Brownback, Landrieu introduce Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act

 

For Immediate Release

July 9, 2009

Contact: Brian Hart or Becky Ogilvie

 

Brownback, Landrieu introduce Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today with Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009.

“This legislation works to ensure that our society recognizes the dignity and sacredness of human life,” said Brownback.  “Creating human-animal hybrids, which permanently alter the genetic makeup of an organism, will challenge the very definition of what it means to be human and is a violation of human dignity and a grave injustice.”

The Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act would ban the creation of human-animal hybrids.  Human-animal hybrids are defined as those part-human, part-animal creatures, which are created in laboratories, and blur the line between species.  The bill is modest in scope and only affects efforts to blur the genetic lines between animals and humans.  It does not preclude the use of animals or humans in legitimate research or health care where genetic material is not passed on to future generations, such as the use of a porcine heart valve in a human patient or the use of a lab rat with human diseases to develop treatments.

Brownback continued, “This legislation is both philosophical and practical as it has a direct bearing upon the very essence of what it means to be human, and it draws a bright line with respect to how far we can go in attempting to create new creatures made with genes from both humans and animals.

“My background is in agriculture, and for a number of years we have been working with crops and animals to produce a superior soy bean, a superior cow, and so-on.  We can genetically engineer safe products and herds that are disease resistant or that possess more desirable attributes.  But doing this in plants and livestock is very different than doing this in humans.

“The issue is that when you make changes in the germ-line, such changes are passed along to one’s offspring.  You could make a change now that could be passed along through the gene-pool for the rest of humanity.  We do not know what the full effect of this could be, and it could be disastrous. 

“Tampering with the human germ-line could be the equivalent to setting a time-bomb that might detonate many generations down the line; but once it is set, there is no reversing course.

“I am optimistic that our nation we will make a sound choice for the generations to come.  Already, in Louisiana last month, Governor Jindal signed legislation into law that would prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrids.  That law is modeled after earlier versions of the legislation that we introduce today.”

The following senators are orginal co-sponsors:  Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mel Martinez (R-FL), John McCain (R-AZ), James Risch (R-ID), John Thune (R-SD), David Vitter (R-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS). 

Sam Brownback
United States Senator – Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Planned Parenthood Hails Abortion Drug as Safe, Ignores How It Killed Women

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 8
, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Planned Parenthood has released a new study it claims shows the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone is now safe, but the study ignores how Planned Parenthood’s own protocol resulted in the deaths of women. The research, done at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, supposedly shows that the new way of giving women the abortion drug orally, instead of vaginally, boosts its safety. “This is the first really huge documentation of how safe and effective medical abortion is,” said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, a professor of family health and population at Columbia University. “The technology is very good and very well used in this country, and probably will be used more and more.” The study’s lead researcher, nurse practitioner Mary Fjerstad, added, “We decided we needed to make a safe procedure even safer.” When used normally, RU 486 involves a two drug combination involves mifepristone, which deprives the developing newborn baby of food and water and essentially starves the child to death. The second drug, misoprostol, causes contractions to force the woman to birth the dead baby. The abortion business had been telling women to use the drug in a different way than the FDA guidelines suggested and the study showed it contributed to the deaths of six women who got the abortion drug at its centers. In fact, a June 2008 University of Michigan study suggests Planned Parenthood is at fault in the deaths of women in the United States from the abortion drug. It wasn’t until four California women all died within a week of using the abortion drug they received from Planned Parenthood abortion businesses that it changed its policy to conform to the FDA protocol.

Planned Parenthood Study Shows One-Fourth of Abortions Involve Dangerous Drug

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 8
, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A new Planned Parenthood study finds one-fourth of all of the abortions done in the United States now involves the dangerous abortion drug mifepristone. That is the drug that has caused the deaths of more than a dozen women worldwide — including at least six in the United States — and has injured more than 1,200 nationwide according to figures from 2007. Sales of the abortion drug Mifeprex, the first part of the two-part RU 486 abortion pill process, rose 16.5 percent last year and 184,000 women used the drug. The Planned Parenthood study also finds the abortion drug, which can be used at around seven weeks into pregnancy, now accounts for about one-third of all early-term abortions. The study, which will be reported in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed 228,000 abortions at Planned Parenthood centers between 2005 and 2008. Chris Gacek, of the pro-life Family Research Council, was not surprised by the increased use of the abortion drug. “I don’t think at this point we’re going to do anything” to try to limit its use, he said. “It’s hard to know whether this increases the (total) number of abortions.” Last year, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm, released a report showing the number of abortions has declined to record lows in the United States. But, women having abortions were more frequently using the dangerous abortion drug. According to AGI, about 13 percent of all abortions involve mifepristone. The report also showed that 57 percent of places that do abortions now have the abortion drug, compared with just 33 percent in 2001.

Swimming Against the Mainstream

July 13, 2009 – Monday

Swimming Against the Mainstream

Today the confirmation hearings begin for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Once the questioning starts, the Senators should be earning their salary as they try to discover what exactly Ms. Sotomayor meant by some of her controversial statements; why she tried to suppress her ruling in the Connecticut firefighters’ discrimination case, and what her role was in the anti-life work at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF)? From 1980 to 1992 Judge Sotomayor was an active governing board member of the PRLDEF, where she helped to shape the group’s controversial legal policy. Just one example of this is the PRLDEF brief in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989. Sotomayor’s group called the right to abortion “precious.” I would think that most Americans would disagree that the ability to take a young human life is “precious!”

Ms. Sotomayor’s troubling history as a jurist and activist has raised numerous other concerns on the life issues, on sovereignty issues, marriage issues, and more. Finally, she is entering the hearings with some of the highest levels of public opposition any Supreme Court nominee has fared in the last two decades according to a new CNN poll. FRC Senior Fellows Chris Gacek and Cathy Ruse and researcher Michael Fragoso have put together a host of questions that Senators on the Judiciary Committee need to ask the nominee.

FRC: Assessing Judge Sonia Sotomayor Before Her Confirmation Hearings
Read our Pamphlet, ‘Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution’


Leaving Integrity on the Cutter Room Floor

Many in Washington complain that the “process of judicial nominations is broken.” Any hopes of trying to fix that process are severely limited when you consider who President Obama asked to escort his Supreme Court nominee, Stephanie Cutter. In 2005, Ms. Cutter led a Democratic “war room” to defend the Democrats’ filibuster against President Bush’s nominees, both judicial and otherwise. Ms. Cutter created “laminated, pocket-size message cards” that the Democrats in the House and Senate carried to defend their filibustering ways. Also in 2005, she defended the right to “Bork” candidates, saying, “If ‘borked’ means fulfilling your constitutional duty by protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people, then every senator should wear that as a badge of honor.” Borking refers to blocking a nominee based solely on distorted personal and political attacks.

Cutter is no stranger to Supreme Court battles, having helped coordinate, while on Senator Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) staff, the left’s fight during the confirmations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, at times hand-feeding talking points to liberal groups — or vice-versa. She continues this practice today, first organizing a number of liberal groups to show up at the White House press conference announcing the nominee. Now, to the surprise of few, one of those groups is coordinating personal attacks on one of the firefighters scheduled to testify this week against the nominee regarding the discrimination he suffered in the Ricci case.

Cutter was “no holds barred” in blocking some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees. In one case a memo was leaked from Ms. Cutter’s office that pointed out that Hispanic judicial nominee Miguel Estrada was especially “dangerous” because “he is Latino.” While President Obama might have campaigned on a “Washington outsider” message, the thugs he is hiring around him bring the wrong kind of change.

The Politico: Ex-Inspector General Gerald Walpin is still endorsing Sonia Sotomayor


Ruth Bader ‘Populations We Don’t Want Too Many Of’ Ginsburg

Do you think Supreme Court justices are immune from all kinds of prejudices that affect their thinking? Let’s look at the mindset of someone already sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently told the New York Times she was surprised when the high court ruled, in 1980, that taxpayers do not have to pay for abortions under the federal Medicaid program. “Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of.” Who might those populations be, Justice Ginsburg? The poor? Minorities? Persons with disabilities? Residents of Appalachia? It cannot be criminals–even if you assume that unborn children could qualify as criminals–since they’re not the ones accessing Medicaid.

I hope that members of the Judiciary Committee will closely question Judge Sotomayor. Does she embrace the views of Justice Ginsburg? Does she think it’s appropriate for public servants to talk about getting rid of large segments of the public? When she was an attorney with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, that group argued for federal funding of Medicaid abortions for the poor. Does she think Puerto Ricans are among “those populations we don’t want too many of?”

Read our pamphlet, ‘The Top Ten Myths About Abortion’