Emerging Voices

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the Supreme Court recently upheld the "Federal Abortion Ban"! Having never heard of this piece of legislation (and as a rabid anti-choicer I think I do a good job at following abortion-related news) I did a quick search for it on Wikipedia. Nothing. So I did a news search for it. No recent stories, and only two with that actual term, one of which is capitalized to give the air of being an actual thing. I then decide to do a regular Google search and I came up with a hypothesis that the NARAL blog, BushvChoice, is in fact talking about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. I actually called my local NARAL affiliate and confirmed that, yes, this is what the blog was talking about.

Here's what the blog said, in order to pump up support for their Freedom of Choice Act:


Now follow the link and you'll find a summary of the so-called "Federal Abortion Ban", which actually has never gone by that name that I can see. Now, obviously, NARAL doesn't want to go around saying "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" (or, for that matter, "abortion"—and actually they generally avoid "birth" as well...), but does anyone else find this just a tad bit dishonest? Don't the ladies at NARAL realize that, perhaps, when the college liberals read their blog that they might not have the faintest idea about what NARAL is talking about and conclude, from the name "Federal Abortion Ban", that it might be talking about just a bit more than partial-birth abortions? Not anywhere on that link do they provide the actual name of the ban (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), the name of the Supreme Court cases that upheld the ban (Gonzales v. Carhart or Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood) or the medical uses of the term which they insisted that we use in place of "partial-birth abortion" when this whole thing was being debated (D&X procedure). If I didn't know any better, I'd say it's almost as if NARAL doesn't want ordinary Americans to know specific details what they heck they are talking about!

Here's what they consider "background" information with common sense questions inserted:

• The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical state law as unconstitutional in 2000 [Um, and that would be...?], and every court to hear a challenge to this first-ever federal ban on abortion declared it unconstitutional. [Do you guys care if it goes the other way: when courts uphold pro-life bills but the Supreme Court upholds your side? It really doesn't look good for the pro-choice crowd to be whining about us having the Supreme Court give us something the other courts wouldn't.]
  
• Since the Court's decision in 2000, President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and abortion foes see these appointments as an opportunity to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision.
• For the first time since Roe, this ban [WHAT BAN?] has no exception for the health of the woman.
• Any doctor who violates this ban [WHAT BAN?] would face criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison, even if he/she was acting to protect the woman's health.
• This ban [WHAT BAN?] rolls back key protections that have been guaranteed since the days of Roe v. Wade.
• The Court, with the addition of Bush's appointees, has disregarded the medical opinion of leading doctors who oppose the ban [WHAT BAN?]. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - which represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country - says the ban is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.

Um...OK. Finally at the end of their laborious fear-mongering page, they offer a link for "More Information", which includes the name of the Supreme Court case, but nothing else that would even remotely clue-in readers as to what they are talking about. That page says, "State legislatures across the country continue to introduce new total bans to challenge Roe in the courts, and the majority of state legislatures and Congress have passed unconstitutional laws that would ban safe and medically appropriate abortion care as early as the 12th week in pregnancy." Throwing this in there (the introduction of "total bans") intentionally insinuates that this is what the "Federal Abortion Ban" also is. I would think that the average person—even someone who isn't very bright—might see just a bit of a difference in a total ban on abortion and late-term abortions.

Why can't NARAL just come out and say what they are actually thinking: "We are OK with partial-birth abortion for any reason!" It would make things so much easier, though, frankly, they may feel a dwindle in support. Like I've said before, NARAL does not support anywhere near the vast majority of self-identified pro-choicers. They are for abortion for any reason whatsoever, at any stage of pregnancy, with "no apology". Of course they start crying about the fact that there is no "health" exception in Gonzales v. Carhart—er, I mean "The Federal Abortion Ban", causing housewives in Manhattan to lock up the kids in the basement and go out in search of wire coat-hangers for the impeding Doom that will befall women.

In a pathetic hope that somewhere NARAL would link their own name for the ban and the actual name of the ban together, I clicked on yet another "Find Out More Information" link (what is this, "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the NARAL website?) and that led me to a press release that only Nancy Keenan could draft. Of course, that painful read provided no information about the actual details of "The Federal Abortion Ban", but, indeed, "this is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not make private, personal medical decisions for the rest of us". I wonder had Nancy worded it, "This is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not be making private, personal late-term partial-birth abortion decisions for the rest of is" if it would ring the same with the average American as her first sentence.

My most loyal pro-choice readers will undoubtedly scoff and say that there is nothing deceptive about the term "Federal Abortion Ban" and yes, they can see that it is capitalized as a proper noun rather than a regular noun, what does that have to do with anything—why would I ask? NARAL can do no wrong.

Labels: law, NARAL

Someone close to you is very sick and the only way for them to get well was from research conducted by way of stem cell research, what would you do?

There are two aspects of this question that I would like to address. First, the question is asking if the ends justify the means. Second, the question assumes that the current hopes for Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch (ESCR) are a reality.

To answer if the ends justify the means: I totally sympathize with the desires of people to find cures. My own family has been greatly impacted by some of the very diseases touted as curable with ESC. However, an embryo doesn’t become a human; it already is a human. If allowed to develop, that same embryo will become a fetus, then an infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult and elder. So what is really being asked is if I would support the killing of another person, with the hope that research done on their body could save my family member. The answer is no.

At any point along that line of development, a human can die. But we should never seek the opportunity to actively kill life at a specific point of development. In addition, we should never create human life solely for the purpose of killing it and using its body.

To address the assumed success of ESCR: ESCR has not produced a single treatment. This fact does not change everything else I’ve said. Even if ESCR was wildly successful, I would still be opposed. However, after decades of research, ESCR has failed to produce a successful clinical trial. There are no ESCR treatments or cures. In addition, many of the claims made by ESC researchers have been proven to be little more than hyperbole.

Alzheimer’s is often touted as one of the many diseases curable by ESCR. But stem cell researcher Michael Shelanski, co-director of the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York has little hope. He said, "I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small…I personally think we're going to get other therapies for Alzheimer's a lot sooner."

So this begs the question – why the focus on unethical ESCR? Why not focus research dollars and energy on ethical and successful Adult SCR as well as the other therapies mentioned by Mr. Shelanski?

It’s difficult advocating for the protection of human embryos. There’s very little emotional appeal. The human life that is killed during ESCR does not present itself as an adorable little baby or a vulnerable handicapped or elderly person. The embryo doesn’t even “look” human. But the facts do not change. The embryo looks exactly like you and I did a few days after we were conceived. At the point of conception, that embryo is a human. As a civilized society we should never kill humans in the name of research.

Would you support alternate forms if available? What kind of alternatives would you like to see, if any?

I'm very excited about adult stem cell research! The research is taking place, and, at the same time, treatments and cures are being approved and used. Some of the stories are truly incredible.

Here are just a few of the success stories:

Spinal Cord Injury
As a result of a car accident in 2001, Laura Dominguez broke her neck and was paralyzed from the chest down. She was treated with a mix of adult stem cells and other cells obtained from olfactory tissue inside her nose. The cells were transplanted across the injury site in her damaged spinal cord, and several months after the surgery, she was able to move her food. She can now walk with braces. Her remarkable progress is continuing, and several other spinal cord injury patients like her are also showing benefits from the transplant surgery. Dr. Carlos Lima performed the surgery in Portugal, but neurologists in the US are seeking FDA approval to begin offering Dr. Lima’s therapy in the United States.

Leukemia
Patrizia Durante was diagnosed with acute leukemia six months into her pregnancy. Her daughter, Victoria Angel, was born healthy, but Durante was given only six months to live. The stem cells from the blood of her daughter’s umbilical cord were used for a transplant. Several years later, Durante is in full remission. “She saved her mommy,” Durante told reporters. “She’s my little miracle. That’s why we named her Victoria Angel. She’s my little angel.”

Krabbe’s Leukodystrophy
Gina Rugari was born with Krabbe’s leukodystrophy. This is a rare, degenerative enzyme disorder of the nervous system, in which the baby shows initial signs of irritability and developmental delay or regression. Seizures and fevers often follow, then blindness and deafness until the baby dies, usually before age 2. Gina was tested for Krabbe’s leukodystrophy shortly after she was born, because she had a brother who had died from the disease. Doctors treated Gina with chemotherapy to destroy her immune system, and introduced new umbilical cord blood stem cells from a closely matched donor. The transplanted cells produced the missing enzyme. Her body accepted the cells, and she is thriving several years after the transplant.

Parkinson’s Disease
Dennis Turner was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease and by early 1991 he suffered extreme shaking of the right side of his body and became unable to use his right arm. Neurosurgeon Dr. Michele Lavesque removed a small tissue sample from Mr. Turner’s brain and insolated adult neural stem cells. He multiplied and matured these cells into nerve cells, and injected them back into the left side of Mr. Turner’s brain, which controls the right side of the body. Soon afterward, the Parkinson’s symptoms began to improve in his right side. His trembling decreased, until to all appearances it disappeared. Neurological evaluation indicated a marked improvement in his symptoms, which lasted for about 5 years. Because Parkinson’s is a progressive ailment, his condition is continuing to deteriorate, but as Mr. Turner recently testified at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing, “…I have no doubt that because of this treatment I’ve enjoyed five years of quality life that I feared has passed me by.” He enthusiastically expressed a willingness to undergo a repeat surgery of this sort to further slow the progression of his symptoms.

What type of legislation would you like to see in place concerning stem cell research? Would you like to see it outlawed all together or closely sanctioned?

First, it should be noted that ESCR is currently legal in the U.S. Many people are confused on this point. Previous Federal legislation only impacted scientist’s access to taxpayer dollars and frozen embryos.

As previously stated, we oppose all ESCR because it requires the destruction of a unique and innocent human life. We would naturally like to see the practice banned. But even more so, we would like to see the banning of all human cloning. That would include Reproductive Cloning, Therapeutic Cloning and Therapeutic Cloning’s synonymously named Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

The law books of Oregon and the United States should reflect that we, as a people, hold a culture of life that is willing to protect life during all stages. The Government should never condone, or promote, the killing of innocent humans at any stage in their development.

When I first became active in the pro-life movement I figured I'd have to learn more about fetal development and abortion; easy enough. Silly, silly me. Someone should have warned me that I would have to learn about things like Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer!

Today, a grad student emailed me several questions about stem cell research. While answering these questions, I realized that a lot of people ask about stem cell research. I figured that if those people had questions, someone else was bound to have the same thoughts bouncing around in their head. So, starting today, I'll post the student's questions and my answers in a series.

If any of this is confusing - or spurs additional questions - please feel free to ask! You are also more than welcome to disagree with me. I'm a pro-life advocate in Oregon, I'm used to people not agreeing with me.

--------------------------------------------------------

Why specifically do you oppose stem cell research? Is it just the use of embryonic stem cells or is it the process?

We don’t oppose stem cell research (SCR). We’re very excited about the amazing advances being made with adult stem cell therapies. Adult stem cells are harvested from human tissue without any harm done to the donor. Adult stem cells are currently being harvested from umbilical chords (post birth), bone marrow, skin, dental pulp, nasal cavity, fat, plus a variety of other ethical sources. In addition, adult stem cells can be harvested from cadavers within 24 hours of death. To date, there are over 75 cures and treatments that have been derived from adult stem cell research (ASCR).

The second kind of stem cell research is embryonic. This is the form of research we oppose. As an organization we oppose the destruction of all innocent human life.

According to medical textbooks, each of us started our lives as a unique human being at the point of conception. These same textbooks define conception as the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. Here’s just one such definition:

Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being…This [ a zygote] highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

(Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998, p. 2, p. 18)

Since we oppose killing an innocent 22 year-old, we also oppose killing a 12 year-old, two year-old, two month old or a baby at two months, weeks or days gestation. We are fundamentally opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ECSR) because it requires the donor embryo to be killed.

In addition, one can not discuss the issue of ESCR without talking about cloning. The two procedures go hand in hand.

Scientists have made it clear that the embryos stored in fertility clinics are no longer adequate for their research. Plus, when conducing lab experiments, scientists found that ESCR treatments are often rejected by lab animals’ bodies - much like a person’s body can reject a donated organ. To solve these problems, scientists have turned to cloning embryos using the patients DNA and a donor egg. The theory is that if the ESC DNA matches the patient’s DNA there will be no reject. This cloning is called Therapeutic Cloning or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. During this process, a human being is created for the specific and sole purpose of being killed.

Cloning then poses another problem – access to human eggs. The numbers of eggs needed are astronomical and the harvesting process is far from pleasant. To try to solve this problem, researchers in England will soon be using cow eggs and human DNA in an attempt to create human embryos for research. Stem cell researcher Stephen Minger, director of the Stem Cell Biology Lab at King’s College London said,

For us to try what we are going to try would take tens of thousands of eggs. These must be fresh and can't come from the unwanted eggs used in IVF treatments…It is unjustifiable to ask women to donate to a research program that is so inefficient. However, cow eggs are readily available in large numbers on a daily basis from animals killed for meat.

It’s clear that the issue of ESCR opens a Pandora’s Box of ethical issues.

It should be noted that to date, not a single embryonic stem cell treatment has had a successful clinical trial; or any clinical trial.

I first heard about this story last month. I was outraged and horrified. Today, as I revisit the case, my reaction is just as strong.

In June of this year, an Italian doctor performed an abortion to kill one twin because the baby had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. It's estimated that 3,500 babies are killed every day in America by abortion. Society doesn't raise much of a stink over it. But this Italian abortionist is receiving international attention, not because he killed a baby, but because he killed the wrong baby. It's being reported that the abortionist "botched" the abortion but I question this label. Technically, he did exactly what he was paid to do; killed a baby. The only problem is he killed the "normal" baby and not the defective one.

Public reaction to this story is predictably strong. Maybe it will be enough to shake a few eyes open to the truth about abortion.

I'm often haunted by the testimonies of women who have had abortions. It doesn't matter if the woman regrets her abortion or not; I'm still haunted. I fail to understand how - after hearing any woman's abortion testimony - anyone could say abortion is A) a "good" thing for woman or B) abortion has a minimal impact on women emotionally or psychologically .

Today, I came across this collection of stories printed in the London Daily Mail. These are the stories of post-abortive British women. Their situations, lives, ages, reactions are all different but one thing is consistent - abortion greatly impacted their lives.

I've come to the conclusion that for every physical death caused by an abortion there are multiple emotional deaths. Part of the mother dies, the father, extended family and friends. So many people are impacted. Yet, in the U.S., we continue to ignore this growing reality.