Do you want to know about your daughter's abortion?

Take a look at USAToday, today. An article on the Supreme Court's hearing about a Parental Notification Act from New Hampshire, contains quotes from one of the Texas Physician Resource Council's Board members, Linda Flower, MD, our Executive Chair.

The New Hampshire law only requires that a parent be notified - not even "consent." I can't imagine any doctor ever doing an appendectomy or removing a life-threatening mole without first obtaining the parent's permission, much less notification. But, no one has a "right" to have their appendix removed or to have a melanoma biopsied.

I'm always shocked when this issue comes up. Children's rights are limited by the necessity for their parents to care for them. That's why they aren't allowed to enter contracts. Other than for aides and remedies for sex, that is. While most States will not allow a girl to consent to sex, legally at the age of 14 or 15, they will allow her to seek contraceptives and even an abortion without even letting mom and dad know why she might look so pale or be tired.Go here for information on State's regulations on minors and contraception and abortion.

This is not "sexual health." This is child abuse.

Here's a link to another article, for more on the controversy.

In Vitro Scandal and Miracle Remembered

The story about the resignation of the cloning Korean Veterinarian, Dr. Hwang led me to google the scandal at the fertility clinic at University of California at Irvine that had caused Hwang's American associate, Gerald Schatten, trouble. There aren't as many stories as I thought I would find.

Here's some links
The miracle baby born 13 years after being frozen

A very sad story about a couple who never had children, but who may have two daughters "out there."

Early stories about the scandal - from 1995.

A very long article that covers all sorts of IVF and surrogacy scandals and mentions that the UCIrvine doc fled the country.

Actually 2 of the docs fled, and here's the story of the arrest of one.

Cloner Hwang resigned

The blog.bioethics.net has a piece on the resignation of the Veterinarian from Korea who has admitted that at least 2 of his research assistants (if PhD candidates, just consider them coerced). The link they give is from Forbes.

Unfortunately, they have another article suggesting that US funds for cloning research would cure this ill, too. That's not consistent with the scandals we read about every day. Let's see... didn't Schatten have another unethical associate in Irvine, California who was switching embryos and juggling eggs?

Interesting, no one's using euphemisms for "cloning."

Green and fresh eggs

From the JoongAng Daily (Korea), Dated September 22 (tomorrow's news, today!)

Roh Sung-il, the director of MizMedi Hospital, a fertility clinic in Seoul that provided eggs to Seoul National University Professor Hwang Woo-suk for the latter's stem cell research, admitted yesterday that he paid about 20 women 1.5 million won ($1,430) each for eggs that he then donated to Dr. Hwang. He added, however, that those transactions took place before laws forbidding them came into effect. He said Dr. Hwang did not know about his transactions with the women.

Human oocytes - and the risk of medication and invasive procedures - should cost money. Men have been paid for their sperm donations for years. I even heard about "compensation" for oocyte donation when I was inschool - and very, very poor, so $1000 looked tempting (in 1990). But, I knew that the oocytes, if fertilized, would be my children, and I couldn't bear with harming my own children. I definitely did not contemplate some of the uses that we know about, now.

The only question is why would a physician and supposedly reputable scientists lie, cheat, and break laws and then continue to lie about it?


Here are more news stories:
From The International Tribune Pacific-Asia

And here's a great editorial, speaking of farming, Albert Schweitzer, and stem cells, called. "Don't turn Hwang into Dr. Moreau."

Common Ground, again

I mentioned that I was in DC yesterday. For the last 3 1/2 years, I've been on the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, which is co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This was the last meeting for this Committee, under the last Charter and Charge.

Several members of the Committee were surprised at the common ground we found between small government, pro-life, pro-family members and the Domestic Violence (DV) and Sexual Abuse (SA) community members. I wasn't: - of course (excuse me)- OF COURSE - we absolutely, positively, no ifs, ands or buts, will not tolerate the abuse of anyone at the hands of another. Not a single one of us have any sympathy or measuring stick that excuses violence against anyone, especially between people in the family, and in the most vulnerable and intimate moments and circumstances of our lives.

I've always been certain that the reason that I was appointed (besides the fact that I write a lot of letters) was because they couldn't find many in the domestic violence community who were pro-life and pro-family - in other words, grass roots Republican.

In my opinion the reason I stuck out is not because Republicans are too busy with fighting abortion and supporting the family that we ignore, miss, or support violence within the family and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it's because the DV and SA communities are hostile to Republicans because of the Party's opposition to abortion. I've been subjected to attacks on my religion (that I never even mentioned), ignored, excluded, and laughed at when attempting to function in the SA and DV communities, if I let it be known that I'm pro-life.

Pro-life advocates are fighting abuse of women and children and not just on one front. Small government advocates believe that voluntary efforts outside of government are the answer to social problems. And DV and SA advocates are, by definition, fighting abuse and rescuing the vulnerable.

Common ground exists: we are rescuers. We all want to end violence against women, children, and men. We will not rest until the family and intimate relationships, and especially our children, are be free of abuse, coercion and violence. "Home," "dating," and "sex" should never be words associated with domination, violence, pain and shame.

Let's meet on Common Ground.

What's the connection for NYT and Plan B

I wish I were a better detective.
Tuesday, I had to spend a couple of hours in the Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC, so I did something I don't usually do: I read a real, dead-tree newspaper. The NYT flashed an above-the-fold front page article and an editorial on FDA regulation of a single brand name drug: Plan B. The front page article was similar to this one.

I'm sure that a lot of people appreciated education on the scientific facts (as far as we know them). I know that some have been happy about the education of women concerning the product. However I am sure that Barr Laboratories, abortionists and all sorts of sex abusers are even more grateful.

The simple fact is that facts don't tell us what the right thing to do is. We look at the facts and draw conclusions based on ethics, community standards, and sometimes gut feelings.

Wouldn't you think that the "Newspaper of Record" could look into something besides raw politics: men buy the drug where it's OTC. And the pregnancy rates and abortion rates don't go down in those areas.

Don't turn away

"Silent Rain Drops" gave me courage and support today, with a comment on my post on why Christians need to take our place in politics and for the wounded and innocent. Thank you!

ProLifeBlogs.com has more information about the far reaching effects of legalized abortion: Not only do actual people use their minds and hands to end the lives of the children who die in abortion, but those of us who live in this nation give our willing or unwilling support to not only abortion but the infringement of other rights and civil liberties. Directly due to the special protection of legalized, elective and interventional abortion.

The right of free speech and assembly is limited - certain expression is not allowed at "facility" entrances. People have been arrested for kneeling in prayer on public ground, because of their proximity to an abortion clinic. There are "bubbles" or floating areas of restricted speech and simply "being there" around these places.

And now, there is the creeping infringment on the right of conscience due to legalized abortion and only abortion - legalized slavery of people who choose to work in the "healing arts." Are you a pharmacist? Then you must carry certain drugs and you must be prepared to immediately sell those - and only those - drugs without fail. Nurses and doctors are having to choose between caring for women in their childbearing years and risking their license and livelihood if they refuse to participate in legalized, intentional, and elective interference in the natural life span of nascent human beings.

We can't say we aren't doing these things. The United States of America is a representative democracy. If it's happening with legal protection, I are at least allowing it -- if we turn away at the wrong time, we are causing it to happen.

Write a letter to your local paper each month. Call your representatives at the State and Federal levels. Tell them to protect the right not to be killed, the right not to be forced to act against your will, the right not to be silenced. Give a package of diapers to the local crisis pregnancy center. Give your time to the local family violence center or food bank.

Just don't turn away.

"My trust is shaken"

It's not as though I had much trust in the ethics of cloners, and hopefully we can continue to limit the destructive research in our country. If we can't trust the cloners to follow basic ethics standards (such as, the prohibition on buying and selling body parts and exploiting dependent students and employees, why are we even considering letting them bring the technology to the US?

The old saying is that if someone will lie about the small stuff, he'll lie about the big, important issues, too. And this is the man that Time magazine is honoring for his secrecy in cloning a dog.

Gerald Schatten, the US cloning expert from the University of Pittburg who has been collaborating with the veterinarian, Woo-suk Hwang, is quoted in the November 14th issue of a Korean newspaper as saying, "My trust is shaken. The title of the article calls Hwang "dog researcher." That same paper had an editorial, "Prove Cloning Is Clean,"

It cannot be stressed enough that procurring body parts from laboratory research assistance has at least the appearance of impropriety. If the charges prove true, how many of the 400 plus oocytes that the lab has used were unethically and illegally obtained?

Clone team split:Korean paper report

The Korea Times reports on the - evidently unfriendly - split between the US team and the veterinarian, Dr. Hwang, over charges that the Korean team violated ethics standards. The story is similar to the US reports, with a little disclaimer from one of Hwang's co-authors.

There's also mention that the rumors have been swirling around since mid-2004 that the human cloning was tainted by (mis)-using oocytes from a young woman who works in the lab. I guess that's how you get fresh material.

BTW, Time Magazine has named the cloning of the dog the top "invention" of the year, according to Reuters, UK.

The Lost Children

I know we've been having fun with the Women's Bioethics Project, but I'm going to get serious. And - warning to all who are easily offended - tonight I will fail my mission by talking about my religious motives. But, as long as you're here, you might as well read on and learn about the whole motive for this blog. Think of it as cultural sensity training.

This week, I was asked once again No, I wasn't asked. I was repeatedly reminded, by someone I believe to be a sincere Christian, that my true citizenship is in heaven, not this world, that the babies who are aborted are innocent and they will go to heaven, while their moms need to be saved. Paul's admonition to be all things to all people in order to win some for Christ was mentioned several times, and I was urged to just "Love them!" Well, I do love them. Out of love, there are some things I won't do, because they are unhealthy for the other people involved and unChristian and won't glorify God at all - and will actually interfer with my ability to be a good witness for Christ.

That good Christian didn't seem to believe that I love the people I'm thwarting - did not ask - and insisted that I explain why a Christian would support sidewalk counseling, push for legal and regulatory changes that restrict abortion and attempt to ban research dependent on the destruction of embryos, and even go so far as to study Bioethics. (Which is what put me in the position that I must comply with that insistence.)

So, I'm working on a paper to explain that I am also a citizen of a representative democracy where I am just as responsible for the acts carried out by the State as the non-Christian next door. I plan to explain about this blog, which is an attempt to reach non-Christians as well as Christians who don't feel welcomed at other pro-life sites.

Then I'll explain while it's true that unborn babies (if they have a soul) will go to heaven, so will children until the "age of accountibility." For that matter, it probably wouldn't make a difference to the ultimate fate of all those people who have lost all chance of coherence and consciousness. And that's pretty much the point of some psuedo-ethicists such as Tooley and Singer, who advocate for weighing the worth of human beings in reference to the happiness of a dog or chicken.

And, as a family doctor, if someone doesn't work to limit these actions, I will continue to have my ability to practice medicine literally threatened by people who believe that doctors have a duty to prescribe abortifacients, refer them to abortionists and unethical "fertility" specialists who practice pre-implantation diagnosis. I will have to withdraw from professional associations whose "ethics statements" and "standards of care" back the free access (by my hand and against my will) to "legal procedures" and who would lobby through those organizations to remove the age of consent - with it's "parental interference in the physician-patient relationship" - from my State laws.I will have to stand by why other professionals are made moral slaves by such as the Governor of Illinois.

In the near future, even Texas may have legalized Physician Assisted Suicide, embryonic stem cell experiments, cloning with State mandated killing of the human life, and even involuntary patient killing such as is now legal in the Netherlands.
And, if I renounce my citizenship in the representative democrocies of my State and Country, more hearts will be scarred over and hardened by participation and assistance in acts that I am sure will be just as heinous to future historians as past Christians' in regard to slavery, domestic violence and eugenics.

Which can't be good for the efforts to win hearts for Christ in the future.

Here's a couple of web sites with additional explanations about why a Christian should fight unethical laws and practices:
Christians in the Public Square
Why Should I Care?

Cash and Coercion for Clones

The Washington Post is reporting a major split among the world's leading cloned embryo stem cell researchers.It seems that the US expert, Gerald Schatten, is convinced that the veterinarian, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang, has not been honest about the ethics of obtaining human oocytes (eggs) for his cloned human embryos. Those cloned human embryos are then "disaggregated" or destroyed in order to attempt to culture "patient specific stem cells."
It is illegal in Korea, where the veterinarian has his laboratory, to pay for women to undergo the oocyte harvesting, whether the future purpose is to make an embryo by in vitro fertilization (IVF) that is destined for implantation in a woman for reproduction or for the purpose of making a cloned human embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT or NT). Last week, one of the physicians associated with the veterinarian's lab was arrested on charges that he was involved in a scheme to buy and sell oocytes and embryos for women who wish to have a baby.
Now, we learn:

For many months after Hwang's 2004 publication, rumors had spread in scientific circles that the eggs Hwang used to achieve that landmark result had been taken from a junior scientist in his lab. That situation, if true, would be in violation of widely held ethics principles that preclude people in positions of authority from accepting egg donations from underlings. The rules are meant to prevent subtle -- or not-so-subtle -- acts of coercion.
Questions have also circulated as to whether the woman received illegal payments for her role.

Schatten said that Hwang had repeatedly denied the rumor and that he had believed Hwang until yesterday. "I now have information that leads me to believe he had misled me," Schatten said. "My trust has been shaken. I am sick at heart. I am not going to be able to collaborate with Woo Suk."

May I see a show of hands from those who are surprised that men who are willing to carry out cloning, repeated experiments on human embryos which includes creating those embryos with the express intention of killing them are not ethical?



Thanks to blog.bioethics.net for the heads up!

The anti-life, anti-religion bioethics agenda

The Women’s Bioethics Project (see yesterday’s post for the link to their home page)was kind enough to note the strength of conservative bioethics and to list of their weaknesses and future agenda in the anti-conservative, anti-religious “expose” they have called, “God’s Bioethics.” It's obvious that they think believing in God and having a "unified philosophical framework based on a concept of “human dignity” is somehow a bad thing.

“One of the conservatives’ strengths is that they approach bioethical issues from a unified philosophical framework based on a concept of “human dignity” from which they derive their position on any given bioethical issue.”

and,

“Conservatives have the opportunity to undermine progressive coalitions by portraying them as divided, confused, and serving special interests. They will be able to do this because many of the emerging issues bring progressive values into conflict (autonomy v. social justice, for example) and will divide potential progressive coalitions. We saw this play out in the media during the recent California Proposition 71 stem-cell initiative when progressive environmental and women’s groups were battling with the scientific community over issues of corporate accountability, access to new technologies, women’s health concerns, and appropriateness of using state funds to support scientific research when basic needs such as education and other social services remain under-funded. In this instance, the friction between progressives gave the conservative right additional ammunition for their anti-embryonic stem cell research position. We expect to see similar conflicts over technologies such as human genetic germline modification (“designer babies”) and reproductive cloning.”

What can I say but, "Thank you!"

God’s Bioethics Expose’ Exposed

The report from the Women’s Bioethics Project, entitled "Bioethics and Public Policy: Conservative Dominance in the Current Landscape," is listed as “God’s Bioethics” on the WBP website. While full of hyperbole and misrepresentation, the author and her sponsors are honest about their agenda and goal: they want all conservatives and those who are “overtly religious” people out of the business of doing bioethics, and they want to be the ones “affecting bioethics public policy” and “driving the bioethics agenda.” (See yesterday's post)

"To date, only extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have devoted substantial resources to affecting bioethics public policy. They, therefore, are actively driving the bioethics agenda."

A little research would have shown this statement to be patently untrue, even if the Women did not count tax money. (Maybe they assume that conservative religious people pay ‘substantial” taxes!).

George Soros, who is certainly not a conservative, is famous for his advocacy of eugenics and the assisted suicide agenda. There is an extensive review (and a short version, too) about the funding of “Better ends” at lifetree.org.

The author even re-used material from an old speech honoring the opening of the Humanist Center for Bioethics at the UN Plaza. All of which shows that some "substantial" money is backing a very unconservative anti-religious agenda.

Get in on the Bioethics God Bash

Talk about politically-motivated, mean-spirited and divisive: The Women's Bioethics Project has decided that they're ready to play with the really big boys, and decided to "expose" the super-secret Religious Rightwing Fundamentalist Cabal they're calling, "God's Bioethics." I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting attention and a piece of those resources while they're at it. Oh, and their spokesperson, Jonathan Moreno, is selling a book, too. The .pdf "expose'" is available to read on the WBP site.

Or you can go to the Press Release at Yahoo Finance to read the pertinent quotes from the "non-partisan" group, from their spokesperson, Jonathan Moreno, of The Great American Progressive Bioethics, who's also pushing a book on the WBP site:

"The rapid advance of biotechnology is quickly outpacing our ability as a society to absorb the effect it will have on our lives," said Kathryn Hinsch, founder of the Women's Bioethics Project and author of the report, "The institutions we have relied on for guidance on difficult moral issues -- whether organized religion, government, or the academy -- have failed to keep pace with science or societal implications underlying these issues. Because of this confusion, disarray, and public policy flux, the opportunity to influence the direction of public opinion is up for grabs. Essentially, whoever gets there first will frame the debate on these issues and will affect us all for decades to come."

To date, only extremely conservative and overtly religious groups have devoted substantial resources to pushing a broad bioethics agenda. "Bioethical issues ranging from stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case are the battlefield for defining the kind of world we want to create," said Jonathan Moreno, bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "The Women's Bioethics Project analysis is an important wake-up call to people who care about scientific progress and the ability to decide what is right for their own families. The time to engage in these issues is now."

I've already announced over on the blog.bioethics.net board, so I might as well put the announcement here, too.

I was first inspired to start my own bioethics center when the FDA and CDC decided that menopause was just a part of normal aging. Then, I was going to wait and see how well the Progressives and the WBP made out selling Dr. Moreno's books. But, if it's it's a rush, this seems the appropriate time:

Press Release - The immediate past president of the Age-Related Ovarian Wasting Syndrome school of bioethics announced her group's new activism. The flushed Post-AROWSal spokesperson, fanning herself with a notebook ripped from the hand of a reporter, declared, "We're your first wives and mothers: we know where the pill bottles are hidden. We demand a place in the Big Tote Bag of bioethics!"

Clone Dr caught selling embryos

Or, "How we will some day get our first cloned human neonate."

Once again, a scientist has shown that his judgment as to what is right and what he wants are the only limits on what he will do.

One of the researchers who works with the Korean veterinarian, Dr Wu Suk Hwang, in his experiments to produce embryonic stem cells, has been accused of helping to create embryos to sell. These are embryos created by the "usual" in vitro fertilization method, not cloned embryos, that are being sold. But why not cloned embryos? And why is it illegal to sell oocytes("eggs") to produce embryos for gestation, but perfectly fine to produce embryos for research?

How is it less coercive, more ethical to allow donation for research to cure disease than to allow donation for economic reasons? Where is tolerance and choice when a girl needs to earn a living? It seems ironic that men have sold their sperm without censure, but we women finally get a chance to earn money by selling our gametes and the rules suddenly change.

First of all, I admit that I have a different attitude than that of the cloners: It is much worse to kill embryos or to conduct research that depends on their destruction, whether cloned or IVF, than it is to implant them and give them a chance to live. The fundamental fact is that no human embryo should be created or used for any purpose except for the benefit of that human individual, himself. If there is no reasonable expectation of benefit to the human subject that is the embryo, then the action can never justify the means.

The case of the sympathetic entrepenurial cloner should not surprise anyone - if he's willing to kill, why not bend other rules?

The right to be - fill in the blank

Thanks to blog.bioethics.net for highlighting an article in today's New York Times:

The Right to Be a Father (or Not)
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON — Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say?

Case study two: a woman wants to become pregnant with frozen embryos. Her ex-husband opposes the decision. Should he have a say?

The answer, legally, is no in the abortion case, and in the case of frozen embryos, almost always yes.

The point should not be the right of the mother or the father. Where are the rights of the child - the subject, if you will - to only be "created" for himself or herself?

No child should ever be in harms' way because his or her parents are debating elective abortion or because he or she was 'produced' and then frozen.

As far as the questions asked in the article: go back to the basics of medicine and law. Bodily integrity makes the woman the final consent to any procedure on her body (legal, moral or not). The embryos in the second question are independent of either body, and so they each have equal claim on the decision as to the future of the child. The only decision that should be contemplated is how to best protect the right not to be killed that is inalienable to these human organisms.

Thousands receive fake flu shots?

The Houston Chronicle has the best coverage of this story and it is a (free) subscription-only site. It's worth reading if you're interested in medical fraud cases with all sorts of twists and turns - wilder than anything I could have made up. I'm prejudiced, but I believe that this case points out just one reason why you need to see your family doctor for medical care.

And, perhaps this is why there's a push to increase the Federal government involvement in producing flu vaccines? Could we be facing a national defense issue?

Monday - Suspect thought flu vaccine was genuine
Tuesday - Bail denied
And, just to keep you interested here's a similar case from 2003, in Washington State.

Brief report from no-registration Akron, Ohio Beacon Journal here.


Summary of the news reports on the recent case: A man with passports from both Israel and Jordan who originally claimed to be a plastic surgeon from Israel and who has some undetermined connection with a home-health agency is charged with arranging a complicated scam to defraud Exxon-Mobile in Houston and, possibly, Medicare and nursing home patients by administering flu shots that he bought last month from two men he only knows as "Larry" and "Robert."

A woman who has a relative who knows someone at Exxon-Mobile and who works for a local family doctor worked out the deal with the health fair. The doctor says he never knew about the contract and has fired the woman.

A man who works for the suspect who allegedly drew up the shots into syringes told someone that he had pricked his own finger several times in the process, so the needles may not have been sterile.

And he promises not to leave the country if released on bail.

Stem cell volunteers overwhelm Korean center website

The Seoul, Korea World Stem Cell Hub (WSCH), led by the veterinarian/cloner, Dr. Wu Suk Hwang, announced yesterday that applications would be taken for volunteers to be subjects in cloning research on Parkinson's and paralysis. Although only 100 subjects are to be chosen, response was overwhelming - at least for the website.

3000 people presented at the Center, according to the Chosen (Korea) News. The website crashed (or was severely slow)after only 5 minutes, however. It's estimated that there were over 50,000 attempts to access the site.

Please note that the news reports and the WSCH spokespersons call the technique "cloning."

Hopefully, recent reports concerning adult stem cells, from brain tissue, bone marrow and umbilical cord cells will supplement - and replace - the hype and hope surrounding cloned embryonic stem cells for neurological disease.