Abortion Coverage in Obamacare Remains a Mystery

Whether buying your insurance from a state exchange or from the government health care website, it's almost impossible to find out whether you're paying for abortion coverage.

The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, released a report showing a lack of information available to consumers – albeit from the other side of the issue.

Guttmacher examined the online plan descriptions of 12 state exchanges that allow abortion coverage. Researchers reviewed the "summary of benefits and coverage" that the Affordable Care Act requires all plans to include. However, the template for the summary provided to states by the federal government does not include any place to disclose abortion coverage.

"It's not in the template, and plans are just following that," said Gretchen Borchelt with the National Women's Law Center, a pro-abortion organization. "It's a lack of awareness on their part, a lack of familiarity with what should be included."

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia allow abortion coverage; 24 states do not. Guttmacher found that in only four states that permit abortion coverage, just a handful of the plans spell it out.

Chuck Donovan, president of the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, recalls an article he wrote for The Heritage Foundation in 2010.

"Polls taken in the U.S. have routinely showed majority support for limits on taxpayer funding of abortion," he said, "Since 1976, restrictions on such funding have grown to span numerous public programs, including Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the Indian Health Service, appropriations for the District of Columbia, and many more. Nearly two dozen federal programs or agencies are covered by such policies, which include measures to protect the right of medical personnel and health care researchers not to participate in abortions."

Even as the administration was pushing for Obamacare, President Barack Obama told Congress, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Donovan said the Guttmacher report flies in the face of that assertion – and consumers are not happy.

"The people we communicate with are looking for the information," he said. "We're hearing complaints about it."

Source: CitizenLink

Nurse quits abortion industry after baby born alive is left to die

Marleen Goldstein worked in a hospital that performed abortions. After 30 years, she's come forward with her story.

According to Goldstein:

"My husband was a resident at a hospital and I just got 'the job of my dreams' at a nearby Oakland hospital. I was very much a believer in the abortion issue and now I felt I was going to be part of it.

"I got hired as a charge nurse at this clinic that did late term abortions. I spent about 30 days on the day shift getting familiar with everything. I would witness and assist the doctor in the actual procedure, injection of drugs to the fetus, the seaweed, etc. On the day shift I really never saw the actual start of the contractions or the termination process. I was uncomfortable, but I really thought to myself, this was something new and I needed to get more experience."

In these abortions, the woman was dilated with laminaria, which are sticks made of seaweed that are placed in the woman's cervix. These sticks slowly absorb fluid and dilate the cervix; they can be kept in overnight or longer. Drugs were injected into the baby to kill him or her on the first day the procedure. Late-term abortions are often performed in a similar way today .

Goldstein was insulated from some of the horror of these abortion procedures. She did not actually witness the dead baby or the pain of the women going through contractions.

Goldstein would later be promoted to a position where she would deal with the actual aborted babies. Other clinic workers have talked about how they were eased into the more difficult parts of their jobs in a similar way. They were started off doing things that were less emotionally difficult, such as record-keeping, receptionist duties or taking blood pressure, then gradually given more responsibilities until they were handling body parts or assisting in late-term abortions. By that time, they are "in too deep" and committed to their jobs. It is a way that some abortion clinics have been known to manipulate their workers.

Whether or not this was the case with Goldstein, she would have a life-changing experience working with one late-term abortion:

"One evening a young girl was having a very difficult time. I was there with the doctor. I knew even though the doctor wrote this patient was 15 weeks, she was close to 30 weeks. This happened quite a bit, but no one ever said anything."

Other abortion providers, such as Carol Everett and Kathy Sparks , have spoken about their clinics doing abortions further along than was legally allowed, and trying to hide that fact. Kathy Sparks' clinic disposed of illegally aborted late term abortions down the toilet .

Goldstein says:

"When she delivered this tiny baby (it looked full term to me) she was actually alive and crying. The doctor said to me, 'Put it in the room and close the door. Do not enter til the morning shift.' I immediately took the crying baby and wrapped it up and laid it in a room. I then immediately started calling hospitals around (against the doctor's wishes) to find someone that would take it. None around would take it cause they said it was not viable. I spent many hours trying. I just wanted to leave this place, but I knew I could not walk out and leave other patients without a charge nurse. Til this day I hear this crying infant in my head."

Despite her desperate efforts to get medical help for the child, the baby girl died. Goldstein quit her job, no longer an abortion supporter.

She says:

"I wish others that promote abortion, especially late term would experience what I did. The next day, I terminated my employment immediately and landed a job in a pediatric unit at another hospital."

This experience would change Goldstein's life in another way when, several years later, she experienced a difficult pregnancy of her own.

"After a few years I got pregnant and went into labor at 20 weeks. The doctors wanted me to terminate immediately due to my health. They stated that this baby would not be normal and I should try again. I refused and was in the hospital, then was at home on complete bedrest. I was not allowed to be alone.. I finally spiked a very high fever and was rushed into the hospital. I was quite early still.. He was supposed to be born in November, I had him in July. – a 2 pound 10 ounce little boy. This was 30 years ago. I was told that he was quite small and it would be touch and go to see what would happen. They also told me, 'Do not expect too much.' He was in the ISU for preemies for some time. He fought all the way and was perfectly normal. Today my son is a healthy young man. He is working on his 2nd Masters (MBA) and has a full time job. He is aware that he is lucky to be alive, cause if I did not have the experience I did early on, he would not be here today."

Goldstein showed great courage in fighting for that little girl's life 30 years ago. She also showed great courage fighting for her own son's life. And, finally, she has shown great courage in sharing her story. As more clinic workers leave the abortion business and courageously step forward to tell their stories, more and more people who are uninformed about abortion are hearing the truth. We can hope that those who have been ambivalent or uncertain about abortion will be swayed when they learn what abortion is really like, coming straight from "the horse's mouth": those who experienced performing these abortions first hand.

Editor's note. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the clinicquotes.com website. She is a member of Secular Pro-Life and PLAGAL. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Sarah Terzo

UN, Please Note that Abortion is not Maternal Health Care

The UN Commission on Population and Development held its annual meeting last week. Wendy Wright (C-FAM) delivered a statement jointly submitted by the Family Research Council, C-FAM and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

We must continue to hold the U.N. accountable for keeping maternal health as the priority in the agenda and not conflating it with abortion services. Here are some excerpts:

"Now better than ever before, we know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe for mothers. It takes investment in education, skilled birth attendants, prenatal and antenatal care, clean water and sanitation, adequate nutrition and vitamins, antibiotics and other healing medicines, and emergency obstetric care.

Making abortion legal doesn't improve maternal health in any way.

Maternal health care strives to make pregnancy safer for both mothers and their unborn children. Preventing births by aborting the unborn child, or preventing the human embryo from implanting in the mother's womb does not improve the health of the mother or her unborn child.

We know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe. Maternal health care, must remain a distinct and urgent priority in the post-2015 development agenda. This cannot be confused with elective abortion, which destroys the life of innocent unborn children and places the lives of mothers in jeopardy."

Let's work on real solutions to improve maternal health care around the world. Abortion is not the answer.

Source: FRC Blog

Visit Website

IPAS and Pro-Abortion Activist Groups Push "Universal" Right to Abortion

Editor’s note. This analysis was provided by PNCI, the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues.

Pro-abortion activists under the direction of Ipas have issued a declaration, The Airlie Declaration for Safe Legal Abortion, calling for “universal access to safe legal abortion” following a meeting near Washington, D.C. The declaration seeks to “repeal laws that criminalize abortion and remove barriers on women’s and girl’s access to safe legal abortion services” and to “make safe, legal abortion universally available, accessible, and affordable for all women and girls.”

The declaration was signed by mostly leaders and officials of pro-abortion organizations including Ipas, IPPF, Marie Stopes, and the Global Fund for Women with very few government officials endorsing the document. It was issued “against the backdrop of the 20-year review by the United Nations of the Program of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and global debates about the post-2015 development agenda.”

This statement follows yet another defeat for pro-abortion extremists at the recent meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which issued an outcome document that in the context of ‘reproductive rights’—which includes abortion—‘the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious background must be borne in mind.’ This was a clear defeat for those activists who lobby for “universal access to abortion”.

The target of the declaration is the next UN meeting, the Commission on Population and Development, April 7-11, which will evaluate progress on the ICPD Programme of Action which was enacted in Cairo in 1994.

Pro-abortion activists are frustrated that they have not had any success during UN meetings to advance their agenda beyond the gains made in Cairo in 1994. At the upcoming CPD countries will again likely debate whether or not recognition of the right to sovereignty on laws on abortion or recognition of cultural and religious backgrounds will be included in resolutions or outcome documents.

The growing strength of countries at the United Nations that oppose or restrict abortion is an encouragement to all who believe that the child in the womb has a right to life and that her or his mother deserves emotional and practical support.

This declaration is a sign of desperation to advance the antiquated concept of ‘universal access to abortion’ throughout the world while countries are increasingly moving in the opposite direction by upholding laws and policies that protect the unborn child and his or her mother from the violence of abortion. Countries with long histories of abortion on demand are recognizing the negative consequences of legal abortion and are enacting restrictions on abortion, including countries with high abortion rates such as Russia.

Other countries are learning from science and medicine that abortion causes pain to the unborn child and are acting to issue restrictions on abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. And yet others are appalled at the discrimination of sex selective abortion and are acting to protect the youngest females in the womb by banning sex selection abortion.

PNCI notes that there is no universal right to abortion, there is no recognized ‘right to abortion’ in any international treaty, however, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) does state, “…the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Laws against abortion provide special safeguards to the child before birth as urged by the CRC.

Ipas and other pro-abortion NGOs are targeting the post 2015 global development agenda that will set global UN priorities and budget goals for the future. Included in their ‘wish list’ is advance of universal access to abortion: “Ensure that government and donor priorities for the post-2015 global development framework incorporate safe, legal and accessible abortion as an integral component of gender equality and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights”.

Out-dated slogans and arguments on abortion cannot hide the fact that every abortion ends the life of a precious child and can have harmful physical, emotional, or psychological consequences for the woman. Women of the world deserve better. For starters, they deserve sustainable development that helps them and their children to thrive. Abortion does nothing to meet their needs.

Source: NRL News

Breathe deep and Exhale the truth: abortion hurts unborn children and their mothers

The unintentional irony—tragedy, really—of the graphic that accompanied the celebration of April as “Abortion Wellbeing Month” is hard to miss: two hands grasping each another with “You are” written on one and “Not alone,” on the other.

There is, however, a “you” who is alone: the unborn child.

We’ve written about Exhale and its founder, Aspen Baker, before. Likewise for its now fourth annual celebration of “Abortion Wellbeing Month,” whose goal, Baker tells us, is for “those with personal abortion experiences and their allies can come together to honor and acknowledge the importance of wellbeing”

Why? Baker says [the boldface is in the original]

“Women with personal abortion experiences are too often told how to feel or judged for feeling certain ways. Allies are too often unsure how to acknowledge and support those with personal experiences.

“This month is a time when, together, we can raise awareness that emotions of all kinds after abortion are common; and that feeling heard, supported and respected – without judgment – is important to the wellbeing of every woman who has an abortion.”

Baker argues that health and wellness after abortion requires “Understanding the whole picture of abortion in our lives.” She maintains,

“Each of us is more than just one person with our own thoughts and feelings—we are members of our families and communities. We’re in relationships. We experience nature. We share faith and spiritual beliefs. And abortion, while an event that happens in our body, is connected to so much more of who we are and what we believe in the world.”

So, she concludes, “Join us in celebrating wellbeing, connectedness, compassion, respect for those with personal abortion experiences by modeling the change you want to see in the world.”

What can we say?

We can say that just as much as her mother, the unborn child is a member of the family and the community.

We can say that the failure to “judge” the decision to abort is making a judgment—that none is needed. We can also say that condemning the woman (as opposed to the action] who has aborted is very unhelpful and highly unlikely to help her heal.

We can say to Baker, who describes the “storytelling” approach at Exhale as “pro-voice,” that we agree with her that abortion is “connected to so much more of who we are and what we believe in the world.” That is known as relationships, which we celebrate and which abortion severs.

We can say that where we most vigorously disagree is that in stilling the voice of the smallest, most vulnerable member of our family, she is “modeling the change you want to see in the world.” Abortion is the very opposite of what all of us ought to be striving for: win-win solutions.

Were it only so that there would be no need for an “Abortion Wellbeing Month” because there are no abortions.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Doctors tell mom to abort her baby girl five times, now that baby is an internet sensation

Grace Anna

After three miscarriages in a row, Angie Rodgers wasn’t expecting her next unborn child to survive to 40 weeks. But she had hope. So when doctors repeatedly told her to abort her baby, she knew the answer was no. She knew she needed to give her baby a chance at life.

At three months gestation, doctors discovered that Rodgers baby girl had a rare form of dwarfism. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Conradi-Hünermann syndrome is a rare genetic disorder characterized by skeletal malformations, skin abnormalities, cataracts and short stature. The specific symptoms and severity varies greatly from one individual to the next. It occurs almost exclusively in girls.

According to ABC News, doctors informed Rodgers that her daughter would likely be deaf and that her scoliosis could impair her lung function. Doctors also said her daughter would likely never walk.

And when Grace Anna was born via C-section, she was quickly rushed away due to meconium aspiration, a life-threatening condition that occurs as a result of a baby inhaling her first stool during or before delivery. Rodgers told ABC News:

“I didn’t know if she would make it – they didn’t tell me anything. I never saw her for the first 12 hours and when I did, she had scales on three-quarters of her body. The only place with no scales were her face and butt. They fell off in three months.”

Now, three years later, Grace is an adorable internet sensation, singing for the world on You Tube and gaining over 200,000 likes on her Facebook page. It all started when her mother shared a video of her singing The Star Spangled Banner. That video has over 350,000 views. And Grace has been invited to sing at events including a veterans’ benefit.

Her sweet voice and face have brought joy to thousands. And while she hasn’t yet begun to walk, Grace’s mom knows that her daughter has overcome ever obstacle thrown her way, and they’ve learned to take the advice of doctors with a grain of salt.

Grace, a little girl whom doctors thought wasn’t worthy of life, is singing her way into America’s hearts and hearts around the world.

Editor’s note. Nancy is a work at home mom who writes about parenting, special needs children, and the right to life. She is the lucky mother of three spirited little girls, one who has cystic fibrosis, and she spends any free moment she can find fundraising for a cure for CF. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

You can watch Grace Anna sing the National Anthem at www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLdjwpfcC8w

By Nancy Flanders, LiveActionNews.org

Feeding Tube Removed Despite Court Order

Wesley Smith

Texas has a medical futility–what I call Futile Care Theory–law permitting doctors to remove wanted life-support that works from a patient based on their views about quality of life.

Before that is done, patients/families are supposed to receive due process–such as it is–e.g., a hearing before a bioethics Star Chamber committee. Then, if the committee decides the treatment should end, the patient has 10 days to find a new hospital.

But here’s the thing: I believe that once a society determines that doctors can refuse wanted efficacious life-sustaining service–that becomes the meme–and eventually the due process part goes away.

That may be part of what happened in a case out of a hospital near Austin. As recounted by Thaddeus Mason Pope, an estranged wife (of 5 years!) authorized pulling the feeding tube of Terry Mace. His parents won guardianship and a court blocked the dehydrate decision.

But the hospital did it anyway. From the Austin State Journal story:

“Stephen Casey, one of the attorneys for Mace’s parents, said doctors at Seton Medical Center Williamson surprised the family by removing the feeding and hydration tubes for Mace sometime within the past few days. The 43-year-old Killeen man had been hospitalized since March 6, when he went into cardiac arrest and hit his head on a concrete floor.

“After receiving a phone call Monday morning from Mace’s father, Casey went to the hospital and saw the tubes had been removed. Mace’s father got a doctor to reconnect the hydration tube Monday afternoon, Casey said. Mace died about 1 a.m. Tuesday. The hospital’s director of communications, Adrienne Lallo, released a statement Tuesday afternoon saying the hospital had cooperated with Mace’s family.”

Some cooperation.

Apparently the hospital didn’t adequately explain that “comfort care” actually meant in Mace’s case, ”dehydrate to death:”

“Doctors had told Mace’s family over the weekend that they were providing ‘comfort care’ to him, meaning they were keeping him sedated and making sure he wasn’t choking, said Casey. Mace’s parents might have been confused about what kind of treatment their son was receiving, their lawyers said.”

This is how trust in our health care system is being steadily destroyed.

By Wesley J. Smith, National Review

911 Call Exposes Planned Parenthood's Disregard for Patient Health

Pro-Life Action League Releases Revealing Video of Emergency at Aurora Abortion Facility  AURORA, Ill., A disturbing video released by the Pro-Life Action League couples a 911 call from an abortion facility worker with footage of a female patient being hauled away on a stretcher and taken by ambulance from Planned Parenthood in Aurora, Illinois. The video sheds light on the recent spate of emergencies at abortion clinics around the country. In the audio recording of the phone call, the emergency operator tries to elicit information about the patient from the Planned Parenthood employee who placed the call. Despite repeated questioning by the 911 dispatcher, the abortion clinic worker would not give critical information about the patient's condition. The following is excerpted from the call: 911 dispatcher: Okay, what do you need an ambulance for?  Planned Parenthood staffer: Um, I was just directed by the doctor to call. I'm not sure what's going on with the patient. 911 dispatcher: Okay, can, can you -- I need some sort of information.  Planned Parenthood staffer: I, I --  911 dispatcher: Is there any way --  Planned Parenthood staffer: I honestly --  911 dispatcher: -- you can find that out?  Planned Parenthood staffer: Hm? The Planned Parenthood employee's unconcerned tone has drawn strong reaction from Pro-Life Action League Executive Director Eric Scheidler who declared, "Coming on the heels of a young woman's death at the hands of an abortionist in Cleveland, the recording of this 911 call sheds light on the abortion industry's pattern of neglect. This Planned Parenthood staffer has more to say about what entrance paramedics should use than the status of their patient in a health emergency. Is this how Planned Parenthood 'cares'?" Scheidler notes that Planned Parenthood didn't even bother to call 911 when Tonya Reeves was fatally injured during an abortion at one of their Chicago clinics in 2012. He suspects Planned Parenthood doesn't want pro-life activists to draw attention to what these 911 calls reveal about how abortion endangers women. "By saying as little as possible about an emergency -- or simply not bothering to call 911 -- Planned Parenthood is showing that what they really care about is sheltering their abortion business from public scrutiny." View the Planned Parenthood 911 call video here and read Scheidler's commentary here. Contact: Tom Ciesielka

Senate Bill 3076 - POLST bill passes IL Senate

Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] form amendment or SB 3076 has passed the Senate as of April 3rd and is in the House Rules Committee waiting to be assigned to a standing House committee.

SB 3076 amends the Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] form to allow for "practitioners" other than physicians to sign the POLST form.  The other "practitioners" include "advanced practical nurse, physician's assistant or licensed resident after completion of one year in a program."  It requires POLST forms to be honored by health facilities.

Problems with SB 3076:

The POLST form, which gives no distinctions for terminal and non-terminal conditions, is more for removing "life-sustaining" treatment than for protecting patients with "life-sustaining" treatment.  SB 3076 would change the long-standing relationship of doctor and patient in matters of end-of-life decisions by having nurses and even less qualified physician's assistants talk to patients about these decisions and authorize "actionable medical orders" including "do-no-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

A patient who signs a POLST form can check a box "do-not-attempt-resuscitation" if he/she stops breathing and the pulse stops.  This is an "actionable medical order" to do nothing even if CPR would clearly be called for in a medical situation.  For example, an allergic reaction to a medication can stop the breathing and pulse, but most patients would want to have CPR.  The POLST form says NO.

Also, many elderly and frail patients may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form, and so should have better education and options that the POLST form does not give.

Pro-Life has broad concerns with the POLST forms.  One clear concern is that private foundations that have put their money into promoting POLST have also given large amounts of money to the Euthansia organizations.

We will bring you more information as it becomes available.

National Right to Life Commends Senator Pat Roberts for Bill to Repeal Rationing in Obamacare

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Ks.)

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Ks) introduced the “Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act,” which targets the four key rationing components of Obamacare identified in a March 6, 2014, report by the National Right to Life Committee’s Powell Center for Medical Ethics, “The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States,” available at www.nrlc.org/communications/healthcarereport.

“Senator Pat Roberts, who has been a tireless campaigner for the right to life, has since 2009 repeatedly taken a leadership role in fighting rationing of life-saving medical treatment, food, and fluids,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Although Americans are waking up to many of its flaws, too few are aware of what Senator Roberts has consistently highlighted – how Obamacare limits the right to use one’s own money to get health insurance less likely to deny life-preserving health care.”

The Roberts (S. 2191) bill targets four rationing provisions of Obamacare for repeal:

1) the “excess benefit” tax coming into effect in 2018,

2) the current exclusion of adequate health insurance plans from the exchanges,

3) present limits on senior citizens’ ability to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment for health insurance in Medicare Advantage, and

4) federal limits on the care doctors give their patients to be implemented as soon as 2016.

Excess benefits tax. Starting in 2018, Obamacare will impose a 40% excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not keep up with medical inflation. Consequently, insurance companies will be forced to impose increasingly severe restraints on policy-holders’ access to diagnostic tests and treatment—limits that will make it harder to get often-expensive treatments essential to combatting life-threatening illnesses. “Keeping employers from spending relatively little more to buy better insurance impacts us all, not just their employees,” stated Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life. “When those who can afford to spend more on health insurance are prevented from doing so, it severely dampens the costly research and development that gives those at all income levels access to innovative drugs and treatments that improve the ability to save lives and improve health.”

Excluding Insurers from Exchanges. Under Obamacare, consumers using the exchanges may only choose plans offered by insurers who do not allow their customers to spend what government bureaucrats deem an “excessive or unjustified” amount for their health insurance. “We are already seeing most exchange plans deny access to top specialists and medical centers,” Culp noted, “but few reports explain this is because insurers who provide greater access to care are excluded from the exchanges.”

Medicare Limits. Most senior citizens know that Obamacare will cut half a trillion dollars for Medicare over a decade, but they may not be aware of the law’s provision allowing Washington bureaucrats to prevent them from making up the Medicare shortfall with their own funds by limiting their right to spend their own money to obtain insurance through Medicare Advantage less likely to limit treatments that could save their lives.

Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). IPAB is directed to recommend measures to limit spending on health care to a growth rate below medical inflation – not just for Medicare, but also for all private, nongovernmental health care spending. The federal Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is then authorized to implement these measures by placing limits on the treatments providers may give their patients by imposing so-called “quality and efficiency standards.”

“Obamacare authorizes Washington bureaucrats to create one uniform, national standard of care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives,” stated Culp. “We are convinced most that Americans do not believe that the government should limit the right of Americans to use their own money for health insurance that is adequate to save their lives. We commend Senator Roberts for his bill and his consistent leadership to end Obamacare’s rationing. ”

The report is available from the National Right to Life Communications Department here: www.nrlc.org/communications/healthcarereport.

"Therapeutic cloning" back on the boil

Shoukhrat Mitalipov

After a couple of years in hibernation, the notion of “therapeutic cloning” is once again in the headlines. The latest development comes from Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a Russian-educated researcher at Oregon Health and Science University.

In a paper in Nature, his team reports that they have successfully created embryonic stem cells using a technique which bypasses the need for egg cells. Instead, the nucleus from an adult cell was placed in an enucleated zygote at the two-cell stage (which is also called the interphase). For some reason this dramatically increases the chance of the new cell’s successful development.

Scientists had previously thought the interphase stage — a later stage of the cell cycle — was incapable of converting transplanted adult cell nuclei into embryonic stem cells.

Apparently Mitalipov and his team have succeeded because they carefully synchronized the cell cycles of the adult cell nucleus and the recipient embryonic cytoplasm. Both had to be at an almost identical point in their respective cell cycles for the process to work. “That was the secret,” Mitalipov said. “When we did that matching, then everything worked.” The next stage is using the same process in monkeys and after that, humans.

Reviving the powerful “therapeutic cloning” rhetoric of a decade ago, a university press release claimed that this was a great step forward for regenerative medicine: “Human embryonic stem cells are capable of transforming into any cell type in the body. Scientists believe stem cell therapies hold promise for someday curing or treating a wide range of diseases and conditions — from Parkinson’s disease to cardiac disease to spinal cord injuries — by replacing cells damaged through injury or illness.”

Although the technique does seem to advance understanding of cell reprogramming, it still poses significant ethical challenges.

First, the source material. In the past, “therapeutic cloning” was not only difficult but impractical and expensive. It depended on access to a huge supply of human eggs. Extracting these is quite dangerous for women and potentially quite exploitative. A market in eggs would be needed.

However, Milatipov apparently envisages using “surplus” eggs from IVF clinics. There are hundreds of thousands of these frozen and stored in the clinics. Embryos will be far cheaper as a raw material for research than eggs – but also far more controversial ethically.

Second, although media reports and the university press release skirted around this issue, two embryos are destroyed in the process: the “surplus” embryo from the IVF clinic, and the cloned embryo created by the researchers, which is dissected for its stem cells.

Third, although media reports tiptoed around the “c-word”, Milatipov’s process is basically an elaborate form of cloning. It could also be used for human reproductive cloning. There are no hints of this in his paper, of course, but the easier it is to produce pluripotent human embryonic stem cells, the easier it will be for rogue scientists to produce human clones.

Editor’s note. This appeared at bioedge.org.

By Michael Cook, NRL News

Two teenagers who survived failed abortions speak out

In 2012 the movie October Baby was seen on big screens across America. The story of a girl named Hannah who discovered her lifelong medical conditions were linked to surviving a failed abortion was an eye opening hit. The story was based on the life of Gianna Jessen, a pro-life speaker whose cerebral palsy came as a result of surviving a late term saline injection abortion. Audiences found the film compelling because many had never heard the story of an abortion survivor. In our country we hear stories from women who’ve chosen abortion, men who’ve paid for it and doctor’s who’ve performed them. Rarely do we hear the true stories from the children who survived death by miraculous intervention.

The Abortion Survivors Network tells the stories of children who made it out alive. Take Courtney’s story for example. She writes:

‘My name is Courtney. I’m sixteen years young. When I was 14, I was told that I am adopted. When I was 14, I also learned that there was much more to the story of my life. Not only am I adopted, but I am an abortion survivor. When my birth mother was somewhere around 7 weeks pregnant, she had an abortion. Five weeks or so later, she went for a post-op checkup, and it was discovered that I was there in the womb. She didn’t know that she was pregnant with twins when she had the abortion.’

Tragically Courtney’s twin was aborted. Thankfully her mother refused the option of having another abortion to destroy Courtney. Instead she chose to place her in a loving adoptive family. On June 19, 1996 the adoptive family got a phone call saying Courtney’s birth mom was having pains and didn’t think her daughter would survive.

Courtney was born at 27 weeks. Doctor’s didn’t think she would live much longer after birth. She spent three months in the hospital and was sent home, weighing just one pound and two ounces. Courtney says the doctors didn’t even send a sleep apena machine home with her because they didn’t think she’d make it through the winter. Courtney is a fighter who proved them wrong. She was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and Right Hydronephrosis. She’s had four foot surgeries. Aside from that she is alive and well through the help of her loving family and friends.

In Jan 2013 Courtney began sharing her story publicly. She hopes to change the lives of people when it comes to abortion. Courtney writes:

‘It’s a choice–a choice between life and death for a child. A baby is a gift from God and NEVER a mistake. I am a miracle and I believe God put me here for many reasons. I think two of them are to change lives, and to help people who need it’.

The Abortion Survivors Network website also holds the story of a boy named Josiah Presley. Josiah’s story was originally told on the Abolish Human Abortion website. Josiah’s mom had an abortion in South Korea when she was two months pregnant. As the months passed after the abortion Josiah’s mom realized she was still carrying a child. She later placed him with an adoptive family in the U.S. The attempted abortion caused Josiah’s left arm to be deformed. Josiah wrote his story because he wants people to know that he never wanted his mom to try and take his life. Josiah has an answer to the question, “What will happen to the babies if we don’t abort them?” He says:

“Trust me, they will be adopted. My adopted family has twelve children, ten of which were adopted! They will be adopted! I mean, if we would stop funding the stuff to do abortions and put it towards making adoption fees lower, many would adopt because many who want to adopt can’t afford the high adoption fees and therefore can’t adopt.”

Josiah has a heart to defend the children who are being aborted. He says: ’What makes them any different from us besides the fact that they are innocent and can’t defend themselves against these huge abortion bullies killing them?’

He believes abortion is wrong because we are killing our completely innocent offspring. For those who don’t believe fetuses in the womb are human beings worthy of protection, Josiah says, “Well, I differ with that thought because it was that same thinking that almost ended my life 15 years ago”.

For more abortion survivors stories or to share your own survival story, visit theabortionsurvivors.com.

Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Christina Martin, NRL News

Bill Supporting Abstinence Education Funding Heads to White House

Both chambers of Congress have approved legislation that would fund the nation’s largest abstinence education program — the same one President Obama tried to stop.

“Despite the president’s desire to see abstinence programs completely eliminated, we are pleased that the Senate has voted to continue this important program,” said National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) President Valerie Huber. “We are especially pleased that bipartisan support has made the continuation of this valuable program possible.”

Obama proposed a budget earlier this month that would have eliminated funding for all such programs — also called sexual risk avoidance (SRA) programs.

H.R. 4302, passed by the Senate on Monday, extends funding through fiscal year 2015. The same bill also extends a Sexual Risk Reduction effort.

Research shows such programs are more effective, according to NAEA. Students are more likely to delay sex than their peers — if they are sexually active — and are more likely to discontinue sex or have fewer partners.

And parents, overall, favor the abstinence education approach, Huber explained.

“They recognize that it is much more than a ‘Just Say No’ approach,” she said. “SRA abstinence education reaches youth where they live and addresses issues they are concerned about. Parents don’t want their children to have a false sense of security from those who equate ‘safe sex’ with a condom or who make teen sex seem inevitable and risk-free. Parents want the best health outcomes for their children, so it is no surprise that they favor sexual risk avoidance programs.”

On the other hand, comprehensive sex education programs teach “several harmful and disturbing themes,” according to NAEA. Some of these include:

• Overstated, exaggerated claims of condom usage rates and effectiveness
• Inaccurate suggestions that “abstinence” and “safe” sex are equally safe and healthy choices
• Presentation of sexually explicit and other inappropriate content

NAEA thanked Senate leadership for passing the bill, especially Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, “for leading the efforts to continue this proven and holistic risk avoidance approach.”

“We are especially grateful for political leaders,” Huber said, “who are able to transcend differences to do what is truly in the best interest of our nation’s youth.”

TAKE ACTION
Urge President Obama to sign legislation that would that fund the nation’s largest abstinence education program.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

(Editor’s Note: The reauthorization of the abstinence program was included in the Senate passage of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.)
Learn more about H.R. 4302.

Read “The National Abstinence Education Foundation Releases Abstinence Works.”

Read “What so-called ‘Comprehensive’ Sex Education Teaches to America’s Youth.”

POLST's Potential for Abuse

With the growing technocracy in medicine, it becomes increasingly difficult for patients to have actual control over their own care. Everything has become so (expletive deleted) arcane! Mind numbing, which is very dangerous because there is great potential for abuse in them-thar hills.

Take the POLST, which stands for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment. This is a document placed in the patient’s chart that directs the medical team how to care for a patient in the event of a life-threatening circumstance.

POLST is different from an advance directive, such as the durable power of attorney for health care. But it is supposed to reflect patient or surrogate desires,and thus, be consistent with the AD. But if the POLST contradicts the AD, its instructions may be carried out instead of what a patient directed in his or her AD.

POLSTs follow the patient if he or she changes care/treating institutions. That means a mistake made in hospital A follows the patient to nursing home B.

POLST forms do not expire, and thus they can bind a patient years after signing,even if they no longer reflect patient desires.

California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform has published an important white paper that should be pondered by anyone with a loved on in a nursing home or hospital. Since I think these findings may not be exclusive to California, I share afew highlights with you here:

1. Virtually anyone (in CA) can sign a POLST form–it doesn’t necessarily have to be the patient, closest family member, or appointed surrogate. The potential for abuse is obvious.

2.The (CA) law does not require POLST orders to be compared with a patient’s advance directive to assure they are consistent. That means a POLST order could require care a patient does not want, or more likely, visa versa.

3.POLSTs are not mandatory, but 73% of patients were often or always told that they are, and apparently, there are reports of manipulation of patient “choices.”

4. Non-health care professionals often fill out the POLST forms contrary to law. That’s a problem:

In long-term care facilities, a staggering 57% of all POLSTs are believed to be completed by non-health care professionals such as admission coordinators and business managers. While these persons may possess some basic knowledge of health care, they are not experts in medicine and the issues of end-of-life care. Thus, many important choices on the form and their implications may be inaccurately explained or not explained at all, leading to violations of patients’ basic rights to give informed consent prior to medical treatment.

5. This part is also really scary: Apparently POLST orders have been signed by family members even though the patient was competent! 

One Long-term Care Ombudsman in Los Angeles reports that multiple nursing homes have a standard practice of having POLSTs signed by resident family members, regardless of whether the resident has capacity to make health care decisions. This observation is reinforced by the fact that 59% of surveyed Ombudsman found that POLSTs were signed by third parties, even when the resident had capacity, “often” or “sometimes.”

Think of a family member whose potential inheritance is being drained by the costs of care. Or, a family member with a different good faith perspective than the patient. If they sign a POLST, their views– instead of the patient’s–will be followed.

I know this is eye-glazing but attention must be paid!

I was the named health care surrogate for my late aunt. I was offered a POLST to sign–and did. But I required that I be called before life-impacting decisions were made in almost all circumstances–DNR excepted, per her expressed AD wishes. In that way, I retained control to react to actual circumstances. That approach worked out very well for my aunt as she was dying.

Just a suggestion, but if you are a surrogate and asked to sign a POLST, you consider doing likewise. The life you save may be that of someone you love.

For more information on POLSTs than I can give here, see this fact sheet from the always elucidating Patients Rights Council.

By Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Nine Years ago today Terri Schiavo died after 13 days without food and water

Terri Schindler Schiavo, shown here as she responds to the tender touch of her mother, Mary Schindler.

Today is the ninth anniversary of the grotesque death by starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler Schiavo. The foundation established by her family, the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, is holding a Mass for her today at the Chapel of the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter & Paul in Philadelphia. The mass will be celebrated by the great pro-life hero Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia.

I would like to use this somber again to update comments I’ve made about Terri and her brave parents and siblings. As you will see when I looked at Terri, I could never get another death by starvation out of my heart and mind.

When your life revolves around trying to stem the anti-life tide that has swept away 56 million unborn lives, you might think that the power of individuals cases—instances where the fate of one human life hangs in the balance—would be diminished. You would be wrong.

I had been at National Right to Life only few months when the case of an Indiana baby—“Baby Doe”—became a topic of intense debate. As the letter to the Movement that we reprint from President Reagan explained, when this little boy was born in 1982, he needed only routine surgery to unblock his esophagus which would allow him to eat. Except Baby Doe had Down syndrome.

“[A] doctor testified, and a judge concurred, that even with the physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a ‘non-existent’ possibility for a ‘minimally adequate life,’” the President wrote back in 1984. “The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.”

As I wrote at the time,

“Up until the time that tiny newborn baby died of starvation I took my pro-life commitment very seriously but impersonally. Baby Doe’s unnecessary death forever changed that for me, and I’m sure for many others as well.”

I did not learn of Baby Doe’s plight until near the very end of his very brief life. That was not the case with Terri Schindler Schiavo. When Terri died on March 31, 2005, having been denied nourishment for 13 agonizing day, the 41-year-old’s starvation death brought to an end—in one sense, at least—a tumultuous, eleven-year battle between the Schindler family and Terri’s estranged husband.

The Schindler family waged their courageous fight in multiple courts, in the Florida legislature, in the halls of Congress, until January 24, 2005, when the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Florida’s then Governor Jeb Bush. The justices refused to reinstate “Terri’s Law.” The law had been passed by the Florida legislature in an emergency session in October of 2003, signed into law by Gov. Bush, and protected Terri Schindler-Schiavo from a painful death by starvation and dehydration.

It is enough to say that if, as the saying goes, truth is “the first casualty in war,” then long before the campaign to starve and dehydrate Terri to death succeeded, all the important details had been thoroughly distorted. Virtually nothing—her true medical condition (Terri was falsely described as being a “persistent vegetative state” and/or “brain dead”), what she alleged would have “wanted” (to die this horrible death), her condition after 11 days (described by her estranged husband’s attorney as “peaceful,” “beautiful,” and/or “free of pain”)—was within hailing distance of the truth.

Terri’s memory lives on in the work of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network (www.lifeandhope.com).

Maybe the best way to end these remarks is to quote from pro-life President George W. Bush who worked hard on the Schindler family’s behalf.

“The essence of civilization,” he said, “is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Rep. Chris Smith: Obamacare's "attack on religious freedom is no accident"

Editor’s note. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chair of the House Bipartisan ProLife Caucus, issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the religious freedom cases of Sebelius, Sec. of H&HS v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, Sec. of H&HS.

Washington, D.C.–

Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

I am grateful that the Supreme Court took up this critical case for religious liberty, and I am hopeful that the Court will provide much needed relief from this discriminatory Obamacare policy.

Under the Obama administration’s coercive mandate, family-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood have found themselves in the impossible position of being forced to violate their moral or religious beliefs, or face crippling fines. And this not only puts businesses at serious and unnecessary risk, but also employees who may lose their jobs and their healthcare.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama administration to coerce family businesses that provide generous healthcare for their employees into a situation that may force them to close. The Obamacare financial penalties are draconian, egregious and without precedent in U.S. law. Under Obamacare, a family business that does provide healthcare for its employees, like Hobby Lobby, but objects to covering certain drugs and services will be fined up to $36,500 per year per employee. That’s outrageous. For the Greene family of Hobby Lobby, this could amount to nearly half a billion dollars in fines per year.

I would note parenthetically that a company that does not provide any health insurance whatsoever for their employees will be fined $2000 per year per employee, an unfair burden to be sure but far less than $36,500 per year per employee if they refuse to include certain drugs or devices that violate their moral or religious tenants. For the Greene family of Hobby Lobby, dumping their existing healthcare coverage for employees could result in fines of up to $26 million per year or potentially $448.5 million less in fines than if they actually provided health insurance.

This burdensome penalty is completely unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable. The Obama administration is saying we will punish you, we will hurt you, we could even put you out of business for providing healthcare for your employees unless you provide healthcare according to the government’s conscience. Also, employees currently on their businesses health plan could lose the coverage they need for themselves and their families. Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have no business imposing their morality on people of faith, but that is exactly what their oppressive mandate does.

The Supreme Court has a duty to protect the religious and conscience rights of the Greens and the Hahns [owners of Conestoga Wood] and everyone else suffering government imposed harm. The U.S. high court must act to protect the First Amendment rights of these families. Protecting them also protects their employees from the dire, foolish, and unprecedented consequences of the Obamacare mandate.

And let’s make no mistake about it, this mandate is very much Obama’s willful intention. The imposition of this attack on religious freedom is no accident. It comes straight from the pages of Obamacare. In December of 2009, in the run up to the passage of Obamacare, Senator Mikulski offered an amendment which provided the authorizing language for this oppressive mandate. When President Obama spoke at Notre Dame University (also currently suing over the mandate) in 2009, he spoke about drafting a “sensible conscience clause” – and yet, today, protection of conscience is another highly visible broken promise of Obamacare.

To tell people that their conscience is irrelevant and that they must follow the federal government’s conscience rather than their own is completely antithetical to the American principle of freedom of religion and the first amendment. Unless reversed, Obama’s attack on conscience rights will result in government-imposed discrimination against those that seek to live according to their faith. Under the weight of the mandate’s ruinous fines and penalties many businesses could be forced to shut down, eliminating jobs. I never would have believed this kind of religious violation could occur in the United State. The Supreme Court must end this abuse.

By Cong. Chris Smith