Alternative Found for Unethical Embryonic Stem Cell Research

James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Kyoto University’s Shinya Yamanaka have each reprogrammed human skin cells, and reverted them back to an embryonic-like stem-cell state.  This advance offers tremendous hope that every therapeutic benefit scientists believed could be derived from therapeutic cloning can instead be achieved by regressing a patient’s own tissues.  The process avoids the destruction of human embryos to obtain their stem cells.

Thomson published in the medical journal Science while Yamanaka published in Cell.  In both cases researchers found a way — called direct reprogramming — to make adult stem cells revert to their embryonic form.  The technique involves the introduction of 4 genes into the skin cells, thereby “reprogramming” them to a less specialized (pluripotent) state.  The reprogrammed cells share essentially all the features of human embryonic stem cells.

The good news about the process is that it can be replicated easily.  After the November 2007 reports, scientists at Harvard replicated the results in December.   By February 2008 UCLA scientists were able to replicate the studies and create the skin cells without destroying human embryos.   That report appeared in the academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  Kathrin Plath, an assistant professor of biological chemistry at UCLA and lead author of the study, indicated that the stem cells they created “were virtually indistinguishable from human embryonic stem cells.”

These positive results motivated Ian Wilmut to announce that he had rejected human cloning research, in favor of using cell reprogramming as an ethical and uncontroversial means of obtaining pluripotent cells.   Given that Wilmut opened the Pandora’s Box of human cloning with the creation of Dolly the sheep, and two years ago obtained a license from the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to create cloned human embryos from the cells of Lou Gehrig’s disease patients, his rejection of human cloning research stunned the scientific world.

Trusted Health Care Provider or Greedy Abortionist?

Planned Parenthood prominently displays phrases such as “trusted local provider of health information and services” on many of its affiliates’ web sites.  Are the actions of Planned Parenthood consistent with its words?  If the actions of their Missouri affiliate are representative, the answer is a loud “NO”.

In August 2007 Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri joined legal action to prevent enforcement of a new Missouri law.   What did that law demand?  The law requires abortion clinics to comply with the same health standards as other medical clinics.  Planned Parenthood stated the stringent requirements could result in the closing of abortion businesses that are unable to comply.  The implication of this point is that abortionists should not be required to comply with safety codes if they might be forced to close locations that do not meet health standards.  In other words, abortion availability trumps safety considerations for Planned Parenthood.  Does this action seem consistent for a “trusted” health care provider?  Should this condescending attitude assure women that Planned Parenthood really has concern for their safety?  

We can certainly conclude that Planned Parenthood does not want any oversight on whether its facilities are safe.  Even though Planned Parenthood got $305.3 million in taxpayer funds in its last reporting year, its highly paid executives are not willing to spend money to comply with safety regulations.

But Planned Parenthood recently filed another lawsuit in Missouri.   This time they are opposing a referendum that might be placed on the ballot.  What does the referendum do?  Planned Parenthood claims the measure would ban most abortions in the state, and is trying to keep it from appearing on the ballot. 

The organization seeking signatures to place the contested referendum on the ballot is called Stop Forced Abortions Alliance.  They state their referendum “does not ban any abortions nor does it make any abortions illegal.”    So what does the referendum do?  It “clarifies in statute the duty of physicians to screen for statistically proven risk factors which identify women at higher risk of physical or negative complications of abortion” and “clarifies the duty of abortion providers to ask whether a patient is feeling pressured into the abortion.”  Provisions for recourse in cases of negligent screening “are enforced solely by injured women through civil remedies.”

Why does Planned Parenthood claim the referendum will ban most abortions?   Apparently, Planned Parenthood likes to exaggerate to get headlines when filing a lawsuit.  Maybe Planned Parenthood wants to distract people from considering their real reason for filing this lawsuit.   If this referendum passed, would it cost Planned Parenthood money?  That must be their reason for opposing the referendum! 

How would this measure cost money?  It would require Planned Parenthood’s abortionists and staff to spend more time with patients, and result in some of those patients eventually choosing against abortion.  Planned Parenthood knows this referendum will not ban a single abortion, but they cannot tell the public they refuse to spend any more time to educate women on abortion risks or to help women make their own choice in cases where they are being forced into abortion. 

Planned Parenthood wants the money from all those abortions, but they keep telling the public they are trying to reduce abortion.  This referendum would certainly reduce abortions in Missouri.  Planned Parenthood’s opposition to it proves their slogan about reducing abortions is false, and also shows once again that Planned Parenthood is much more concerned about abortion revenue than either the safety or the personal choice of the women on whom they commit abortion. 

Is that why we are learning of cases where rapists relied on Planned Parenthood to commit abortions on their victims to cover the rapes?   Missouri must be another “ground zero” for Planned Parenthood in the battle over abortion, right beside Aurora, Illinois.   And we have not even covered the 107 criminal charges filed against Planned Parenthood in Missouri!  Do you think Planned Parenthood is a “trusted local provider of health information and services?”   I think “greedy abortionist” might be a better description.

Bill Beckman

More Evidence Access to Birth Control Does Not Reduce Abortion

You must have heard the repeated claim that better access to birth control would reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion.  Maybe it would be helpful to take a step back from such slogans to check out the real world.  Consider the situation in Spain, as reported by LifeSiteNews on January 7th, where the abortion rate has doubled since 1997.

According to Forum Libertas, the Spanish pro-family web site, the use of contraceptives has increased 60% since 1997, and “morning after pill” use has increased 67% since it was introduced in the year 2000.  Such increases must represent “better access to birth control” so what happened to abortion?  According to recently released government figures Spain’s surgical abortion rate has now reached over 100,000 annually, double the 1997 total of less than 50,000.   How many additional medical abortions have taken place using RU-486?

Forum Libertas observes, this increase has occurred despite the promotion of contraception and the introduction of the “morning after pill”, which are touted by their promoters as a means of avoiding the “necessity” of a later abortion.  The results speak for themselves.   After a substantial increase in the use of contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, the abortion rate has doubled.  Planned Parenthood claims such circumstances should cut the abortion rate in half.   The real world results totally refute Planned Parenthood’s claims.  

President’s Report: The End of Roe? 

On January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Free Choice, (not a Catholic organization) and Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, collaborated on a letter calling on the pro-choice forces to regain the moral high ground.  Has the killing of innocent unborn babies ever been the moral high ground?  

They recognize the successes of the pro-life movement in passing laws that restrict abortion – restricting Federal funds for abortion, parental consent or notification, mandatory waiting periods, and pre-abortion counseling.  For obvious reasons, they didn’t mention the ban on partial-birth abortion or the increase on laws requiring ultrasounds for women to see their baby before making the “choice.”  They even acknowledge that the Pro-Life movement is a respectable point of view.

Over the years, while the unborn baby has become more visible through science, the pro-aborts have insisted on a woman’s constitutional right to choose.   Pro-lifers have insisted that we look at what is being decided. “Advocates of choice have a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus.  The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women.”  Kissling and Michelman claim that at times, this has made them seem “insensitive.”  “John Paul II coined the term ‘culture of life.’ President Bush adopted it and it moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.”  You bet!

Planned Parenthood has announced they will spend $10,000,000 to insure that a pro-abort is elected.  They are pinning their hopes on the health care plan of Hillary Clinton which will include coverage for abortion.  Are the pro-aborts admitting that they are loosing the battle for abortion in America to the Culture of Life?

At the evening Mass on January 21, opening the National Prayer Vigil for Life, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the US Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said just that – Roe will not stand.  He described the comments of Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, stem cell researcher credited with the discovery of turning adult skin cells into the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells without using an actual embryo. He said,

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. . . . I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research.  There must be another way.”  Cardinal Rigali said, “If God can use a helpless embryo to change a human heart, he can certainly use us with all our limitations and weaknesses.”

Science has provided us with a window to the womb where we see a living, moving unborn baby.  Men and women are finally addressing the damaging and life changing effects of abortion in their own lives. High school and college students have seen the results of abortion on their friends and in their own families. They have joined the Pro-Life movement in full force and they insure its future.  These are all signs of hope and of victory for the end of abortion. We don’t have to work to regain the moral high ground.  The defense of human life in all  stages and conditions of dependency is the moral high ground.

Mary Anne Hackett

Abortions Down in Illinois?

“Abortions at 30-year low” was the main headline of the 1/17/08 Chicago Tribune.  The sub-headline was “Illinois sees large drop: 19% in 5 years.”  It is certainly good news if abortions nationally have dropped to 1.21 million from 1.3 million over the last five years, but what about Illinois?  A check of the abortion statistics published for Illinois by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) did not show a 19% drop in abortions.

Abortions in 2000 were 45,884 and in 2005 43,409.  That change is only a 5.4% drop, far lower than the stated 19% drop.  To  emphasize that point further, IDPH data for 2006 shows 46,467 abortions in Illinois, higher than the total for 2000, so no decrease at all.  Unfortunately, abortions are not dropping in Illinois.  

Of course, Illinois does not have any informed consent or parental notice laws in effect.  Such laws have allowed women to make more informed decisions, decreasing annual abortion rates in many states and  contributing to the reported national reduction in abortions.  We need such laws in Illinois.

Pre-Term and Low Weight Birth Risks

Does abortion increase the risk of pre-term and low weight births in future pregnancies?  A recent study concluded, “Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for low birthweight and pre-term birth and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor.”

Researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University published their findings in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.  The study examined data on over 45,000 U.S. mothers.  Overall, about 14% of these mothers had premature births and 11% had low birthweight infants.  

However, mothers with one previous abortion were 70% more likely to have a pre-term birth.  This risk increased to two times for mothers with a history of two abortions and three times for those with three or more abortions.

The impact of abortion was even greater for risk of low weight births.  For mothers who reported at least one prior abortion, they were almost three times as likely to have a low birthweight baby.  This risk increased to five times for women who had two previous abortions and to nine times for women who had three abortions.

A study published in the November 2007 Journal of Reproductive Medicine found abortion linked with premature births and cerebral palsy.  Abortion advocates continue to claim that an abortion has no negative impact on future pregnancies.  Why do they claim concerns about impact of abortion on future pregnancies is not scientific?  They are ignoring science.

In Vitro Fertilization is a Deadly Business

Recent testimony before the British Parliament revealed just how deadly in vitro fertilization (IVF) is from beginning to end.  Excess embryos get created because women respond differently to fertility drugs.  As many as 40 embryos are created in one IVF treatment.  The embryos are then assessed for viability, with only about 20% usually considered strong enough to implant successfully.  Embryos not deemed strong enough to implant are killed.  Remaining  embryos deemed excessive are frozen, but will die within 10 years, if they even survive the freezing process.   If too many implanted embryos survive, some may be killed by “selective reduction.”  NaProTECHNOLOGY is an ethical and more reliable alternative to IVF.  Learn more at FertilityCare Centers of America (www.fertilitycare.org).

March for Life Largest Ever?

Long-term observers and participants in the January 22, 2008 March for Life in Washington, D.C. reported that it seemed to be the largest ever.  Certainly, more buses came from Illinois than I can ever remember.  The Respect Life Office of the Chicago Archdiocese sponsored five buses carrying a total of 250 people.  More buses were sponsored by various churches and other organizations from around the state.

“Fifty across and thousands deep,” wrote John-Henry Westen for LifeSiteNews.com.  “The march was an unbelievable sea of people.  Some near the front who had completed the march went for lunch and returned to their hotel rooms only to see thousands of marchers still progressing toward the Supreme Court.”

As usual the March for Life, very conservatively estimated at 225,000 marchers, was still “not newsworthy.”   In Chicago, the Tribune printed a picture but no story.   The picture showed three people with pro-abortion signs and one with a Pro-Life sign in front of the Supreme Court, making their totally inadequate reporting misleading as well.  The Sun-Times and television news programs did not provide any coverage at all.

Regardless of the lack of reporting, the huge crowd of Pro-Life marchers was energized by the spirit of the moment.  The large percentage of young people participating will take that energy back home.  They know what they experienced.  We pray they will be moved to bring the Pro-Life message to their fellow students and make a difference in coming years to bring an end to abortion.