July 28, 2011
Obama Policy Continues Using Tax Funds for Fruitless Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Embryonic stem cells are once again “fair game” for scientific experimentation, thanks to a federal judge’s ruling this week concerning an Executive Order by President Obama.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth had halted government funding for embryonic stem cell research being done by the National Institutes of Health. However, his ruling this week upheld an earlier federal appeals court decision which agreed with the NIH’s interpretation that the 1996 Wicker-Dickey Amendment which prohibits using tax dollars for any research which destroys human embryos does not apply because of an Executive Order issued by President Obama in 2009, within two months after he took office. The NIH had argued that its new guidelines don’t violate the law because the funds don’t fund the killing of the embryos.
Judge Lamberth reluctantly concluded that his court was bound by the appeals court’s determination that the new NIH guidelines do not violate federal law, despite his own strong disagreement. “While it may be true that by following the Court of Appeals’ conclusion as to the ambiguity of ‘research,’ this Court has become a grudging partner in a bout of ‘linguistic jujitsu’,” he wrote in his opinion.
Amazingly, proponents of killing human embryos for research purposes continue to call such research “promising” although not a single patient has been successfully treated with embryonic stem cells. All medical advances — and there are hundreds of them — have been because of adult stem cell treatments. The latest such treatment was just this summer, as British scientists successfully created a windpipe from his own adult stem cells for a patient with advanced tracheal cancer.
Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Steven Aden, one of the lawyers representing the scientists who sought to have the embryonic stem cell research ban enforced, has indicated that this ruling may be appealed.
Beckhams Slammed in England for having Fourth Child
People the world over are captivated by British celebrities David and Victoria Beckham’s recent good news: the birth of their fourth child and first daughter. However, instead of joy and congratulations, news of the birth of the English celebrities’ healthy baby girl has sparked criticisms from the country’s environmentalists that the couple is a “bad example.”
A recent Guardian newspaper article reports that the chief executive of Britain’s Optimum Population Trust called the Beckhams “very bad role models” and complained that, “There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish.”
However, saner voices say that arguments to reduce population, such as a supposed lack of space and food or damage to the economy, are seriously misguided and only serve to cover up human rights atrocities in areas such as China under the one-child policy. These groups play on fear and ignorance, and the myth of over-population is based on a long-discredited 1960s paradigm and Paul Ehrlich’s book, “The Population Bomb,” according to Larry Jacobs, director of the pro-life World Congress of Families. To help counteract the irrational fears of “overpopulation,” The Population Research Institute, has recently published a series of videos to make the case for human population growth as both sustainable by the planet and vital to economic stability.
Gallup Poll Again Confirms America’s Pro-Life Views
The respected Gallup poll has just released its latest findings on life-affirming legislative measures. Of the 1,020 U.S. adults polled between July 15 and 17:
- 87% favor “a law requiring doctors to inform patientsabout certain possible risks of abortion before performing the procedure”;
- 71% favor “a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consentfor any abortion”;
- 69% favor “a law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hoursbefore having the procedure done”;
- 64% favor “a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a ‘partial birth abortion,’except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother”;
- 50% favor “a law requiring women seeking an abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before the procedure.”
Strangely, the Gallup poll also reveals 57% of U.S. citizens oppose laws banning federal funding to health clinics that perform abortions. (RNC for Life note: This is probably because those polled don’t realize that those clinics perform very few, if any, other health-related services and those few health services can be provided by other tax-funded facilities.)
The data also showed a 51% opposition to “conscience laws” that would allow pharmacists and health providers to opt out of performing or providing medicine for an abortion.
Website Seeks to Save Down Syndrome Babies from Abortion
LifeNews.com reports that a group of concerned New Zealand parents and siblings of people with Down Syndrome launched a new website this month called www.savingdowns.com as part of a campaign against the specific targeting of babies with Down Syndrome by New Zealand’s government. To read the complete story, click here.
Want More Information on Down Syndrome and Recent State Pro-Life Laws?
If you would like a recap of recent pro-life laws passed in various states plus an exposé of the decimation in America of the Down Syndrome population, please request a FREE copy of our Summer RNC for Life Report.
Normal stuff at bottom.