Illinois Right to Life Committee
Spring/Summer 2009 IRLC News
Conscience Rights Do Not Deny Health Care
Embryonic Stem Cells Declared Obsolete
“Reproductive Health and Access” Act Was Stopped
President Emeritus Report: The Order Has Been Given
Are You Suspected of Being a Rightwing Extremist?
Plan B for Teens Pushed by Judicial Actvist
Conscience Rights Do Not Deny Health Care The premise used to justify denial of conscience rights to medical professionals suggests that patients will be denied necessary and accepted medical care if doctors can choose to decline to perform some medical procedures, such as abortion. In contrast, many mothers would prefer to have a doctor helping them with delivery of their babies who is not involved in abortion. If all ob/gyn doctors are expected to perform abortions, these mothers will not be comfortable with their doctors. Attempting to justify the “denial of care” premise, an outrageous 3/30/09 Chicago Sun-Times editorial entitled “Women have right to be told of abortion option” cited a situation where women were being denied the “best” option. That editorial contended “When a woman’s water breaks early in a pregnancy, and there is almost no hope the baby will survive, at a Catholic hospital she is not told abortion is a recommended option.” My first question was “recommended option” according to whom? How could an invasive procedure like abortion ever be considered a better option than allowing a miscarriage to proceed naturally? Thanks to Colleen Malloy, M.D., Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, for responding so forcefully to this Chicago Sun-Times editorial. Dr. Malloy confirmed my initial reaction, but with the credentials of a medical professional. She wrote, “You erroneously state that women are put at risk when they are not offered ‘emergency’ or urgent abortion as an option for their pregnancy. You use the example of rupture of membranes early in pregnancy, and state that abortion is a ‘recommended option.’ In fact, surgical abortion, which mutilates the fetus and also poses some risk to the mother, is not the best medical option in this situation. Expectant management and use of antibiotics is. The majority of time the woman will miscarry — a far more natural event than an abortion. Furthermore, approximately 10 percent of the time the hole in the membranes can seal up and the pregnancy can continue to viability. The protocol followed in Catholic hospitals in this scenario is a legitimate, valid and safe option for premature rupture of membranes, one that is best for both mother and child.” Denial of conscience rights would have two serious impacts. First, it would deny differing positions on what is sound medical care. Secondly, removing conscience rights would impact the right of patients to choose a healthcare professional who shares their moral views by forcing ethical people out of the profession entirely to accommodate the demands of a few. The Obama Administration is working to overturn the conscience protections of doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other members of the medical profession, despite 87% opposition from the general public. Overturning conscience protections is an attack on the right to follow one’s conscience and amounts to discrimination and persecution, forcing medical professionals to buckle under or leave their profession. Denial of conscience rights will not improve health care, but would impose a “culture of death” worldview on the medical profession. It is time to defend the rights of conscience for all Americans. Otherwise, the number of health care options will be reduced and the quality of care will in fact decline. Bill Beckman
Embryonic Stem Cells Declared Obsolete When President Barack Obama expanded Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research with his March 9th executive order, claims that science will now triumph over “ideology” were heard from supporters of this action. Will such funding really help advance science? Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health notes that several recent scientific breakthroughs “reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete.” Healy suggests the remarkable advances of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) “are beginning to subsume embryonic stem cells.” On March 1st, scientists in Canada and England published a paper showing they had turned skin cells into iPS cells. These iPS cells have demonstrated equivalent capabilities of embryonic stem cells. Even more significantly, their paper explained how they had successfully reprogrammed ordinary skin cells into iPS cells without the use of viruses to transmit the reprogramming genes to the cell. This new approach removes the risks associated with the residual viruses previously remaining in the iPS cells. In contrast, a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February indicates that embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors. Healy explains, “The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.” “His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern.” Is it really good use of Federal funds to support the obsolete science of embryonic stem cell research? Given the current sources of scientific progress, does not such usage of Federal funding become just another “pork” project to pay off political supporters? Why not use the money where it can make a real difference with iPS, adult, and cord blood stem cells? Bill Beckman
“Reproductive Health and Access” Act Was Stopped You have probably already learned the good news. The radical “Reproductive Health and Access” Act (HB 2354) has been stopped in Springfield for 2009. If you contacted your state representative, your effort made a difference. If not, please be assured that you can make a difference next time, and we can really use your help. The deception surrounding this bill begins with its name. “Reproductive health and access” is a code phrase referring to abortion, but some of the supporters of HB 2354 claimed that it simply insured better access and information about birth control. Such claims demonstrate the degree of deception these abortion advocates are willing to take in their effort to get this radical bill passed. If you have heard of the Federal “Freedom of Choice” Act (FOCA), then you know what HB 2354 is all about. Just like FOCA, HB2354 would ban any possibility of parental notice, force taxpayers to fund thousands of abortions, nullify the right of conscience for health care workers, and prevent any possibility of requiring informed consent and/or a waiting period before abortion. HB 2354 is actually even worse than FOCA because it also has provisions to mandate “comprehensive” sex education as a replacement for abstinence education in the state of Illinois. The effect would be to replace any use of abstinence education with programs that effectively encourage casual sex and teach use of virtually all forms of birth control, including abortion.
President Emeritus Report: The Order Has Been Given The May 22nd Chicago March for Life was a memorial for the 50 million innocent, voiceless, unborn babies who have been killed by abortion in America since the Roe v. Wade decision 36 years ago. Stalin said one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Have we come to regard the death of 50 million babies as simply a statistic? After World War II, when the Nuremburg trials were set up to punish the Germans for war crimes, abortion was listed as a crime against humanity. And, indeed it is, for every child that is killed ends a family and all of their descendants. A country that kills its children is a country in despair. The 20th Century was rightly called the bloodiest century in history. As we look back at the major dictators of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, who killed millions of their own people, when we think of terrible massacres in Ruanda, we should remember that they themselves did not do the killing. They simply gave the order. Now, President Obama has given the order! – to export abortion throughout the world paid for by the American taxpayer, to use embryonic children for research and spare parts, to roll back all of the restrictions on abortion and force doctors to perform them and religious hospitals to refer for them. Is this the President’s plan to reduce the number of abortions? The well known author, Michael O’Brien, speaking of President Obama, commented: “When all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder. That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause.” Will history look back at our country and our President with the same horror as they regard the mass murderers of the past? Has the slogan “Never again!” become so short-lived that it is forgotten? Children are our future, the treasure of our country, our inheritance from the Lord! It is time to stop this Holocaust in America. We must not wait for the death of millions more. We must begin to take back our country today! Mary Anne Hackett
In the state of Illinois, if you choose to be an organ donor, you now register your intent in the Illinois Organ/Tissue Donor Registry. The next time you renew your driver’s license, you will be asked if you want to be an organ donor. Before you say yes, did you know that your intent becomes absolute, so it cannot be overruled by family members or other caregivers? All of your organs are included, because any option to limit your donation to specific organs or tissues has been eliminated. What if you decide not to register as an organ donor? If you say “no” when you renew your driver’s license, that negative response is not recorded. The organ procurement agency wants a chance to convince your relatives that you should be an organ donor. To preserve vital organs for transplant, a patient must be declared “brain dead” while the heart and lungs are still functioning, usually with medical assistance. During 2008 a number of cases became known where patients declared brain dead actually recovered. How many recoveries after a “brain death” diagnosis need to occur to raise serious questions about brain death? Under provisions of an amendment to the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act that became effective on 1/1/2007, “When there is a suitable candidate for organ donation and a donation or consent to donate has not yet been given, procedures to preserve the decedent’s body for possible organ and tissue donation may be implemented under the authorization of the applicable organ procurement agency, at its own expense, prior to making a donation request.” Under these legal provisions, if you do not intend to be an organ donor, how do you prevent an organ procurement agency from performing invasive procedures to preserve your organs for transplant? With the donor registry in place, no information about organ donation is recorded on your driver’s license. Will anyone notice if you include a statement in your wallet that you are not an organ donor? Would such a statement have any legal force? I am seeking legal advice to obtain answers to these questions. For now, I suggest that if you decide against becoming an organ donor, you place a statement to that effect on your identification card or on a label taped to the back of your driver’s license. Your intent not to donate organs should also be stated in your Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care document. If your rejection of organ donation is not obvious, an organ procurement agency will be seeking approval from your agent, surrogate, guardian, spouse, or other relative to harvest your organs. Even before seeking that approval, they have been given legal authority to perform pre-harvesting invasive procedures that are done to a living person without informed consent for purposes of assessing and preserving organs for transplant. Given the questionable status of relying on “brain death” and the even more tenuous “donation after cardiac death” option, the push for harvesting organs is overridding the opportunity to allow the time needed to ascertain that death has really occurred. Becoming an organ donor could lead to your premature death, but current law makes saying NO much more difficult than saying yes. Becoming an organ donor should not be a casual decision, but is sufficient information provided to achieve informed consent? Bill Beckman
Are You Suspected of Being a Rightwing Extremist? You probably thought the Department of Homeland Security was focused on protecting U.S. citizens from foreign terrorists. We recently learned that the department has a new focus when a report was sent to law enforcement organizations throughout the nation. That report had the imposing title, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” So who might these rightwing extremists turn out to be and where might we encounter them? The report provided the following definition: Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. Wow, it sounds like if you are Pro-Life, you might be a suspected rightwing extremist! But take heart! Since we have many more issues than abortion (e.g. embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, human cloning, etc.), shouldn’t we be excluded from the suspect list because we are not dedicated to a single issue? Will our nation ever be safe again with all these rightwing extremists running around? I think it would be a lot safer if some of them actually won elections and replaced the people who appointed the people who write outrageous, agenda-driven reports like this one. Two ironies have occurred since this report was issued. First, after the Thomas More Law Center (located in Michigan) filed a Federal lawsuit that cited this report as a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the report was rescinded. Second, with the tragic murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller by a mentally unbalanced individual who was not connected with any legitimate Pro-Life organizations, the authors of the report can now claim that they were right all along, even though they were not. In fact, Pro-Life organizations unanimously condemned the murder, noting that violence is not the answer. Bill Beckman
Plan B for Teens Pushed by Judicial Actvist The FDA ruled in 2006 that the morning-after pill, Plan B, be allowed for distribution without a prescription, but only to people 18 years and older. On March 23rd Federal Judge Edward Korman ruled that Plan B must also be allowed over-the-counter to 17 year-olds, claiming the FDA did not follow its procedures. On what basis does a judge think that he can second guess how an agency applies its procedures? Since the key issue was the lack of scientific data on the safety of Plan B for teenage women, did the judge commission this research himself? On what basis did he conclude that Plan B is safe for unsupervised use by 17 year-olds? It seems the judge made a political decision, proving to be an activist judge who invents the law as needed to satisfy his desired outcome. After this outlandish Federal Court ruling, would you expect the FDA to appeal? That certainly will not happen under the Obama administration. Rather, the FDA simply accepted the court decision and ordered it to be implemented. No one at the FDA has any apparent interest in the dangers of using this high concentration of birth control – especially by teenagers, the abortifacient effect of Plan B — admitted by manufacturer Barr Labs, or the ineffectiveness of over-the-counter sales reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rates in other nations — while STDs among teens skyrocketed. Surprisingly, both parents and teenage girls were seen on local news reports criticizing this FDA decision, noting that it will just encourage teens to have more irresponsible sex. It is not surprising they think that way, but surprising their concerns were covered. Of course, Planned Parenthood could not be happier. Concerned Women for America’s President Wendy Wright noted, “Pregnancy counselors report that women are relying on Plan B as a regular form of birth control because it is easy to get. They are not aware that it is less effective than other methods of birth control and that it has not been tested to determine the effects of using it multiple times. Women, parents, and children who rely on the FDA to do their job deserve better than this shoddy decision.” Bill Beckman
Just Say No? With school physicals right around the corner, parents should be cautious about allowing their daughters to receive the vaccine called Gardasil, a yet unproven vaccine for HPV, a disease only transmitted by sexual activity. The vaccine is pushed as a means to prevent cervical cancer, which has been connected to HPV, but Gardasil does nothing to prevent HPV strains causing 30% of cervical cancers. Gardasil has developed a track record of dangerous side effects. The death toll from the drug has reached at least 47. There were also 1061 “serious” reports of complications, including about 142 classified as life-threatening, 147 spontaneous abortions, and 29 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Is use of this vaccine really worth the risks?
Return to List of Newsletter Articles IRLC Home Page |