Planned Parenthood Responds to Video of Sex Abuse, Abortion Coverup

http://www.lifenews.com/state4843.html

Obama Administration Proposes Expanding Embryonic Stem Cell Research Further

by David Prentice
February 24, 2010

LifeNews.com

Note: Dr. David Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council. Up to July 2004 he had spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Last Friday the National Institutes of Health announced that they were proposing a “technical change” in their Guidelines for destruction of human embryos, a.k.a. Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

The change would allow use of younger human embryos in experiments. As published today in the Federal Register, the change in definition for embryonic stem cells would be:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, “human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)” are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos pluripotent cells that are derived from early stage human embryos, up to and including the blastocyst stage, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers.

You can submit comments on this proposed change. Note that the deadline for comments is 11:59pm EST on March 24, 2010 (a 30-day comment period.) Apparently NIH doesn’t want to read a lot of critiques–comments are limited to 6,000 characters, including spaces. It remains to be seen whether NIH will ignore the majority of comments as it did for the initial guidelines.

This expands the unethical use of human embryos, and creates additional incentives to cannibalize more embryos. Stating that the guidelines are “ethical” simply puts a veneer on unethical practices; they are simply providing a recipe for human embryo destruction so that taxpayers funds can be used to reward the scientists.

The redefinition of “embryonic stem cells” is primarily for the benefit of the company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), so that they can qualify for taxpayer funding. ACT had previously submitted seven hESC lines for approval (an eighth was added after the announcement Friday), and intends to submit at least one more hESC line. At least four of their lines were derived by removing a blastomere (one of the cells of an early embryo), supposedly leaving the remainder of the embryo intact. They term these lines NED (“no embryo destruction”).

The designation is dubious. Robert Lanza of ACT first published their derivation of hESC lines from a single blastomere in 2006, and Lanza stated at that time “What we have done, for the first time, is to actually create human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo itself.”

But buried in the paper was the fact that all of the embryos used in the experiments had actually been destroyed. The misleading statements led to publication of a corrected paper and and addendum to “clarify” the data.

In a subsequent publication in 2008, Lanza said “If we base this on objective scientific criteria, there’s no evidence that removing a single blastomere harms the embryo.” But even in this paper, Lanza’s own data show that not all embryos survived unharmed — the paper notes that only 80-85% of the embryos developed further to the blastocyst stage.

Story Landis, head of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force and director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders, told the Hartford Courant, “There needs to be definitive scientific evidence that no harm was done to the embryo,” Landis pointed out that women undergoing in-vitro fertilization who had cells extracted from an embryo for genetic testing had lower rates of pregnancy than women who were implanted with embryos that had not undergone the technique.

The whole question of PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) on which Lanza bases his theory has been called into question in terms of possible embryo harm. A study in 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that such a technique harms embryos, resulting in lower pregnancy rates. In 2007, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommended against PGD for any condition, based on the data that there was possible harm to embryos. Other papers in 2008 by a Belgian group and a Dutch group showed similar results, and a recent review makes the same point.

The question of not just destruction but possible harm to the embryo affects potential funding of the ACT technique. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits federal funding of embryo experiments in which there is a “risk of injury or death” to the embryo.

Did ACT actually create new embryos for harvest and destruction, by removing one cell from the early embryo? The question is also important for possible taxpayer funding of experiments with the NED lines, because NIH’s own guidelines state that

“Research using hESCs derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research purposes, is not eligible for NIH funding.”

It’s been shown that a four-cell human embryo can be disaggregated and each of the four cells can individually form a complete new embryo. The newly-created human embryos from this embryo-splitting technique have been used for derivation of embryonic stem cells.

It’s unclear whether the cells of an eight-cell human embryo also retain totipotency (the ability to form a complete new embryo), but experiments with mice suggest that at the 8-cell stage and even perhaps the 16-cell stage, the cells may retain that ability. If that were the case for human embryos, Lanza’s technique may have first created a new embryo with his biopsy method, then destroyed it in the process of forcing it to become a new hESC line. This would contravene the NIH guidelines.

The redefinition is also a move by NIH to cover their nether parts, as they had previously approved three hESC lines from George Daley of Harvard that were actually created from human embryos that had not yet reached the blastocyst stage. NIH has put those lines on Hold for now, until they can rush through the redefinition. But the proposed new language would again expose more human embryos to risk of destruction. Some could even be defined as “abnormal” or “unable to develop,” making them targets for destruction. Note such definitions are usually based on eyeball assessments that have previously been shown as flawed.

But perhaps more than anything, this redefinition illustrates the willingness of NIH to change the rules to fit their desires for more embryos. Expect more abuses in the future.

Obama Administration Proposes Expanding Embryonic Stem Cell Research Further

by David Prentice
February 24, 2010

LifeNews.com

Note: Dr. David Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council. Up to July 2004 he had spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Last Friday the National Institutes of Health announced that they were proposing a “technical change” in their Guidelines for destruction of human embryos, a.k.a. Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

The change would allow use of younger human embryos in experiments. As published today in the Federal Register, the change in definition for embryonic stem cells would be:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, “human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)” are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos pluripotent cells that are derived from early stage human embryos, up to and including the blastocyst stage, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers.

You can submit comments on this proposed change. Note that the deadline for comments is 11:59pm EST on March 24, 2010 (a 30-day comment period.) Apparently NIH doesn’t want to read a lot of critiques–comments are limited to 6,000 characters, including spaces. It remains to be seen whether NIH will ignore the majority of comments as it did for the initial guidelines.

This expands the unethical use of human embryos, and creates additional incentives to cannibalize more embryos. Stating that the guidelines are “ethical” simply puts a veneer on unethical practices; they are simply providing a recipe for human embryo destruction so that taxpayers funds can be used to reward the scientists.

The redefinition of “embryonic stem cells” is primarily for the benefit of the company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), so that they can qualify for taxpayer funding. ACT had previously submitted seven hESC lines for approval (an eighth was added after the announcement Friday), and intends to submit at least one more hESC line. At least four of their lines were derived by removing a blastomere (one of the cells of an early embryo), supposedly leaving the remainder of the embryo intact. They term these lines NED (“no embryo destruction”).

The designation is dubious. Robert Lanza of ACT first published their derivation of hESC lines from a single blastomere in 2006, and Lanza stated at that time “What we have done, for the first time, is to actually create human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo itself.”

But buried in the paper was the fact that all of the embryos used in the experiments had actually been destroyed. The misleading statements led to publication of a corrected paper and and addendum to “clarify” the data.

In a subsequent publication in 2008, Lanza said “If we base this on objective scientific criteria, there’s no evidence that removing a single blastomere harms the embryo.” But even in this paper, Lanza’s own data show that not all embryos survived unharmed — the paper notes that only 80-85% of the embryos developed further to the blastocyst stage.

Story Landis, head of the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Task Force and director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders, told the Hartford Courant, “There needs to be definitive scientific evidence that no harm was done to the embryo,” Landis pointed out that women undergoing in-vitro fertilization who had cells extracted from an embryo for genetic testing had lower rates of pregnancy than women who were implanted with embryos that had not undergone the technique.

The whole question of PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) on which Lanza bases his theory has been called into question in terms of possible embryo harm. A study in 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that such a technique harms embryos, resulting in lower pregnancy rates. In 2007, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommended against PGD for any condition, based on the data that there was possible harm to embryos. Other papers in 2008 by a Belgian group and a Dutch group showed similar results, and a recent review makes the same point.

The question of not just destruction but possible harm to the embryo affects potential funding of the ACT technique. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits federal funding of embryo experiments in which there is a “risk of injury or death” to the embryo.

Did ACT actually create new embryos for harvest and destruction, by removing one cell from the early embryo? The question is also important for possible taxpayer funding of experiments with the NED lines, because NIH’s own guidelines state that

“Research using hESCs derived from other sources, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, and/or IVF embryos created for research purposes, is not eligible for NIH funding.”

It’s been shown that a four-cell human embryo can be disaggregated and each of the four cells can individually form a complete new embryo. The newly-created human embryos from this embryo-splitting technique have been used for derivation of embryonic stem cells.

It’s unclear whether the cells of an eight-cell human embryo also retain totipotency (the ability to form a complete new embryo), but experiments with mice suggest that at the 8-cell stage and even perhaps the 16-cell stage, the cells may retain that ability. If that were the case for human embryos, Lanza’s technique may have first created a new embryo with his biopsy method, then destroyed it in the process of forcing it to become a new hESC line. This would contravene the NIH guidelines.

The redefinition is also a move by NIH to cover their nether parts, as they had previously approved three hESC lines from George Daley of Harvard that were actually created from human embryos that had not yet reached the blastocyst stage. NIH has put those lines on Hold for now, until they can rush through the redefinition. But the proposed new language would again expose more human embryos to risk of destruction. Some could even be defined as “abnormal” or “unable to develop,” making them targets for destruction. Note such definitions are usually based on eyeball assessments that have previously been shown as flawed.

But perhaps more than anything, this redefinition illustrates the willingness of NIH to change the rules to fit their desires for more embryos. Expect more abuses in the future.

In The News…

Source: www.cincinnatirighttolife.org

January, 2010 Newsletter

Pro-Life Bill In North Dakota: Recently passed in North Dakota are laws requiring abortionists to inform a patient that: “this abortion will terminate the life of a separate unique living human being.” Also passed is a requirement for the abortionist to perform an ultrasound with the mother having the option to view the image of her unborn child.  Further, a Senate resolution urges the U.S. Congress to strike down the Freedom of Choice Act.  Finally, a bill to grant full legal personhood status from the time of conception did not pass.

Planned Parenthood Killed Over 300,000: In its official 2007-2008 report, PP notes that it killed 305,310 developing unborn babies by chemical, medical, and surgical abortions the previous year.  The report also notes that total taxpayer money received by its affiliates increased to $350 million.

Distress After Abortion: A recent paper in the British Journal of Psychology reported that over 85% of aborted women reported at least one negative reaction such as sorrow, grief, regret, and disappointment.  About one-third of those overall reported five or more negative reactions.  These numbers were 40-80% higher than among women who did not abort.

Adult Stem Cells Help Heart Attacks: In December 8, 2009, Journal of American College of Cardiology, a report of a ten university study shows definite benefit to heart attack patients after intravenous injection of adult stem cells.  The cells migrated to the damaged heart and began repair.

New Embryo Stem Cell Lines Approved: Because of Barack Obama’s executive order last March, the National Institute of Health has now approved thirteen new human embryonic stem cell lines for use in medical research.  To date, such cells have produced a grand total of no medical advances.

Fleet for Little Feet Responds to Increased Abortion Rates in South Dakota

Sioux Falls, SD – The Alpha Center Fleet for Little Feet (FFLF) responds to the 20% increase in abortions in 2008 by increasing services on the road. The FFLF is a pregnancy care center on wheels.
 
According to the Associated Press, “the number of abortions performed in South Dakota in 2008 was up 20 percent from the previous year. Documentation required from physicians shows 848 induced abortions in the state, up from 707 in 2007. All but 139 involved South Dakota residents.”

Further, the Associated Press reported that, “the state Health Department said 57 percent of the abortions involved women in their 20s. Fifteen percent were in the 30-34 age group, 11 percent age 35 and above, 10 percent age 18-19, and 7 percent age 17 and younger.”
 
The Alpha Center and FFLF assist women who are facing an unplanned pregnancy by providing free pregnancy testing, abortion information, alternatives to abortion, ultrasounds and support for women who choose to parent.  Further, post abortion counseling is available to women and men needing support after their abortion(s). 

The FFLF has visited every county in the state of South Dakota in addition to regularly providing services across the street from Planned Parenthood in Sioux City, IA.

Dr. Patti Giebink, former abortion provider who is now pro-life, stated, “The Fleet for Little Feet reaches women and families with a message of hope; showing them there are positive alternatives to abortion.  Giving women accurate information is a good thing – and anytime we can do that, we will.”

The mission of the Alpha Center and the FFLF bus is to empower women to make an educated decision and to give them real options to make a better informed decision.  The Fleet bus brings clinical services to all areas of the state that would otherwise not have those options.

 
For more information about the FFLF or to bring the Fleet to your community, call the Alpha Center at 605-361-3500.

Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are

 

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

washingtonpost.com

 

I’ll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won’t endear me to the “Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep,” otherwise known as DOLL, but I’ll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow’s pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We’re always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.

“Are you saving yourself for marriage?” Tebow was asked last summer during an SEC media day.

“Yes, I am,” he replied.

The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.

“I think y’all are stunned right now!” he said. “You can’t even ask a question!”

That’s how far we’ve come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

Obviously Tebow can make people uncomfortable, whether it’s for advertising his chastity, or for wearing his faith on his face via biblical citations painted in his eye-black. Hebrews 12:12, his cheekbones read during the Florida State game: “Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.” His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.