Americans United for Life Blog

Ultrasounds, “Missing Angels” & Defining Life

Nathalie LeCostaouec — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:38:43 +0000

Judging from comments made by pro-choice activists, Michelle Goldberg (author of Kingdom Coming) and Rebecca Traister (of Salon.com), technological advancements are having an impact on the rhetoric used in the abortion debate. In their discussion of the “internal contradiction” between third term abortions and ultrasound images, the women recognized the need to evolve from using language like “blob” or “growth” when describing the fetus in order to “keep emotional and moral ground.” The latest ultrasound imagery provides stunning, undeniable proof that the unborn child is a unique person. An excellent 4D ultrasound video presented by the American Life League is available online at YouTube.

This past year, 11 states considered ultrasound legislation including Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ultrasound legislation requires a woman considering an abortion be given an opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child. This legislation works to ensure that a woman is fully informed of the reality of abortion.

A recent and growing movement seeks to challenge the idea that life can only be acknowledged at the moment of live birth. The “Missing Angels” Bill, enacted in 23 states, allows parents of stillborn children the option of receiving a birth certificate (“certificate of stillbirth”) rather than merely a death certificate as recognition of their child’s existence to help with the healing process. More than 25,000 pregnancies a year end in stillbirth, generally defined as a naturally occurring, unintentional intrauterine death after more than 20 weeks of gestation. While the legislation is carefully constructed to exclude “elected terminations,” it acknowledges that a child in the womb after a certain point of development is worthy of recognition as a person.

While Goldberg emphasized that there is a “huge difference” between an 8 week “clump of cells” and an 8 month “baby . . . I mean fetus,” she failed to explain what justifies that difference and where the line should be drawn. If the line of when life begins is dependent on what technology allows us to see or whether a mother values her unborn child, then the line is merely arbitrary. The law should define and protect life according to the truth, that life begins at the moment at which a new independent human person is created and that all life has intrinsic value.

For more information on ultrasound legislation, see Defending Life 2008 at AUL.org.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth Study

Melanie Johnson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:27:55 +0000

This is the second of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Moreau, et al., “Previous Induced Abortion and the Risk of Very PreTerm Delivery: Results of the EPIPAGE Study,” 112 Brit. J. Gyn 430 (April 2005).

Abstract:
There is some concern about the effects of induced abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcomes, in part because abortion usually is induced early or about halfway through a woman’s reproductive life. Recent studies have shown an excessive risk of preterm delivery. This study examined the risk of very preterm birth, at 22 to 32 weeks gestation, as related to previous induced abortion. A case-control study enrolled 1843 very preterm live-born singleton infants at less than 33 weeks gestation, 276 infants born at 33 to 34 weeks gestation (moderately premature), and 618 unmatched full-term control women who delivered at 39 to 40 weeks duration. Mothers of preterm infants were younger than those with full-term infants, had less education, and were likelier to be living alone, to be unemployed, and to smoke.

A history of induced abortion correlated with an increased risk of very preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.1). There was little change when controlling for maternal characteristics or without adjusting for a history of preterm deliveries. In addition, the association remained the same when women with previous preterm delivery were excluded. The risk tended to increase with the number of previous induced abortions. The adjusted risk of preterm delivery associated with induced abortions tended to be highest for extremely preterm deliveries. The major complications leading to very preterm birth were premature rupture of membranes and idiopathic spontaneous preterm labor, and these occurred more often in connection with extremely preterm birth. Hypertension and fetal growth restriction were more common when infants were born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation. An association between previous induced abortion and very preterm delivery related to fetal growth restriction was apparent in infants born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation.

This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved.

Kemp-Kasten Provision under Fire

Mailee Smith — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:02:45 +0000

This week, the U.S. House State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee approved a 2009 funding bill that will undermine the Kemp-Kasten provision—the provision that allows the President to withhold funds from any organization that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

It is under the Kemp-Kasten provision that Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush have withheld funds from UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. This ability to withhold funds is significant, as comments by UNFPA officials themselves indicate the group’s deep-seeded support of abortion and China’s one-child policy. Take these comments, for example:

“China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour.” –Agence France-Presse, October 11, 1999.

“I have had the honor of being associated with China’s reproductive health and family planning program for more than two decades.” –Nafis Sadik, former UNFPA Executive Director, January 12, 2002.

“… I also feel proud that UNFPA made the wise decision to resist external pressures and continued its fruitful cooperation with China.” – Nafis Sadik

A favor to mankind? An honor? Something in which to take pride? Not according to the Chinese women forced into abortion because of China’s heinous population control policies. And definitely not to the children aborted.

Unfortunately, an amendment to the funding bill offered by Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) creates a special exception to Kemp-Kasten that will allow UNFPA to receive 60 million dollars, despite Kemp-Kasten. An amendment by Representative Dave Weldon deleting this loophole was rejected.

Representative Weldon had the following reaction:

“For years we have sought to protect women and children in China because it was morally wrong to support China’s forced abortion program. Now the Democrat Majority in the House has voted to change existing law and send millions of dollars to UNFPA and turn a blind eye to the egregious human rights violations that UNFPA promotes in China. This is a despicable policy change.”

Tiller’s Aides Discontinue Their Late-Term Abortion Services

Ioana Ardelean — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:05:15 +0000

Two physicians providing medical evaluations and second opinions for late-term abortions performed by George Tiller at the Kansas Wichita Clinic discontinued their services on Monday, according to a local newspaper.

Kansas law requires that any abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy be performed only if two independent doctors determine that carrying the pregnancy to term would cause “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

In 2007, notorious late-term abortionist, George Tiller was charged with 19 misdemeanors for failing to abide by this law. Specifically, Tiller failed to abide by the provision requiring that an unaffiliated physician confirm the medical necessity of a late term abortion procedure by enlisting second opinions from doctors, including Dr. Burt Odenheimer, who work for the Wichita Clinic, where Tiller performed the abortions.

Tiller immediately challenged the constitutionality of the state’s late term abortion restrictions. AUL filed an amicus brief in the state trial court on behalf of numerous state legislators seeking to have the legislature’s intent in enacting the law carried out (To see the brief, please click here).

What makes the situation even more interesting is the fact that the Judge sitting on the case is running for re-election. Given the local disaccord with Tiller’s late term abortion procedures and the pressure placed on the clinic to stop them, it remains to be seen how the ruling in the case will affect the Judge’s re-election.

International Pro-Life Conference

Ioana Ardelean — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:17:12 +0000

Campaign Life Coalition, LifeCanada and International Right to Life Federation are organizing an international pro-life conference in Toronto, Canada this fall.

Pro-life speakers from around the world will be present, among which Dr. Jack Willke, regarded by many as the father of the pro-life movement in America and Father Gerard Wilberforce, prominent pro-lifer in Great Britain and great, great, grandson of William Wilberforce, who fought successfully to end the slave trade in England.

You can find more information about the conference on Campaign for Life Coalition’s website.

Additional Reading

Stem Cell Stories

Matthew Eppinette — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:51:55 +0000

Our friends at the Family Research Council have just posted an update on adult stem cell successes. Not simply statistics or lists of treatments, these are stories of real people who have experienced the benefits of adult stem cells. To cite but one example:

Jill Rosen was diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome, a form of lupus and an autoimmune disorder causing blood clots, in 1997. Her health was gradually deteriorating. Between 2002 and 2004 she was in hospital every two months, was not responding to treatments and was exhausted. She contacted Dr. Richard Burt from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, who was working on a new treatment involving stem cell transplants for auto immune disorders.

In February 2005 she began chemotherapy, and a month later her own stem cells were replanted into her body. She was released from the hospital after 3 weeks. For several months she did not experience any notable improvement. However, in 2006, her conditions improved dramatically. Follow ups from 2006 through 2008 confirmed drastic improvements. Jill says that her family and friends all celebrate her new

birthday on March 7, 2005 , the day her own adult stem cells were transplanted back into her body.

WSJ on Black Abortions in America

Daniel McConchie — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:38:43 +0000

William McGurn does the country a great service today by writing a column on the largely unreported story of how the abortion industry targets black Americans. Did you know that while one of every five white pregnancies ends in abortion, one of every two black pregnancies end that way? Or that Planned Parenthood fundraisers have been recorded accepting contributions restricted for the termination of black babies?

Thanks to work by pro-life black leaders, a move is afoot to try to rally the NAACP and other prominent black Americans to confront the problem. This article is a must-read.

WSJ - Main Street - The NAACP and Black Abortions

Bush Administration Proposes Additional Protections for Healthcare Freedom of Conscience

Denise Burke — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:19:09 +0000

On Monday, the Bush administration began circulating a proposed policy that would require all recipients of federal money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that they will not discriminate against healthcare providers who object to participating in abortions.

Although the announcement of this draft policy was met with predictable consternation from abortion advocacy groups, this policy simply provides an oversight mechanism to enforce more than a dozen existing (and many long-standing) federal protections for healthcare freedom of conscience.

For example, on June 19, 1973 (in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade), Congress passed, The Church Amendment, the first federal legislation protecting the right of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortions. Named after its sponsor, Senator Frank Church, it provides that an individual may not be forced to participate in abortions over moral or ethical objections.

More recently, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, part of the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor/HHS/ED) Appropriations bill, provides that no federal, state, or local government agency or program that receives federal health and human services funds may discriminate against a health care provider if the provider refuses to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Moreover, the laws of 47 states also provide similar protections for individual healthcare providers. Only Alabama, New Hampshire, and Vermont do not supplement federal freedom of conscience protections.

In response to the proposed policy, abortion advocacy groups engaged in a classic attempt at misdirection, arguing that the policy would negatively impact women’s access to contraceptives.

However, a careful reading of both the draft policy and the multitude of existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience clearly shows that this policy is directed at abortions, both surgical and chemical (e.g. those induced using RU-486).

The reasons for this attempted misdirection are obvious: Abortion supporters realize that the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer funding of elective abortions. Americans, by a large margin, also support the right of individuals to refuse to participate in procedures (like abortion) that violate an individual’s conscience, morals, or ethics. So, rather engaging in a meaningful and honest discussion of the issues, abortion supporters are feverishly trying to shift the debate to one in which they feel more confident of acquiring some modicum of public support.

This step by the Bush Administration is necessary to ensure that existing federal law is enforced and to protect the freedom of conscience of all Americans.

Must Read Review

Matthew Eppinette — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:29:55 +0000

Adam Keiper of The New Atlantis and the Ethics and Public Policy Center reviews Michael S. Gazzaniga’s Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Gazzaniga does little to explore the implications of the research he describes. Once we have been armed with the latest scientific findings about how our brains came to be and how they function, how ought we to act? The findings of neuroscience do not immediately penetrate to the most intimate levels of personal experience.

. . .

Mr. Gazzaniga is far too credulous in this closing chapter, especially regarding the extravagant claims of some robotics researchers. But worse, he doesn’t consider what the coming age of mind enhancement and neural implants might mean. He concedes that tweaking human biology could have unintended consequences, just as tinkering with the natural world has sometimes gone awry. But he does not acknowledge that science alone cannot judge where our powers over our world and our selves should be limited.

The basic assumption of “Human” is that biological science is superior to every other way of thinking about human life. But that assumption leaves us unable to judge when science itself has gone too far. We may, in the end, feel compelled to turn to the very sources of wisdom – philosophy, tradition, faith and even “long windbag discussions” – that Mr. Gazzaniga scorns.

Reigning in the Culture of Death: The Continued Fight Against Physician-Assisted Suicide in the US

Maggie Datiles — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:12:32 +0000

It has been nearly fourteen years since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was approved by a narrow margin in November 1994. This year, state bills and ballot initiatives attempting to legalize and create a state constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been introduced, and challenges against state criminal homicide laws prohibiting assisted suicide have been filed. Despite national and international data and studies demonstrating the dangers that assisted suicide poses to the sick, disabled and elderly, assisted suicide proponents continue to press forward with efforts to spread the practice beyond the borders of Oregon. The medical community has come out against the PAS, but advocates have ignored its advice and recommendations. Meanwhile, disability groups and civil rights organizations consistently oppose the spread of assisted suicide. Although physician-assisted suicide is currently allowed only in the state of Oregon, legalization of the practice has emerged as an area of renewed interest.

To read more, please see the entire article published by the Culture of Life Foundation.

State Supreme Court Project: Summarizing the Whitepapers

Matthew Eppinette — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:40:45 +0000

As you may recall, the AUL State Supreme Court Project involved researching, writing, and publishing to the web 50 whitepapers — one for each state — on the state supreme courts.

In order to make the information even more accessible, the AUL Legal Team has been working to draft summaries of each whitepaper. The summaries available currently are:

Given the continuing importance of state supreme courts, we at AUL are pleased to be able to make this information available.

Obama promise to sign FOCA now on YouTube

Daniel McConchie — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:44:34 +0000

A two minute excerpt of Barack Obama’s speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year where he promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act is now on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

Planned Parenthood Backs Obama because of His Pro-Abortion Views

Daniel McConchie — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:31:08 +0000

Planned Parenthood endorsed a candidate for President - Barack Obama.

The endorsement, while unsurprising, may make it more difficult for Obama to move to the middle on abortion - something he has been looking to do over the past few weeks.

For example, Obama told Relevant magazine last week, “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy.”

However, Planned Parenthood specifically lists as one of the reasons for their endorsement his support of the Freedom of Choice Act - a bill that would erase virtually every abortion law across the country, and make abortion for “mental distress” legal in all 50 states. Obama promised in a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year,

The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. (emphasis mine)

During the same speech, he also stated:

There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. (emphasis mine)

Planned Parenthood also says that Obama intends to repeal rules that bar any U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that perform or promote abortions.

Here is the official press release.

Case Status Update: South Dakota’s Informed Consent Provisions Bypass Hurdle in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds

Mailee Smith — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:32:16 +0000

In a decision issued last week by the Eighth Circuit (sitting en banc), the Court reversed a preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of certain provisions of South Dakota’s informed consent law.

The provisions require that a woman be informed that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” and that the woman has an existing, Constitutional relationship with her unborn child. Planned Parenthood had challenged the law, and initially obtained the now-overturned preliminary injunction from the lower court.

The effect of this ruling remains to be seen. Because the decision involved only a preliminary injunction, the actual merits of the case—and the constitutionality of the informed consent provisions—have not been decided. However, a few positive developments must be noted.

First, the Court concluded that, in a preliminary injunction proceeding involving government action, plaintiffs such as Planned Parenthood must meet a higher standard. It is not enough that Planned Parenthood show that it might succeed on the merits of the case; it must show that it is likely to succeed. This heightens the standard that district courts in the Eighth Circuit will use when considering preliminarily enjoining abortion related laws.

Second, this Court more accurately balanced expert witness testimony than it has in the past. For example, in Carhart v. Gonzales, one of the partial-birth abortion cases, the lower court and Eighth Circuit took abortionist testimony as fact, completely dismissing the accuracy and strength of the government’s expert witnesses.

Here, however, the Court emphasized that Planned Parenthood did not have enough medical and scientific evidence that the informed consent provisions were unnecessary or inaccurate. The Court did not take as fact a plaintiff abortionist’s own affidavit. Instead, it balanced the legislative history and multiple expert witnesses testimonies given by the government. In other words, the Court did not take abortionist testimony as fact, as it has done in the past.

Finally, the Court indicated that the question of when life begins is a scientific, and not necessarily ideological, fact. It demanded scientific evidence from Planned Parenthood. And because Planned Parenthood did not produce, it lost at the preliminary injunction stage.

What happens next with this case remains to be seen. The informed consent provisions are not in the clear yet—the preliminary injunction stage is just one hurdle in the battle of constitutionality. But at least as the lawsuit proceeds, the provisions will be in effect.

Case Status Update: Ohio Supreme Court Will Look at RU-486 Law

Mailee Smith — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:21:13 +0000

For the last several years, the State of Ohio has been in litigation defending its law requiring that physicians prescribing RU-486 abide by the FDA’s protocol when dispensing the drug. On June 23, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law should be evaluated by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Passed in 2004, the law was aimed at the abortion industry’s common failure to abide by the FDA’s protocol in prescribing the RU-486 drug regimen. According to the regimen approved by the FDA, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic. The woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby. The woman returns for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to monitor bleeding and confirm the abortion.

However, abortionists are commonly misusing RU-486, directing women to take the second dose vaginally and at home—rather than orally and in an office or clinic—and completely bypassing any follow-up appointments. Misuse of RU-486 has devastating effects. At least eight women have already died in the United States alone.

Ohio’s law states that abortionists must follow the federal protocol in prescribing and dispensing RU-486. Planned Parenthood filed suit claiming that it does not understand what is meant by “federal protocol.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of physician members of the United States Congress, arguing that the law is not vague and educating the court on the dangerous effects of RU-486. That brief can be viewed here.

Media Appearance: AUL President Clarke Forsythe on Relevant Radio

Matthew Eppinette — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:16:52 +0000

AUL President Clarke Forsythe is scheduled to appear on Relevant Radio from 9:00–10:00 am on Wednesday, July 2.

He will be discussing incremental legislation in today’s political climate.

Relevant Radio is broadcast at 950 AM in Chicago or you can listen online at http://www.relevantradio.com/

Abortion Alternatives Programs: Reducing Abortions and Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose Childbirth Over Abortion

Maggie Datiles — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:11:44 +0000

The Minnesota abortion alternatives program, “Positive Alternatives,” has just been granted roughly 1.5 million dollars in state funding per year for the next three years, totaling to 4.7 million dollars.

The Positive Alternatives program was approved by the state legislature in 2005. Non-profit organizations that qualify for participation in the program will be reimbursed with state funds for services they have provided. Under the program, maternity homes, pregnancy centers, counseling agencies, and other social service agencies will be reimbursed for the free services they have already provided to women who have chosen childbirth over abortion. Reimbursable services include medical and nutrition services, prenatal care, parenting classes, housing, adoption counseling, food, personal counseling, and educational and employment assistance.

Executive Director of Positive Alternatives Scott Fischbach stated that “[t[hese grants ensure that pregnant mothers…won’t feel abortion is their only option.” Fischbach continued: “We know that the grants are helping more women choose life for their unborn children, and we hope that they are enough to reduce the overall number of abortions.”

Indeed, abortion alternatives programs have been shown through the years to reduce the number of abortions performed. Pennsylvania’s abortion alternatives program, “Real Alternatives,” is the oldest government-funded abortion alternatives program in America, and has been used as the model for all other state abortion alternatives programs. During the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the PA program served 17,233 women. In that year alone, the number of abortions performed in PA dropped 3%. This drop has been attributed directly to the free services provided by Real Alternatives supporting women’s right to choose childbirth over abortion.

When the MN Positive Alternatives program was approved in 2005, it received overwhelming bi-partisan support. During its first year of funding, the program served at least 5,600 women. This year, Representatives Ken Tschumper (D), Shelly Madore (D) and Will Morgan (D) pushed the Minnesota legislature to completely cut off all funds for the Positive Alternatives program. The legislature, however, recognized the need and importance of the program, and renewed funding for the next three years.

The Minnesota legislature recognized that women who have exercised their right to choose by electing childbirth over abortion deserve the care necessary to carry through with their choice. The state’s funding of the Positive Alternatives program protects women facing crisis pregnancies from being forced by financial and other pressures to resort to an unwanted abortion. The legislature has seen thousands of women served by the program, and has chosen to continue to serve pregnant women in need.

Abortion alternatives programs are prevalent in other states besides Minnesota. Using the successful Pennsylvania program as a model, the state legislatures in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas have created state-supported abortion alternatives programs. These programs are effective and have improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.

State legislatures concerned with meeting the needs of women in need and with protecting the right of a woman to choose childbirth over abortion should consider establishing an abortion alternatives program in their state.

Congressional Leaders Pull Stop Abuse Bill over Parental Rights

Daniel McConchie — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:06:17 +0000

Last night, House leaders abruptly pulled HR 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, from the floor over a Motion to Recommit that would have required that any facility covered under the bill have a policy in place to require parental consent before distributing any prescription medication, including contraception and Plan B.

However, instead of allowing a vote on this issue, Democratic leadership invoked a procedural rule to suspend consideration of the bill.

By blocking a vote, House leadership is killing an effort to involve parents whose children are in residential treatment programs in their child’s important medical decisions - especially on the distibution of drugs that can cause abortions.

Five Federal Judges Coming up for a Vote

Daniel McConchie — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:25:36 +0000

Senator McConnell’s tireless efforts to get Senate Democrats to agree to allow more federal judges come to the floor for a vote is finally showing some fruit. The Senate leadership has agreed to allow five judges to be considered this week:

Nomination of Helene White to the Sixth Circuit Court
Nomination of Raymond Kethledge to the Sixth Circuit Court
Nomination of Stephen Murphy to District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
Nomination of William Lawrence to District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana
Nomination of G. Murray Snow to District Judge for District of Arizona

This evening the Senate will consider the nominations of White, Kethledge and Murphy. Thursday the Senate will consider Lawrence and Snow.

AUL and Friends Comment on New York’s Stem Cell Plan: Fund Proven Cures and Treatments, Not Speculation

Matthew Eppinette — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:04:19 +0000

The Empire State Stem Cell Board has drafted a strategic plan “to guide New York State’s $600 million, 11-year investment in stem cell research.” The New York State Department of Health has invited public comment on the plan, which is available at the New York State Stem Cell Science (NYSTEM) website.

While the goals of the plan are laudable, the thrust of the plan is aimed primarily at “embryonic stem cell lines” even though the goals are entirely plausible with adult stem cell research. While adult stem cell research is referenced, it is not given the preeminence it is due, nor is it certain that adult stem cell research will be funded under the Strategic Plan.

Americans United for Life has teamed up with New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, Family Research Council (FRC), and FRC’s Dr. David Prentice to provide further information on the escalating benefits of adult stem cell research and the limitations and dangers of embryonic stem cell research.

Click here to read our comments, “NYSTEM Should Fund Proven Cures and Treatments, Not Speculation.”

Latest National Polls Show Sharp Increase in Number of Pro-Life Americans

Maggie Datiles — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:41 +0000

2008 Polling Results

A number of recent polls show that the majority of Americans are pro-life and favor more restrictions on abortion, and that the number of Americans who identify themselves as pro-abortion/pro-choice has dropped to its lowest in the past seven years.

ABC News and Washington Post polling results show not only that the percent of abortion supporters in America has fallen to its seven-year low, but that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-life” has risen to tie the percentage of the last time the pro-life percentage peaked during the same seven-year period. Earlier this year in January, an ABC News-Washington Post poll reported a 4% drop in abortion supporters, and a 4% increase in pro-lifers. So, the good news is that support for abortion is way down, and support for abortion restrictions is way up.

Some participants in the ABC News-Washington Post erroneously believed that abortions in cases of rape or incest, or in situations where the mother’s life was endangered constitute the majority of abortions performed in America. The survey failed to inform these participants that abortions in those circumstances are very rare, and account for only 1-2% of all abortions. The great significance of the fact that 98-99% of all abortions are elective procedures cannot be more apparent; it is strange that such an important fact was not relayed to the poll participants. However, despite the absence of this information, the majority of the respondents still favored abortion restrictions, with only 44% wanting all or most abortions to be illegal. Had the respondents been informed of the rarity of abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, the percentage of Americans who want greater restrictions on abortion may have been much higher.

A Gallop poll conducted this May shows similar results. According to the poll, 71% of Americans want all abortions to be limited to rare circumstances or to be illegal. In response to a question of when abortions should be allowed, a scant 28% took the pro-abortion position.

2007 and 2006 Polling Results

The decline in abortion support has been a steady one. A March 2007 Zogby poll showed overwhelming support for incremental abortion limitations and other life-affirming laws. According to the Zogby poll:

69% support the prohibition of using Federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions;
69% support parental notification for girls 16 or younger;
55% support parental notification for girls 18 or younger;
56% support a 24-hour waiting period;
64% support charging criminals for attacks on pregnant women which result in the killing or injuring of the woman’s unborn child; and
69% support prohibitions on using taxpayer dollars for abortions abroad.

In addition to the March 2007 Zogby poll, a November 2007 Newsweek poll reported a 5% increase in the number of pro-life Americans. A CBS News poll also showed a decrease in abortion support for the year 2007. According to the CBS News poll:

47% want to prohibit most or all abortions;
16% want abortions to be “greatly restricted”;
30% want to limit abortions to rare circumstances of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life;
12% want abortions to be legal only to save the mother’s life;
5% want abortions be illegal in all cases; and
31% want abortion to be legal in all cases.

The 2007 CBS News polling results correspond to the 2006 CBS New poll, which reported that 51% of Americans want most or all abortions to be illegal, whereas only 12% want abortions to be legal in all cases.

Conclusion

The trend towards a more pro-life America has been clearly illustrated by the results of national polls over the past years. More and more Americans recognize the importance and need for meaningful abortion restrictions, and are willing to identify themselves as “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice. Legislators should pay attention to these trends and facts, as it is their responsibility to pass laws and policies that accurately reflect the views of the Americans people. Laws that expand the right to abortion and increase access to elective abortions are not in line with the views of the American people. On the other hand, laws that ensure that abortions are rare (and, in those rare cases, that abortions are safe), are laws that adequately address the needs and views of the American people. For legislators who are looking to fulfill their responsibility to the American people, there is no time better than now to enact laws restricting abortions and protecting the sanctity of human life.

Study Reveals that Improper RU-486 Use Is Deadly

Mailee Smith — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:09:27 +0000

At least 14 women have now died—including 8 in the United States—after using the abortion drug RU-486. A new study by University of Michigan scientists reveals that improper use of the drug regimen—as pushed by Planned Parenthood—is killing women.

When the FDA approved RU-486, it directed that the drug be taken according to a certain regimen. Specifically, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic. This initial ingestion blocks progesterone from getting to the baby, and the baby starves to death. Under the regimen approved by the FDA, the woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby. The woman is supposed to return for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to confirm that the baby has been completely expelled, and to monitor bleeding.

However, abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, routinely fail to follow this specific regimen. Instead of instructing women to take the second dose (misoprostol) orally, they are instructing women to take it vaginally. And instead of requiring women to take the second dose in a doctor’s office or clinic, they are releasing women to take the drug on their own, at home, without any medical support. Thus, there is no follow-up care for the woman after the initial visit.

When four women died in one week after a California Planned Parenthood facility provided RU-486 to the women, the scientists began investigating the cause of those deaths. They found that vaginal use of misoprostol allows bacteria to cause fatal infections.

That specific Planned Parenthood facility has begun instructing women to take the second dose orally, but it still has not revised its policy that allows women to take the second dose at home.

This new study adds to the evidence demonstrating that Planned Parenthood is killing the very women it claims to protect.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong

Mailee Smith — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:59:30 +0000

In its first statement devoted exclusively to the issue of embryonic stem cell research, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) last week firmly stated the following:

It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject that first step down this path.

The USCCB urges all Catholics—and others of good will—to join them in reaffirming that “the killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.”

The statement—overwhelmingly approved by at vote of 191 to 1—is the first of two documents to be released by the USCCB. The second document will be addressed to engaged and married couples in the Catholic Church, educating them on reproductive technologies and the link to embryonic stem cell research.

Stating that while the Catholic church “appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects” (quoting Pope Benedict XVI), the USCCB focuses on the fact that embryonic stem cell research sacrifices innocent human life—stating that “[d]irect attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong.”

The USCCB explains that justifications set forth for embryonic stem cell research are founded on utilitarian principles that will eventually harm the dignity and autonomy of the very patients it is currently supposed to “help.” For example, if we use embryos simply because the embryos are going to “die anyway”—where do we draw the line? Patients with terminal illnesses and criminals on death row will “die anyway”—but that does not give scientists the ability to kill them for medical research. As the USCCB states, “[t]he very same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patients with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging or other human beings considered more deserving or productive.”

This logic is not as strained as researchers would like us to think. Just this week it was reported that in Oregon, the state’s health services will pay for patients’ lethal drugs for assisted suicide, but not for further treatments.

Similarly, if an embryo is not afforded human rights simply because it is too weak or undeveloped to possess such rights—where does that leave patients whose diseases have progressed to a degree that the patients lack all autonomy? “If fundamental human rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.”

The USCCB statement also explains that human cloning is argued as essential for the progress of embryonic stem cell research. This leads to the creation of life for the purpose of destroying life. It also leads to the deplorable practice of using women for their eggs—in complete disregard for the health of women.

And thus, the USCCB’s conclusion stated above: once we cross the line, there is no stopping point.

Will Women Sell Their Eggs? Researchers Want the Right to Buy Them

Daniel McConchie — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:30:59 +0000

Having found that women are generally uninterested in going through a risky procurement procedure so scientists can use their eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research experiments, researchers are now calling for a repeal of state laws that currently ban financial payments for eggs according to the journal Nature.

To give a picture of how dry the applicant pool is, Kevin Eggan and Douglas Melton of Harvard University’s Stem Cell Institute spent two years and $100,000 on local advertising and could only secure a single egg donor - someone with ties to Harvard.

Because fertility clinics are allowed to pay for eggs, those women who had expressed interest in the Harvard program decided that they would rather be paid than donate. So researchers want the right to compete.

What most people don’t realize is what exactly a woman has to go through to donate eggs for any purpose. First, the woman must take fertility drugs to overstimulate their ovaries. Instead of the usual 1-2 eggs being released at a time, 10-15 eggs will be released. Periodic monitoring must take place to determine when the eggs will ripen. At the time of release, the woman must undergo laparoscopic surgery to obtain them. Side effects of the procedure range from mild discomfort to…infertility.

These researchers are willing to gamble on a young lady’s future ability to bear children in their frenetic quest for a supply of eggs just so they can create human life and then destroy it. Of course, the top candidates for this form of exploitation will be poor women looking for a quick way to make some cash.

If researchers fail at their effort to liberalize state laws on this issue, they may turn overseas where the pool of available women for exploitation is far larger and presumably less expensive to buy off. Even with the recent advances in stem cell research that opens the door to creating embryonic stem cells without the need to create and destroy embryos, it seems nothing will detour these scientists who have dedicated their careers to healing some by destroying others. It just may take greasing the wheels of destruction with a little cash, that’s all.

AMA: Launching Yet Another Attack on Freedom of Conscience?

Denise Burke — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:48:50 +0000

The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA) is asking its membership to adopt a policy that supports eviscerating the freedom of conscience of pharmacists. Specifically, the following recommendation will be considered at next week’s AMA meeting:

A pharmacist’s deliberate refusal to dispense a drug on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, i.e., pharmacist conscientious objection, has been most often associated with Plan B, the emergency contraceptive, and has received considerable attention in both the lay media and in medical journal commentaries. Of all of the reasons why a pharmacist might not dispense a legally valid prescription, conscientious objection is the only one that places a pharmacist’s personal views in potential conflict with the best interests of the patient. As discussed in current AMA Policy H-120.947, our AMA supports responsibility to the patient as paramount in all situations. Thus, our AMA supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”

The Board of Trustees recommends that the following be adopted and the remainder of this report be filed: That our American Medical Association reaffirm Policy H-120.947, ‘Preserving Patients’ Ability to Have Legally Valid Prescriptions Filled.’ (Reaffirm HOD Policy).

This is just the latest in a well-orchestrated series of attacks on the freedom of conscience of medical professionals. Such attacks have become commonplace over the past few years (emanating from the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, federal and state courts, and governors’ mansions) and are most frequently encouraged by abortion advocates and their allies. However, this may be the most hypocritical. While purportedly supporting freedom of conscience protections for physicians, the AMA is arguing that similar protections should be denied pharmacists.

For more information on freedom of conscience for pharmacists, see The Tip of the Spear: Protecting Pharmacists’ Rights of Conscience

For more information on healthcare freedom of conscience (generally), see A Primer on Protecting Healthcare Rights of Conscience

A Little Data on Confirming Judges

Daniel McConchie — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:54:17 +0000

I’m sure some of you are wondering whether Senator McConnell’s continued obstruction of Senate business over that body’s failure to confirm judges to the federal bench is really a big deal. I mean, come on! It’s an election year - what do you expect?

Well, here are some key stats that demonstrate just how far the Senate is behind:

Key Statistics on Judicial Confirmations for the 110th Congress

(Current As of June 10, 2008)

CIRCUIT COURT VACANCIES
11 Circuit Court vacancies with 10 nominees: 7 nominees are judicial emergencies: 1 judicial emergency does not have a nominee

Circuit Court Confirmations During Final 2 Years of Presidency (Average 24):

8 – Bush (thus far in 110th)
15 – Clinton
20 – Bush I
17 – Reagan
44 – Carter

Circuit Court Confirmations During Presidency (Average 62, including 1 term presidents):

59 – Bush (7 years)
65 – Clinton (8 years)
42 – Bush I (4 years)
83 – Reagan (8 years)
56 – Carter (4 years)

DISTRICT COURT VACANCIES
33 District Court vacancies with 18 nominees; plus 1 nominee to a future vacancy: 7 nominees are judicial emergencies; 2 judicial emergencies do not have nominees

District Court Confirmations During Final 2 Years of Presidency (Average 94):

41 – Bush
57 – Clinton
100 – Bush I
66 - Reagan
154 – Carter

District Court Confirmations During Presidency (Average 237, including 1 term presidents):

244 – Bush (7 years)
305 – Clinton (8 years)
148 – Bush I (4 years)
290 – Reagan (8 years)
206 – Carter (4 years)

SUMMARY

The Senate must confirm 7 more circuit nominees and 16 more district court nominees this year to match President Clinton’s confirmation numbers during his final two years.

Did Your Member of Congress Co-sponsor FOCA?

Daniel McConchie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:32:37 +0000

As we noted here last week, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President has decided to award allies who helped him topple Hillary Clinton with a promise that the first thing he will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). If you haven’t yet seen the details of this horrific piece of legislation, check out Denise Burke’s analysis of the bill here.

Are you interested in knowing whether your Senator or Representative is one of the 127 members of Congress who are co-sponsoring the legislation? We have the current list of co-sponsors now posted here on AUL.org.

McConnell Continues to Disrupt Senate Business over Judges

Daniel McConchie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:39:11 +0000

Senator McConnell continues his campaign to draw attention to the Senate’s continued failure to confirm judges to the federal bench.

While the Senate confirmed three District Court nominees today, (Mark S. Davis to be U.S. District Judge for the eastern district of Virginia; David Gregory Kays to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Missouri; Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri), McConnell is unhappy over the failure of the Senate to confirm Circuit Court nominees per the previous agreement by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

So, Leader McConnell once again invoked the two-hour rule today forcing Democrats to shut down the Senate so that a committee hearing on interrogation could continue.

Given McConnell’s continued campaign, it seems that the Democratic leadership has two choices - allow more nominees be brought forward for an up or down vote or extend this Congress’s do-nothing record and allow this issue to become campaign fodder in the fall.

Adult Stem Cell Research: The Lead over Embryonic Research is Growing

Mailee Smith — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:50:16 +0000

One needn’t search hard for new breakthroughs in adult stem cell research. Even with the mainstream media strongly favoring embryonic stem cell research, stories of new cures, new uses, and new discoveries emerge on an almost daily basis. Around the world, scientists are broadening the lead adult stem cell research has over embryonic stem cell research. Currently, the score is 70+ to 0, in favor of adult stem cell research.

The most recent news comes from Australia, where scientists at Griffin University found that adult stem cells from patients’ own noses can be used to treat Parkinson’s disease, helping to reverse the loss of muscle control.

When scientists harvested nasal stem cells and placed them in the brains of rats, the chemical in the brain that promotes muscle control spiked. Rats infected with Parkinson’s went from running in circles to being able to run in straight lines. Moreover, no tumors developed in the subject rats.

This treatment using adult stem cells will eventually be used on human patients, joining other treatments that are already being used to treat and cure 70+ human diseases.

And where are the embryonic stem cell cures? There are none. There are no studies—on humans or animals—that have given us any cures or treatments using embryonic stem cells.

And while embryonic stem cells cannot cure, they can kill. Studies have revealed that treatments using embryonic and fetal stem cells cause devastating results in patients, including the formation of tumors. In one study treating Parkinson’s patients with fetal stem cells, the patients developed worse shaking than they had before the treatment.

With study after study trumpeting the successes of adult stem cell research, it is getting harder for the media to ignore the obvious superiority of adult stem cell research.

Americans United for Life Blog

Ultrasounds, “Missing Angels” & Defining Life

Related Posts

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth Study

Related Posts

Kemp-Kasten Provision under Fire

Related Posts

Tiller’s Aides Discontinue Their Late-Term Abortion Services

Related Posts

International Pro-Life Conference

Additional Reading

Stem Cell Stories

Related Posts

WSJ on Black Abortions in America

Related Posts

Bush Administration Proposes Additional Protections for Healthcare Freedom of Conscience

Related Posts

Must Read Review

Related Posts

Reigning in the Culture of Death: The Continued Fight Against Physician-Assisted Suicide in the US

Related Posts

State Supreme Court Project: Summarizing the Whitepapers

Related Posts

Obama promise to sign FOCA now on YouTube

Related Posts

Planned Parenthood Backs Obama because of His Pro-Abortion Views

Related Posts

Case Status Update: South Dakota’s Informed Consent Provisions Bypass Hurdle in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds

Related Posts

Case Status Update: Ohio Supreme Court Will Look at RU-486 Law

Related Posts

Media Appearance: AUL President Clarke Forsythe on Relevant Radio

Related Posts

Abortion Alternatives Programs: Reducing Abortions and Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose Childbirth Over Abortion

Related Posts

Congressional Leaders Pull Stop Abuse Bill over Parental Rights

Related Posts

Five Federal Judges Coming up for a Vote

Related Posts

AUL and Friends Comment on New York’s Stem Cell Plan: Fund Proven Cures and Treatments, Not Speculation

Related Posts

Latest National Polls Show Sharp Increase in Number of Pro-Life Americans

Related Posts

Study Reveals that Improper RU-486 Use Is Deadly

Related Posts

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong

Related Posts

Will Women Sell Their Eggs? Researchers Want the Right to Buy Them

Related Posts

AMA: Launching Yet Another Attack on Freedom of Conscience?

Related Posts

A Little Data on Confirming Judges

Related Posts

Did Your Member of Congress Co-sponsor FOCA?

Related Posts

McConnell Continues to Disrupt Senate Business over Judges

Related Posts

Adult Stem Cell Research: The Lead over Embryonic Research is Growing

Related Posts