Contemplating Life

Amendment 2 Ban on Implantation Will Be Struck Down Once Embryos Are Created

2006-11-04T06:55:00.000-06:00

This Viewpoint Appeared in the St. Louis Review, Nov. 3, 2006

by Fr. Edward J. Richard, MS

The State of Missouri could create a constitutional quagmire for itself out of the issue of embryonic stem cell research if Amendment 2 is approved by voters. Beyond the complexities of the science and the ethics of the controversial research, much debated in the news, there are legal issues that will spawn costly litigation unless the amendment is defeated.
One of the major legal issues arises from the curious definition of cloning in Amendment 2. That definition and its enforcement in criminal matters could place Missouri in conflict with the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
To be sure, there appears to be no right to clone oneself in the U.S. Constitution. But what happens when human embryos are created by the scientific technique protected by the amendment? Will Missouri be capable of preventing pregnancy from these embryos? The state plans to make such a pregnancy a crime. In the amendment, cloning is defined as “to implant in a uterus” one of these embryos. Those who produce the cloned human embryos in the first place go free.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits states from unduly interfering with certain fundamental liberties of individuals, an area of constitutional law called “substantive due process.” The Equal Protection Clause of the same amendment prevents states from discriminating among citizens or groups of citizens especially when dealing with a fundamental right. The justices of the U. S. Supreme Court have exercised much juridical muscle dealing with these doctrines. Chief among the rights covered by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses is the fundamental right of privacy, particularly privacy in the highly personal area of child-bearing.
Amendment 2 protects the right to use SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to produce blastocysts, the name for the embryos in the amendment, for research. The amendment does not classify these embryos as clones. But any attempt at achieving a pregnancy by implanting those human blastocysts will be considered a criminal act of attempted cloning of a human being. It becomes a criminal act of cloning when pregnancy results.
In their definition of cloning the drafters of the amendment ignored something more important in social policy than the need to conduct research, that being the constitutional right of individual privacy. “To implant” in the process of a developing pregnancy is an action which occurs to and in the body of a woman.
One wonders whether the amendment would sound remotely reasonable if the amendment defined cloning as “to become pregnant” instead of the euphemistic phrase, “to implant in a uterus.” Note that the definition cleverly avoids mentioning the personhood of the woman. The amendment employs the same language one uses for livestock breeding in speaking of the bodies of women and would enshrine that misconception in the constitution.
In U. S. law, the question of child-bearing, particularly in the early stages of fetal development, is a matter of the fundamental and personal right of privacy for the woman, not the researchers. And the proposed amendment notwithstanding, a woman is not just a uterus.
When a state interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, the courts employ strict scrutiny in reviewing the state’s law. In order for the law to pass this kind of appraisal, the state must demonstrate that its law is necessary for promoting a compelling state interest and that there are no other means for achieving that interest.
Missouri will have difficulty meeting the court’s scrutiny. There is no stated rationale in the proposed amendment which provides any basis, much less a compelling one, for prosecuting child-bearing using human embryos created under the protection of Amendment 2. To make matters worse for the state’s case, it is a matter of public record that the state’s governor and other proponents of the amendment hold that the embryos produced by SCNT are not human clones.
In the end, this double-talk means that the provision in Amendment 2 which prohibits implantation of SCNT embryos is almost certainly invalid under the U. S. Constitution. That being the case, the most significant restriction in the amendment, the criminal ban on pregnancy, will be struck down by a federal court.
Beyond the privacy issue at implantation, another question remains which the amendment does not address. If a pregnancy ensues from SCNT, what will the state do to the woman and her baby?
Missouri is right to seek to ban all human cloning and should be able to do it by banning the process that produces cloned human embryos in the first place. Six states, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia have already done so. A number of countries, including France, Germany and Canada have passed bans on all forms of human cloning. The United Nations has called for bans around the globe. But if Missouri is going to be successful in banning cloning, it cannot do so by denying some individuals their fundamental rights while allowing one industry the liberty to clone human embryos for research. Amendment 2 does not pass that test and should be defeated on November 7.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors, New Study Shows

2006-11-01T09:09:00.000-06:00

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors, New Study Shows

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 23, 2006

Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists working with embryonic stem cell research on animals reconfirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying for years about it. Researcher Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center said injecting embryonic stem cells into the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease would cause tumors.

Goldman's research team has been injecting the controversial cells into rats that have the disease and the cells turned into tumors afterwards.

The scientists explained their findings in an article in the latest issue of Nature Medicine.

They said the embryonic stem cell injections helped some of the rats but some of the cells started growing in a manner that would eventually lead to a tumor.

"The behavioral data validate the utility of the approach. But it also raises a cautionary flag and says we are not ready for prime time yet," Goldman told the Washington Post.

He conceded that considerably more research would need to be done to determine whether the tumor problems could ever be overcome.

Parkinson's is a disease where dopamine-releasing cells in the brain die out, which leads to muscle dysfunction and can eventually cause paralysis. The goal of stem cell research in Parkinson's is to replace the dead cells with stem cells that form into new dopamine cells.

Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells obtained by killing days-old unborn children that were grown in a special chemical used to coax them into becoming brain cells.

The team killed the rats before they could determine that the tumors that appeared to be growing actually finished appearing and they said that any embryonic stem cell treatments on humans, which has never been tried, would have to be closely monitored.

Some autopsies on the rats found tumors and that the embryonic stem cells began to grow uncontrollably rather than becoming the dopamine cells as intended.

Another team led by Ole Isacson, a Harvard Medical School professor of neuroscience and neurology, published similar results earlier this month in the online journal Stem Cells and found that the embryonic stem cells also produced tumors.

Adult stem cells have not had the same problems and have been used successfully to treat dozens of diseases and conditions. But scientists have said they don't think embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure for Parkinson's.

University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin told Australian lawmakers recently that he did not think that embryonic stem cell research would even lead to cures for major diseases such as diabetes or Parkinson's.

Martin, an internationally recognized Fellow of the Royal Society, said the embryonic stem cells produced from human cloning would have the same problems.

Director of Missouri Coalition for Life-Saving Cures: Amendment 2 Makes No Claim to Ban Human Cloning

2006-10-29T08:03:00.000-06:00

Kansas City Star, Oct. 18, 2006 by Alan Scher Zagier

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research say the well-funded campaign is an attempt to buy an amendment to the state constitution while codifying human cloning.

"When people understand the deceptive language hidden in this five-page amendment, they're getting upset and getting angry," Jaci Winship, executive director of Missourians Against Human Cloning, said in a telephone interview.

Winship cited ballot language that suggests the measure bans human cloning but also allows for somatic cell nuclear transfer, a procedure, also known as therapeutic cloning, in which the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is replaced with the nucleus from a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells, sacrificing the donor embryo in the process.

Donn Rubin, executive director of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, said the measure "does not make any claim to ban all cloning."

St. Louis Post Dispatch says that SCNT Embryo is a Clone

2006-10-29T07:26:00.000-06:00

According to the Editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

the amendment expressly prohibits implanting a cloned human embryo for the purpose of creating a human being.

And they accuse the opponents of Amendment 2 of confusing voters.

When Senator John Danforth began arguing for embryonic stem cell research he said that the debate was about a “tiny bundled of unfertilized cells existing in petri dishes” from therapeutic cloning, not fertilized human embryos. Then along came Amendment 2 which protects the right to destroy embryos from fertilization in the lab. Subsequently, Dr. William Neaves of the Stowers Institute has said repeatedly that the human blastocyst from in vitro fertilization is not an embryo and that SCNT is not cloning. Now, in telling us to vote for Amendment 2, the Post-Dispatch says the amendment protects the creation of cloned human embryos but outlaws the creation of human beings.

Who is confusing whom?

Abortion's Connection With Idea Of Evil In History

2006-10-29T07:12:00.000-06:00

From a HNN entry of article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 3, 2004

The moral problem with abortion was not projected onto the screen of human consciousness as a result of Christian influence. In 400 B.C., Hippocrates wrote these words, "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." Christianity imbued the pro-life imperative with the vigor of its faith.

Clarity, as well, was granted the church through the teachings of Christ. The earliest followers could not possibly know the genetic makeup and potential of the human embryo. But they knew that they, human beings, were made in the image of God, who was the author of life and gave new life to the world in and through human bodies and human love.

Thus, in the earliest writings, abortion is explicitly spoken of as a violation of the moral law against murder. The constant teaching against abortion is unbroken from the Didache (AD 70) through the writings of Pope John Paul II. Many Christian denominations continue to hold clearly to this teaching.

Both the more reason-based approach of Hippocrates, based in natural law, and the divinely revealed aspects of the moral law led John Paul II to confirm definitively the faith's constant teaching on the evil of abortion, which "is unchanged and unchangeable." (The Gospel of Life, 62).

The identification of the evil of deliberate abortion, while not proclaimed in an extraordinary pronouncement of the church's pastors, by the pope's own words, is an infallible (i.e., unchangeable) moral teaching of the ordinary, universal authority of the church. The teaching protecting human life is well-established, clear and unbroken. Many arguments against the definitive teaching, however, are built upon moral novelties.

See the whole story by following the link on the title.

Misleading Missouri

2006-10-21T09:26:00.000-05:00

This is a quote from a story on National Review Online by Yuval Levin from Oct. 19, 2006. See the whole story by clicking the link above.

The official summary that will appear on the ballot tells voters the initiative’s first purpose is to “ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law.” In other words, to take away from state legislators the authority to govern the practices of stem-cell scientists in the state, and to hand that authority to the federal government alone instead. Missouri could not regulate any practice that Congress has not seen fit to regulate.

An Explanation Is Due
The initiative’s advocates have not done much to explain to voters why they should cede this bit of sovereignty, or why even those who support embryo-destructive stem-cell research should think that state legislators would restrict it more than Congress would. Indeed, while the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to ban all human cloning, and the Congress each year passes restrictions on federal funding of research in which human embryos are harmed, no such bills have ever even come up for a vote in the Missouri legislature.

Catholic hospitals to ban stemcell treatments

2006-10-21T08:14:00.000-05:00

Potentially life-saving treatments developed using embryonic stem cells will be banned in Catholic hospitals.

Austrailian "Bishop Anthony Fisher told a parliamentary inquiry today that the cures would be banned on ethical grounds, no matter the potential benefit to the patient."

Senator John Danforth, Clones and Embryos: Amendment 2

2006-10-21T07:56:00.000-05:00

Several years ago when Senator John Danforth began arguing for the right to clone and kill human embyros, media reports stated that he alleged that cloned embryos were not human. He described cloned embryos as "tiny bundles of unfertilized cells existing in petri dishes."

Sadly, when Missouri's proposed Amendment 2 came out, we saw that the language allows for destroying cloned human embryos and embryos which are the product of fertilization, embryos from in vitro fertilization.

No one has ever asked the former senator about this.

When does life begin? Missouri's Amendment 2

2006-10-21T07:38:00.000-05:00

In the documented arguments of those closest to the crafting of the language of proposed Amendment 2 to the Missouri constitution, neither SCNT embryos nor IVF embryos are human beings. The amendment’s alleged justification for the crime of cloning is that both types of embryos become human beings when they are implanted in a uterus. Prior to implantation, the allegedly not-yet-human embryos from SCNT and IVF can be destroyed for research purposes. But, unlike IVF embryos, SCNT embryos become clones when they become human. Using the amendment’s definitions and terms, the crime of attempted cloning is the attempt to become pregnant by the implantation of an embryo that is not human and not a clone until the woman becomes pregnant.

Is that anything but arbitrary and capricious?

Mendacious Amendment 2 Supporters Threaten to Sue Because Opponents Tell the Truth

2006-10-20T15:16:00.000-05:00

by Wesley J. Smith from his blog

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Mendacious Amendment 2 Supporters Threaten to Sue Because Opponents Tell the Truth

The hubris and arrogance of Missouri's Amendment 2 crowd apparently knows no limits. Having poured around $20 million into their campaign to convince Missouri voters they are outlawing human cloning when they are actually trying to create a constitutional amendment to protect it, they have apparently now threatened to sue opponents for pointing out this truth in a television ad and to prevent television stations from airing the ads. The threat apparently, and it is an empty one, is to sue for slander. But truth is an absolute defense to that tort.

This bullying tactic is known in the trade as a threatened Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. (Ralph Nader and I exposed this power tactic in our book No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America.) What the Amendment 2 crowd really seeks is a one-sided debate in which only they get to speak. More proof that the cloners are contemptuous of true democracy in general and disrespectful of Missouri voters. The Show Me State should show them the door.

Biotechs use legal threat to try to halt anti-cloning ad

2006-10-20T15:12:00.000-05:00

This is a link to a WorldNet Daily article on the tactics used by the promoters of cloning to halt free speech.
Biotechs use legal threat to try to halt anti-cloning ad
Missouri dispute getting heated as voters asked to guarantee 'research' rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Promoters of Missouri's Amendment 2 ballot issue, which is called a "cloning ban" even though it specifically allows for that process for "research," have sent a legal threat to a television station for airing an ad pointing that out.

The letter went to KRCG Television in Jefferson City, Mo., after an ad from "The Life Communications Fund" appeared, and was from a David A. Waite, on behalf of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures.

click the link for the whole story

New Website: 2tricky.org

2006-10-20T15:03:00.000-05:00

Telling the Truth about Amendment 2

Video: Stem Cell Debate

2006-10-20T14:55:00.000-05:00

An explanation of the position against human cloning and destruction of human embryos.

Response to Eagleton

2006-05-24T11:23:00.000-05:00

Contrary to the implication of former Senator Thomas Eagleton in his May 21, 2006, Commentary, St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach that the human embryo is something less than human.
It has become routine now, in the stem cell debate, to throw out assertions that certain writings of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas are not consistent with the authentic Catholic teaching on the grave sinfulness of abortion and destruction of pre-nascent life. These saints taught the serious sinfulness of deliberate destruction of innocent life at any stage and they believed that the child in the womb (they were not aware of zygotes and embryos, as such) was human from the start. (See Anne B. Gardiner's article in the New Oxford Review, 2004.) In a published interview on the subject (National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 17, 2003), bioethics expert and professor Father Brian Johnstone, CSSR, stated, "There was never any question (in Augustine and Aquinas) of whether terminating a pregnancy was sinful, but rather what kind of sin it was in the early stages -- homicide or something else."The tortuous logic of the claim originates in a 1970 article by Father Joseph F. Donceel, SJ. Father Donceel uses the medieval biology of St. Thomas Aquinas to question the arguments used by Catholics in support of the teaching identifying abortion as a killing of an innocent human being. The same logic is being used to justify the destruction of embryonic humans.Father Donceel used the outdated biology to assert that in the first several weeks the fetus went through two prior stages, possessing first a vegetative soul then an animal soul, before becoming human. More recent arguments arising out of Father Donceel's musings have gone so far as to assert that no human person exists until the eighth month when the brain is developed to a point when it is capable of a certain level of knowledge.However, in a timely refutation of Father Donceel's archaic analysis, David Granfield wrote that according to Thomistic philosophy a rational soul is infused at the moment of fertilization ("Abortion Decision," 1971). The history of the matter and the unbroken tradition condemning the destruction of human embryos and fetuses is much clearer than those who challenge the Church on this issue would allow. In his book titled "Contraception," John T. Noonan reviews the historical evidence beginning with the very earliest Christian writing we have, the Didache, and continuing on through the Letter of Barnabas from the early second century which holds, "You shall not kill the fetus by an abortion or commit infanticide." Referring to such documents and numerous other writings the testimony of history is so strong it leads Noonan to conclude, "The Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide. They were led to attach sanctity not only to life but to the life-giving process."
Senator Eagleton and others need to be clear that the authentic Catholic position regarding the destruction of the life of the unborn in the womb applies equally to the destruction of embryonic humans outside the womb. Moreover, the canonical penalty of excommunication for deliberate abortion applies equally to the destruction of human embryos.
Rev. Edward J. Richard, MS, DThM, JD, is a professor of Moral Theology, Vice-Rector and Dean of Students at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary and the Director of the Paul VI Pontifical Institute of Catechetical and Pastoral Studies in St. Louis MO (Part of this commentary comes from an earlier article in the St. Louis Review, Jan. 14, 2005.)

Former Senator Eagleton's pro-ESCR Commentary

2006-05-24T09:54:00.000-05:00

Right-to-lifers should support stem cell work
By THOMAS F. EAGLETON
Published Sunday, May 21, 2006 Columbia Tribune
With news about stem cell research making its way into newspapers nearly every day, Missourians should agree on at least one thing: All of us Democrats and Republicans, men and women, Protestants, Catholics and Jews should have equal access to the same stem cell research and therapies that our fellow Americans enjoy. The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is designed to ensure just that.
I am a Pope John XXIII and Archbishop John May Catholic who voted pro-life while representing Missourians in the U.S. Senate. I support this initiative because I believe it would be wrong to turn our backs on cures to some of the most terrible diseases and injuries that afflict humans. I believe those who truly respect the sanctity of human life should encourage and support researchers and medical institutions in their efforts to advance responsible science and develop cures and therapies.
In his book "Square Peg Confessions of a Citizen’s Senator," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, wrote, "As a right-to-life Senator, I believe that a critical part of a pro-life, pro-family philosophy is helping the living. ... The purpose of (stem cell) research is to save life, not terminate it."
I second my former colleague’s statement. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist thinks the same. Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt thinks the same. Sen. Jim Talent floated a proposal that satisfied neither side.
The overwhelming majority of medical experts and patient groups agree all types of stem cell research should be pursued in the effort to find lifesaving cures. Early, or embryonic, stem cells are particularly promising because they have the potential to turn into and regenerate any type of cell or tissue in the human body. As a result, cells offer promise to provide cures for diseases and injuries that cannot be treated successfully, including diabetes, Parkinson’s, MS, cancer, heart disease, ALS, sickle cell disease and spinal cord injury.
Missouri is my home, and it is the home of my family. Disease, illness or injury that could be addressed with stem cells affects nearly everyone in this state.
We all have a stake and an interest in seeing to it that stem cell research and cures are permitted at St. Louis’ world-acclaimed Washington University, which has been a leader in medical research for decades. Across the state, The Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, only a few years in existence, is already one of the most innovative and well-endowed biomedical research organizations in the world. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia have made notable advances in techniques with stem cells. All of these institutions operate under the highest ethical and legal standards. These treasures should be encouraged, not weakened.
Early stem cell research is the new frontier in medicine. If Missouri is going to remain at the forefront of medical science, we must continue to have access to the most promising areas of research and any medical treatments that result. Passing the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is the only way to ensure our state will keep taking measured steps forward.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the premier teacher in the Roman Catholic tradition, did not think the early fetus was a person - "ensouled," in his language. St. Thomas believed the early life in the womb received a spiritual soul - and became a baby - only after three to four months. Thus, embryonic cells in a lab dish or frozen away are certainly not "ensouled."
When the right to life of the fertilized egg is invoked in this debate, a counter right must also be recognized, and that is the right to health of people who suffer from such diseases as mentioned above.
There are only three ways to deal with surplus fertility clinic embryos:
● The couple authorizes their destruction.
● They are frozen and, after time, have so deteriorated that they are unusable for either research or for trying to initiate a pregnancy.
● The couple can donate them for medical health research.
Isn’t medical health research clearly preferable?
Thomas Eagleton was a Democratic U.S. senator from Missouri from 1968 to 1987.

New Editorial Policies in Science Hospitable to Fraud

2006-01-06T08:25:00.000-06:00

From the San Francisco Chronicle, by Spyros Anrdreopoulous

Quoting article: I have long suspected that the insidious rise of publication costs and fierce competition among journals may have contributed a hospitable environment for fraud.
Concern about this problem first surfaced in a 1987 letter to Science by Dr. Robert G. Martin, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health. "It would appear," he wrote, "that some leading journals have policies to accept incomplete manuscripts if they are judged scientifically exciting. These same journals often reject well-documented work under the pretext that it lacks sufficient general interest, particularly when a preliminary report on the same topic has appeared elsewhere.
"The message to young investigators is clear: Give us your half-baked ideas and spare us the boring details. At least 10 percent of what appears in our leading journals, while certainly not fraudulent, is, however, incomplete, inadequate and even incompetent. In this milieu, if scientific fraud is not increasing, it will be. The victims will be all of us."
....
When journals go beyond accepted boundaries, they may risk their credibility. In its issue of July 17, 2003, for example, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine denounced congressional efforts to ban use of medical treatments derived from embryonic stem cells. But as news reports have noted, they invited authors to contribute articles on embryonic stem-cell research to highlight their promise, implying that they would be given extra attention beyond what is accorded to completed research chosen for scientific merit. "We want to be sure that legislative myopia does not blur scientific insight," the editors declared in explaining their new editorial policy.
Last year, California taxpayers were persuaded to put themselves $3 billion in debt to support embryonic stem- cell research -- only to discover later, as The Chronicle reported in September, that the promised cures are "nowhere close, maybe decades away." The article reflected the consensus of a conference sponsored by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to implement Prop. 71. Stem-cell research is a highly worthy endeavor and merits our support. But it is one thing for politicians to make promises; it is another for scientists and journal editors who value objectivity and factual accuracy to assume advocacy roles that teeter on the edge of credibility.

It's all a fraud

2006-01-06T08:13:00.000-06:00

An already disgraced scientist lied about all of the stem cell lines he claimed were matched to different patients through cloning, investigating researchers said in a new jolt to the shattered reputation of Hwang Woo-suk.
...In the experiment deemed fraudulent, Hwang had claimed in a paper published in May in the journal Science that he had created 11 colonies of human embryonic stem cells genetically matched to specific patients.
An investigative panel at the university reported last week that Hwang had faked the research on nine of the stem cell lines. On Thursday, it confirmed he also fabricated his research for the two remaining cell lines as well.
"The panel couldn't find stem cells that match patients' DNA regarding the 2005 paper and it believes that Hwang's team doesn't have scientific data to prove that (such stem cells) were made," said Roe Jung-hye, the university's dean of research affairs. BoMI Lin, AP, in
Washington-Post, Dec. 29, 2005

Wesley Smith on Media Bias and Cloning

2005-12-06T04:51:00.000-06:00

Wes Smith, noted author and commentator on matters pertaining to human life, writes about the media's role in letting the biotech advocates disseminate uscientific propaganda for cloning and killing embryos. He says, "To overcome their political problem, biotech industry lobbyists and their allies mounted a propaganda campaign intended to turn accepted biology on its head by denying that human SCNT culminates in the creation of a new human embryo. What followed is a case study in media bias."
"In the great cloning debate, the mainstream media follows Big Biotech's lead as faithfully as Ginger Rodgers did while dancing with Fred Astaire. Without missing a beat, the media obediently began to omit mention of the embryo in its descriptions of therapeutic cloning."

Abortion and suicide

2005-12-03T06:30:00.000-06:00

A new study shows that women who have abortions are at a higher risk for committing suicide. Shouldn't women considering abortion be told this?

Target Boycott

2005-12-03T06:04:00.000-06:00

Target is being boycotted because it refuses to refer to Christmas. The ACLU is responsible for all this non-sense. See the story from Focus on the Family.

The Ethics of Egg Donation

2005-11-20T16:57:00.000-06:00

University of Pittsburgh biologist Gerald Schatten cut his ties with Korean cloning expert Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University after nearly two years of collaboration, saying that Hwang had obtained human eggs unethically.

"With current techniques, it takes dozens of eggs to make a single cloned human embryo, which is destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells. That means that if the field of therapeutic cloning is to advance -- a field involving the creation of cloned embryos as sources of stem cells that would be genetically matched to particular patients -- a significant number of eggs will be needed both to fuel the initial research and eventually to satisfy the demands of patients. It is legal in the United States to pay women for their eggs, and in recent years at least two teams of stem cell researchers in Massachusetts have done so to the tune of thousands of dollars per procedure. Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., made the decision to pay women only after a long analysis by an ethics board created by the company, said scientific director Robert Lanza. He still thinks it is the right way to go, Lanza said, given the painful injections involved, the uncomfortable egg suction procedure, and the approximately 5 percent chance of a serious case of hormonal over-stimulation, which can require hospitalization. Others, however, say such payments cannot help but be coercive, especially for poor women who might feel compelled to take on those risks just to make ends meet. In April, the National Academies, chartered by Congress to advise the nation on matters of science, released a report that recommended against payments for human eggs beyond expenses incurred by the donors, in part because of the "sensitivities" inherent in the creation of embryos destined for destruction." By Rick Weiss,Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, November 20, 2005; A06

Missouri Cures Initiative Will Exploit the Poor and Leave them Out

2005-11-19T09:22:00.000-06:00

One thing that no one seems to be willing to talk about in the media is the exploitation of the poor women who will be enticed to risk their lives and health to produce enough eggs for the production of these clones.

And, thinking about it, doesn't that make sense though? Because won't the alleged cures mostly be available to the wealthy or, at least, to those with the means to pay for the companies for their research and patents? There is nothing in the proposed amendment to the Constitution that says that all Missourians will benefit, is there?

Missouri pro-life groups united in their criticism of pro-cloning petition

2005-11-19T09:05:00.000-06:00

From The Pathway-See the link for their whole story by Allen Palmeri

Virtually every conservative pro-life organization in Missouri is criticizing the pro-cloningpetition designed – if passed in November by voters – to amend Missouri’s constitution preventing therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research from being banned.
...
Pam Fichter, president, Missouri Right to Life, called the petition “deceptive” ....“The statewide petition campaign by the deceptively named Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures would make it illegal in Missouri to protect human life created in the laboratory, would remove protection from human embryos created through in vitro fertilization, and would make it very difficult to restrict taxpayer funds from supporting this lethal and unproven research,” Fichter said. “Missouri Right to Life urges all Missourians to oppose the statewide initiative and to support the real promise of adult stem-cell research.”
...
Meanwhile, Sam Lee, founder, Campaign Life Missouri and a veteran pro-life lobbyist, said ...
“We’re talking about a fake cloning ban." “We’re talking about a made-up definition for cloning, or attempting to clone a human being, which is not found in any medical textbook, embryology textbook or medical dictionary of the National Institutes of Health website.”
...
State Rep. Ed Emery, R-Lamar and a member of First Baptist Church of Lamar, criticized the petition with two op-ed articles denouncing cloning in the Joplin Independent, which is supporting the petition drive. In his Oct. 26 article, Emery announced that doctors, scientists, policy makers and business people have banded together in a group called “Missourians for Ethical Cures” to fight the initiative. Choose adult stem cells, the group is proclaiming. Adult stem cell research does not require the destruction of life like that of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).
...
State Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee’s Summit and a deacon at First Baptist Church, Raytown, called the initiative “prolix,” which means that it is extended, wordy, tedious, tiresome, diffuse and prolonged. In other words, it is structured so as to wear out the average citizen who will likely give up trying to understand it, the senator said.
...
Other organizations opposing the petition drive include The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network in St. Louis, Missouri Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America in Missouri. In addition, the Missouri Catholic Conference will kick off a major education initiative in all of its parishes Nov. 26-27. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, recently called embryonic stem cell research/cloning “intrinsically evil.”

Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative: Clone and Kill

2005-11-09T05:02:00.000-06:00

In the rush to redefine the moral meaning of the human embryo, politicians and scientists supportive of cloning and killing embryos, claimed that "therapeutic cloning" did not create human life. At the same time, they have crafted legislation which ostensibly would outlaw human cloning, which they defined as implanting an embryo in a uterus and bringing it to term. The contradiction in that was easy to see. If the cloned embryo is not human, why do you need to outlaw implantation of the cloned embryo in a uterus?

The result is that they now avoid the use of the term cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) was popular for a while. But that is the cloning process used to create all of the notable animals, such as Dolly, that have been cloned to date. So now, they have dropped the use of that title. In the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment, restrictions on cloned human embryo research are prohibited. The goal is to prevent the Missouri legislature from making any kind of restrictions on research on human embryos. The amendment will also overturn Missouri's prohibition against reseach on embryonic humans who were produced by in vitro fertlization.

Cord-blood bill passed in quiet fashion

2005-11-06T07:45:00.000-06:00

"A well-kept secret during the Missouri General Assembly’s regular session this year is being touted as an effort that could help save human lives using umbilical cord blood. Senate bill 323, sponsored by Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee’s Summit, would direct grant money to establish umbilical cord blood banks in Missouri and help expand on existing banks, such as the St. Louis Cord Blood Bank at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Matt Blunt last summer. The law creates a Life Sciences Research Board, which will establish the grant program. To be eligible, a bank must gather, collect and preserve umbilical cord and placental blood only from live births. Cord blood also must be primarily distributed to recipients who are unrelated to the donors. " See the whole story by Jennifer Brinker, Review Staff Writer