Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors, New Study Shows

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Scientists Say Seaweed Stops Tumors

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 14, 2006
Sydney, Australia (LifeNews.com) -- Australian scientists say they found a method of overcoming one of the bigger practical objections to embryonic stem cell research. Using seaweed, they say they stopped the cancerous tumors that often develop when embryonic stem cells are injected.

Researchers at the University of New South Wales found they could prevent tumors from growing by encasing embryonic stem cells in seaweed extract, called alginate, before they are transplanted.

Professor Bernie Tuch, the head of the research team, discussed his findings with the Australian Associated Press.

"Whilst embryonic stem cells have great potential to deliver therapies for disorders, such as diabetes, a fear has been that they will form tumors because of the presence of undifferentiated cells," Prof Tuch said.

"Our breakthrough removes what could have been a stumbling block to this vital research," he explained.

But that doesn't remove the ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research, says Wesley J. Smith, an attorney and author who is a leading American bioethics watchdog.

"Tumorless embryonic stem cells remain ethically contentious since extracting them involves treating a nascent human organism like a crop to be sown and harvested," Smith explained.

The research may possibly help overcome the problem of embryonic stem cells being rejected by a patient's immune system.

Hwang Woo-suk, the disgraced stem cell researcher who faked his studies, supposedly created patient-specific embryonic stem cells that overcame that problem but he has admitted the research was not authentic.

Tuch's team used both human and mouse embryonic stem cells to experiment with the seaweed, which he says allow good stem cells to grow but prevent problematic cells from developing.

It found that the alginate appears to survive along with the stem cells for about nine months.

He published the results of the findings today in the journal Transplantation.


  Embryonic Stem Cell Research Causes Tumors, New Study Shows

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 23, 2006

Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists working with embryonic stem cell research on animals reconfirmed what pro-life advocates have been saying for years about it. Researcher Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center said injecting embryonic stem cells into the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease would cause tumors.

Goldman's research team has been injecting the controversial cells into rats that have the disease and the cells turned into tumors afterwards.

The scientists explained their findings in an article in the latest issue of Nature Medicine.

They said the embryonic stem cell injections helped some of the rats but some of the cells started growing in a manner that would eventually lead to a tumor.

"The behavioral data validate the utility of the approach. But it also raises a cautionary flag and says we are not ready for prime time yet," Goldman told the Washington Post.

He conceded that considerably more research would need to be done to determine whether the tumor problems could ever be overcome.

Parkinson's is a disease where dopamine-releasing cells in the brain die out, which leads to muscle dysfunction and can eventually cause paralysis. The goal of stem cell research in Parkinson's is to replace the dead cells with stem cells that form into new dopamine cells.

Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells obtained by killing days-old unborn children that were grown in a special chemical used to coax them into becoming brain cells.

The team killed the rats before they could determine that the tumors that appeared to be growing actually finished appearing and they said that any embryonic stem cell treatments on humans, which has never been tried, would have to be closely monitored.

Some autopsies on the rats found tumors and that the embryonic stem cells began to grow uncontrollably rather than becoming the dopamine cells as intended.

Another team led by Ole Isacson, a Harvard Medical School professor of neuroscience and neurology, published similar results earlier this month in the online journal Stem Cells and found that the embryonic stem cells also produced tumors.

Adult stem cells have not had the same problems and have been used successfully to treat dozens of diseases and conditions. But scientists have said they don't think embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure for Parkinson's.

University of Melbourne Emeritus Professor of Medicine Thomas Martin told Australian lawmakers recently that he did not think that embryonic stem cell research would even lead to cures for major diseases such as diabetes or Parkinson's.

Martin, an internationally recognized Fellow of the Royal Society, said the embryonic stem cells produced from human cloning would have the same problems.


British Study:  Unborn  Children  Feel  Pain  Earlier
Women's Thyroid Stem Cells eyed as alternative resource
by Michael Lasalandra  (BOSTON HERALD - Dec. 14, 2001)
Boston - Researchers at New England Medical Center say they have found evidence of fetal stem cells in the thyroids of adult women and say the findings could offer another source of the cells that may be able to be used as sources of replacement parts or new tissues.
    "We want people to consider that in the stem cell debate there may be another interpretation," said Dr. Diana Bianchi, chief of the NEMC/Floating Hospital department of genetics.
    In 1996, researchers found fetal stem cells floating around in the blood of women who previously had been pregnant.  The cells were left over from their babies.
    In  a new paper, to be published tomorrow in the LANCET, Bianchi reported finding evidence of fetal stem cells in the thyroids of adult women who had once been pregnant.  In 16 of the 29 women studied, fetal cells were found in the thyroid containing the Y chromosome, indicating they were from their babies.  In one of the women, researchers found fully differentiated male thyroid cells attached to the rest of the thyroid.
    In essence, "one part of her thyroid was male and one part was female," Bianchi said.
    The finding could indicate that the stem cells made a new thyroid.
     "Just because fetal stem cells are in the blood doesn't mean they are capable of doing anything," she said.  "Now, we see cells making a thyroid."  She said the finding could mean that scientists may not have to rely on embryos as sources of stem cells.  "Our study offers hope for finding those valuable cells in adult women, thus advancing research without ethical complications," she said.
The Power of the Sonogram  by  Nat Hentoff

Biology 101:  (Human) Embryos are Human Life

Pope Urges Bush to Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Bush to fund stem cell research that is not destructive of human embryos
Singapore Catholic Doctors Pray Against Embryo Stem Cell Research

Dr. Dobson applauds the President
Rev. Falwell praises the President
National Right to Life Committee commends the President
Pro-Life Reaction to President Bush's Embryo Stem Cell Research Decision
Fr. Rosario Thomas: The paramount moral concern, at any rate, has been salvaged in the Bush decision:
    The President's decision on stem cell research can be broken down into a number of decisions of differing moral gravity.  The  decision comprises at least two principal and distinct elements:
A) The refusal to fund stem cell research requiring the destruction of human embryos.
and  
B) The funding of certain stem cell research resulting from embryos which have already been destroyed.
    Since the direct violation of embryonic life has been definitively rejected we have to say that the  paramount moral concern, at any rate, has been salvaged in the Bush decision.
    The second part of the decision indeed carries with it its own moral concerns, but murder is not one of them.  Although the President is in no way responsible for the despicable act of destroying these embryos, there are a number of troubling aspects of this, albeit,  after-the-fact funding; not least among them -  that the very guilty parties to this crime, will be in someway rewarded by the grant.  
    Regretting the President's decision to allow federal funding for even existing stem cell lines, Cardinal Law of Boston fears that it will be difficult to uphold the limits that  the President has established, "judging from the comments of politicians calling for no limits and of scientists who question whether 60 stem cell lines are sufficient".  The Cardinal  pointed out that such positions "reject the inherent value of embryonic human life, a value which the President clearly affirms".  These and other concerns have spawned enormous trepidation concerning this second part of the President's decision.
    Having said that, let us address the often voice difficulty of using the ill-gotten "fruit" from this poisoned  source.   It must be observed that the immoral origin of these stem cells, does not seem necessarily to imply that they must  be destroyed or remain unused.
    For example, someone would not be prevented from saving a child from a burning school merely because the rescuer knew that the nearby fire-extinguisher had been stolen.  Nor would this case be altered just because  the boy to be saved were the very one who stole the extinguisher.
    Likewise when someone confesses to having stolen money, the first instruction is that the money should be returned to its owner.  If however the rightful owner be unknown, the confessor does not say that the money must be burnt, but rather that  it should be given to a poor person.  
    In some respects this problem is similar to the long-standing dilemma of whether the scientific data gleaned from immoral human experimentation, (such as was done on Jews, disabled or retarded people in Nazi Germany or the Tuskegee or radiation experiments done in America) should be destroyed or allowed to be used for the benefit of people today who have, for example, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's  disease, or juvenile diabetes.
         Using the stem cells  murderously obtained from helpless lives abandoned by all guardianship evinces a sad disrespect for these poor victims, but this use may not be lacking some relevant considerations, even if that be only the attempt to accommodate the unquenchable demands  of amoral politicians and scientists.      
    It is my judgment that this second part of the President's decision, namely, to allow funds for research on stem cells taken from embryos haplessly and tragically already fallen prey, does not per se violate a moral law and can be accepted in good conscience by pro-life people respecting the sincere intention of the President that possibly some good may come from it.  The hoped-for good after all is not frivolous, but, in its own right, involves very worthy aspirations of cures and relief for sick and suffering humans.
    The President's decision was cut with "Occam's razor" in a way that, in regard to the principal pro-life concern (the murder of human life), it was not a compromise judgment at all, but rather a complete victory.  It was only in regard to the secondary interest (the right of a person to his or her own biological integrity) that the decision is tainted. [We say "integrity" and not identity, assuming that we are dealing with a type of tissue rather than an attempt to replicate a person's biological individuality. - Is it possible that the unauthorized copying of rock lyrics is prohibited but one's personal identity is not?]  The hypocrisy of this case can be seen when compared to the legal protection that other dead people have in regard to the harvesting of their bodily organs without a prior consent  It would be ludicrous to consider, as "guardians", people commercially creating embryos.
    Obviously a critical condition in rendering the decision acceptable is the closed nature of the pool of embryos effected, eliminating the possibility that the funding itself would become a motive for the further destruction of embryos.
    If the use of these stem cell lines be rejected, then it must be done, not out of mere piety for the victims from which they were criminally stolen, but from a clearly enunciated moral principle; otherwise the collapse of a tenuous compromise may result in a horrific alternative which overrides the first part of the President's decision, namely the protection of human embryonic life.

Father Rosario Thomas is editor of the book:
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE: THE POPE AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Alternatives Exist: Use Them (Fumento)

Cardinal Ratzinger Compares Human Cloning to Nazi Madness

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal (July 25), the cells transplanted by Dr. Gearhart in mice were taken from"five-week-old to nine-week-old human fetuses that had been electively aborted."

Christian Medical Association Criticizes Bio Firms on Embryo Stem Cell Research

Pro-Life Groups Continue to Lobby Bush on Embryo Stem Cell Research

Washington, DC -- The leaders of several prominent pro-life organizations,
joined by some of their allies in Congress, are warning President Bush
that he risks demoralizing many of his core supporters if he flip-flops on
his previously stated opposition to federal funding for stem-cell research
that involves killing human embryos.

As late as May 18, Bush sent a letter to the Culture of Life Foundation,
saying, "I oppose federal funding for stem-cell research that involves
destroying living human embryos."

Since then, however, Bush has indicated that he is deliberating whether to
change his position.

"This is an emotional issue that goes right to the heart of the pro-life
movement," pro-life Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said. "If the president changes
his position on embryonic stem-cell research one inch, he moves the bar
and forces those of us who strongly believe that life begins with
conception to have to make bigger arguments.  A change by the president on
this critical issue would demoralize us as a movement."

Family Research Council President Ken Connor said: "Any abdication by
President Bush of his campaign pledge to oppose embryonic research will
fracture his pro-life base, which was essential to his election in the
first place. It will absolutely inhibit his ability to marshal the
critical mass that he will need from his base in order to be re-elected."

Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly agreed.

"We expect Bush to maintain current law against stem-cell research," she
indicated. "To do otherwise will severely damage his credibility, as well
as the pro-life cause."

Gary Bauer, who ran against President Bush for the Republican nomination
last year and who now serves as president of American Values, said: "No
one would have asked in the elder Bush's administration if a reversal of
his 'Read My Lips' pledge would have severely hurt him with economic
conservatives. Likewise, social conservatives must be serious about our
values. If such a complete reversal on a fundamental issue does not damage
him with cultural conservative supporters, one would have to conclude that
no serious social conservatism exists."

Would a Bush turnabout on stem-cell research actually lead pro-life
advocates to abandon the President in 2004 and vote for a Democrat or
third-party candidate out of spite? "No," said Michael Schwartz of
Concerned Women for America. "It's not that we would vote for the other
guy; it's just that we would have a very hard time getting our circles to
work for Bush in the next election."

Schwartz, a longtime congressional aide, said, "Bush's staff has already
turned this stem-cell issue into high-stakes political poker by waiting
and suggesting he might be reconsidering his position. It makes me very
uneasy to see him in doubt."

Pro-life Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), noting that Bush had won the highest
percentage of Roman Catholic voters since Ronald Reagan in 1984, said he
"was very concerned that if Bush ever changed his position, he would hurt
himself with Catholic voters. His strong showing among Catholics was due,
at least in part, to his positions on issues such as this. It would hurt
him with the conservative base, and most notably Republican Catholics, if
his position on embryonic stem-cell research ever changed."

If the President were to change his position, said pro-life Rep. John
Shadegg (R-AZ), it would "get him in some deep trouble" in 2004.

"Conservatives are watching this issue with great interest and concern,"
said Focus on the Family President James C. Dobson. "I believe President
Bush will make an enormous mistake if he reverses himself on the
preservation of embryonic life. It is our prayer that he will honor his
campaign pledge and protect human life from conception to the grave."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:  Pro-Life Groups Continue to Lobby Bush on ESCR
Source:   Human Events; August 6, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *
Three Largest U.S. Churches Oppose Embryo Stem Cell Research Funding

Washington, DC -- The United Methodist Church has urged one of its
best-known members, President George W. Bush, to maintain a moratorium on
government-aided stem cell research using human embryos.

That view unites the three biggest U.S. denominations. The Roman Catholic
Church and Southern Baptist Convention also oppose research that destroys
human embryos.

James Winkler of the Methodists' Board of Church and Society, the church's
social action agency, wrote Bush noting that the denomination last year
urged a ban on human cloning and ``procedures that intentionally generate
'waste (human) embryos' which will knowingly be destroyed.''

Winkler said, ``The moral and ethical issues surrounding the beginning of
life demand enormous caution in proceeding with activities that result in
the destruction of human embryos.''

He opposed policies that turn ``life into a commodity to be manipulated,
controlled, patented and sold.''

In June, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) assembly took a different view,
endorsing use of embryo stem cells for research only if there are medical
goals that cannot be achieved any other way, if embryo donations are kept
separate from decisions to abort, and if commerce in human embryos is
prohibited.

On July 23, the 2.6-million member Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod sent
President Bush a letter opposing embryo-destructive research.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Three Largest U.S. Churches Now Oppose ESCR Funding
Source:   Associated Press; August 2, 2001

Christian Medical Association Delivers Embryo Stem Cell Research  Petitions to Bush

Cloning Debate Proves ESCR "Bait and Switch"   (Wesley J. Smith)

The Hoax of Therapeutic Cloning   (Leon R. Kass)

Facts Left Out of Embryo Stem Cell Research Debate(Betsy Hart)

CDC Knew About Condoms' Limitations, Doctors Say

British Study Says Adult Stem Cells Can Change to Kidney Cells

Reform Party Adopts Pro-Life Platform

  Although the party's numbers and influence have dramatically
  declined since it twice nominated pro-abortion billionaire Ross Perot
  as its presidential candidate, the Reform Party switched its position
on abortion from pro-abortion to pro-life at its recent national
convention.
  After two hours of debate and three votes, national convention
  delegates voted last weekend to hold that life begins at conception
  and to support overturning Roe vs. Wade, which legalized unlimited
  abortion. (The Dallas Morning News; July 30, 2001)


Opponents of Stem Cell Research Gain New Momentum
By John W. Whitehead

Sometime within the next few weeks, President Bush is expected to make a
decision on whether to approve federal funding of stem cell research on
human embryos. New York Times commentator William Safire, among others,
says the decision could be the defining point of Bush's presidency. Not
long ago, it appeared that the debate was basically over. New evidence,
however, suggests that the research may not be the sure thing supporters
have claimed it to be.

Until now, fetal stem cell research has been acclaimed as a medical
miracle in the wings, just waiting for federal funds to allow it to take
center stage in the fight to cure diseases such as Parkinson's. But the
authors of a study released in a recent issue of the journal Science found
that embryonic stem cells, at least in mice, are much more unpredictable
than previously thought.

The researchers, at the last minute, deleted a sentence in their article
stating that, according to the Washington Post, "scientists may face
unexpected challenges as they try to turn the controversial cells into
treatments for various degenerative conditions." The researchers
apparently deleted this sentence because they were concerned that the
potential problem might be "exaggerated" by those opposing stem cell
research.

The problem, however, is not an exaggeration of the claims of those who
oppose the research. Rather, the problem is with those who support the
research and have made extraordinarily bold claims about its potential.

Other scientists have said that any abnormalities in the stem cells of the
mice are not an issue with human fetal research. They argue that the stem
cells of the mice were being used to clone full mice, rather than simply
using them to grow only human tissue, like cardiac muscle.

Yet regardless of this distinction, the researchers who did the study have
raised the possibility that stem cells will not live up to their political
hype. Until now, opponents of fetal stem cell research have been
characterized as ignorant Luddites standing in the way of human progress
and global health. That clearly is not the case.

What kind of impact will this study have on President Bush's decision
about federal funding of stem cell research? Obviously, it should make him
look more closely at the claims made by the study's supporters.

As with most questions in both politics and life, decision-makers must
balance competing -- and sometimes incompatible -- interests. Even if one
believes that using embryonic stem cells for medical research is immoral,
the opposing argument clearly has more weight if two things are true:
first, that the embryos will be destroyed anyway; and second, that the
research will indeed save thousands, if not millions, of lives.

The Science report casts a shadow of doubt on the second claim. Scientists
may think that the abnormalities discovered will not ultimately impact
growing human tissue from stem cells. But it isn't clear that the research
will definitely save lives, as supporters have led the general public to
believe.

Thus, the force of the argument has clearly swung in the direction of the
opponents of funding fetal research because two things are now true.
First, medical research on human life, even potential human life as some
call it, is fraught with medical and ethical complications, regardless of
whether one believes -- as I do -- that destroying human embryos is
immoral. And second, stem cell research is not certain to bring the
benefits that we have been led to believe it will.

Private researchers are already engaging in experimentation on these tiny
lives. They will continue regardless of President Bush's ultimate
decision. Federal taxpayers, however, many of whom oppose stem cell
research on moral grounds, should not be compelled to pay for it,
especially when its benefits are not certain.

This is not to suggest that the federal government should never fund
medical research when its benefits are uncertain. But it is to say that
when fundamental moral questions are involved -- especially when we're
dealing with questions of human life -- supporters of such funding should
at least have concrete proof of its benefits before engaging the moral
debate.

Like the researchers who performed the study, stem cell funding supporters
will accuse dissidents of playing politics with its results. But these
supporters should remember that they are the ones seeking political
affirmation. Dissenting voices are simply reminding the public what it too
often doesn't hear in the race to embrace allegedly beneficial technology
-- that there exists a unique moment when cells become life, and the image
of God is formed, no matter how tiny it may be.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Opponents of Stem Cell Research Gain New Momentum
Source:   Rutherford Institute; July 26, 2001

*       *       *       *       *       *
Stem Cell Low, Buy High:  Imbroglio over embryos.
by Ann Coulter

I've nearly died waiting, but it can finally be said: The feminists were
right about one thing. Some portion of pro-life men would be pro-choice if
they were capable of getting pregnant. They are the ones who think life
begins at conception unless Grandma has Alzheimer's and scientists allege
that stem-cell research on human embryos might possibly yield a cure.

It's either a life or it's not a life, and it's not much of an argument to
say the embryo is going to die anyway. What kind of principle is that?
Prisoners on death row are going to die anyway, the homeless are going to
die anyway, prisoners in Nazi death camps were going to die anyway. Why
not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive "cures"?

Meanwhile, every Republican with a doddering, 90-year-old parent seems to
be gung ho on experimenting on human embryos, or "blastocysts," as they
are affectionately known to the "scientific community." The ungreatest
generation is so appalled at idea of having to take care of mom and dad,
now they're lashing out at embryos.

Admittedly, the real problem is with the creation of test-tube embryos in
the first place. But experimentation is just one more step in
desensitizing people to the idea of taking human life.

Stem-cell research on embryos is an even worse excuse for the slaughter of
life than abortion. No woman is even being spared an inconvenience this
time. We don't have to hear the ghastly arguments of mothers against their
own children, the travails of girls being sent away to live with their
aunt for a few months, or the stories of women carrying the babies of
rapists as if that's happened more than twice in the last century. This is
just harvest and slaughter, harvest and slaughter. Liberals warm to the
idea of killing human embryos.

The last great advance for human experimentation in this country was the
federal government's acquiescence to the scientific community's demands
for money to experiment on aborted fetuses. Denouncing the "Christian
right" for opposing the needs of science, Anthony Lewis of the New York
Times claimed the experiments were "crucial to potential cures for
Parkinson's disease."

Almost exactly a year later, the Times ran a front-page story describing
the results of those experiments on Parkinson's patients: Not only was
there no positive effect, but about 15 percent of the patients had
nightmarish side effects. The unfortunate patients "writhe and twist, jerk
their heads, fling their arms about." In the words of one scientist: "They
chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and
distend." And the scientists couldn't "turn it off."

So what great advance are we to expect from experimentation on human
embryos? They don't know. It's just a theory. But they definitely need to
start slaughtering the unborn. Why not have the government give me a lot
of money so I can sit around and think. Who knows what I might come up
with? I'm clever. It's possible. Give money to Ann or condemn the world to
disease and pestilence!

It is simply asserted that scientists need to experiment on human embryos
if they are ever going to find a cure for Alzheimer's, cancer, AIDS,
Parkinson's, and so on. Yeah, maybe. If so, then it's true, but no one has
demonstrated that it's true. Liberals are sobbing and groaning that we
don't know if SDI will work. We just shot a missile out of the sky; what's
their proof?

The Left is so transparent: Nobody ever heard of this incredibly important
research on human embryos until ten minutes ago. Yet everyone makes
believe he's known about the undiscovered bounty in human embryos forever,
and talks about it with real moral indignation. This whole debate is a
hoax designed to trick Americans into yielding ground on human
experimentation.

Incidentally, whatever happened to all the conjectural cures waiting to be
discovered in the rain forest? Somebody found a guava root that tasted
good in tea once, and that's the last the rain forest has offered up. The
pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. has been combing the rain forest for a
decade looking for some useful weed. The results so far? Nothing.

Now it will take forever to chop it down. I have nothing against the rain
forest. But I'm confident that, someday, the "scientific community" will
decide that we face a choice of chopping it down or risking never finding
a cure for cancer.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Stem Cell Low, Buy High:  Imbroglio over embryos.
Source:   National Review; July 26, 2001


United Methodist Church Announces Opposition to Embryo Stem Cell Research

The General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society, Jim
Winkler, has sent a letter to fellow United Methodist and President George
W. Bush, urging him to continue to impose "an extended moratorium" on
human embryo stem cell research. The General Board of Church of Society of
The United Methodist Church is the denomination's international social
witness and advocacy agency, with offices in New York City and Washington,
D.C.

Winkler, noting that Bush promised to make a decision on human embryo stem
cell research by the end of July, said that "after prayerful reflection...
and careful reading of official United Methodist policy and teachings,"
that he was urging the moratorium "on the destruction of human embryos for
the purpose of stem cell or other research."

The United Methodist Church has called for a complete and total ban on
human cloning, including embryo cloning, for any purpose. Speaking through
its only official voice, the General Conference, which met in May 2000,
the church called for a ban on human cloning and "procedures that
intentionally generate 'waste [human] embryos' which will knowingly be
destroyed." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p. 249.)

"Destroying human embryos for the sole purpose of carrying on scientific
research that promises only the possibility of potential treatments with
little concrete evidence of success again raises profound and disturbing
moral and ethical issues," Winkler wrote in the letter. "Such practices
seem to be destructive of human dignity and speed us further down the path
that ignores the sacred dimensions of life and personhood and turns life
into a commodity to be manipulated, controlled, patented and sold."

The United Methodist Church has engaged in a focused, formal study of
genetics and biotechnology since 1988. The church has called for support
of appropriate somatic cell research and treatment that respects human
dignity.

Only General Conference speaks officially for The United Methodist Church.
The General Board of Church and Society is the international public
witness and advocacy agency of the church.

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  The following is a press release issued on July
17, 2001, by the public policy advocacy arm of the United Methodist
Church.  It is noteworthy that the UMC has long supported legal abortion.]

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   United Methodist Church Announces Opposition to ESCR
Source:   United Methodist Church; July 17, 2001

*      *      *      *      *      *
Columbia Catholic Church Says Abortion Practitioners Will be Excommunicated

  Colombia's Roman Catholic Church warned Wednesday it would
  excommunicate abortion practitioners and called for opposition to a new
  law allowing abortions in the case of rape. The law allows judges to
  reduce or waive penalties for abortions of pregnancies resulting from
  rape "or other crimes." "The abominable crime of abortion becomes
  partially justified by this legislation," the bishops wrote, calling
  for Catholics to disregard it.    (Agence France Presse; July 18, 2001)

*      *      *      *      *      *
Familes of Adopted Embryos Put Human Face on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Washington, DC -- The families of three children born from frozen embryos
said Monday that President Bush should see the toddlers before he makes a
decision on stem cell research.

As President Bush wrangles with a decision about whether taxpayers must
fund life-destroying embryonic stem cell research, two-year-old Hannah
Strege and her parents traveled from their home in California to
Washington, D.C. this week to show President Bush and Congress that
embryos "left over" from in-vitro fertilization can become children
instead of research subjects.

"I was listening to C-SPAN [where] Sen. [Tom] Harkin (D-IA) said that my
daughter was nothing more than a dot on a piece of paper," said Hannah's
mother, Marlene Strege, a 42-year-old occupational therapist, who spoke at
a Capital Hill press conference on Monday.

The Streges adopted Hannah as an embryo in 1997 after fertility treatments
failed to produce a pregnancy for Marlene.

"I cried," said Strege, recalling her reaction to Harkin's words. "My
husband came home and I said, 'Well, our little dot just put Winnie the
Pooh in the toilet today.'"

Strege is slated to testify at a congressional hearing Tuesday to explore
the ethical and legal issues surrounding the federal funding of embryonic
stem cell research.

Lucinda and John Borden also think they could sway the president with Luke
and Mark, a pair of lively 9 1/2 month olds. (For a picture, email the
Pro-Life Infonet at infonet@prolifeinfo.org)

The parents argue that if Bush approves federal money for the research,
more of the tiny unborn children will be destroyed for science instead of
adopted by infertile couples.

``We want him to look into our children's eyes,'' said Lucinda Borden, who
received the children through a Christian adoption agency based in
Fullerton, Calif. The boys were born after the embryos were implanted in
Lucinda, 36, of Fontana, Calif.

``Hannah, Luke and Mark give the debate over stem cell research three
beautiful faces,'' said Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), a noted pro-life lawmaker
who'd rather see federal money spent on adult stem cell research. "Adult
stem cells are a legitimate alternative to research that destroys human
embryos, [but] the only way to justify embryo-destructive work is to
assert that Hannah" added Smith.

The three children were adopted through the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption
Program.

Smith wants to create a $30 million annual fund that would support
research on stem cells extracted from youth and adult tissue, fat cells
and other alternatives to human embryos.

Though Congress in 1996 passed a law banning federal funding of such
research, the Clinton Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
interpreted the ban to mean that federal funding was allowable so long as
embryos were obtained using private funds.

After undertaking a review of the Clinton rule, President Bush is now
dealing with the thorny ethical question of how his administration will
balance the interests of embryonic research foes on one side and groups
representing researchers and people with chronic and terminal diseases on
the other.

But even Bush's decision, politically risky either way he turns, is
unlikely to end the matter. The Christian Legal Society has a pending
lawsuit challenging the policy. Also, legislators in Congress who favor
embryonic stem cell research funding say they will draft legislation to
allow it.

Moreover, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who has upset pro-life advocates with
his support for embryonic stem cell research, has said that he thinks the
Senate could muster the necessary 60 votes to overturn a presidential veto
of legislation to allow stem cell funding.

Even though embryonic stem cell research supporters say such research is
needed to cure numerous diseases, Ken Connor, president of the Family
Research Council, believes that medical need is not a justification for
making taxpayers fund research that destroys human embryos.

"There's a statement lawyers learn in law school that says ...'hard cases
make bad law,'" said Connor. "There's no question about the fact that
there are many difficult [and] sad cases which cry out for relief [and]
help."

He added, "But I would defy Senators [Arlen] Specter (R-Pa.) and Hatch to
take these three children [produced through embryo adoption] in their arms
and tell us which ones of these children should have been sacrificed on
the altar of scientific experimentation in pursuit of what is at best an
elusive goal."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Familes of Adopted Embryos Put Human Face on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   Cybercast News Service, Associated Press; July 16, 2001

*      *      *      *      *      *
Embryonic Stem Cell Researcher Moves Overseas to Continue Work

  Biology Prof. Roger Pedersen, of the University of California, San
  Francisco, said Monday he is moving to Cambridge University later
  this summer to continue his research, which involves the destruction
  of embryos. "I was faced with an irresistible career opportunity, and
  the possibility of carrying out my research ... with public support,"
  Pedersen said. Britain backs embryo and stem cell research.
  Geron Inc., a California biotech company that supplied the equipment
  and salaries for Pedersen's research, said it is may move some of its
  stem cell research to Scotland.
http://www2.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=84549939

*      *      *      *      *      *
Three More Firms Race to Market Embryo Stem Cell Research

  Three companies that harvest embryonic stem cells are racing to
  develop their research before President Bush might put forward a
  pro-life ban on federal funding of it.
http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/national/digdocs/047591.htm

*      *      *      *      *      *
New Study shows Dangers of Embryonic Stem Cell

Washington, DC -- A new study published in the journal Science today
reports that embryonic stem cells used in cloning mice often result in
severe abnormalities, a finding that strengthens the belief of many
scientists that the technique used to clone Dolly the sheep should not be
used on humans.

``This study confirms the suspicions of many of us that cloning of humans
would be really dangerous,'' said Rudolf Jaenisch, senior author of the
study and a researcher at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Cloned mice created with embryonic stem cells may look normal but often
have subtle abnormalities, scientists reported on Thursday. The finding
could lend support to those pro-life people who oppose embryonic stem cell
research.

In cloned humans, Jaenisch said the gene expression flaws could affect
personality, intelligence and other human attributes.

"The simplistic warning is clearly you can make cloned animals with
problems (with embryonic stem cells); whether this will apply to other
donor cell types remains to be seen," David Humphreys of the Whitehead
Institute said.

Researchers found that these cells might carry unexpected risks when used
to reproduce organisms -- like cloned mice. Stem cells are early cells not
yet specifically earmarked to become any one part of the body, so they can
develop into most any kind of cell the body needs, and as a result can be
used in so-called reproductive cloning.

Many of the cloned mice created in research at the Whitehead Institute and
the University of Hawaii developed abnormally, even though they made it
through pregnancy, birth and in some cases to adulthood. The problem did
not lie in the cloning process, but rather in the makeup of the embryonic
stem cells, which were found to be extremely unstable in laboratory
cultures.

The genes themselves were not at fault. However, the embryonic stem cells
lost the tags that were supposed to tell the genes whether to turn on or
off during development, the researchers found. This meant that two mice
cloned from the "sister" embryonic stem cells might have differences in
the way their genes were expressed.

Dr. David A. Prentice, an Indiana State University professor of life
sciences, said the MIT-Whitehead study shows the hazards of the current
cloning technology.

``Development is a finely orchestrated ballet of cells forming tissues and
organs at the right place and time,'' said Prentice. ``It takes only one
going awry at the wrong time and place to have a seriously flawed
individual.''

The results of the recent study, conducted by the Whitehead Institute for
Biomedical Research and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, echo
the dangers posed by non-cloning embryonic stem cell research.

In a June 14 letter to President Bush, Family Research Council president
Ken Connor warned of the hazards of stem cell research:

"Unchecked cell growth is a significant issue in embryonic stem cell
research as well (as in fetal tissue research).  As a consequence, some
researchers are concluding that tissue-specific stem cells harvested from
adult sources may prove to be a far more effective mode of treatment than
pluripotent stem cells harvested from human embryos. As University of
Pennsylvania bioethicist Glenn McGee was quoted in the January-February
issue of Technology Review, 'The emerging truth in the lab is that
pluripotent stem cells are hard to rein in. The potential that they would
explode into a cancerous mass after a stem cell transplant might turn out
to be the Pandora's Box of stem cell research."

"The study concerning cloning and embryonic stem cell research is further
evidence that the government should only support research that is ethical
and shows the most promise, such as adult stem cell research.  Human
embryonic stem cell research does not fit this bill," Ken Connor said.
"We urge the president to remain true to his pledge to oppose federal
funding of research that involves the destruction of an embryonic human
being."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   New Study Shows Dangers of Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning
Source:   Associated Press, Reuters, Family Research Council; July 6, 2001

*      *      *      *      *      *
Fetal  Cell  Transplant  Fails  to Cure Parkinson's

Washington, DC -- A controversial experimental treatment for Parkinson's
in which holes are drilled in the skull and cells from aborted unborn
children are implanted in the brain may be less promising than once
thought, according to the first controlled trial of the surgery. The news
bolster's the statements made by pro-life groups saying that plausible
alternatives to using stem cells from unborn children are available and
that they can be just as effective.

The study not only failed to show an overall benefit but also revealed a
disastrous side effect, scientists report.

In about 15 percent of patients, the implanted cells apparently grew too
well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls movement that they
writhed and jerked uncontrollably. The researchers say there is no way to
remove or deactivate the transplanted cells. On their advice, six patients
who enrolled in the study but had not yet had the operation decided to
forgo it.

Dr. Paul E. Greene, a neurologist at Columbia University's College of
Physicians and Surgeons and a researcher in the study, said the
uncontrollable movements some patients developed are "absolutely
devastating."

"They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and
distend," he said."It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it
off." For now, Greene said, his position is clear: "No more fetal
transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be
considered for research only."

The study, which was published in this week's New England Journal of
Medicine, had raised ethical questions because some participants, for the
sake of comparison, underwent sham surgery in which mere indentations were
drilled in their heads.

The implanted stem cells - master cells that can develop into many types
of tissue - survived and grew into the right kind of brain cells. But they
did not help patients older than 60. Most people who suffer from the
neurological disease are over 60.

"The fact that [Parkinson's] did not improve in the older patients ...
despite the growth and development of dopamine neurons may reflect a lower
degree of plasticity of the brain or more diffuse brain disease in the
older group," the researchers said.

The transplant technique seemed to help some people under 60, but the
benefits were limited and experts disagreed on their significance.

"Improvement was detected only early in the morning after the patients had
been without medication overnight," said Drs. Gerald Fischbach and Guy
McKhann of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in
an accompanying editorial. "No improvement was evident when the patients
were at their best, soon after a dose of medicine."

In addition, 15 percent of the transplant recipients who improved during
the first year after surgery subsequently developed disabling muscle
movements, a side effect characterized as "severe" by Fischbach and
McKhann.

Although the editors of the Journal said, "The results do not support the
use of this procedure as it was performed in this study," the doctors
behind the study say the findings are significant.

Not only did the transplanted cells grow in 85 percent of the patients
regardless of their age, but scores on some standardized measures of
Parkinson's disease improved by as much as 34 percent, said the chief
author of the work, Dr. Curt Freed, director of the University of Colorado
Neurotransplantation Center for Parkinson's Disease in Denver.

Freed said that the results from the younger patients are similar to the
findings from earlier, smaller-scale transplant experiments, which also
involved younger patients. "The fact that our results are consistent with
earlier anecdotal reports should be reassuring for everyone working in
this field," Freed said.

He said the results already have prompted the team to modify its
transplant methods in hopes of getting better results.

"There was tremendous hope that stem cell therapy could be a cure. This
study really points out the problems we have to solve before that can
happen," said neurologist Dr. J. William Langston, founder of the
Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Calif. Langston said the results
indicate that stem cell research for Parkinson's should go back to the
animal laboratory.

Parkinson's sufferer Michael J. Fox underwent a different type of surgery
-- a thalamotomy, a decades-old operation that destroys overactive,
tremor-causing nerve cells by burning or freezing a pea-size spot in the
brain.

Parkinson's disease, whose sufferers include former Attorney General Janet
Reno and actor Michael J. Fox, is a progressive brain disease marked by
tremors, stiffness, slowness and loss of balance. The symptoms grow as the
brain loses cells that produce dopamine, a transmitter that carries
messages to the nerve cells controlling motion.

The drug L-dopa can treat the symptoms, but the medicine can lead to wild
involuntary movements and other side effects, which is why patients often
alternate between taking the medicine and going off the drug.

There are also ethical and practical concerns surrounding the therapeutic
use of fetal cells. Critics of using such cells, harvested from discarded
human embryos, include the pro-life community, which has called the
research "gravely immoral." And Fischbach and McKhann write in their
editorial: "It is unlikely, for both practical and biological reasons,
that transplantation of fragments of embryonic tissue will be the therapy
of the future.

"Parkinson's is not a rare disorder: estimates of prevalence in the United
States range between 700,000 and 1 million. The number of fetuses required
would be staggering, even if only a small proportion of the patients were
to receive transplants. Moreover, heterogeneity within tissue fragments is
a major barrier to reproducibility," they wrote.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Fetal Cell Transplant Fails to Cure Parkinson's
Source:  Associated Press, MSNBC; March 7, 2001

*      *      *      *      *      *
Fetal tissue cells - obtained from abortion clinics

A new study reveals that what was once touted as a possible
miracle treatment for Parkinson's disease is not only
troubling to many people on ethical grounds, but leads to
side effects that some doctors are calling "absolutely devastating."
The study, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of
Medicine, is seen by many researchers as a significant set
back for the more than one million Americans afflicted with Parkinsons.
Sufferers include actor Michael J. Fox, former attorney
General Janet Reno, and boxing great Mohammed Ali. The
symptoms of the degenerative condition include tremors,
stiffness, and a loss of balance.
The study reports Parkinson's patients experienced little
relief when they took part in a controversial experimental
treatment. Fetal tissue cells - obtained from abortion
clinics - were transplanted into the brains of Parkinson's
patients. Researchers reported that 15 percent of the
patients experienced serious side effects that one doctor
called "catastrophic" and "a real nightmare."
According to Dr. Paul E. Greene, a neurologist at the
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons,
"[The patients] chew constantly, their fingers go up and
down, their wrists flex and distend." Patients "also writhe
and twist, jerk their heads, fling their arms about," the
New York Times reports.
According to the researchers, the fetal tissue inserted into
the brain grew too rapidly and released a chemical that
caused the uncontrollable movements.
Researchers divided test subjects into a control group and
an experimental group. Each patient in the two groups had
holes drilled into their brains in preparation for
implantation of fetal tissue. But only half of the patients
received the fetal tissue.
At the end of a year, researchers found little if any
benefit for those who received the tissue implant. The
patients who were helped the most tended to be younger
patients - but they were also the patients most likely to
suffer the disastrous side effects.
Despite the disappointing results, Parkinson's patients are
still paying private doctors thousands of dollars to perform
fetal cell implants. While some experts argue the procedure
is still worthwhile, many other say it is not the solution
many had hoped for and that, given some of the grave ethical
concerns over using aborted fetal tissue, the transplants
should stop for now.

Fox News' David Miller contributed to this report

*      *      *      *      *      *
Virginia Research Firm Kills Unborn Children for Stem Cells

Washington, DC -- Confirming the worst fears of pro-life groups working to
convince President Bush not to fund embryonic stem cell research,
Virginia-based esearchers announced Wednesday that they created human
embryos sole for the purpose of killing them, to obtain stem cells.

Scientists at the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine at Eastern
Virginia Medical School took 168 donor eggs, fertilized 110 of them with
donor sperm, and grew 40 of them to the blastocyst stage.  Of the 40
unborn children created, 18 had harvestable inner masses resulting in 3
stem cell lines. Reportedly, the donors were informed that their gametes
would be used for this purpose.

Although no federal law specifically bars the creation of embryos for
research purposes, the announcement of the procedure drew criticism from
both supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research.

``This is really ghoulish -- creating human embryos for the specific
purpose of destroying them,'' said Douglas Johnson, legislative director
for National Right to Life, which opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell
research. ``It's totally wrong to kill human embryos for research.''

Johnson continued:  "Those who have advocated destructive embryonic stem
cell research have been assuring people and assuring President Bush that
they only want to kill the so-called leftover embryos. This report shows
how phony those assurances are."

One leading pro-life spokesman on stem cell research, Richard Doerflinger
of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that the procedure is
"just the latest evidence that embryo research should be disallowed" and
called on President Bush to bar funding of embryonic stem cell research.
"I think this is a cautionary tale against starting down the slope,"
Doerflinger said.

Doerflinger said the work was unconscionable, and "crosses a very
important line in terms of treating life merely as an instrument for
others."

The researchers insist that the study underwent "careful ethical review"
including consultations with "clergy, ethicists, and legal professionals"
prior to its start.  The ethical review "concluded that creating embryos
for research purposes was not only justified but in keeping 'with our duty
to provide human kind with our best understanding of our early human
development.'"

``There's a tremendous interest in stem cells and their potential from the
standpoint of their clinical application to humans,'' said Dr. William E.
Gibbons, chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at
Eastern Virginia Medical School and spokesman for the researchers. ``I'm
not going to be surprised to see intelligent people of good faith having
differences in their opinions in this process.''

The research also drew criticism from some medical ethicists and leading
stem cell researchers, who worry it will hurt their cause.

"I am a bit perplexed by this," said Dr. John Gearhart, who researches
stem cells at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. "You will hear none
of the scientists who are involved in this work talk about making embryos
to destroy them in any way. We don't think it's necessary."

In a statement form the The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity,
Director of Media and Policy Daniel McConchie said:  "Stem cell lines are
quickly becoming marketable items.  Once some integral human parts can be
bought and sold, we run the risk that democratic societies will decide
that other weak and defenseless members of the human race in those
societies can be utilized for profits as well."

Creating embryos specifically for the purpose of "destroying" them "runs
directly counter" to recent recommendations by the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission, the NIH and the ethics advisory board of the European
Commission.

ACTION:  You can express your views against this anti-life research by
contacting:  Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, 601 Colley Avenue,
Norfolk, Virginia 23507, (p) 800-515-6637, (f) 703-876-6317

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Virginia Research Firm Kills Unborn Children for Stem Cells
Source:   New York Times, Reuters, L.A. Times; July 11, 2001

*      *      *      *      *      *
Baptist Church Leader Tells Bush:  Condemn Embryo Stem Cell Research

  Richard Land, a leader on pro-life issues within the Southern Baptist
  Church, has authored an article encouraging President Bush to condemn
  embryonic stem cell research.
http://beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?boardID=20575&pageloc=/story/84/story_8419_1.html

*      *      *      *      *      *
Gary Bauer Responds to Virginia Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Washington, DC -- "The news that scientists at a Virginia lab have created
human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them for research should
deeply trouble every American," former presidential candidate Gary Bauer
said Wednesday, following a story in the New York Times reporting on a
company attempting to make money by killing unborn human life. "Human
life, unable to defend itself, is being used as a commodity.  This is a
moral tragedy of the highest order. We must stop the trafficking in human
life."

Bauer, president of American Values, a non-profit, pro-family advocacy
organization, continued: "These Virginia scientists should read and ponder
the words of an other Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in America's
Declaration of Independence these now famous words: 'We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

"I urge the Bush Administration to act now to prevent any American from
being forced to subsidize research that attacks the basic sanctity and
worth of each human being.  A pro-life President can do no less."

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Gary Bauer Responds to Virginia Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   American Values; July 11, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *
Bush Meets With Pro-Lifers, Bioethicists on Stem Cells; Daschle Wants Funding

Washington, DC -- As President Bush moved gingerly toward a decision on
embryonic stem cell research, he was described Wednesday as conflicted and
reading all he could on the issue.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said that the president, a
Methodist opposed to abortion, maintains ``a separation between matters of
religion and government decisions.'' But, Fleischer added, ``You cannot
separate a man's background from his approach.''

A senior adviser, who has recently discussed the issue with Bush,
described him as ``very conflicted.'' Bush was reading extensively about
the ethical, scientific and moral questions surrounding embryonic cell
research, said the adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Pro-life Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) was the latest to be
consulted. After a Wednesday afternoon meeting in the Oval Office, Lott
reported that he and the president spoke briefly about stem cells,
``talking through the various considerations, wanting to make sure ... the
right thing is done.''

Lott spoke of the research's ``tremendous potential.'' Yet, when asked
about federal funds for such research, he told reporters: ``I'm opposed to
that for embryonic research.''

Pro-life groups agree.

If Bush approves federal funding for research with "spare" embryos,
indicates National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson,
then scientists in time will demand funding to create embryos for
research.

"Once the federal government abandons the principle that it will not
collaborate in embryo destruction, it has no principled basis for refusing
to support these further outrages," Johnson explained.

Bush has promised a decision soon on whether federal money can be used for
research on stem cells extracted by killing unborn chidren, a type of stem
cell research opposed by pro-life groups.

On Wednesday, the morning after Bush privately consulted with a group of
bioethicists, the journal Fertility and Sterility revealed that scientists
at Eastern Virginia Medical School have created human embryos from donated
eggs and sperm for the sole purpose of killing the unborn children for
stem cells for research.

Fleischer called the report ``a perfect illustration of the deep
complexities'' of the stem cell issue:

``The president views this as a reminder that this is not a simple matter,
that this is a matter that involves very sensitive and important issues
that involve questions that are fundamental about life - about preserving
life with science, on the other hand.''

Reports confirm Bush has met both with pro-life leaders as well as a group
of bioethicists on Tuesday. The meetings were the latest in a series of
consultations the president has conducted "with the least fanfare,
allowing for the most thoughtful conversations," Fleischer said. He
described Tuesday's group as "some of the leading thinkers on issues of
ethics and science."

With the president being heavily lobbied from all sides, Fleischer said
Wednesday Bush will not be rushed.

``The president is very aware that the ramifications of whatever decision
he makes will be with mankind for a considerable period of time,''
Fleischer said. ``I don't think the American people expect him to be in
any hurry to decide this.''

Amid speculation that research proponents will try to pre-empt Bush with
an affirmative vote in the Congress, Lott assured the president that, as
far as the Senate calendar is concerned, the decision will remain in his
hands until at least September.

However, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said if President George W.
Bush refuses to authorize federal funding for stem-cell research, he would
push legislation in Congress to do so. "I don't think there is anything
more important to research in science than the promotion of stem cell, and
I believe that there is overwhelming support in the country for taking
this action," Daschle told reporters.

ACTION:  Please contact President Bush and HHS Secretary Thompson and urge
opposition to funding embryonic stem cell research. Contact President Bush
at 202-456-1414 and contact HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson at 202-690-7000.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Bush Meets With Pro-Lifers, Bioethicists on Stem Cells; Daschle Wants Funding
Source:   Associated Press, Reuters; July 11, 2001

Suspected Satanist stockpiled body parts / fetus
See: www.BostonHerald.com      (July 12,2001)

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *
Statistics on deaths due to legally induced abortion in Canada and the United States

CANADA

In Statistics Canada's publication Therapeutic Abortions
1995, there are deaths due to legally induced abortion
reported for the years 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1991.

In April 1999, a medical coder of the Ontario Vital
Statistics Office told the author of this pamphlet that
deaths due to legally induced abortion were most often coded
under ²medical accident/misadventure² amongst a host of
other such categories, and therefore never reported under
the abortion cause-of-death category.

Statistics Canada hospitalisation data for the year
1992-1993 shows 3,931 women were hospitalised from 2 to 7
days with the diagnosis "Complications from legally-induced
abortion" 2. That's 1 woman out of 25 (there were 103,244
abortions that year 3).

Another 4,111 hospitalisations were recorded that year under
the category ²Complications from unspecified abortion² 4 and
1,783 under ²Complications following abortion and ectopic
and molar pregnancies² 5. Were all these extra
hospitalisations also related to legally induced abortion,
the serious complication rate would jump from the 4% above
to 10%. (This corresponds to the complication rate admitted
to in the United States (see below)).

In his book, Abortion and Contraception, Henry Morgentaler
warns that risks of mortality due to legally induced
abortion increase by 30% with each week of gestation and
double every two weeks after eight menstrual weeks of
gestation 6.

He states that ²delay of suction curettage from 8 to 10
weeks' gestation increases the risk of major complications
by 60%. Delay of abortion from 8 to 16 weeks increases the
risk of major complications by 300 to 1,300%" 7.

He also states the only reason a woman would need to be
hospitalised after legally induced abortion would be
²haemorrhage due to infection or retained placenta/products
of conception, with a blood transfusion required immediately
to avoid shock, coma and death² 8 . Such is the state at the
very least 1 in 25 women finds herself in after legally
induced abortion in Canada.

In its publication Health Reports, Statistics Canada states
that ²For second-trimester abortions, complication rates
tend to rise with the age of the woman as well as the length
of gestation. For example, at 13 to 16 weeks, the rate is
2.9% for women under age 20, but 3.1% for those aged 20 to
29, and 3.5% for those aged 30 to 39. At 17 to 20 weeks, the
corresponding rates are 14%, 18% and 22%.² 9

For the above, Statistics Canada points out that it only
takes into account complications that occurred during the
procedure or in the post-operative period (²immediate²
complications) 10 .

Morgentaler, amongst many, specifies in his book that major
life-threatening haemorrhage and infection can arise weeks
after the procedure 11. Those complications may never be
linked to abortion per se.

What's more, most complication rates reported in Statistics
Canada's Therapeutic Abortions publication are based on
hospital records only 12 (and only a certain percentage of
hospitals and records at that), while fully one third of all
abortions are performed by clinics 13, and clinics perform
twice the number of late term abortions hospitals do 14 (the
later the abortion, the more lucrative). This when clinics,
by law, cannot be equipped for emergency situations (blood
transfusions).

Amniocentesis for genetic testing, which must be carried out
at 5 months gestation, is wrong at least half of the time
and carries a high risk of miscarriage. In light of the
considerable increase in risks of serious complications and
maternal death at that stage of pregnancy, what is the true
worth of this testing?

THE UNITED STATES

For the 4 years between 1981 and 1984, the Commissioner of
Health of New York City, Dr. Stephen Joseph, identified 176
deaths due to legally induced abortion in the United States
15 (that's 134 deaths, or 320% (4 times) more than the 42
that were reported in official vital statistics for that
period) 16, for 44 deaths per year, or 5 more per year than
the 39 reported in 1972, the year prior to legalisation of
abortion in the United States 17).

For the period of 1980 to 1989, researcher Kevin Sherlock
investigated in 15 American states only and found a total of
193 induced abortion-related death certificates 18 whereas
the official vital statistics showed 108 for that same
period 19, that's a difference of 85 women, or 79%.

In a Freedom of Information response letter to Mr. Kevin
Sherlock, the United States Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) claimed it could make the 16,600 pages' worth of line
listings on women's deaths and injuries due to abortion they
had available to Mr. Sherlock for $24,388 US, as 845 man
hours (almost 5 months' full-time work) would be required to
delete all names from the list 20.

United States Centers for Disease Control Pregnancy
Surveillance Directors Drs Willard Cates and David Grimes
stated in an article entitled ²Complications from
legally-induced abortion² published in Obstetrical and
Gynecological Survey, vol. 34, no. 3, 1979, that 77,000
women suffered complications from legally induced abortion
in 1975 alone (out of 854,853 abortions, that's 9%).

The real stories of the women who died from legally induced
abortion are chronicled to a T (including their abortion
date, abortionist name, and death certificate) in the books
Lime 5 (Mark Crutcher, 1996) Victims of Choice (Kevin
Sherlock, 1996) and The Scarlet Survey (Kevin Sherlock,
1997). Death certificates show they died at all stages of
pregnancy, from all abortion methods, and at all ages.

Late-term abortions most jeopardise women's lives and tear
apart, limb by limb (D & C/D & E); kill slowly by 4th degree
burns and/or massive heart attack (chemical abortions); or
crush and suction the skulls of (partial-birth abortion, D &
X), human beings who are viable and can feel pain.

References:

1 Statistics Canada. Therapeutic Abortions, 1995, p. 25
(double dashes mean the deaths cannot be expressed as a
percentage)

2 Statistics Canada. Hospital Morbidity 1992-1993, diagnosis
code ICD 635

3 Statistics Canada. Therapeutic Abortions, 1995, p. 8.

4, 5 Statistics Canada. Hospital Morbidity, 1992-1993,
diagnosis codes 637 and 639.

6, 7 and 8: Morgentaler, Henry. Abortion and Contraception,
1982, General Publishing, Don Mills, Ont., p. 94, 71, 77

9 and 10 : Statistics Canada. ²Second Trimester Abortions :
Trends and Medical Complications ², Health Reports, 1994,
Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 448-9, 442.

11 Morgentaler, H. Abortion and Contraception. 1982, p. 83

12 13 and 14 : Statistics Canada. Therapeutic Abortions,
1995, Table 27

15 Sherlock, Kevin. The Scarlet Survey, Brennyman Books,
Akron, Ohio, 1997p. 230-1

16 17 and 19 :United States Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
July 30, 1999, Vol. 48, No. SS-4, ²Abortion Surveillance -
United States, 1996², p. 42

18 and 20 Opcit, p. 201, 246-7

To order this pamphlet, please contact:

Respect de la Vie Outaouais Box 2204, Station B, Hull,
Quebec, Canada J8X 3Z4 Tel.: (819) 246-8284; (819) 449-4540
Fax: (819) 246-0071; Email: ibegin@magma.ca

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:34:09 -0700
From: "SueW" <gswidemark@home.com>
To: "Cinlife_mailing list" <cinlife@cin.org>
Subject: Deaths from legal abortion





  Pope Urges Bush to Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Castel Gandolfo, Itay -- Pope John Paul II urged President Bush on Monday
to reject embryonic stem cell research as Bush weighs government funding
for it. The president said, ``I'll take that point of view into
consideration.''

Bush said after his first face-to-face meeting with the pontiff that stem
cell research offers the prospect of huge medical advances but is fraught
with ``serious moral implications.''

With President Bush sitting at his side, the Pope made the following
statement:

"Another area in which political and moral choices have the gravest
consequences for the future of civilization concerns the most fundamental
of human rights, the right to life itself.

"Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences
accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to
accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils such as
euthanasia, infanticide and, most recently, proposals for the creation for
research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the
process.

"A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject
practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception
until natural death.

"In defending the right to life, in law and through a vibrant culture of
life, America can show the world the path to a truly humane future, in
which man remains the master, not the product, of his technology," the
Pope concluded.

His admonition raised the political stakes for Bush, who aides say is
likely to announce his decision next month.

Praising the pontiff as a spiritual and political leader, Bush promised to
take his views into consideration as he tries to ``balance value and
respect for life with the promise of science, and the hope of saving
life.''

Bush added:  "He's sent a consistent word throughout the Church, and
throughout society, that we ought to take into account the preciousness of
life."

Bush praised the Pope for carrying "the gospel of life, which welcomes the
stranger and protects the weak and the innocent." Every nation, including
the U.S., the president said, "benefits from hearing and heeding this
message of conscience.

"He is a staunch defender of the right to life and the right to be heard,
even for those without a voice," said Bush

While the Pope clearly condemned the future destruction of embryos to draw
stem cells, he did not detail his views about the wide array of avenues
for stem cell research. Bush, for example, is considering potential
compromises involving research on embryonic stem cells that would
otherwise be discarded.

The Vatican seemed to close the door on that, too.

Spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the pope opposes any stem cell
research using embryos. Other sources of stem cells - such as umbilical
cord blood and adult stem cells - are less controversial and are not
condemned by the Pope. The pope himself suffers from symptoms of
Parkinson's disease. In an earlier study, embryonic stem cells used in a
study related to Parkinson's were a complete failure.

Later, at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi,
Bush called stem cell research ``a very difficult issue'' and said he
would not be rushed to a decision.

"It is an issue that, on the one hand, deals with so much hope, hope that
perhaps through research and development we'll be able to save lives,"
Bush said during a joint news conference with Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi.

"It's also an issue that has got serious moral implications, and our
nation must think carefully before we proceed," he said. "And therefore my
process has been, frankly, unusually deliberative for my administration.
I'm taking my time."

Bush has said the issue was "beyond politics."

"I, frankly, do not care what the political polls say. I do care about the
opinions of people, particularly someone as profound as the Holy Father,"
Bush said.

First lady Laura Bush, who also met the Pope but was not included in his
private discussions with her husband, was asked by NBC's "Today Show" if
Bush had been swayed by the Pope. "He (Bush) is looking at every side of
this issue. This is a very serious issue. He will make a very serious and
reasoned judgment when he does," she said.

Mrs Bush said she had discussed the issue with her husband but declined to
indicate where she stood on the subject.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Pope Urges President Bush to Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   AP, Reuters, CNN, ABC; July 23, 2001

Bush Administration Will Promote Embryo Adoption

Washington, DC -- Pushed by Congress, the Bush administration is set to
promote ``embryo adoption,'' in which one infertile couple donates leftover
human embryos to another. It's the latest move in the heated debate over
the moral and legal status of an unborn child in the earliest part of life.

The administration plans to distribute nearly $1 million for public
awareness campaigns promoting donation of embryos, one of several options
available to couples who create more than they need for in vitro
fertilization.

Pro-life groups have lauded embryo adoptions as a way to protect the lives
of those unborn children who otherwise would have been destroyed.

The Department of Health and Human Services says it has no political agenda
and is simply following orders from Congress. The grant program was
inserted into an HHS spending bill by pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter, who
supports both abortion and the destructive embryonic stem cell research.

Specter said the human embryos should be available for research, but only
if they are going to be thrown away otherwise.

``If any of those embryos could produce life, I think they ought to produce
life,'' he said in a statement.

The public awareness campaign, Spectter said, is ``sort of a test program''
for embryo adoption. ``Let us try to find people who will adopt embryos and
take the necessary steps on implanting them in a woman to produce life,''
he said.

Perhaps the real credit for the grant program goes to pro-life Rep. Mark
Souder (R-IN). During the debate surrounding President Bush's decision to
prohibit federal funding of any new embryonic stem cell research,
Congressman Souder held hearings on the issue. Several children who had
been adopted as frozen embryos attended the hearing along with their
families. According to John Cusey of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, the
grant program is a result of the successful hearing.

However, the program is making some people who support destroying human
embryos in research nervous.

Officials at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine are considering
applying for a grant but fear it will suggest that donating embryos to
another couple is preferable to donating them for research or destroying
them altogether.

``Our biggest concern is to protect all of the options for the patients,
not to make any one thing the designated best option,'' said Eleanor
Nicoll, spokeswoman for the fertility clinic trade group. ``Some patients
are extremely uncomfortable about the idea of other people bearing and
raising their genetic offspring.''

Abortion advocates worry that the program lays the legal groundwork for
considering embryos human beings with full legal rights. Using the term
``adoption'' rather than ``donation'' makes it appear that the program
views embryos as children, said Kate Michelman, president of the National
Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.

If an embryo were a person with equal rights, abortion could be more easily
declared illegal, she said. ``It can be used to support their effort to
roll back Roe vs. Wade.''

Fertility clinics that offer clients the option of giving embryos to other
couples use the term ``embryo donation.'' The phrase ``embryo adoption''
comes from an adoption agency, which uses the same procedures to place
embryos as it uses to place babies.

That agency, Nightlight Christian Adoptions, plans to apply for one of the
grants. Its embryo program, called Snowflakes, has produced 18 babies, with
five women pregnant now.

Officials there are thrilled by the opportunity to help these children.

``I believe every embryo is a child that deserves a chance to be born,''
said JoAnn Eiman, a spokeswoman for Snowflakes. ``This is more than mere
tissue. They need an option they haven't had in the past.''

She hopes the education campaign will inform more people about the adoption
option.

The embryos are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, in which an egg is
fertilized in the lab and then implanted into a woman's uterus a few days
later. Typically, couples fertilize about a dozen eggs, in hopes that they
will have enough healthy embryos to produce the children they want. Those
that are not implanted are frozen for future use or destroyed.

But after a couple has all the children it wants, there are often embryos
leftover. And tens of thousands of embryos are now frozen in fertility
clinics, often because couples don't know what to do with them.

Their options are limited. They can throw them away. They can leave them in
the freezer. They can donate them for research - though research using
newly destroyed embryos is not eligible for federal funding under a
decision made by President Bush last year. They can also give them to
another woman hoping to get pregnant.

The grants being offered by HHS are intended to boost interest in the
latter. A total of about $900,000 will be distributed, and federal
officials anticipate awarding three to four grants of $200,000 to $250,000
each.

HHS officials said they don't know what programs will be proposed.
Snowflakes plans to suggest a video promoting adoption, particularly at IVF
clinics that don't offer it already, a Web site, a public relations
campaign and mailings to obstetricians.

Applicants must have experience with embryo adoption and be prepared to
evaluate their programs. Applications are due next week.

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Bush Administration Will Promote Embryo Adoption
Source:   Associated Press, Pro-Life Infonet; August 21, 2002