even that long ago happens every day and is ordinary today, sadly enough." Schindler founded the Life and Hope Network soon after Schiavo's death, which has given legal help over the last several years to more than 1,000 families of disabled persons facing similar issues. Source: CNA
An investigation into U.S. funds given to Kenya during the country's 2010 constitutional referendum suggests that the Obama administration gave $400,000 to an organization that promoted increased abortion access in the country. Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, said that the report "raises red flags" about the use of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign countries. Rep. Smith argued that "at a minimum the Obama Administration ignored" the Siljander Amendment, an annually renewed law that prohibits U.S. foreign assistance funds from being used to lobby for or against abortion in other countries. An investigation into the use of U.S. taxpayer money in Kenya surrounding the constitutional referendum was requested in May 2010 by Smith, as well as by Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress that works to improve the accountability of the federal government, conducted the investigation and released a report on Nov. 14 detailing its findings. The report indicated that the U.S. Agency for International Development gave $400,000 to the International Development Law Organization to offer analyses to aid those working to draft and finalize Kenya's new constitution. According to the report, the International Development Law Organization gave "advice on the issues of fetal rights and abortion, though the draft had not mentioned either issue" at that point. The organization suggested that the Committee of Experts – those charged with drafting the constitution – "consider adding language to make clear that the fetus lacks constitutional standing, and that the rights of women under these articles therefore take priority." The organization also gave examples of countries in which acknowledging a fetal right to life has posed an obstacle to abortion access. It suggested that Kenya may wish to take measures to protect "the legal right of access to abortion." One way to do so, it said, would be to clarify in the constitution that "a person is a human being who has been born." Congressman Smith criticized the Obama administration's decision to fund the International Development Law Organization. "If this isn't lobbying, what is?" he asked, noting that the organization continues to receive American taxpayer money to help create laws to implement the constitution. Smith acknowledged the importance of political reform in Kenya, where approximately 1,300 people were killed and tens of thousands more displaced in violent clashes surrounding the country's 2007 elections. "However, this needed reform should not be used by pro-abortion groups funded by the Obama Administration to rewrite the pro-life laws of Kenya," he said. Source: CNA
This is huge. Geron, which has spent many years touting its embryonic stem cell program as the future of regenerative medicine, is abandoning the field. From the Washington Post story: The company doing the first government-approved test of embryonic stem cell therapy is discontinuing further stem cell work, a move with stark implications for a field offering hope of future medicines for conditions with inadequate or no current treatments. And, there's a bias penalty flag on the field! Geron's decision does not provide "stark implications" given the tremendous advances made in ethical stem cell research, such as adult, induced pluripotent stem cell, umbilical cord stem cell, direct reprogramming from one type of cell to another, etc. Back to the story: Geron Corp., a pioneer in stem cell research that has been testing a spinal cord injury treatment, said late Monday that it's halting development of its stem cell programs to conserve funds. It is seeking partners to take on the programs' assets and is laying off much of its staff…In a statement, the company said the decision to narrow its focus "was made after a strategic review of the costs, … timelines and clinical, manufacturing and regulatory complexities associated with the company's research and clinical-stage assets." Gobbledygook. I am sorry, but this momentous decision deserves far more attention than a relatively short story in the business section. The media has been utterly fawning in its promotion of embryonic stem cell research for more than ten years, and still often reports that it is the best hope for regenerative treatments, when that is clearly no longer true. Indeed, the media has been so in the tank that it has often ignored far superior results from ethical approaches, as I have repeatedly detailed over the years. That being so, Geron and the media have an obligation to explain the why of this story in some detail and without spin. Was it the recent European ruling banning the patenting of embryonic stem cell products (about which I wrote) a factor? Was its human trial a disappointment? If it is out of money, why aren't venture capitalists more willing to invest more in the fielf if it is so promising? I am sure you all have questions of your own. Like I said, the issuance of a terse, jargon filled statement and a folding of tents is unacceptable. Time for the media to stop being suppine and dig into what actually happened here. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
The U.S. Senate could vote as early as today on a minibus spending bill that includes four measures that deeply concern pro-life advocates. One is that the State/Foreign Operations section of the bill (S 1601) includes an amendment to permanently ban any future president from issuing an executive order to eliminate funding for groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries. The "Mexico City Policy" has been a political football between pro-abortion and pro-life presidents since Ronald Reagan established it through an executive order; now the Obama administration is hoping to enforce its abortion-friendly vision on all future administrations by making it a law. The same section of the bill also sets aside $40 million for UNFPA, a non-governmental organization that supports and advocates for one-child abortion and sterilization policies abroad. The House State and Foreign Appropriations committee prohibits UNFPA funding for those reasons. The Financial Services section of the bill (S 1573) allows local taxpayer funds from the District of Columbia to be used to subsidize elective abortions in the city. It also eliminates an amendment banning funding for abortions and abortion coverage in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The Senate voted 81-14 last week to limit debate and move forward with the measure. Debate began Monday in the Senate; if it passes the minibus, the bill will have to meet the approval of the more pro-life House before it can be signed into law. Either way, the bill faces a contentious few days in the Senate. "This is one of the more pro-abortion pieces of legislation since I've arrived here," Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., told Congressional Quarterly last week, noting that he'll make efforts to add pro-life amendments. "There's a half a dozen areas that would have problems in my judgment, so if this goes to the floor for debate, then my amendments would be to try to deal with one or more of those issues." Should the House and Senate pass different versions of the bill this week, they will meet in a conference committee to work them out before voting on the final version. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
The region's sole abortion clinic, which has been shut down by order of the state since Sept. 30, believes its suspension was unwarranted, lacked factual basis and violated the constitutional rights of the clinic and its patients.According to the Northern Illinois Women's Center's Oct. 28 answer to the suspension, the clinic disagrees that it posed any direct threat to the public interest, health, safety and welfare.The Illinois Department of Public Health cited the Northern Illinois Women's Center, 1400 Broadway, for several health and safety violations in June and September.According to records from the state, most of the violations observed in a June inspection report were corrected later that month. But some violations — such as not having a registered nurse in the operating room and directing patient care — remained, and new ones — like doctors not having surgical privileges with a licensed Illinois hospital and not having a written agreement with a local laboratory — were noted when the state reinspected the clinic in September.In the clinic's answer, the clinic states the necessity of a registered nurse for certain procedures is not apparent, that it has an agreement with a Rockford physician with admitting privileges at a Rockford hospital if the need arises and that there is no evidence that the clinic's failures in these areas threatened the health, safety or welfare of its patients.At a hearing last month, attorneys for the clinic and state said they were reaching a settlement in the case. The attorneys will return to court Monday morning.Resolution could range from revocation of the clinic's license to allowing the clinic to reopen. The Northern Illinois Women's Center first opened in 1974.Contact: Corina Curry Source: Rockford Star
Catholic Illinois Governor Pat Quinn
had presented the award on behalf
of Personal PAC, a group dedicated
to getting pro-abortion politicians elected. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago slightly softened his criticism of Catholic Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn for agreeing to present a pro-abortion political group's award, after learning that the award was presented to a rape victim. Cardinal George, who had condemned Quinn's decision to "publicly [present] awards to ... advocates" of pro-abortion legislation, indicated remorse over the weekend after learning that the recipient of the award was rape victim and advocate Jennie Goodman. "That Ms. Goodman would feel attacked, I regret that very much," George said on Sunday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Join a Facebook page to end abortion here. However, the cardinal emphasized that he and the five other Illinois bishops who joined the criticism did not regret chastising the governor for his pro-abortion advocacy. "The statement is not about her, it is about Gov. Quinn, who on one hand identifies himself as a member of the Catholic Church and on the other hand is identifying himself strongly with a group that supports the killing of unborn children in their mothers' wombs," he said. Quinn presented the award on behalf of Personal PAC, a group dedicated to supporting pro-abortion candidates for political office. The governor, a Catholic politician known for espousing pro-abortion policy, complained that George had not communicated with him prior to issuing the critical statement. "I always feel that when you have an issue that you're concerned about, the best thing to do is pick up the phone, set up a time, an appointment, and come on in and have a face-to-face dialogue," said Quinn in another Tribune article Tuesday. Quinn had initially responded to the criticism by saying that honoring Goodman was "a proper Christian thing to do." Terry Cosgrove, president of Personal PAC and former advisor to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW, said that George had reached a "new low" by "accusing women of killing their children," and said Catholic Church leaders were merely angry that Quinn had triumphed over a pro-life opponent in the last gubernatorial race thanks in part to Personal PAC's involvement. Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com
A well-backed Democrat candidate who ran for a position on the board of a top beltway-area school system has been found guilty of assault for ramming a pro-lifer with her car during this year's national March for Life on January 24, LifeSiteNews has learned. Charisse Espy Glassman, the niece of former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, withdrew her candidacy for the Fairfax County Public School board after the charges were revealed by the Washington Post this summer. Glassman was convicted of one charge of simple assault, and found not guilty of a second charge of possession of a prohibited weapon. According to court records, Glassman was driving out of an alley near the Supreme Court building on the day of the March for Life when a woman stepped in front of the car, yelling at her to stop because of the crowd. Glassman allegedly laughed and kept moving forward until she hit the woman. Glassman's attorney appealed the ruling on Oct 26. The plaintiff in the case told LifeSiteNews.com this month that she suffered two herniated disks from the impact, and was compelled to file the suit for medical compensation after Glassman didn't return calls from her insurance company. Her attorney declined to discuss the case because it is still active. Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Last night, Rob Stein of the Washington Post published a fascinating piece on new technology that can potentially measure a person's level of consciousness by examining electrical activity in the brain. Disturbingly, those conducting the research have found that numerous patients diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state are in fact, fully conscious according to their brain electrical activity. This obviously begs many bioethical questions about the capacity to diagnose persistent vegetative state. The article is worth reading in full, but below are a few quotes capturing the main points: [In the experiment] "All the patients had the same terrible diagnosis: brain damage that marooned them in a "vegetative state" — alive but without any sense of awareness of themselves or the world around them." "But then an international team of scientists tried an ambitious experiment: By measuring electrical activity in the patients' brains with a relatively simple technique, the researchers attempted to discern whether, in fact, they were conscious and able to communicate." "…[O]ne man, and another, and, surprisingly, a third repeatedly generated brain activity identical to that of healthy volunteers when they were asked to imagine two simple things: clenching a fist and wiggling their toes." "You spend a week with one of these patients and at no point does it seem at all they know what you are saying when you are talking to them. Then you do this experiment and find it's the exact opposite — they do know what's going on," said Damian Cruse, a postdoctoral neuroscientist at the University of Western Ontario in Canada who helped conduct the research. "That's quite a profound feeling." "In 2006, Owen [a senior researcher in this study] and his colleagues described a young woman thought to be in a vegetative state. Her brain responded identically to a normal brain when scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as researchers asked her to imagine playing tennis or exploring her home. The case electrified neuroscientists. But it remained unclear whether it was a fluke… [I]n February 2010, Owen's team reported similar testing on 23 vegetative patients and 31 minimally conscious patients. Five repeatedly fired their brains in precisely the same way as normal volunteers as they underwent fMRIs while being asked to imagine hitting a tennis ball and wandering through their homes. One patient was able to answer yes or no to a series of questions by thinking about tennis for yes and touring his home for no." "The research inevitably raises questions about patients such as Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state whose family's dispute over whether to discontinue her care ignited a national debate over the right-to-die issue and congressional intervention in 2005. Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, said the new study highlights the limits of medicine in providing an accurate diagnosis." "Regrettably, Terri was never afforded these types of exams," Schindler wrote in an e-mail to The Washington Post. "Such testing could not have hurt Terri but could have helped her." Schindler and others called for a reconsideration of such diagnoses. These findings only reinforce our family's contention that the PVS diagnosis needs to be eliminated — particularly given the fact that it not only dehumanizes the cognitively disabled, but it is being used in some instances to decide whether or not a person should live or die, as it was used in Terri's case. None of us deserves to be deprived of food and water," he said." Contact: Jeanne Monahan Source: FRCBlog
Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said Wednesday that the "long and noble legal precedent for the personhood of unborn children did not suffer harm by the defeat of the ballot initiative in Mississippi. This measure would not have led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, but had a symbolic appeal for pro-life Americans. It was not drafted in such a way that it would conflict with Roe."
Dr. Yoest made the following observations about the hotly contested initiative:
"Once again we witnessed the willingness of the abortion lobby to fight with every dollar it possesses, with half-truths and with mud-against-the-wall tactics, misrepresenting the real impact of personhood as an issue under the law. The loss has no immediate implications as the initiative restricted what the government could do, not what individuals could do. The measure would have restrained government actions - government-funded abortions - and not abortions conducted by individuals or enterprises such as Planned Parenthood.
"The unborn child as a person under the law, who can be recognized in civil and criminal statutes, is a tradition stretching back to English law. Today, 38 states have wrongful death statutes so that grieving parents have a means of addressing the loss of a child in civil courts, and 37 states have fetal homicide laws on the books that carry criminal penalties. AUL has been on the forefront of these efforts as a source of model legislation for the two-pronged protections and recognitions of the personhood of the unborn.
"Pro-life Americans celebrated a significant number of successes during state legislative sessions this year. AUL's campaign to accumulate victories through strategic legislative gains led to 28 pieces of legislation alone. Despite the loss in Mississippi, a number of new pro-life pieces of legislation have taken their place in the law in defense of life.
"In Mississippi, abortion advocates confused voters with the impact, breadth and legal abstractions of this issue, which was vulnerable to attack in part because of its complex legal realities. But the importance of the recognition of the humanity of a child in the womb will not falter as a result of this vote."
For more information on personhood, click here.
Source: Americans United for Life
Voters in Mississippi have turned away an initiative that would have defined an unborn child in the womb as a "person" and effectively would have made abortion illegal in that state. Amendment 26, a historic pro-life initiative that attracted attention nationwide, went down to defeat convincingly Tuesday night (58% to 42% at press time). The measure would have amended the state constitution to affirm that personhood begins at conception. If it had passed, Mississippi would have become the first state to successfully declare "civil rights" for the unborn. Proponents had argued a vote for Amendment 26 was a vote for life and against abortion, while opponents -- apparently successfully -- convinced voters that the wording of the amendment was ambiguous and could result in unintended consequences, such as restricting certain types of birth control. Contact: Jody Brown Source: OneNewsNow
