Illinois Right to Life Committee
MAY 2007
May, 2007 Pro-Life News (see articles below): 05/25/07 Sibling Rivalry a Deadly Reality in IVF 05/22/07 Witness to end abortion 05/18/07 Catholic position on global
warming? 05/15/07 Is science coming to the rescue? 05/11/07 Chicago Tribune accused of “bias against choice to
terminate a pregnancy” 05/04/07
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 25, 2007 Sibling Rivalry a Deadly Reality in IVF As reported by Family Research Council on May 21st The Washington Post published a revealing article, "Too Much to Carry," on May 20th that demonstrated the tragic human cost of in-vitro fertilization. For thousands of couples suffering from infertility, the advances in reproductive health have given many new hope--and, in some cases, new life. However, with progress comes the burden of ethical responsibility--a burden many in the field seem unwilling to shoulder. "Too Much to Carry," did an admirable job portraying the wave of selective reduction that often accompanies modern fertility treatments. Doing her best to put a human face on the inhumane procedure, author Liza Mundy visited the offices of Dr. Mark Evans to observe the dark side of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for herself. The experience, as she tells it, was an eye-opening one. If IVF were as simple as fertilizing one egg with one sperm, the process would be less troubling. Yet for several of these at-risk women, doctors insist that to make the pregnancies more "viable" there must be less competition in the womb. This often means that "excess embryos" are created, implanted, and destroyed after tests are performed to determine which of the fetuses are healthiest. In some instances, Mundy was present for the "reductions" and describes the horror of seeing tiny lives, once active on the ultrasound screen, quickly silenced by a lethal injection to the heart. The "selection process" is also used to single out small victims that doctors suspect have Down syndrome or other maladies, which, 85% of the time is used to justify an abortion. In one visit, Mundy describes the patient crying, "Oh, my gosh, I can really see it! I can see the fingers!" and then sobbing uncontrollably as the small baby goes still. Another woman says, "It's killing me that we're going to do this. I never thought I would feel that... I'm vehemently pro-choice." Yet the sight of seeing the needle, as one nurse puts it, "chasing the babies" who try to get away, overwhelms mothers. This same nurse, a new mom herself, has trouble with the procedure because she feels like they are "playing God." "Some of these people tried to get pregnant...and prayed to God. And now that they're pregnant, they're telling God, 'You gave me too many.'" Rather than using IVF as an end to create life, the process is all too often a means that destroys it. This article serves as a timely call to conscience in an era when couples consider it a "right" to have children but seek freedom from the unintended consequences. Sibling rivalry is a deadly reality in IVF.
Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 22, 2007 On May 17th the Speak Out
section of the Daily Southtown printed a letter under the heading “Mom
disgusted over demonstration” referencing the May 5 witness at Planned Parenthood
Express in Orland Park where graphic pictures of aborted babies are used. She wrote: As a mother of four
children, I would like to know why the anti-abortion activists are allowed to stand on
LaGrange Road on a Saturday and display their very graphic pictures? I was driving my
5-year-old to a birthday party, and as we drove past, she got a full view of their
pictures. She wanted to know why those people had signs of bloody babies on them. I should
not be forced to explain something to her that she is not mature enough to understand. How dare you activists
shove your beliefs down others' throats. Isn't there a law against this? Keep your
opinions to yourselves. Why don't you have your little protests at each other's houses,
and then you can display your disgusting pictures so only your limited minds can see them. In response, I sent the following letter to the Daily Southtown under the
heading “Witness to end abortion”: The May 17th edition of the Daily Southtown Speak Out carried a complaint entitled "Mom disgusted over demonstration." As the organizer of that monthly witness to protect teenagers from Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, I would like to address her concerns. The First Amendment allows citizens to display messages to the public, and courts have consistently upheld that right. There is no law against displaying pictures of aborted babies because such a law would be unconstitutional. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears. Most children will reflect concern for the injured children in the pictures. Simply stating that the people holding the pictures are trying to protect children will address that concern. Pictures of aborted
babies are disgusting because abortion is disgusting. When we put an end to the
killing of babies by abortion, we can stop showing the disgusting pictures intended to
convince our nation abortion should not be tolerated. When Planned Parenthood
closes their Orland Park location, we will stop showing these pictures in Orland Park. My letter may get printed in the near future since I received a call to confirm I wrote it.
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 18, 2007 Catholic
position on global warming? I found myself deeply
concerned when I read last week that Archbishop Celestino Migliore, apostolic nuncio of
the Holy See’s permanent mission to the U.N., presented a statement at the UN on May
10th [Global
warming threatens world’s security, existence, Vatican tells UN, urging action] stressing that the scientific evidence for global
warming and mankind’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses “becomes ever
more unimpeachable.” The nuncio called for the world community to embrace more
sustainable development in which there is a much closer link between “natural
ecology, or respect for nature, and human ecology.” "Sustainable
development" is a loaded term just like "choice". At a minimum,
Vatican endorsement of efforts labeled as sustainable development will lead to
misinterpretation and encourage the push for reduced human population. At the same time as the Vatican is apparently jumping on the global warming crisis bandwagon, population control zealots have jumped on the same bandwagon with a solution. They think that families should have no more than two children and ideally fewer than two. So now governments have another reason to control family size -- they can claim it is necessary to comply with the Kyoto treaty! Worse yet, giving global warming credibility as a world crisis is also very unfortunate. The wild claims of imminent disaster (e.g. Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth") are not supported, even by the recently issued and widely cited report that claims the evidence of human contribution to global warming is beyond dispute. That report projects oceans rising less that a foot while Al Gore's movie portrays something like a 20-foot rise. Claims that the polar bear is threatened with extinction by global warming are contradicted by the fact that polar bears are known to swim continuously for 60 to 100 miles. POLAR BEARS
Animal Facts: The Polar Bear
POLAR WARNING / A WARMING WORLD: THE DIFFERENCE A DEGREE MAKES
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
I sent this message to Human Life International and Population Research Institute, hoping they have Vatican connections that could at least suggest that pursuing the global warming issue as reflected in Archbishop Migliore's May 10th statement is both premature from a scientific viewpoint and dangerous to continued defense of life and family issues within the secular world and before the world's national governments. What ever happened to the teaching about relying on God's providence? I remember learning that parents should be ready to accept whatever number of children God provides and rely on Him for help to find the means to provide for them. Doesn't the same logic apply for the global population? Pushing a highly questionable global warming crisis seems very inconsistent to me with reliance on God's providence to provide for His people. This concern has already become local. On May 17th at St. Peter's Church in downtown Chicago, an announcement was made that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" would be shown in the lower level. Giving a Catholic forum to this inaccurate portrayal of global warming will encourage negative attitudes that human life is dangerous to the planet earth. Such anti-life thinking will cause further damage in the culture of death in which we live.
Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Is science coming to
the rescue? The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) has called for an end to embryonic stem cell research and recommends the exclusive support of already proven effective adult stem cell research. "Not only does embryonic research require taking the life of human embryos, it also prolongs needless suffering by delaying the development of more promising adult stem cell treatments and cures," stated Michelle Cretella, MD, Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians. To emphasize this point, the ACP stated, "Every dollar spent on the failed and unnecessary process of embryonic stem cell research steals resources away from the established utility and potential of adult stem cell research. This is fiscally irresponsible and medically unconscionable." Research
using non-embryo sources of stem cells, including amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood,
placenta and adult blood, fat and various organs, have yielded impressive results, the
organization suggests. "Adult stem cells
are now routinely used in certain forms of cancer therapy.
Over the last decade, these cells have been used to successfully treat
spinal cord injuries, heart failure, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and dozens of other
conditions in human trials." The group
noted further that "This has not been the case with any embryonic stem cell trial.
Instead, there have been catastrophic results with these cells producing the wrong tissue,
forming tumors and triggering immune rejection."
One week earlier, the Association
of American Physicians and Surgeons expressed skepticism about the conclusions of a
recently released study on the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Based on many potential flaws found in a review of
that study, their spokesperson described the Harvard study as “meaningless” in
establishing its conclusion that abortion would not increase risk of breast cancer. These statements from three different medical organizations provide examples of raising questions about the quality of science that is practiced today in pushing embryonic stem cell research, vaccines such as Gardasil, and claiming abortion is safe. Since the promoters of the politically correct position on these issues often accuse defenders of life of being non-scientific, it is noteworthy that these medical organizations are raising serious questions about the practice of science to promote these anti-life and anti-family agendas. Where are the investigating reporters to follow-up on these apparent abuses of science?
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 11, 2007 Chicago Tribune
accused of “bias against choice to terminate a pregnancy” On May 3rd the Chicago Tribune carried an article entitled, “35 minutes to live, feel love.” This article presented the decision of Jessica and Dave Weatherford to allow their baby to live despite his serious biological abnormalities, diagnosed as full trisomy 13. They even followed recommendations received from Alexandra’s House, a perinatal hospice, to have a C-section to give their son the longest time possible with them after his birth. That time turned out to be 35 minutes to meet his parents and some of his relatives. Since most babies with serious abnormalities are aborted, often under strong pressure from doctors, these decisions by the Weatherfords certainly went against conventional wisdom. Covering this image showing the value of life, even under very brief and difficult circumstances, may have educated some Tribune readers that there is another choice that puts this struggling new life in God’s hands. One reader was very upset by this image favoring life. His letter was printed on May 11th where he condemned the Tribune article as a story that “was pure anti-choice propaganda” and “not even news.” These comments prove once again the misleading use of the word “choice” by those who describe themselves as “pro-choice” since they believe the only acceptable choice is abortion. Fortunately, the Tribune balanced that negative letter with two positive letters. We all know that the Tribune’s bias is certainly not in the Pro-Life direction. However, they did actually print an article on May 10th entitled “Study questions HPV shot.” This article covered a report from the New England Journal of Medicine that questions the effectiveness and justification for wide distribution of Gardasil, at least based on the testing results so far. The report pointed out that results from the human trials “reduced the incidence of cancer precursors by only 17 percent overall.” Based on such results, an accompanying NEJM editorial “said young women and their parents should take ‘a cautious approach’ to vaccination.” In the current social climate where the push is on for mandating use of Gardasil for girls less than 12 years old, carrying this article can certainly be commended. Lastly, after printing many letters to the editor over the last few weeks bemoaning the recent Supreme Court decision that declared the ban on partial birth abortion constitutional, the Tribune finally carried a letter that raised some great questions in response to all those letters giving reasons why we cannot survive without access to partial birth abortion. Her best question is, “If a woman can survive a breech birth up to the point where only a portion of the baby’s head remains to be expelled, how does killing the infant preserve the health of the mother?” We can only hope that positive coverage of the Pro-Life position will continue to appear more frequently in the Tribune, but I won’t hold my breathe.
Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 4, 2007 Planned Parenthood just released their statistics on services performed for their most recent reporting year of 2005. Since they had already been pushing the benefits of Plan B to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, continued to expand comprehensive sex education, and done numerous other activities intended to prevent unwanted pregnancies, we should expect the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood to go down. Right? Not on your life! Planned Parenthood just achieved another 4% annual increase in abortions performed, continuing a pattern that has pushed their total of abortions performed in the USA from 5% 20 years ago to over 20% now. In 2005, Planned Parenthood committed 264,943 abortions, up from 255,015 in 2004. The weekly STOPP Report observes, “Adding this new death toll to those previously reported by Planned Parenthood, the organization now admits to the deaths of 4,068,749 babies in the womb since July 2, 1970—the day Planned Parenthood opened the first free-standing abortion facility in the country and did its first abortions.” Is anyone paying attention to the results that Planned Parenthood achieves compared to their claims to justify their existence? Who could consider such results as scientific evidence that an approach is working versus allegiance to a blind ideology and just ignore the results? Speaking of ideology versus science, an analysis of the recent study from Harvard that concluded there was no increased risk of breast cancer from abortion finds some shockingly unscientific assumptions and methods used to produce the results desired. "The average age of diagnoses of breast cancer in America is 61 years old," concluded Andrew Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. "But the average age of participants in this study was only 42 years old, too young for the average person to develop breast cancer. "This study is as meaningless as drawing conclusions about heart disease by looking at teenagers," he said.
Other questionable aspects of this study include the exclusion of women who developed breast cancer early during the study period, hiding findings that abortion was connected with more dangerous forms of breast cancer, making unsound assumptions about the meaning when questions on abortion were not answered, and confusing the respondents with questions where “miscarriage” was described as “spontaneous abortion.” All in all, one can conclude that this study was driven by ideology, not science.
|