Obama moves to overturn Conscience rules

For a couple of years, LifeEthics has covered the conscience of physicians and what it would mean if a doctor, nurse or hospital were to be forced to go against their consciences. My review is here.

From the LA Times, we learn that President Obama plans to rescind the ruling clarifying conscience laws in force in the US today:

Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned
The Obama administration wants to clarify a Bush policy that lets healthcare workers deny services because of moral beliefs.
By Noam N. Levey
February 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

Inevitably, no matter what they say, the outcome will be to further politicize abortion and to force doctors to perform abortions and assisted suicide, force Catholic hospitals to allow abortions and sterilizations and - inevitably - physician assisted suicide.

Last month without official ceremony, Obama overturned a controversial ban on U.S. funding for international aid groups that provide abortion services.

The move by the Department of Health and Human Services to throw out the conscience rule is being made equally quietly as most of Washington focuses on the president's blockbuster budget plan.

On Thursday officials stressed that before the administration finalizes the rollback, a standard 30-day comment period seeks input from people across the ideological spectrum.

"We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard," said one official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the policy change.

The officials said the administration would consider drafting a new rule to clarify what healthcare workers could reasonably refuse to do for their patients.

For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rule making.

In promulgating the rule last year, then-Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said it was necessary to address discrimination in the medical field.

Whose life is it, anyway?

Trait selection in babies "is a service," says Dr. Steinberg. "We intend to offer it soon."

Whoops, someone noticed that some of this reproductive technology stuff might not be ethical.

Talk about controlling parents!

Eugenics is a done deal. The cat's out of the bag. There's no going back. (Don't think about the 14th Amendment that overturned Dred Scot and took the slaves from their "owners.")


Of course, the "Progressives" and human-plus groups only commit *good* eugenics. All they want is control and more money.


The "Progressives" started raising the alarm a couple of years ago, when they were pushing for a change in the Bush embryonic stem cell policy. The logic was that the reason there is no regulation is that the government isn't paying for enough research.

At the same meetings, they were adamant that their group must have the power maintain control. (Alta Charo, Laurie Zoloth, Jonathan Moreno, Insoo Hyun and the rest of the "Ethicists for Hire" crowd.)

Funny, in all these links, I didn't find a single comment about the doctors who lost a discrimination suit in California for refusing to fulfill a patient's request for IVF -- even in the midst of the hulabaloo about the mother of octuplets.

HT to Vox Popoli

US behind on regulation of reproductive technology

After hearing/reading for the last 8 years that there is too much regulation of research, there's now a call from the Jonathan Moreno and the "Progressives"(at the website that grew out the Center for American Progress, originally founded by John Podesta, Obama's advisor) for regulation of reproductive technology. See this post at the "Science Progress" blog.

Scroll down to the middle of the blog post on regulation to see a fantastic interactive map of regulation across the world.

Unfortunately, the regulation may not be easy to come by, or what those of us who are pro-life might wish for. The progressives mock those of us who believe that even embryonic humans have the right not to be intentionally killed or enslaved. See the comments in this review of Yuval Levine's book, Imagining the Future.

Human cloned embryos

Oddly, there is very little notice of the confirmation that Advance Cell Technology has created cloned human embryos. Current bioethics and science reporting evidently takes the creation and destruction of human embryos for granted. In fact, the embryonic humans were created with the intention of destroying them.

No one - or almost no one - seems to notice.


Wired Science has one of the few reports that narrows in on what should be the headline:"Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable."

It is significant that (as reported earlier) human-animal hybrid embryos do not appear to be a practical source for human embryonic stem cells. However, after reading the article itself, it appears that the story with in the story may be - I believe should be - even more significant.

The article, "Reprogramming of Human Somatic Cells Using Human and Animal Oocytes," is available online and free, here, in pdf form. Supplemental information is available here.

Lanza and his colleagues report that they used human eggs and human donor DNA to create about 50 cloned human embryos, all females. They also write that they used a human embryo started by in vitro fertilization as a "control," or material to test the validity of their other results.

Cells were removed for testing from some of the cloned human embryos and the IVF human embryo. Other than that, we do not know the fate of these embryonic human girls.

Edited January 27, 2010 to correct a "Label" typo

Human-animal embryos don't work for stem cell production

The New Scientist has a good review article that explains a new research report from Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology, that attempts with "thousands" of embryos created by placing human DNA into the oocytes or eggs of animals have failed to produce stem cells. NatureNews, the news arm of the journal, Nature discusses the report, here.

The abstract of the article, "Reprogramming of Human Somatic Cells Using Human and Animal Oocytes" published in Cloning and Stem Cells, is available here. The list of researchers is very long and they are from several different laboratories.

Each of the news articles above includes statements from researchers who do not believe that human-animal cloned embryos are a dead-end for stem cell researchers. However, the confirmation of the outcome from several labs, with different researchers, is strong evidence that it is unlikely that this technique is a reasonable way to produce "patient specific" stem cells - those that are an exact match for the donor of the DNA.

I have not read the actual article, yet, but from the news articles and the abstract, it appears that the "cybrids" do express the genes of the donor DNA and are clones of the donor. However, while enucleated human oocytes are able to reprogram the DNA of the donor to result in embryos that divide to the stage at which it is possible to harvest embryonic stem cells, the emptied eggs of cows and rabbits do not. The cybrids only divide to about the 16 cell stage and do not turn on the genes responsible for pleuripotency, or "stem-cell-ness."

See my Update, written after I read the report.