Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009  --  Out of character for these governors

Two strongly pro-abortion governors have just signed bills favored strongly by supporters of life.  Tony Perkins of Family Research Council analyzes this turn of events in his Washington Update.  Assessing how this could happen leads to the conclusion that when backed into a corner, abortion advocates recognize the public does not agree with their pro-abortion position so they respond in a political fashion by giving the people what they want.  Aren't their actions solid evidence that even they recognize the majority of citizens are Pro-Life?

In the last five days, two pro-abortion governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia (D) and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas (D), signed legislation into law that benefits the pro-life cause. Late last week Governor Sebelius approved a bill that requires women who are considering an abortion to be fully informed about their "choice" through ultrasounds and literature. Then yesterday, Virginia governor Tim Kaine signed a bill that creates "Choose Life" license plates in his state--the proceeds of which will benefit pregnancy resource centers. Not surprisingly, both of these decisions greatly upset pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which have described ultrasound machines as "weapons" and claim pregnancy resource centers "promote extreme views to stop women from exercising their right" to kill their child.

Unfortunately for pro-lifers, it isn't likely that these two governors have had a sudden change of heart. Governors Kaine and Sebleius are under a national microscope and were probably being politically pragmatic. Kaine is also the head of the Democratic National Committee and knew that national pro-life and pro-abortion groups would scrutinize his decision. The reality in Kansas is that Mrs. Sebelius, whose pro-abortion record is unprecedented among sitting governors, was facing a veto-proof legislature. Not signing the popular bill could hamper her already controversial nomination as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Both governors realize that we still live in a pro-life nation and with the eyes of America upon them, they seemed more than willing to embrace (however temporarily) the mainstream view.

Monday, Mar 30, 2009  --  Tiller "not guilty," but could still lose his medical license

In a continued pattern of miscarried justice in Kansas, George Tiller was found not guilty of the charges brought against him relating to Kansas law prohibiting late-term abortions.  Since late-term abortions are Tiller's high volume business, it would be impossible for him to comply with Kansas law as written.  

The politicians who get Tiller's campaign contributions, and their agents, have turned a straightforward law into mush to get Tiller off the hook.  However,  the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts has released to the public a petition it filed in December, 2008 listing eleven allegations against Tiller's license, including, "Violations alleged include performing an abortion on a fetus that was viable without having a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with him."

Will Tiller's dangerous "treatment" of women (some have died) to kill their late-term babies finally be stopped?  Is this just another hurdle that Tiller can jump over with the help of the "friends" he has put in high places in Kansas?  I suppose that revoking Tiller's medical license would be challenged in court where Tiller seems to have a lot of "friends."  Will justice ever prevail?

Friday, Mar 27, 2009  --  7th Circuit again shown off-base on IL Choose Life plate ruling

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling upholding the right of Missouri residents to purchase Choose Life license plates. The court ruled that the plates represent a private view of the citizens purchasing them and are not state-sponsored speech.  Therefore, blocking that speech violates the First Amendment.  Previously, the Ninth Circuit issued a similar ruling upholding Choose Life plates in Arizona.

Before that, the Sixth Circuit upheld Choose Life plates in Tennessee and the Fifth Circuit upheld the plates in Louisiana.  In both of those cases the issue was whether abortion advocates experienced discrimination because they did not have a license plate advocating their position, but the courts rejected such a position for different reasons.

One month after the Ninth Circuit Arizona decision was allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the State of Illinois could block Choose Life plates.  The court ruled that content discrimination is not a First Amendment violation because Illinois can choose to exclude the "entire subject of abortion." 

The Eighth Circuit ruling for Missouri Choose Life plates again points out just how off-base the ruling issued by the Seventh Circuit was, effectively denying the First Amendment by allowing content-based discrimination.  Even when the Fourth Circuit disallowed Choose Life plates for South Carolina, the ruling rejected the process as subject to content-based discrimination so South Carolina legislated a new process, and Choose Life plates were approved there.

Only the Seventh Circuit has ultimately blocked Choose Life plates.   The Thomas More Society is appealing this Seventh Circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now, this latest Eighth Circuit ruling can only further encourage the Supreme Court to hear their appeal, by again highlighting how inconsistent the Seventh Circuit ruling stacks up against the rulings of other circuit courts. 

Thursday, Mar 26, 2009  --  Letter to Notre Dame president on Obama invitation

Reaction continues to the news that University of Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins has invited President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker at the May graduation, and that invitation has been accepted.  Curiously, Fr. Jenkins justified his action by stating his hope "for this to be the basis of an engagement with him" (on life issues).   With so much energy being generated in opposition, I decided to offer my suggestions, so I emailed the following letter: 

Fr. Jenkins:

Now that you have explained how inviting President Obama to Notre Dame allows you to educate him on the life issues, take the next step to educate him by dis-inviting him based on the outpouring of opposition to this invitation.  You can offer to invite him again in a future year once he has demonstrated respect for human life by changing his views and policies.

That action will teach him that the nation, and especially Catholics, do not support "abortion rights" like all of his hand-picked pro-abortion staff are telling him.

If you really want to educate the President, a private meeting would be much more effective than giving him a platform that affirms his positions by default and honors him in spite of his radical anti-life views and policies.

We are praying that you will comply with the USCCB guidelines and stop this scandalous spectacle from happening. 

Sincerely,

William Beckman

If you would like to send you own or a similar letter to Fr. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, his email addressses are: president@nd.edu and john.i.jenkins.1@nd.edu.  His fax number is 574-631-2770.  If you would rather call, the phone number is 574-631-3903.

Sign the petition to "halt this travesty" and get news on events at:  Pro-Life Action League, NDResponse, and Stop Obama at Notre Dame.

Wednesday, Mar 25, 2009  --  PP says "blame abortions on the economy, not us"

How cleaver!  Playing the game, consistent with their outlandish claim that they are trying to reduce abortions, Planned Parenthood of Chicago contributed to a story about "an all-time high number of abortions in January."  The story cites examples of mothers choosing abortion because "the recession is affecting their most intimate decisions about sex and family planning."

Apparently, as usual the "family planning" (alias family prevention) part of these intimate decisions must not be working too well.  But I disgress.  Steve Trombley, "who declined to give exact numbers," stated, "that is a departure because generally, during the past two decades, abortions have been dropping" when he noted "the numbers (of abortions) increased in January by between 5 and 10 percent, setting a monthly record for the organization.

Since 1981 Planned Parenthood has achieved expanded market share by moving from 5% to 25% of abortions done nationally, committing 305,310 in 2007.  We have no specifics on whether Planned Parenthood of Illinois, under Trombley's leadership, has kept up with that national trend, but he is still there, and they recently opened a mega-sized abortion fortress in Aurora IL, so they must be committing many more abortions, and expecting to perform even more, given its huge capacity. 

That expansion occurred before the economy tanked, but not before the political scene pointed to anticipation of a pro-abortion President to help increase abortion demand with expanded public funding of abortion.  Just imagine how many more abortions Planned Parenthood can sell if public funding of abortion gets expanded.

Undoubtably, some mothers have made the unfortunate decision to abort a child because of job loss or other economic factors.  Such a shortsighted decision ignores the reality of so many sources of help to overcome financial problems.  Of course, Planned Parenthood, and other abortionists, have no interest in suggesting that such resources be pursued.  They just affirm the shortsighted decision and make the money from selling the abortion.

So where is the evidence that Planned Parenthood is working to reduce abortions?  That claim is based on their birth control business.  But that brings us back to the subject of failed "family planning" where their own research revealed that 54% of women seeking abortions were using birth control at the time they got pregnant (70% in an Australian study).  Ah, so get more women on birth control and you get more abortion sales -- that business model has been working great for Planned Parenthood for over 20 years!  

Tuesday, Mar 24, 2009  --  Judicial activism takes over FDA's job on Plan B

The FDA ruled in 2006 that the morning-after pill, Plan B, be allowed for distribution without a prescription, but only to people 18 years and older.  Yesterday Federal Judge Edward Korman ruled that Plan B must also be allowed over-the-counter to 17 year-olds, claiming the FDA did not follow its procedures. 

On what basis does a judge think that he can second guess how an agency applies its procedures? Since the key issue was the lack of scientific data on the safety of Plan B for teenage women, did the judge commission this research himself?  On what basis did he conclude that Plan B is safe for unsupervised use by 17 year-olds?  It seems the judge made a political decision, proving to be an activist judge who invents the law as needed to satisfy his desired outcome.

Ironically, I was interviewd by Vince Gerasole of CBS Channel 2 news for his story on this ruling, but he chose not to include any of my points in his story as played on the 3/23/09 10pm news.  That story seemed slanted in favor of this expanded access to Plan B.  Only one person expressed any concern about this unrestricted access to Plan B for 17 and 18 year-olds.

Since my comments focused on questioning why a judge should be overseeing FDA procedures, the dangers of using this high concentration of birth control, the abortifacient effect admitted by Barr Labs, and the ineffectiveness of reducing the teen pregnancy and abortion rates in other nations, these negative aspects of Plan B were not welcome for Gerasole's story.

Monday, Mar 23, 2009  --  Pastor jailed for holding sign at Oakland abortuary

Even with the best efforts of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, Pastor Walter Hoye was jailed on March 20th to serve a 30 day sentence for displaying a sign in front of an Oakland CA abortuary. The sign stated, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help."  This case is an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

During the jury trial, in testimony by the abortuary's escorts, they admitted that Hoye never used force against them, threatened them, or blocked them. They proudly testified that they routinely blocked Hoye to prevent women from seeing his sign.   So who was guilty of a crime?

Life Legal Defense Foundation attorneys point out that Judge Stuart Hing of the Alameda Superior Court failed to give proper instructions to the jury on applying the law, which itself has been challenged as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Even given all these issues, Judge Hing denied the defense motion to stay the sentence pending appeal.  “It is absolutely incredible that in America an individual can be sentenced to jail for engaging in peaceful free speech activity on a public sidewalk,” observed Allison Aranda, an attorney for the Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Friday, Mar 20, 2009  --  Interpreting the teen birth rate increase

Thursday, Mar 19, 2009  --  Planned Parenthood pattern of violating the law continues

The undercover efforts of Lila Rose continue to reveal a consistent pattern of law violations at Planned Parenthood affiliates around the nation.  From North Carolina to Indiana to Arizona, the videotape evidence shows that Planned Parenthood blatantly violates mandated reporting laws in potential cases of statutory rape.

Two new videotapes taken at two Phoenix, Arizona Planned Parenthood locations reveal the latest examples of encouraging young teens to cover up the age of their boyfriends and no effort to report these potential statutory rape cases.  Earlier a Tucson Planned Parenthood was implicated.

This evidence helped motivate all five members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors to vote March 10th to cancel a health education contract with the local Planned Parenthood, cutting nearly $300,000 from its funding.

Wednesday, Mar 18, 2009  --  Denial of free speech comes to Aurora IL

I have previously reported on the denial of First Amendment rights that are occurring around the nation. Now we have a case at the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress in Aurora, IL.  A regular prayer warrior, Randy Means, was arrested last Saturday morning at the Aurora Planned Parenthood for "threatening" a Planned Parenthood employee.

This arrest  was based on a bogus charge by the Planned Parenthood employee and accused Randy of engaging in "disorderly conduct."  Mind you that Randy was on the public sidewalk, over 50 feet from Planned Parenthood's mega-abortion facility, peacefully preaching to the workers who were entering the building.

Thomas More Society (TMS) is currently suing the City of Aurora in Federal Court in Chicago, and this violation of Randy's First Amendment rights may be added to the suit.  In any event, TMS attorneys will defend Randy vigorously and will fight this frivolous charge as far as necessary to secure justice for him and Pro-Life advocates like him.

Tuesday, Mar 17, 2009  --  Stopping the radical bill HB 2354

With HB 2354, the Reproductive Health and Access Act, receiving committee approval on March 11th on a 5-2 vote, urgent efforts to stop this radical bill are moving forward.   This bill would establish abortion as a "fundamental right."  Such a declaration would have many negative consequences, effectively banning even the slightest means to regulate abortion.

This bill could come up for a vote soon so all pro-lifers in Illinois need to call your State Representatives and tell them to "Vote NO on HB2354".   You can find your State Rep's contact information at: Find your Districts & Legislators  (select "By Zip+4" and enter your 9-digit zip code).

When you contact your State Rep, you need to focus on THREE KEY POINTS -- these are the issues that are expected to have the most significance to our state representatives:

     1. HB2354 would nullify the Illinois Parental Notice Act
     2. HB2354 would force taxpayers to fund thousands of abortions
     3. HB2354 would impose comprehensive sex-ed on our kids

There's so much that's bad about this bill, but these are the key points to raise with legislators. For a more detailed analysis of the bill, plus all the latest news on the fight, visit:

     http://StopIllinoisFOCA.com

Monday, Mar 16, 2009  --  Planning for 40 Days for Life from Sept 23 to Nov 1st

I know that 40 Days for Life is currently in progress at 135 locations around the nation and beyond.  At the halfway point of this Lenten 40 Days for Life, 144 cases of babies saved from abortion have been confirmed.

At the same time a planning meeting was held today to begin preparations for the fall 40 Days for Life in Chicago.  Experience from the last two years revealed that more time is needed to fully prepare for this effort. 

Decisions were made to again focus on the Family Planning Associates late-term abortion location at Elston and Cicero in Chicago and to provide 24 hour coverage for the 40 days from September 23 through November 1st.  More information will be coming soon.

Friday, Mar 13, 2009  --  Was Obama's executive order overturned by Congress?

How's this for an eye catching headline: Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It.  What might this mean?  It turns out that the Dickey-Wicker amendment, included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996, was still part of the $410 billion funding bill that President Obama just signed.

The Dickey-Wicker amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for: (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

That provision certainly seems to block Obama's plan to fund embryonic stem cell research.  How could it be so easy to reverse his executive order?  I wonder if this wording was left in the bill to avoid the risk of losing votes needed to pass this enormous spending bill.  Now that it has passed, another bill can be used to quickly reverse the Dickey-Wicker amendment. 

If this devious plan is not actually in the works, no funds from this appropriation bill can be used to fund embryonic stem cell research from now, at least through September 30th, when this fiscal year ends.  I wonder if they could use funds from the so-called economic stimulus bill that would not be subject to the Dickey-Wicker amendment. 

Thursday, Mar 12, 2009  --  Illinois abortion totals for 2007 finally revealed

Usually, the latest Illinois abortion statistics are posted on the Illinois Department of Public Health's web site in November of the following year.   This time it took four extra months to get this information, but the 2007 Illinois abortions statistics are finally availalble.

The good news is that abortions did decline 2.5% (1,169 fewer than in 2006).  Total Illinois abortions reported for 2007 were 45,298 compared with 46,467 reported for 2006.  Abortion totals dropped slightly in every age group except 18-19 where an increase of 95 brought the total to 4,054.  The biggest decline was in 20-24 where the total dropped 577 to 11,799.  Even so, 20-24 had the most abortions, followed by 25-29 with 9,481.   

Abortions committed on out-of-state women increased 102 to 4,042.   This statistic points out the continuing problem created by the lack of an enforceable parental notification law in Illinois.  We are still waiting for a ruling from the Federal Appeals Court on whether the injunction preventing enforcement of this law will be removed.  Though the number of abortions done on women whose state of residence was unknown fell 150 to 1,965, this statistic suggests even more out-of-state women, likely teenagers, getting abortions in Illinois.

Wednesday, Mar 11, 2009  --  Giving science preference over "ideology"?

The claim has been made that science should be given preference over "ideology."  President Obama used this logic to justify Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  He said that his administration would make "scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

What is ideology?  One definition of ideology is "a set of aims and ideas, especially in politics."  In fact, Obama rejected the ideology of those who respect human life from the moment of fertilization and adopted the ideology of those who consider human embryos expendable for medical research and treatment of disease.

After claiming that he rejected ideology in favor of "facts," Obama went on to claim that his selected ideology does not conflict with moral values when he stated, "In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.  In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.  I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."

Many people disagree that creating, and even cloning, embryos so they can be killed to obtain their stem cells constitutes a moral activity that can be done responsibly.  Caring for each other and easing human suffering cannot justify killing of other humans to achieve it.  Of course, Obama and the researchers he is now funding will claim that the embryo is not human.  Such a claim is certainly not scientific.  Human embryos grow into human babies, then adolescents, and finally adults. 

Why are the eggs of endangered species of birds and turtles protected?   If we understand that they must be protected because they become birds and turtles, how can we deny the same protection to human embryos?  Failing to protect human embryos is a denial of both scientific fact and moral values.  This abuse of science allows some humans to benefit from the mistreatment of other humans.

Such devaluing of human life is very dangerous because the track record of humanity to act responsibly is very poor when any class of human beings is denied their rights.  We know all too well the horrors created by slavery, the Nazi holocaust, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and Stalin's brutal massacres.  These horrors are just a few examples of ideology run amok.

Here is one analysis of President Obama's action: Obama's Murderous Executive Order: What Should Science Trump? (Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted).  Ultimately, is this executive order truly beneficial to science?  Many criticisms, including my own, suggest it is not!  Science needs to be guided by sound morality and ethics to prevent it from being used for evil purposes.

Tuesday, Mar 10, 2009  --  "Moderating" abortion with misinformation

Claims continue to appear suggesting that abortion advocates do more to reduce abortion than Pro-Lifers or Pro-Life politicians.  The latest example is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, recently appointed by President Barack Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

In response to criticism about her consistent record in support of abortion, the Obama cover group Catholics United claimed abortions fell 10% under Sebelius and that her policies were directly responsible.  Researcher Michael New, a professor of political science at the University of Alabama, confirmed those claims could not be supported by the facts.

Many other factors explain the decline in abortions during Sebelius' time as Governor.  Continuation of the long-term decline in abortions, an informed consent law to protect women, indictment of abortion practitioners for violating the law against late-term abortions, and consistent sidewalk counseling efforts have all been factors contributing to the decline in abortions.  These factors were either ignored or obstructed by Sebelius.

In fact, Sebelius cut state funding for abortion alternatives, vetoed a bill imposing minimal sanitary standards on abortion clinics, and vetoed a bill that would have strengthened Kansas’s parental notification law.  Such actions demonstrate that Sebelius failed to support a number of policies that would have further reduced abortions in Kansas.

Beyond misrepresenting the positions of strong abortion advocates as "moderate" by inaccurately claiming they have reduced abortions, other favorite misinformation tactics of abortion advocates are to represent their opposition as either incompetent fools or violent radicals.  Opposition to the so-called Freedom of Choice Act was labeled as a scare tactic over a "mythical" abortion bill, simply because the bill had not yet been formally filed in this session of Congress.

Simply criticizing the pro-abortion policies of the Obama administration was recently characterized as violence.  A fire at an abortion center in Nebraska was cited as an example of pro-life violence, even though officials determined the cause to be accidental and having nothing to do with pro-life advocates. 

Even predictions of future violence because "anti-abortion extremists lost at the ballot box in November" are cited as part of mischaracterizing prayer vigils and sidewalk counseling as "an uptick of violence, harassment and menace."  Without real violence to cite, do not let the facts get in the way of portraying supporters of life as violent.  Always make the opposition appear radical in an attempt to portray abortion advocates as "moderates" on abortion.

Monday, Mar 9, 2009  --  Political payoff versus science

Friday, Mar 6, 2009  --  Lawsuit filed after son killed to harvest his organs

Last week, I reported that the apnea test can actually induce death in patients who could recover to normal life with appropriate therapies.  Based on a lawsuit filed this week in Pittsburg, the push for organs appears to have become even more aggressive. 

Michael and Teresa Jacobs, parents of Gregory Jacobs, maintain that their son's death was caused, not by his injury, but by doctors removing his breathing tube and administering unspecified medication in preparation for organ removal.  The parents also charge that Jacobs' organs were removed in the absence of a valid consent.

Given the serious questions that have been raised about the diagnosis of brain death, the numerous cases of people who recovered after such a diagnosis (e.g. patients from Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Paris, France), and the apparent push to loosen the standards to allow for increased organ donation, hopefully this case will raise awareness that much caution is needed when considering vital organ donation.  IRLC recommends against it.

Thursday, Mar 5, 2009  --  Planned Parenthood under the microscope

Each year the STOPP affiliate of American Life League does research on changes in Planned Parenthood (PP) facilities around the nation.  While the creation and expansion of large PP abortion facilities has generated attention and opposition around the nation, the overall number of physical locations operated by PP is still on the decline, from 855 in 2007 down to 844 in 2008.

Even with declining locations, the number of PP sites committing abortion continues to increase.  This increase is fueled by expansion of medical abortion sites.  These sites offer RU-486 abortions, but not surgical abortions.  The number of these sites grew from 108 to 121 in the last year.

The primary factor currently reducing Planned Parenthood locations may be the ongoing consolidation of PP affiliates, from 108 to 99 over the last year.  The ensuing reorganizations have led to the closing of offices that were apparently deemed unprofitable. 

Such a consolidation in Illinois contributed to the reduction of Illiniois PP locations from 25 to 20. STOPP shows a count of 21, but the PP web site shows only 20, once you remove the double counting of listing four Illinois abortion sites as both "family planning" and abortion centers.

There appears to be a trend to close "express" locations.  These sites were reduced from 41 to 31 over the last year.  If PP is finding these express locations to be a liability, that is good news because their low overhead provides PP with the quickest way to expand rapidly into new territory.  Unfortunately, Chicago area is still afflicted with two PP express locations.

Wednesday, Mar 4, 2009  --  Illinois "Reproductive Health and Access Act"

A hearing was scheduled in Springfield today on HB 2354, the Reproductive Health and Access Act, but it was postponed until March 11th.  This bill would establish abortion as a "fundamental right."  Such a declaration would have many negative consequences, effectively banning even the slightest means to regulate abortion.

For example, existing law requiring that abortions be performed by doctors could be challenged so that nurses, or virtually anyone, could legally perform an abortion.  Government funding of abortion could no longer be banned.  Parental notification requirements would not be possible.

However, another provision was also buried in HB 2354.  This provision would require that all public schools in Illlinois provide so-called comprehensive sex education.  The effect would be to replace any use of abstinence education with programs that effectively encourage casual sex and teach use of virtually all forms of birth control, including abortion.

Take action now and express your concern about this radical bill to your state representative.

Tuesday, Mar 3, 2009  --  Whose science has credibility?

The accusations are often repeated that opposition to embryonic stem cell research amounts to "a roadblock to scientific progress" or "allowing ideology to trump science."  While the advocates of killing embryos for their stem cells keep pushing for government funding of their unethical research, it seems real science is moving forward without them.

Scientists have made another advance with the alternative to embryonic stem cell research known as iPS cells. On March 1st, scientists in Canada and England published a paper showing they had turned skin cells into iPS cells. 

Even more significantly, their paper explained how they had successfully reprogrammed ordinary skin cells into iPS cells without the use of viruses to transmit the reprogramming genes to the cell.  This new approach removes the risks associated with the residual viruses previously remaining in the iPS cells.

Since the iPS cells demonstrate virtually all of the capabilities attributed to embryonic stem cells, they effectively make embryonic stem cell research obsolete.  LifeNews reported, Even George Daley at Children’s Hospital in Boston, a big embryonic stem cell proponent, admitted, "It's very significant…I think it's a major step forward in realizing the value of these cells for medical research."

Where do you think government funding of stem cell research should be directed?  Three choices are available.  Adult and cord blood stem cells are already producing effective treatments for human patients.  The research with iPS cells demonstrates that killing embryos is unnecessary to obtain stem cells with characteristics equivalent to embryonic stem cells.  The third choice is to keep killing embryos for their stem cells until this approach gets even more obsolete. 

Why did President Barack Obama recently guarantee he will sign an executive order forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research?  Whose ideology is a roadblock to science?  Why should taxpayers fund research that is both ineffective and unethical?

Monday, Mar 2, 2009  --  Abandoning the Pill Due to Adverse Health Effects?

Last week LifeSiteNews reported, The use of the contraceptive pill is plummeting among younger women, in response to growing awareness of its destructive health effects, reports a French bioethics site. According to the site "Genetique," the use of "the pill" among women aged 15 to 24 years old dropped from 43% in 2003 to 26% in 2007. The rate of childbirth among the same group increased at the same time. "The principal reason for this decrease is the attention paid by women to their health," says Genetique. "It is now proven that the pill suppresses libido and causes weight gain. The fear of cancer and sterility are equally responsible."

Of course, here is the USA, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Obama administration are working hard to expand the use of contraceptives through increased government  funding and encouraging their use through so-called comprehensive sex education.

As usual, the "pro-choice" crowd claims science is on their side, and that abstinence education must be eliminated because it provides "inaccurate and unscientific" information that is dangerous to teenagers.   Somehow, this evidence from Europe again suggests the opposite of their claims is true.