Wow!
Just when I thought a pro-life educator like me was doomed to be squelched by a radical left that does not speak for me; I think I'll be finding out more about that Pro-Life Caucus (but I guess I should really find a job first...).
1.19.2005
Regulation, Schmegulation
1. "N.J. OBGYN's Receptionist Accused Of Injecting Abortion Drugs"
"A New Jersey obstetrician's receptionist has been charged with practicing medicine without a license for using abortion-inducing drugs on three patients.
"Lakewood police said Liza Berdiel's boss, Dr. Flavius Thompson, apparently didn't know what his receptionist was doing. Police said Berdiel performed the abortions after hours or when the doctor wasn't working."
2. "Fertility clinics unregulated"
"A new survey of U.S. fertility clinics found that few have policies for deciding who to help get pregnant -- an issue drawing fresh attention because of claims that a 66-year-old woman in Romania gave birth over the weekend...A whopping 80% of clinics had customers meet with financial coordinators, but only 18% had them see a social worker or psychologist."
See a trend here? Same thing happens at abortion clinics...the money drives this industry too.
"'Assisted reproductive technologies are too driven by the desires of couples and not enough by the interests of children,"'said Arthur Caplan, bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the survey's authors...About 100,000 pregnancy attempts are made each year using in vitro fertilization, in which eggs and sperm are mixed in a lab dish and the resulting embryos are implanted in the womb. More than 177,000 babies have been born this way in the United States."
"Researchers sent surveys to directors of 369 clinics or doctors' offices offering these services across the country; 210 responded."
Makes one wonder why the other 43% of them didn't respond. That's a lot. Since there are minimal to no regulations, they don't have to tell what they're doing.
"Two-thirds [of the clinics responding] believe they have a responsibility to consider parents' fitness before helping them conceive."
Only two-thirds? And note the word is "responsibility" not "legal obligation." There is no legal obligation to determine health-worthiness for parent and child, and yet at 100,000 attempts yearly, this is among the most health-critical procedures around.
"Caplan called [having a baby at age 66 via IVF] 'completely unethical and immoral,' noting that average life expectancy for Romanian women is 73 years. The fact she is single makes it worse because it raises the odds the child would have no one to care for her if the mother dies, he said. States need to set guidelines on some big issues, such as helping women have babies after menopause, similar to agencies that limit adoptions to people younger than 55, he believes.The reproductive medicine society's policy says the mother's age alone doesn't make fertility treatment unethical."
No, it's unethical and immoral at any maternal age, partly due to the fact that embryos that "don't take" are still lost human beings with souls after all, and those unused and left frozen in a lab are also destroyed like guinea pigs. I can't prove it but I am quite certain there's more regulation on the scientific experimentation using lab animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs than on IVF or embryonic stem cell research.
After all, the former are considered live beings.
I at least know that area well: many moons ago I was a Laboratory Supervisor in a university Psychology Department. For 3 years, I managed the labs, equipment and the animal quarters: care, feeding, clean-up, euthanization, the whole bit. (You haven't lived till you've cleaned up--daily--after 60 rabbits and 80 rats. And me with my allergies!) I know the regulations for caring for and disposing of lab animals, and how strict they are or are not. I once noticed lab rats dying of convulsions and swelled brains after certain brain surgery from one Psych. class, and was reprimanded for reporting it. The professor was not interested in following any better sanitary or surgical standards because he wasn't required to by law. For rabbits and larger mammals, yes, but not lab rats or mice. After investigating further, though, he found that his students had overdone one aspect of the surgery and that's why so many rats were dying. Once he corrected their technique, the problem stopped just like that.
That's just the kind of thing that can happen when there are no regulations or not enough good ones.
I know now how many human lives have been created and destroyed [through IVF] and are still being destroyed--either dumped or donated to stem cell research--I just can't support artificial conception any longer.
Techniques like IVF and artificial insemination divide the sexual act from the reproductive act. It isn’t any longer something sacred where two people give themselves as gift to one another. It becomes less a matter of love and more one of trusting doctors and scientists to impose technology over the origin and future of the human person. This takes away from the perfectness God intended for procreation to be, by deleting the parents from the actual, natural act. I feel now that it goes against natural law. It diminishes the dignity of the person created because there’s no real respect for the unity of that human being when the way s/he was created is artificial and born of disunion.
It also can hurt and diminish the dignity of the parents. More on that later, if I’m allowed to share a personal story from one of our readers. Still waiting to receive permission…
[First posted on After Abortion blog]
"A New Jersey obstetrician's receptionist has been charged with practicing medicine without a license for using abortion-inducing drugs on three patients.
"Lakewood police said Liza Berdiel's boss, Dr. Flavius Thompson, apparently didn't know what his receptionist was doing. Police said Berdiel performed the abortions after hours or when the doctor wasn't working."
2. "Fertility clinics unregulated"
"A new survey of U.S. fertility clinics found that few have policies for deciding who to help get pregnant -- an issue drawing fresh attention because of claims that a 66-year-old woman in Romania gave birth over the weekend...A whopping 80% of clinics had customers meet with financial coordinators, but only 18% had them see a social worker or psychologist."
See a trend here? Same thing happens at abortion clinics...the money drives this industry too.
"'Assisted reproductive technologies are too driven by the desires of couples and not enough by the interests of children,"'said Arthur Caplan, bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the survey's authors...About 100,000 pregnancy attempts are made each year using in vitro fertilization, in which eggs and sperm are mixed in a lab dish and the resulting embryos are implanted in the womb. More than 177,000 babies have been born this way in the United States."
"Researchers sent surveys to directors of 369 clinics or doctors' offices offering these services across the country; 210 responded."
Makes one wonder why the other 43% of them didn't respond. That's a lot. Since there are minimal to no regulations, they don't have to tell what they're doing.
"Two-thirds [of the clinics responding] believe they have a responsibility to consider parents' fitness before helping them conceive."
Only two-thirds? And note the word is "responsibility" not "legal obligation." There is no legal obligation to determine health-worthiness for parent and child, and yet at 100,000 attempts yearly, this is among the most health-critical procedures around.
"Caplan called [having a baby at age 66 via IVF] 'completely unethical and immoral,' noting that average life expectancy for Romanian women is 73 years. The fact she is single makes it worse because it raises the odds the child would have no one to care for her if the mother dies, he said. States need to set guidelines on some big issues, such as helping women have babies after menopause, similar to agencies that limit adoptions to people younger than 55, he believes.The reproductive medicine society's policy says the mother's age alone doesn't make fertility treatment unethical."
No, it's unethical and immoral at any maternal age, partly due to the fact that embryos that "don't take" are still lost human beings with souls after all, and those unused and left frozen in a lab are also destroyed like guinea pigs. I can't prove it but I am quite certain there's more regulation on the scientific experimentation using lab animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs than on IVF or embryonic stem cell research.
After all, the former are considered live beings.
I at least know that area well: many moons ago I was a Laboratory Supervisor in a university Psychology Department. For 3 years, I managed the labs, equipment and the animal quarters: care, feeding, clean-up, euthanization, the whole bit. (You haven't lived till you've cleaned up--daily--after 60 rabbits and 80 rats. And me with my allergies!) I know the regulations for caring for and disposing of lab animals, and how strict they are or are not. I once noticed lab rats dying of convulsions and swelled brains after certain brain surgery from one Psych. class, and was reprimanded for reporting it. The professor was not interested in following any better sanitary or surgical standards because he wasn't required to by law. For rabbits and larger mammals, yes, but not lab rats or mice. After investigating further, though, he found that his students had overdone one aspect of the surgery and that's why so many rats were dying. Once he corrected their technique, the problem stopped just like that.
That's just the kind of thing that can happen when there are no regulations or not enough good ones.
I know now how many human lives have been created and destroyed [through IVF] and are still being destroyed--either dumped or donated to stem cell research--I just can't support artificial conception any longer.
Techniques like IVF and artificial insemination divide the sexual act from the reproductive act. It isn’t any longer something sacred where two people give themselves as gift to one another. It becomes less a matter of love and more one of trusting doctors and scientists to impose technology over the origin and future of the human person. This takes away from the perfectness God intended for procreation to be, by deleting the parents from the actual, natural act. I feel now that it goes against natural law. It diminishes the dignity of the person created because there’s no real respect for the unity of that human being when the way s/he was created is artificial and born of disunion.
It also can hurt and diminish the dignity of the parents. More on that later, if I’m allowed to share a personal story from one of our readers. Still waiting to receive permission…
[First posted on After Abortion blog]
1.14.2005
Surprised lawyer finds Terry Schiavo alert
Attorney Barbara Weller visits with Terry Schiavo and her family in her hospital room on Christmas Eve.
It seems Terry made quite an impression on Weller. You can read her full acount here.
"The thing that surprised me the most about Terri as I took my turn to greet her by the side of her chair was how beautiful she is. I would have expected to see someone with a sallow and gray complexion and a sick looking countenance. Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches and cream complexion and a lovely smile, which she even politely extended to me as I introduced myself to her. I was amazed that someone who had not been outside for so many years and who received such minimal health care could look so beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from her face. I was truly taken aback by her beauty, particularly under the adverse circumstances in which she has found herself for so many years."
It seems Terry made quite an impression on Weller. You can read her full acount here.
"The thing that surprised me the most about Terri as I took my turn to greet her by the side of her chair was how beautiful she is. I would have expected to see someone with a sallow and gray complexion and a sick looking countenance. Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches and cream complexion and a lovely smile, which she even politely extended to me as I introduced myself to her. I was amazed that someone who had not been outside for so many years and who received such minimal health care could look so beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from her face. I was truly taken aback by her beauty, particularly under the adverse circumstances in which she has found herself for so many years."
More Women Opting Against Birth Control, Study Finds
"Pregnancy is not a disease. . . . The women making these choices are making a conscious choice. They are not stupid," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Women don't want to use birth control because of the side effects. And a lot of men refuse to use a condom."
Maybe they're onto something....
Maybe they're onto something....
Contraceptive Dangers--Rising Concerns Over Side Effects
The line in the sand gets longer and longer.
My prayers go out to the nouveau feminists who believe they've got it all figured out. But what's more unsettling:their misguided efforts lead our children astray. Blessed Mother please protect them.
Watch out for heaping coals...and falling millstones...
My prayers go out to the nouveau feminists who believe they've got it all figured out. But what's more unsettling:their misguided efforts lead our children astray. Blessed Mother please protect them.
Watch out for heaping coals...and falling millstones...
1.11.2005
A Battle Plan for Your Family
Pope John Paul II is a brave man. Speaking the truth in unstable and unfriendly countries, standing boldly against the popular demise of morality, traveling furiously even when weakened by sickness-no one can deny his courage.
But the pope does more than just model strength for us: He calls us to it. His apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World [1981]), is such a call. This papal document sets out the seemingly impossible mission facing every married couple and every family in the world today: It alerts us to the fact that "the family is the object of numerous forces that seek to destroy it or in some way to deform it" and then reveals strategies for overcoming them. It shows a dying society the root of its problems and offers a renewed vision of human life, marriage, and family that will bring healing to a wounded humanity.
Visit link above to read this article by Joseph C. Atkinson in crisis magazine.
But the pope does more than just model strength for us: He calls us to it. His apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World [1981]), is such a call. This papal document sets out the seemingly impossible mission facing every married couple and every family in the world today: It alerts us to the fact that "the family is the object of numerous forces that seek to destroy it or in some way to deform it" and then reveals strategies for overcoming them. It shows a dying society the root of its problems and offers a renewed vision of human life, marriage, and family that will bring healing to a wounded humanity.
Visit link above to read this article by Joseph C. Atkinson in crisis magazine.
1.06.2005
UN Agency Elusive About Abortion Aid for Tsunami Victims
The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) describes itself as the "largest international public sector supplier of contraceptives, condoms and other reproductive health essentials," and states that such supplies are "critical to protecting reproductive health in emergency situations." Yet in press releases on its tsunami relief activities, UNFPA steers clear of directly stating that it provides contraceptives or abortion aids. UNFPA may be responding to past public criticism after disclosures that it was providing such supplies.
In its January 6 press release, the latest and most explicit to date, UNFPA has requested $28 million in donations for, among other things, "the reestablishment of basic reproductive health services" in Indonesia, the re-establishment of "reproductive health services," purchases of "reproductive health commodities" and promotion of "adolescent reproductive health" in the Maldives, and to meet "urgent reproductive health needs" and "restore" and raise awareness of "emergency reproductive health services" in Sri Lanka.
According to UNFPA's "Reproductive Health in Emergency Situations" manual, the "reproductive health needs" of refugees include "guaranteeing the availability of free condoms." Indeed, UNFPA's website says that "Free condoms are among the first reproductive health supplies to reach people caught in a crisis situation...UNFPA provides both male and female condoms in emergencies."
The manual also describes the "reproductive health kits" developed by UNFPA for "the initial acute phase of the emergency," which include "condoms," "oral and injectable contraceptives" including the abortifacient morning-after pills, and "IUD[s]." The kits also contain manual vacuum aspirators, portable abortion devices that are easily used in primitive conditions such as refugee areas.
The supplies in the kits are "stored by UNFPA in preparation for immediate distribution when an earthquake, flood...or other crisis arises." Thus, UNFPA is able to "mount a quick response to emergencies, especially in the initial stages [and] can ship out supplies of condoms and other commodities within a few days." In 2003, UNFPA shipped out over 300 of these "reproductive health kits" to 34 "emergency destinations." [Each reproductive health kit is designed to assist populations totaling between 10,000-150,000 for up to three months.] UNFPA has not disclosed whether it is providing these kits for tsunami refugees.
UNFPA's increasing caution in revealing the full extent of its activities may be the result of past public relations flops. In 1999, UNFPA faced public criticism after it was revealed that it had distributed reproductive health kits to Albanian refugee camps. The Population Research Institute, among others, claimed that UNFPA had "constructed a 'social marketing' campaign to fabricate demand" for contraceptives and abortifacients among a "captive audience" of refugees.
According to its mandate, UNFPA should not participate in any efforts to increase access to abortion or to provide the medical or technical expertise to facilitate abortion. However, numerous reports from both governmental and nongovernmental sources reveal that UNFPA aggressively promotes abortion.
Copyright 2004 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
In its January 6 press release, the latest and most explicit to date, UNFPA has requested $28 million in donations for, among other things, "the reestablishment of basic reproductive health services" in Indonesia, the re-establishment of "reproductive health services," purchases of "reproductive health commodities" and promotion of "adolescent reproductive health" in the Maldives, and to meet "urgent reproductive health needs" and "restore" and raise awareness of "emergency reproductive health services" in Sri Lanka.
According to UNFPA's "Reproductive Health in Emergency Situations" manual, the "reproductive health needs" of refugees include "guaranteeing the availability of free condoms." Indeed, UNFPA's website says that "Free condoms are among the first reproductive health supplies to reach people caught in a crisis situation...UNFPA provides both male and female condoms in emergencies."
The manual also describes the "reproductive health kits" developed by UNFPA for "the initial acute phase of the emergency," which include "condoms," "oral and injectable contraceptives" including the abortifacient morning-after pills, and "IUD[s]." The kits also contain manual vacuum aspirators, portable abortion devices that are easily used in primitive conditions such as refugee areas.
The supplies in the kits are "stored by UNFPA in preparation for immediate distribution when an earthquake, flood...or other crisis arises." Thus, UNFPA is able to "mount a quick response to emergencies, especially in the initial stages [and] can ship out supplies of condoms and other commodities within a few days." In 2003, UNFPA shipped out over 300 of these "reproductive health kits" to 34 "emergency destinations." [Each reproductive health kit is designed to assist populations totaling between 10,000-150,000 for up to three months.] UNFPA has not disclosed whether it is providing these kits for tsunami refugees.
UNFPA's increasing caution in revealing the full extent of its activities may be the result of past public relations flops. In 1999, UNFPA faced public criticism after it was revealed that it had distributed reproductive health kits to Albanian refugee camps. The Population Research Institute, among others, claimed that UNFPA had "constructed a 'social marketing' campaign to fabricate demand" for contraceptives and abortifacients among a "captive audience" of refugees.
According to its mandate, UNFPA should not participate in any efforts to increase access to abortion or to provide the medical or technical expertise to facilitate abortion. However, numerous reports from both governmental and nongovernmental sources reveal that UNFPA aggressively promotes abortion.
Copyright 2004 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)