Pro-life Governor tapped for GOP VP

And she happens to be a woman who hunts and wants to drill for oil.

Governor Sarah Palin is a member of Feminists for Life who lives her values. A year after her election as Alaska's governor, the 44 year old Mrs. Palin, already the mother of 4 children, discovered she was pregnant. Prenatal testing showed that the little boy had Down's syndrome, which results from getting an extra copy of Chromosome 21 from either the mother or the father. The baby is nearly 4 months old now. He is cared for by both his mother and father, Todd Palin.

The Stem Cell Debate Heats Up

Here's a great review about those new "induced pleuripotent stem cells" (iPS) we've been hearing about. iPS's are truly "patient specific stem cells" since they come from the patient himself or herself. The cells are manipulated in the lab, using viral particles and specific environments to make the able to become many different types of cells.

It would be very difficult, in my opinion, to make these cells become embryos, with all the structures that would allow them to function as individual organisms. From what I understand, the cells return to a state that allows them to become tissues with several different types of cells and cell groups, but they are never organized.

In my opinion (again), the induction process can't be more of a problem than the risk of immune rejection and the manipulations that embryos derived from In Vitro fertilization go through or the changes that are bound to be inherent with cloned cells derived through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. On the other hand, volunteers and tissue samples for IPC experiments ought to be abundant.

And no one has to die for it.

"Trained" (medical professionals) should shut up and perform

"Trained" medical professionals should just shut up and perform, according to the President of the National Family planning and Reproductive Health Association.

As mentioned in the last few posts, the right not to be forced to act against the conscience has been under attack by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Washington Post article mentioned in my last post linked to the blog of Health and Human Services Secretary, Mike Leavitt.

Today, the Secretary wrote that he's not used to having nearly a thousand comments and many more "hits" on his blog. Take a deep breath and read the comments on each page.

Take a look, also, at this quote, in today's post:

One thing I did find helpful was the clear explanation of the ideological basis of opposition to physician conscience. Mary Jane Gallagher, President of the National Family planning and Reproductive Health Association, was quoted in Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat saying,

“Family planning providers work to provide family planning services. So it’s really not acceptable to the people I represent that this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not provide those services if they don’t want to.”

“Who’s going to provide access to contraceptives services if the administration provides this large loophole to deny services?"

CQ reported Ms. Gallagher continued: “Providers are ‘given an oath—now they get to pick and choose what they want to do' if a regulation is issued, she said.”

The Secretary answers Ms. Gallagher better than I could. However, don't you wonder that the conversation has moved from "choice" and patients' rights ("If you don't believe in abortion, don't have/do one.") to threats that we who oppose abortion should give up our practices, to the declaration that we trained and obtained a license only to be forced to do what someone elsed demands of us?

Washington Post Addresses Our "Birth Control Fears"

As well as our fear of death and homophobia, in today's article, "Birth Control fears addressed."

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has denied that a controversial draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them.

In a statement posted on his blog on Thursday, Leavitt appeared to try to allay fears that the proposed regulation would create sweeping new obstacles to women seeking a variety of commonly used contraceptives, such as birth control pills and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

"An early draft of the regulation found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review," Leavitt said. "It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true."

Leavitt's statement, however, failed to alleviate concerns among members of Congress, family planning advocates, women's health activists and others.

At issue is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Ethics Statement "Opinion #385, Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," which states that

Providers with moral or religious objection should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their view or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient's physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care."

It goes on to declare abortion “standard reproductive care” and demands that doctors who “deviate from standard practices” (object to abortion) “practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place” (with a willing abortionist).

After publication of the Opinion, the President of ACOG then wrote letters asking Congress to pass laws to force these limits on our consciences: to force doctors who object to abortion to either change their practice so that they don't take care of women and girls of reproductive ages, or move close to a willing abortionist.

Somehow, the pro-abortion crowd has turned this into an "physician assisted suicide" and "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transexual" issue as well as one of hyper-support for abortion and one more opportunity to bash the Bush administration.

Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, which advocates for physician-assisted suicide, said she remains concerned that the regulation could apply to health-care workers who refuse to participate in a variety of end-of-life care, including the withdrawal of unwanted feeding tubes and ventilators.

. . . and . . .

"Until the regulation removes the re-definition of abortion and it clearly states that it deals solely with abortion (and not with any other procedure, nor with any refusals based on the nature of the patient, such as single or gay), I would not be satisfied," R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin wrote in an e-mail. "There is no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt to this administration when it comes to reproductive rights or the civil rights of gay people."

You want to talk about "alarmed"? If an ethicist like Charo can't distinguish between negative rights and positive rights, then the state of "ethics" is worse than I thought. (See "Ethicist for hire")

Remedial ethics 101: you have the right to expect someone not to act, but only in very rare cases can you force them to act when they don't want to. You have the right to liberty, meaning society will protect you from someone who wants to turn you into a slave. But you can't make others to do your will, either. You have the right to swing your arm if you want, but your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose.

In case you're wondering, the Post took their only prolife quote from the Secretary's blog.didn't quote a single pro-life advocate. How hard would it have been to get a quote from the Christian Medical and Dental Association?

I would have never guessed that the attack on physician's conscience rights would somehow become a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/transexual/pea-green-with-lavender-stripes issue, although I predicted the involvement of "Compassionate Choices" and other pushers of intentional physician killing.

In Oregon, I have the right to a prescription of barbiturates if I want to die. The State limits that right and tells me when my right kicks in, of course. According to lawyers Charo and Tucker, I can go up to any MD or DO and demand that he or she write the prescription.

I ask again: "How far do you trust doctors who will violate our consciences?? How much practice will it take until we do what the State tells us to, rather than what our patients ask - without regard to silly notions of "right" and "wrong?""

Forcing Pro-life Doctors Out of Baby Business?

Two writers from the Heritage Foundation have published an editorial on the Fox News Site that discusses the risks of the new ethics statement of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Daniel Patrick Moloney and Peter Reed appreciate that limiting obstetrics and gynecology only to those doctors who will do abortions or arrange in advance to refer patients to doctors who will abort, limits women who themselves believe that their children's lives begin at conception and who do not want anything to do with abortionists.

Should pro-life doctors and pharmacists be free to practice their profession according to the dictates of their consciences? Should a woman have the freedom to choose an obstetrician or gynecologist she trusts to provide care consistent with her beliefs?

Current federal law says yes. But many women may have that choice greatly restricted, and their doctors driven out of business, if a medical association is able to require that all doctors either perform abortions or make referrals for abortions.

In November 2007, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) announced that the ethical standards of the profession had changed. Its ethics committee stated that an ob/gyn who is unwilling to perform an abortion has an ethical duty to refer the patient to someone who will perform it. If the physician is unable to refer the patient in a timely manner, he would be required to perform the abortion himself.

This decision threatens the livelihood of pro-life doctors. Every ob/gyn who works in a hospital or clinic needs not only a license, but also certification that his skills are up to date and that he is aware of recent developments in the field. To be certified, he must follow the ethical standards of the profession, so under the new ethics policy a pro-life doctor risks losing his certification if his pro-life convictions don't allow him to perform or cooperate in an abortion. And if he loses his certification, a hospital or clinic won't let him deliver babies there.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has labeled the decision “a raw power play to cripple, and ultimately eliminate from practice, those doctors who hold a conscience conviction on the sanctity of human life.” Besides forcing current ob/gyns out of the profession, the policy would make any bright young pro-life student think twice about going to medical school for obstetrics or gynecology.

(More here.)

Besides limiting a woman's choice to have a doctor who shares her pro-life views, restricting all prolife doctors from obstetrics will adversely affect her access to health care in general. Few doctors are doing OB, now. The number can only decrease if the traditional, conservative, prolife man or woman is threatened by ACOG's insistence that conscience is merely a personal feeling and that we doctors can only practice if we promise to go out of our way to violate that conscience.

These ethical statements affect all doctors who care for women and girls through their reproductive ages. In fact, Family Physicians who deliver babies are also held to the same ACOG standards that the OB/Gyns must meet. (If anything, we had better be more careful, since any breech of protocol or "standard of care" may be thought of as due to our training.)

In many rural and underserved areas, the only docs around are the Family Physicians, who care for babies, kids, the elderly, and expectant mothers. In fact, I was the first FP in my small town ( just 20 miles from San Antonio but considered "medically underserved" as it had a large number of Medicaid, Medicare and indigent patients) who did not do "surgical OB," or do Cesarean sections and sterilizations. (I'm a wimp, not a cutter. Although I love to sew up and put back together, I even refuse to make the traditional, courtesy, "first cut" at appendectomies and other non-OB surgeries when the surgeon offers. I finally quit doing circumcisions on new born boys because it made me physically ill to cut perfectly healthy tissue.)

Okay, how far will you trust someone who trains herself to forget that she believes the Creator of the universe - the One who knows every thought and can send her to hell - hates what she's doing? Or even without a religious underpinning, a doc who believes he is killing a person at abortion, but does it anyway?