Friday, October 28, 2005

Adult Stem Cell Successes vs. Clone-and-Kill Failures

For those who haven't followed the debate, the Pro Life community is generally supportive of the use of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood in conducting research and treating health conditions. To date, there have been numerous success stories associated with ASCs and cord blood. On Sunday, October 23, 2005, an article entitled "Medical Hope In Umbilical Cord Blood: Researchers find its healing powers may provide cures for many deadly maladies" ran in the Chicago Tribune. The article discusses a little girl named Gina who was diagnosed with a disease that apparently claimed her brother's life. Gina suffers some ill effects from her disease, but thanks to a cord blood transplant early in her life, she is basically a normal 5-year-old girl.

On the flip side, a person is hard-pressed to find a groundswell of support for continued ESC research in pro-life circles. This is primarily because as scientists conduct embryonic stem cell research, they create human embryos only to perform experiments on them, harvest their stem cells, and then kill them. Thus far, embryonic stem cell research has yielded little-to-no promise. That is a fact. Despite extensive ESC research, you will not find accounts similar to that of Gina associated with ESCs. Further, one of the common complications associated with embryonic stem cells is the growth of tumors. It doesn't appear there is a bright outlook for ESC/clone-and-kill science.

While Hollywood personalities and members of the community formerly known as "pro-choice" continue to clamor for more embryonic stem cell research, keep the above in mind.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Planned Parenthood...Pro-Choice? I think not!

In Planned Parenthood's world, it's all about "choice," correct? Well, apparently not....not unless the final outcome is as they desire.

In this case, Target has come under attack by Planned Parenthood because some Target pharmacists have chosen not to fill so-called "emergency contraception" prescriptions. In fact, in an e-mail with the headline "It's OUTRAGEOUS!" Planned Parenthood states, "Alas! We finally know the truth about Target, and it's not good." They brag that their membership has inundated Target with 60,000 letters.

You might wonder what truth Planned Parenthood has learned about Target. What has mobilized a number of Planned Parenthood supporters? Check out Target's response to at least one of the sixty thousand to see what they find so objectionable. Below is a snippet of that correspondence.

"As an Equal Opportunity Employer, we also are legally required to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the unusual event that a Target pharmacist’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception, Target policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner. If it is not done in this manner, disciplinary action will be taken."

That kind of policy has the pro-abortion contingent up-in-arms?!?! I do not understand their outrage. So, some pharmacists are choosing to stand for this case, a tiny human embryo which has not yet implanted into the wall of the uterus. And Target will not force some of its pharmacists to do something contrary to their system of values? The audacity! Never mind that the pharmacist is responsible to ensure the prescription is filled by somebody or the pharmacist faces disciplinary action.

The following is a portion of Planned Parenthood's response.
"Sorry, Target, but this just isn't good enough. Planned Parenthood insists that pharmacies guarantee prescriptions will be filled in-store, without discrimination or delay."
Of course, the Planned Parenthood statement contradicts itself. They demand that prescriptions be filled "without discrimination." Clearly, the mandated filling of prescriptions would result in discrimination, but that's OK with Planned Parenthood, so long as it is discrimination rooted in religion or a personal system of morals and values. So the clamoring continues....Just fill up those pill bottles and don't ask questions!

Something is becoming abundantly clear. For the pro-abortion lobby, "choice" is a hollow argument of convenience. If they were truly "pro-choice", they would be embracing this corporate policy, which really is not so much a policy as it is an acknowledgement of the law. Of course, it's a policy/law that Planned Parenthood will likely attempt to circumvent. Their letter writing campaign will probably ultimately transition to Planned Parenthood seeking intervention from their activist friends in the judiciary. After all, any individual, corporation, law or policy that stands in the way of their agenda must be toppled.

As demonstrated by its own rhetoric, Planned Parenthood opposes choice and supports discrimination....These Planned Parenthood positions may be contrary to their battle cry, but could we really expect anything else?

{This post is not intended to be an endorsement for Target. Other Target corporate policies are subject to debate. It just so happens they are the unassuming target (haha!) of Planned Parenthood's misguided scorn.}

Wednesday, October 26, 2005


I have alluded to the fact that some testimony shared with the abortion task force last week was very compelling. I wish everybody could hear the entirety of the expert and public testimony. Since I know that is not possible, I would like to direct your attention to the testimony of one young woman. I'm not going to kid you; this one will tug at your heartstrings, as it is a most beautiful testament to love. For those of you with RealPlayer, I assure you nothing I say can do justice to what you are going to hear, so disregard the remainder of this post and listen to the audio from 10/21/2005, beginning at 06:20:19 and running through 06:28:38. For fear of detracting from Rachel's account as it appears below, I will refrain from offering my opinion relative to the tone of the last person to question this witness. I simply find it notable. If you don't listen to the audio, you're missing out.

For those of you who are unable to access the testimony on your computer, it is the account of a young woman named Rachel who spoke with wisdom, strength, and compassion. As a sophomore in college, Rachel found out she was pregnant. The first time she visited her doctor, Rachel was told that her baby was not going to live due to some severe birth defects. Rachel was asked whether she would like to terminate her pregnancy. She declined, in favor of giving her daughter a chance at life, saying "I can wake up every day and say I gave my daughter the best chance I could, and I did everything I could for her, and I can live with that. I wouldn't have been able to live with the guilt of giving up on her."

During her pregnancy, Rachel consulted with four different doctors. Rachel was told that she may lose her baby during her pregnancy, but in a best-case scenario, her child would not live more than three days after being born. When Rachel's daughter Lily was born, she was not breathing. Rachel said, "The one thing that I got the minute she was born was I got to hold her....and that's a feeling you can't trade for anything in the world. Shortly after--which seemed like forever--she took her first breath. She continued breathing for thirty-two days...She was a beautiful baby. The same as I watched her take her first breath, I also watched her take her last, which I'm not going to lie, is an extremely hard thing to do--the hardest thing I'll ever have to do in my life."

Rachel continued, "If I would meet anyone on the street that was going through the same thing I was, I would tell them to give that baby a chance because the doctors, while sometimes they're right, they're not always. And I have a pride for myself, knowing that I did everything I could for that little girl, no matter what the outcome was going to be....I still got the chance to hold her....and she was real to me."

Rachel concluded her testimony, "Not every baby is perfect. Not every baby is formed perfect in the womb, but they should all deserve a chance to make it."

In response to committee questioning, Rachel said, "Being able to give birth to a child that's been growing inside you is the most amazing thing whether it's going to make it or not....there's nothing in this world I would trade for getting to hold my daughter for even a second."

In response to the final question, Rachel tearfully said, "If there's anyone in my situation, I would tell them the exact same thing....give that baby a chance because it deserves a chance just like every one of us. It may not be perfect, but it still deserves a chance."

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Abortion....Helping To Protect Criminals From Being Exposed

As mentioned in the previous post, the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion heard testimony from a number of individuals last week. One thing I found interesting was during the September meetings the pro-abortion members of the task force were quick to opine that some of the pro-life testimony was based on religious/theological beliefs. When Dr. J.C. Willke was challenged on such a basis, he said his testimony was not based on theology, rather science....Biology 101, which discusses human growth and development, to be exact.

The thing that makes the pro-abortion side's assertion (about theology and their apparent aversion to such as it relates to the debate) particulary odd is that during the October meetings, they were quick to usher in members of the clergy and retired ministers to testify on their side of the debate. Funny how religion is used to discredit pro-life testimony, but seems to be embraced when the testimony comes from the other side.

One of the especially alarming pieces of testimony from a member of the clergy came from Lin Jennewein who serves as a minister in Rapid City. She was discussing situations in which she felt abortion may be an option that warrants consideration. She said, "I ask them to presume that it is their 12 year old daughter who has been raped or it is their 15 year old pregnant niece who files a case against her father, or granfather or uncle as the father of her child and exposes him to an incestual relationship that has been going on for years." She continued, "I know of such a case." The implication was that it is in some way preferable for the 15 year-old victim of incest and statutory rape to abort a baby, rather than to have a family member's crimes made known. I simply fail to follow that logic. Regardless of one's feelings about the rape and incest exceptions, clearly in both cases a crime has been committed, and there is a duty to expose the crime.

The audio of the October 20-21 meetings is now available online. I will attempt to link directly to the quotes I have spoken of at a later time. For now, you will find the statements by Ms. Looby and Ms. Jennewein contained in the Oct. 21 audio link.

Friday, October 21, 2005

South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion

Over the past two days, members of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion heard testimony from a number of individuals. These were days 4 and 5 of the summer study, which began working back on August 1. I thank everybody who traveled to Pierre and who joined us over the phone lines to provide their insights. Both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides have contributed lengthy testimony as the committee has conducted its business. The input from these people was oftentimes extraordinarily compelling. Also, thank you to the members of the committee. Things have been relatively cordial given the nature of the debate. The few spats have not resulted in any blood-shed as yet. Please stay tuned to this site over the next several days as I will be posting portions of testimony. Some statements will affirm your positions, others may astound you, regardless of which side you are on.

I strongly encourage you to listen to the testimony as it is made available online. To date, the audio of the first three days of meetings has been posted. The first day consisted largely of organizational matters. For those who choose to listen to the committee hearings and discussions, I would recommend starting with the testimony from September 21 & 22 and then proceeding to the Oct. 20-21 hearings. If you skip the Aug. 1 meeting, you're not missing much.

Here is one teaser of things to come. Executive Director Kate Looby of South Dakota's primary abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, expressed that some people just don't do babies and that's their choice. She continued that "I have four children, and I've bonded with each of them, but I don't do babies either." That statement seems consistent with her organization's position. After all, back on October 16, 1996, Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/South Dakota ran an ad in the Burnsville/Lakeville Sun-Current which stated "Babies are loud, smelly, and expensive. Unless you want one."

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Abortion-Breast Cancer (ABC) Link

The abortion-breast cancer link has been terribly understated as a result of the abortion industry's concerted effort to conceal one of the realities of abortion. It needs to be made well-known that there is overwhelming evidence that a woman who undergoes an abortion faces a dramatically increased risk of breast cancer. In his article, "Had an abortion? Call an attorney," Andrew Schlafly provides some staggering statistics that would certainly cause a woman seeking an abortion to rethink her decision. Further, it discusses the legal victories of women who have undergone abortions without being made aware that breast cancer is a potential side-effect of abortion.

Among the points made by Schlafly is that the chance of a woman developing breast cancer may rise "from only one in 13 to one in three, depending on her original risk." Further, "women who have a genetic disposition towards breast cancer see their risk of developing the disease before age 45 rise to one in one after an abortion--a virtual certainty."

In several cases, women who have taken legal action subsequent to having an abortion--including one who had not yet even developed breast cancer--have been awarded damages due to the failure of the abortionist to inform them of the heightened danger of developing breast cancer.

The abortion industry purports to be concerned with the health of a woman. Why, then, do they fight so hard to conceal the fact that women often suffer any number of adverse side-effects associated with abortion? Once again, it appears that the individuals involved in the abortion business put the almighty dollar ahead of the well-being of those they "serve." They must be held accountable for their reckless disregard for women.

Check out the article and help to spread the word. Let's all do our part to cut down on the tragic and unnecessary prevalence of breast cancer.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

American Girl Dolls, Mattel Support Abortion

It would appear that American Girl doll company and their manufacturer, Mattel, have teamed up with a strong pro-abortion activist group called Girls Incorporated. Under the partnership, Mattel will be selling a bracelet that says "I Can" and remitting a large portion of the proceeds to Girls Incorporated. Further, American Girl will be making a separate contribution of $50,000 directly to Girls Inc. over and above the per bracelet contribution.

The following is a snippet from the Girls Inc. website.

"Girls Inc. firmly believes that girls have the right
to...reproductive healthcare..."

Here is another statement from Girls Inc.

"Reproductive Freedom

Girls Incorporated affirms that girls and young women should make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood.

We recognize the right of all women to choose whether, when, and under what
circumstances to bear children. Reproductive freedom and responsibility are
essential to other rights and opportunities, including pursuit of education, employment, financial security and a stable and fulfilling family life. Restrictions of reproductive choice are especially burdensome for young women and poor women. Girls Incorporated supports a woman’s freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade.'"

Girls Inc. is very forthcoming about its pro-abortion stance. Therefore, Mattel and American Girl cannot plead ignorance when it comes to their alliance with the pro-abortion group.

You may feel compelled to check labels more closely when making purchasing decisions in the future.

For a related article published today on the LifeNews website, click here. Another article appears at the American Family Association's website. To access the AFA article directly, click here.

Friday, October 07, 2005

NRLC on Harriet Miers

It appears that President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, will be a strict constructionist who believes in a limited judiciary and who will base her judgments on the Constitution's framers' original intent. If this is true, Miers' confirmation should prove to be favorable for the pro-life community. After all, we all know that nothing in the Constitution of the United States even remotely resembles language guaranteeing a right to abortion-on-demand. That interpretation was something conjured by the Supreme Court activists in 1973 and upheld by other activists since. We must hope for confirmation of nominees who will read what is written in black-and-white, and base their judgments upon what is written. Here's hoping Harriet Miers will help put an end to the judicial activism of legislating from the bench.

For more on Miers, click here to see what National Right to Life has put out on her nomination.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

In an e-mail sent to an acquaintance of mine, Planned parenthood was trying to rally the pro-abortion troops to come to Pierre to testify before the SD Task Force to Study Abortion. I do not fault them for that. It is their prerogative and part of the fact-finding process the Task Force has been charged with. However, I do take issue with a notion espoused in their propaganda that strong pro-lifers are illogical, while the abortion advocates amongst us are the only ones capable of studying abortion because they are not biased. Since this is an e-mail put out directly by Planned Parenthood of MN, SD, and ND, I am going to interpret it as I believe it was intended.

Don't believe me? See for yourself. Below is Planned Parenthood of MN, SD, & ND in its own words.

"It is imperative that people who support women’s decision making ability go to Pierre for the public testimony. The majority of the members of the Task Force are unable to study this issue logically because of their strong bias on the issue. The voice of South Dakota citizens must be heard! Please make plans to keep abortion safe and legal in South Dakota!" (Bolding added for emphasis.)

Monday, October 03, 2005

MUST-READ ARTICLE!!! "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended"

A Los Angeles Times article entitled "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended" published on September 14, 2005, will likely astonish you. Among other things, it discusses what was contained in former US Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun's papers, which were released on the 5th anniversary of his death. The article outlines the evolution of the interpretations stemming from the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court rulings. It tells that when Blackmun was a mere rookie on the Court, his friend and colleague, Chief Justice Warren Burger, put Blackmun in charge of writing the Roe ruling. Blackmun set out to write a narrow ruling that sought to facilitate change in abortion laws across the nation, not repeal them.

So, how did we get from Chief Justice Burger's declaration that "Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand" to today's abortion-on-demand American society? Find out.

Further, the article states...

"Blackmun proposed to issue a news release to accompany the decision, issued Jan. 22, 1973. 'I fear what the headlines may be,' he wrote in a memo. His statement, never issued, emphasized that the court was not giving women 'an absolute right to abortion,' nor was it saying that the 'Constitution compels abortion on demand.'"