The success of abstinence programs in Uganda and the Philippines to prevent HIV/AIDS demonstrates more voodoo science with the worship of condoms as a silver bullet for reducing HIV/AIDS.  We all know the real result abortion activists are looking for – more abortions from increased casual sex.  Of course, the collateral damage is more HIV/AIDS cases as well.  Voodoo scientists have their own agenda and do not really care if they are scientific.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, November 21, 2006 

Stem cell deception continues as sources of progress ignored by media

Did you see any coverage on recent stem cell successes from sources other than embryos?  You may have missed it because the brief articles get buried deep in the daily newspapers and rarely get any television footage.  If you can find the articles, you usually need to read them very carefully to surmise what sources of stem cells were used.  In contrast, the only news to report about embryonic stem cells is the deceptive means used to obtain government funding for this ineffective and unethical research.   The narrow passage of an amendment in Missouri is a perfect example.  The summary offered to voters claimed the amendment banned human cloning.  The summary failed to point out that this ban was achieved by requiring that cloned embryos must be killed for their stem cells rather than placed in a mother’s womb to grow.  The amendment requires government funding be provided for this unethical research.  But lets return to the good stem cell news that got buried in the newspapers.

On November 16th the Chicago Sun-Times reported on the results of two recent successes that did not involve embryonic stem cells.   Italian researchers published their results in the journal Nature.  They had success to ease the symptoms associated with muscular dystrophy.  They used cells called mesoangioblasts, stem cells gathered from small blood vessels in muscle.  These cells are programmed to develop into muscle cells.  Such cells were transplanted into dogs with symptoms of muscular dystrophy.  The dogs had Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle disorder that affects about 1 in every 3,500 boys.  The researchers used Golden retrievers for their experiments because they are the most accurate animal model of the human disease.

One five-month-old dog named Azor was limping because of the disease but after the treatments was able to romp around with other puppies.  “Azor regained incredible mobility, much more than when the treatment started,” said Giulio Cossu, director of the Stem Cell Research Institute at San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, Italy.  Cossu indicated he hopes to begin treatments on children next year or in 2008.  He did say, “We do not know whether this will work in patients.” 

Scientists in Switzerland have grown human heart valves using stem cells from the fluid that cushions babies in the womb.   The idea is to create these new valves in the lab while the pregnancy progresses and have them ready to implant in a baby with heart defects after it is born.

“This may open a whole new therapy concept to the treatment of congenital heart defects,” said Dr. Simon Hoerstrup, a University of Zurich scientist who led the work, which was presented at an American Heart Association conference.  Also at that meeting Japanese researchers said they had grown new heart valves in rabbits using cells from the animals' own tissue.  It's the first time replacement heart valves have been created in this manner, said lead author Dr. Kyoko Hayashida.

These successes again raise the question about why some researchers continue to insist that only embryonic stem cells have the flexibility to generate the variety of cells needed to treat human ailments.  The second question raised is why are all these successes with non-embryonic stem cells occurring in other nations?  Are too many USA researchers still blinded by the misleading dazzle of embryonic stem cells?

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, November 14, 2006 

Partial birth abortion ban a threat to women’s health?

On November 8th the U.S. Supreme Court held a hearing on the 2003 Federal law banning partial birth abortion (also described as D&X abortion).  Lower courts have declared the law unconstitutional because it does not provide an exception for health of the mother.  These rulings are based on the 2000 Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart.  That ruling rejected the Nebraska law banning partial birth abortion because it did not provide a health exception. 

Abortion supporters consistently claim that the Federal law “would ban abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy.”  They have a strategy behind making that unsupported claim.  They are trying to take the focus off the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure by suggesting that virtually all late-term abortion procedures would be banned.  Then they can cite heart-wrenching examples where women’s health was threatened by a pregnancy to support the need for the missing health exception that, if provided, would make a ban meaningless.  

Articles in the Chicago Tribune (Nov 6th) and Chicago Sun-Times (Nov 13th) have both made this change in focus by portraying the ban as a threat to women’s health.  These articles carry the water for abortion supporters by accepting as fact the premise that the law would ban virtually all late-term abortions, creating this perceived threat.  In contrast, during the November 8th hearing, when Justice Kennedy asked how often the partial-birth abortion procedure was medically needed, the plaintiff’s attorney admitted there are no statistics showing that.

Before passing the 2003 law, Congress held hearings where many doctors testified in favor of the ban.  These doctors explained why partial birth abortion was not only unnecessary to address health issues during pregnancy, but in fact, is a dangerous procedure that cannot be medically justified under any circumstances.  Of course, these doctors were focusing on the partial birth abortion procedure in their testimony, not other late-term abortion procedures. 

Apparently, the doctors who testified in favor of the ban did not find the wording of the law difficult to understand regarding what abortion procedure it would ban.   Many legal experts also reject concerns that this law would ban other abortion procedures.  Since the Federal ban provides even more specifics about the banned procedure than earlier laws, charges that this ban will prevent any form of abortion after 12-15 weeks is not supportable as an valid argument. 

The final evidence to dispute this misleading claim will be what really happens when the Supreme Court upholds the partial birth abortion ban.  None of the suggested dire results threatening women’s health will occur. 

Related information:  Six years after Supreme Court first approved partial-birth abortion, still no medical evidence that partial-birth abortion is safe or needed

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, November 8, 2006 

Election 2006 has few positives for defenders of life

The November 7th election results were very disappointing and create a serious roadblock to continued legislative success on life issues for the short term.  The good news can be found in evidence that this election was not a referendum on life issues.  The losses of Congressional candidates who are Pro-Life seem to be primarily connected with negative feelings generated by perceived corruption and the continuing need for a military presence in Iraq.  Since the media has been working overtime to emphasize both of these issues for quite some time, it is not a total shock that their message had an impact on the electorate.

Even in states with referendums on life issues the distortion factor played a serious part.  In Missouri, the referendum in support of human cloning was worded so deceptively that it claimed to ban human cloning.  Even with that deception, it only passed by the narrowest of margins. 

In South Dakota, the referendum to overturn the law banning abortion in that state succeeded.  However, abortion supporters focused on that law’s lack of rape and incest exceptions.  By taking this expedient approach, they have taught the electorate that the law would be acceptable if only it had exceptions for rape and incest.  In fact, polling data revealed that if the law had those exceptions, it would have been approved by a wide margin.  I do not think that people who support abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy really wanted to teach the electorate that an abortion ban would be acceptable if it provided exceptions for rape and incest.  I certainly hope the South Dakota legislature responds by passing such a law, since it is clear that their constituents will support it.

It is somewhat perplexing that both Oregon and California rejected referendums to require parental notice before teenage girls obtain abortions.  Such measures are already in effect in 35 states.  Polls suggest that nearly 70% of citizens favor these laws.  Apparently, the mindset is different in west coast states.  However, opponents did use deceptive claims about the effects of these referendums to help get the result they wanted by portraying that the law would victimize teens with abusive parents. 

Another positive is the November 8th Supreme Court hearing on the Federal law banning partial birth abortion.  It may be months for we know the decision, but educated speculation suggests the Supreme Court will find this ban constitutional.  Such a decision would be a significant Pro-Life victory coming as a result of recent Supreme Court appointments. 

Newsline Archive

IRLC Home Page