Legal Points – Right to Life

 

Samples of  RTL  legal points-(edited)– – written byRobert  J. Winnemore – Attorney at law 

1 – Abortion Is Death, Not Reproductive Health Service

2- The Baby In The Womb Has the Right To Reproductive Health Service 

    In Being Born Alive And Healthy

3 – The Right To Life Is A Basic Human Right That Exists Outside Of Any Document

4 – The Taking Of  Innocent Human Life Is A Crime Against Humanity And Any Statute Which

     Facilitates It Is Null And Void

5 – The State Attorney General Has The Parens Patriae Responsibility To Protect The Lives

6 – The Moment Of Creation Is The Moment Of Conception

7 – The Right To Life From The Moment Of Creation Is Self-Evident, 

      Creator Endowed And Inalienable And Does Not Depend On Any Document

8 – The Baby’s Right To Life Attaches at the moment of Conception

9 – The Baby’s Right To Privacy Attaches At The Moment Of Conception

10 – The Right To Privacy Gives No Right to Kill

11 – The Mother Has No Paramount Right To Life Over That Of The Baby

12 – The Baby Is A Person At The Moment Of Conception

13 – The Baby’s Right To Equal Protection Of The Laws Attaches At The

        Moment Of Conception

14 – The Baby’s Right To Due Process Of Law By Both The Federal And State

        Governments Attaches At The Moment Of Conception

15 – The Baby’s Civil Rights Attach At The Moment Of Conception

16 – The Common Law And The U.S. Constitution Are Based On God’s Law

1 – Abortion Is Death, Not Reproductive Health Service

Abortion is death. It is the taking of innocent human life. It is not a reproductive health

service. That part of the statute, …, which purports to include abortion to kill the baby as a

reproductive health service is null and void. Health means to stay alive and well. Death is the

very opposite of health. Reproductive health service means for the baby to be born alive and well.

It can never mean the intentional death of the baby. It can never mean death by the abortion of

the baby. That part of the statute, …, which seeks to include death by abortion as a reproductive health service is

 null and void…… as a violation of the baby’s right to life from the moment of conception

2- The Baby In The Womb Has the Right To Reproductive Health Service

 In Being Born Alive And Healthy

The baby in the womb wanting to be born isobviously seeking the reproductive health

service of being born alive and well since every living being seeks its own survival and

 self- preservation.…. The baby has the self-evident, Creator-endowed, inalienable right to life starting from the 

moment of conception, which is the moment of creation.

The baby in the womb, from the moment of its conception, is a person, as it’s DNA code

locks in and defines its characteristics for life in the microsecond when the male sperm of 23

chromosomes united with the female egg of 23 chromosomes, making a human person of 46

chromosomes. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), and

their progeny requiring the baby to reach its seventh month to be considered a person are wrong.

Those cases were only based on the old quickening cases as to when the mother felt the baby’s

first kick. We know now, with sonograms, that the baby is moving and kicking long before the

mother feels it. The later cases, requiring the baby to reach the stage where it could exist outside

the womb, are likewise erroneous as even a natural born baby cannot exist outside the womb

without being constantly fed, nurtured, kept warm, and cared for, for its existence to continue.

The operative moment is when the sperm meets the egg at the moment of conception, the moment

of creation when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes of the egg

and the new person’s DNA code locks in, and defines it as a person unique from all other persons,

which DNA code exists long after that person’s death.

As it is self-evident that all men are created equal, the self-evident, inalienable, Creator

endowed right to life attaches at creation. Moreover, the baby in the womb has the right to life

contained in the U.S. Constitution, as the Preamble states that the U.S. Constitution was created

to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity, and common defense means the defense of life, and so there must be a right to life for it

to be defended and common defense includes the defense of baby in the womb, and it specifically

mentions posterity, which includes the baby in the womb, and you can’t have liberty without being

alive to enjoy it, so the baby in the womb has the right to life from the moment of conception,

under the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and this right to life in the Preamble attaches at

creation, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal. In addition, the baby in the womb has

the right to life implied in the rest of the U.S. Constitution, for you must be alive to have the

rights enumerated therein. It cannot be said that the baby in the womb cannot, for if the right to

life cannot be implied from the rest of the U.S. Constitution, then the right to privacy cannot be

implied, and Roe and Doe must fall. This right to life in the balance of the Constitution attaches

at creation as it is self-evident that all men are created equal. The baby in the womb has an equal

right to privacy as the mother starting from the moment of the baby’s creation, as it is self-evident

that all men are created equal, so that at the moment of the baby’s creation it has equal rights as

the mother, including the baby’s right to life and right to privacy. The mother’s rights are not

paramount. The rights of both are equal at the moment of the baby’s creation. It is self-evident

that all men are created equal. Thus, Roe V. Wadewas wrong. The baby has an equal right to

privacy from the moment of creation. And the mother has no superior right to life over the baby,

so Doe v. Boltonwas erroneous. The mother cannot kill the baby for her own health and well

being. Each has an equal right to lifestarting from the moment of the baby’s conception, when

the sperm meets the egg. It is self-evident. Moreover, it is inalienable, and neither the mother nor

the U.S. Supreme Court can take it away. Doe v. Boltonwas erroneous. The baby has the right

to life starting from the moment of its conception. …

3 – The Right To Life Is A Basic Human Right That Exists Outside Of Any Document

As U.S. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in his dissent in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497,

82 S.Ct. 1752, 6 L.Ed.2d 989, there are certain rights that are so basic that they need not be

mentioned in any document to exist. The right to life is one of those rights.

No statute can stand which facilitates the taking of innocent human life.That part of this

statute is null and void which facilitates that taking of innocent human life by abortion ..

4 – The Taking of Innocent Human Life Is A Crime Against Humanity And Any Statute Which

Facilitates It Is Null And Void

Babies in the womb areinnocent human life. They have committed no crime. They have

the right to life from the moment of conception, as it is self evident that all men are created equal,

So all rights attach at creation. Any statute which facilitates their being killed by purporting to

Prevent their defense starting from the moment of their conception, is null and void, as it 

Facilitates a crime against humanity, and the taking of innocent human life.


.5 – The State Attorney General Has The Parens Patriae Responsibility To Protect The Lives

Common defense means defense of life. Common defense means the defense of others, not only

ourselves and includes the babies in the womb about to be aborted. The Preamble of the

Constitution specifically says “of our posterity”. This includes babies in the womband there can

be no liberty unless one is alive to enjoy it. Thus, there is a right in the U.S. Constitution to

defend the lives of the babies about to be aborted. No injunction or order …can thwart it. 

Any attempt to do so is null and void. 

6 – The Moment Of Creation Is The Moment Of Conception

The moment of creation of a human being is the microsecond when the 23 chromosome

Male sperm unites with the 23 chromosome female egg, the moment of conception, to make a 46

Chromosome human being. This is the microsecond, as Dr. Jerome Lejuene testified in the

Tennessee Frozen Embryo Case, Davis v. Davis v. King, d/b/a Fertility Center of East Tennessee,

No. E-14496, September 21, 1988 decision by the Circuit Judge W. Dale Young, Circuit Court

For Blount County, Tennessee at Maryville, Equity

Division (Div. I); and also in The State of New Jersey v. Alexander Loce, et.al., April 29, 1991

Decision by Judge Michael J. Noonon, Municipal Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris

County, Criminal Action, Docket No. c1771, et. seq., and in The City of Wichita v. Elizabeth A.

Tilson, No. 91 MC 108, July 20, 1992, Memorandum Opinion by Judge Paul W. Clark, in the

Criminal Department of the District Court for the Eighteenth Judicial District, Sedgwick County,

Kansas,when individual human life comes into existence. It is this micro second when the baby’s

DNA code locks in for life, and long after its life on this earth ceases, identifying it as a unique

individual, unlike any other.

Moreover, it is the law of this state as unanimously agreed in the opening pages of

 Byrne v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp. by all the Justices of the New York Court of Appeals that the

Moment of creation is the moment of conception.

7 – The Right To Life From The Moment Of Creation Is Self-Evident, Creator Endowed And Inalienable And Does

Not Depend On Any Document

We hold these truths to be self-evident (self-evident – not depending on any document)

That all men are created equal (at the moment of creation, the rights of all are equal) and are

Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (inalienable – no one can take them away,

Not another human being, not the U.S. Supreme Court, not any legislature; Creator-endowed –

Only God gives them, only God can take them away) that among these are the right to life  (Creator-endowed, 

inalienable right to life starting from the moment of conception, which is the moment of creation).

Our Nation was created on these words; they are the foundation of our nation’s existence. The war for 

Independence from the British crown and the war that freed slaves was fought on them. They cannot be denied. 

Lincoln said at Gettysburg,” Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new  

nation Conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” These words are our 

Nation’s raison d’être. They cannot be denied now.

8 – The Baby’s Right To Life Attaches at the moment of Conception

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal, and self evident that all men are endowed by their Creator

with inalienable right to life, and all rights attach at the moment of creation, which is the moment of conception,

when The sperm meets the egg.  Not only is the right to life from the moment of conception self-evident, but there 

exists a Right to life in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution which states that the constitution was drafted to 

provide for the Common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Common

defense means defense Of  life. Common defense includes the defense of the life of the baby in the womb.

Moreover, it specifically says to Secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity, so it includes the defense of our

posterity which includes the baby in the womb, and there can be no liberty without being alive to enjoy it, so it

includes the life of the baby in the womb. And since the Constitution provides for the defense of life, there must be

a right to life for it to be defended.

 Thus, There exists a right to life in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, there is a right to life 

implied in the rest of the U.S. Constitution, for you cannot have the rights Enumerated therein unless you are alive

to enjoy them. So, there is a right to life implied in the U.S. Constitution.  To deny this means that the right to privacy 

implied in Roe v. Wadewould have to fall. Thus, the right to life comes from 3 sources: 1) it is self-evident, 2) it is 

contained in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and 3) it is implied in The balance of the U.S. Constitution. 

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal, all rights attach at Creation, including and especially the right 

to life, the foremost right, without which you could have no others as Even Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 

treatise “Natural Law”, agrees the rest of the world believes.

9 – The Baby’s Right To Privacy Attaches At The Moment Of Conception

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal, all rights must attach at creation

This includes the right to privacy. Since the moment of creation is the moment of conception, the

Right to privacy attaches at conception. Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal, the

Rights of all are equal as soon as conception takes place. This means that the baby’s right to

Privacy in the womb is equal to the mother’s. This is self-evident, as all men are created equal.

Thus, the mother has no paramount right to privacy over that of the baby in the womb. Thus,

Roe v. Wadewas erroneous. The mother has no paramount right to privacy over the baby. The

Baby’s right to privacy is equal. So the baby’s life cannot be taken under a right to privacy where

The baby has an equal right to privacy.

10 – The Right To Privacy Gives No Right to Kill

There is no way that a right to privacy can give a right to kill. Even if the baby in the

Womb did not have an equal right to privacy, which it does, a right to privacy cannot be

Developed into a right to kill. So Roe v. Wadewas wrong on two counts. You cannot get a right

Kill from a right to privacy.Thus, there can be no right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. Since

it is self-evident that all men are created equal, and the rights of all are equal at creation, and the

Creator-endowed inalienable right to life attaches at creation, and the baby’s right to life is equal

To the mother’s at creation, and the baby’s right to privacy also attaches at creation, and it is equal

To the mother’s at creation and no right to privacy can give a right to kill, there could have been

No abortion under Roe v. Wade.

11 – The Mother Has No Paramount Right To Life Over That Of The Baby

As it is self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the

Inalienable right to life, the baby’s right to life at the moment of its creation is equal to the

Mother’s and is inalienable. The mother cannot take it away. The mother’s right to life is at no

time superior to that of the baby in the womb.

It is self-evident that all men are created equal. So the baby’s right to life is equal to hers

from the moment of the baby’s conception. Thus, Doe. v. Boltonwas erroneous. The mother

cannot take the life of the baby, even if her own life is in danger, because she has no paramount

Right to life over the baby. The baby has an equal right to hers starting from the moment of it’s conception. Thus, 

there can be no abortion, either under Roe v. Wadeor Doe v. Bolton. There should be no abortion at all.

12 – The Baby Is A Person At The Moment Of Conception

When the 23 chromosome sperm meets the 23 chromosome egg, and a 46 chromosome

Human being comes into existence, it’s DNA code locks in that microsecond, defining all its

characteristics for the rest of its life and beyond – whether it is going to be tall or short, healthy or

sickly, or good at math or dim-witted. Its personhood is defined and locked in that microsecond,

and all that is left to be determined are the breaks in life that it will enjoy. That human being is a

Person from that microsecond on. It is a person from conception on. It does not have to wait

Until its mother feels its first kick. The concept of quickening in Roe v. Wadeis obsoleteWith

Sonograms we see the baby moving around long before the mother ever feels it. It is kicking long

before she ever feels it. The baby does not have to be able to survive outside the womb to be

considered a person. Even a naturally born baby cannot exist outside the womb without constantly

being fed, kept warm, nurtured, attended to. So that concept is erroneous. The baby is

certainly a person once it is born and it cannot exist outside the womb at that point without

constant care, attention, feeding, warmth, etc.

As to whether a fetus is a person, William D. Popkin’s Materials on Legislation, Political

Language and the Political Process, Foundation Press, University Casebook Series, Westbury,

N.Y., 1993, states “…A significant majority of courts find a civil wrongful death remedy for death

of a fetus.”(p.460)  If they can sue and recover, then they had the right to life.

Just as modern technology has made obsolete the original common law rule that it was

impossible to know whether a fetus inside the womb was alive at the time a vehicular accident

 occurred, Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324, (Mass., 1984), so modern technology has

made obsolete the notion that it is impossible to know when a human being becomes a person. It

becomes a person at the moment of conception when 46 human chromosomes, 23 from the

Sperm, and 23 from the egg, come into existence, and its DNA code locks in.

The baby is a person from conception when its 46 human chromosomes come into

existence, and its DNA code locks in, making it unique from all other individuals forever. So the

concept of quickening in Roe v. Wadeand being able to exist outside the womb is obviously

erroneous. What is left for Roe and Doeto stand on?  Nothing. The right to life attaches at

conception and it is equal to everyone else’s right to life. For the purposes of the U.S.

Constitution which speaks of personhood, the baby is a person at the moment of it’s conception,

When 46 human chromosomes, 23 from the sperm, and 23 from the egg, come into existence,

And its DNA code locks in and makes it a unique individual, different from all other individuals

forever. DNA proves that the baby before its birth and after, from the moment of its conception,

Is the same person.

13 – The Baby’s Right To Equal Protection Of The Laws Attaches At The

Moment Of Conception

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator

with the inalienable right to life, the right to life attaches at the moment of creation, when all

rights attach, as all men are created equal, so the rights of all are equal at creation. The moment

of creation is the moment of conception,when the 23 chromosome sperm meets the 23

chromosome egg, and the DNA code of that person locks in forever, making it unique forever

from all other persons from the moment of conception. Personhood begins at conception, the

moment of creation. For Government, State or Federal, either through its judiciary, or legislative

branch or executive, to allow the baby to be killed by abortion at any time after conception is a

denial to it of the right to Equal Protection of the Laws, specifically the right to life which

attaches at creation, when the Government, State or Federal, does not allow other individuals to

be killed without first having been indicted, charges brought against them, been given the right to

counsel, right to discovery, right to face and cross examine accusers, right to trial by a jury of

one’s peers, and right to exhaust all appeals. The right to Equal Protection of the Laws attaches

at the moment of conception when the sperm meets the egg and the DNA code locks in and 

defines the personhood of that human being forever. All rights attach at the moment of creation,

including the right to equal protection of the laws required of states under the 14th Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution and necessarily required of the Federal Government, impliedly under the 5th

Amendment, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal, and all rights attach at creation,

including the right to Equal Protection of the Laws. It is one of those rights that Justice John

Marshall Harlan (seePoe v. Ullman) would refer to as so basic that it need not be written down.

The whole tenet of our nation’s existence is that all men are created equal. Thus they are entitled

to have rights and protections applied to them equally from the moment of creation…

The baby in the womb from the moment of conception is entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws f

rom both the Federal and State Governments. And the baby in the womb from the moment of conception has the 

right to have its life defended and its right to Equal Protection of the Laws enforced…

Even if personhood didn’t exist at the moment of conception (creation), which it does, the

baby in the womb from the moment of conception is entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws

from both the Federal and State Governments, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal,

and at the moment of creation the rights of all are equal. Thus, they must be afforded Equal Protection of the Laws 

from the moment of creation, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal.

14 – The Baby’s Right To Due Process Of Law By Both The Federal And State

Governments Attaches At The Moment Of Conception

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator

with the inalienable right to life, the right to life attaches at the moment of creation, when all

rights attach, as all men are created equal, including the right not to have life taken away without

Due Process of Law. The right not to have life taken away without Due Process of Law attaches

at the moment of creation because it is self-evident that all men are created equal and the rights of

all attach and are equal at that moment. It is self-evident, because it is self-evident that all men

are created equal. It does not depend on when personhood arises. The right to life from the

moment of creation is inalienable. It cannot be taken away. This is self-evident. Even if

personhood did not arise until the seventh month in the womb, the right not to have one’s life

taken away without Due Process of Law attaches at creation (conception) because it is self

evident that all men are created equal, so the rights of all attach and are equal at the moment of

creation. That includes the right not to have one’s life taken away without Due Process of Law.

Besides, the right to life is inalienable and attaches at the moment of creation (conception).

But personhood exists at the moment of conception, the moment of creation, when the

sperm meets the egg and the DNA code locks in and defines the personhood of that human being

forever. The right under the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause not to have life taken away by

the Federal Government without Due Process of Law, and the right under the 14th Amendment

not to have life taken away by any State Government without Due Process of Law, attaches at

that moment of conception, the moment of creation, when the sperm meets the egg, and the DNA

code locks in, defining the personhood of that individual forever.

The baby in the womb, from the moment of conception, has the inalienable right to life. It

certainly cannot have its life taken away without first having been indicted, charges brought

against it, been given the right to counsel, the right to discovery, the right to face and cross

examine its accusers, the right to trial by jury, the right to present witnesses, and the right to

exhaust all appealsThe baby in the womb from the moment of conception has the right to have

its life defended, and its life not taken away without Due Process of Law…

Roe v. Wadewas not Due Process of Law, because the baby from the moment of

conception has an equal right to life from the moment of conception as the mother, as it is self

evident that all men are created equal. Moreover, the baby’s right to life from the moment of creation is inalienable. 

This is self-evident. Neither the mother nor the U.S. Supreme Court can

take it away. And the baby has an equal right to privacy in the womb as the mother’s right to

privacy, as it is self-evident that all men are created equal. And in no event can a right to privacy

include a right to kill. So Roe v. Wade was not Due Processof Law. No right to take the baby’s

life can exist under it. No right to take the baby’s life can exist underDoe v. Bolton. The baby’s

right to life is equal to the mother’s from the moment of creation, as it is self-evident that all men

are created equal. So the mother has no paramount right to life over the baby. So Doe v. Bolton

was not Due Process of Law. No right to take the baby’s life can exist under it. And N.O.W. v.

Terry was not Due Process of Law. No right can exist to cross state lines and kill the baby in the

womb under the Commerce Clause. Freedom from impost duties in crossing state lines gives no

right to kill a baby in the womb which has the self-evident inalienable right to life from the

moment of creation. The Federalist Papers state that the U.S. Constitution is based on the Law of

Nature and of Nature’s God ( Federalist Paper No. 43, by James Madison,drafter of the U.S.

Constitution). Any statute or decision which is not in conformity with these is not valid under the

U.S. Constitution. Moreover, personhood exists at the moment of conception when the 23

chromosome sperm unites with the 23 chromosome egg and DNA code locks in. So to deprive

the baby in the womb of personhood and thereby strip it of its Constitutional rights was not Due

Process of Law. But it had the self-evident inalienable right to life from the moment of creation

which transcended the Constitution. That all men are created equal is the foundation of this

nation’s existence.To deny it is a denial of Due Process of Law. That’s why the Revolution and

the Civil War were fought – because all men are created equal. Negroes were not yet considered

full persons at the time the Civil War was fought. But it was self-evident that all men were

created equal.

15 – The Baby’s Civil Rights Attach At The Moment Of Conception

Since it is self-evident that all men are created equal, the rights of all attach at the moment

of creation,which is the moment of conception.  The baby’s Civil Rights thus attach at the

moment of conception. Even Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his work “Natural Law” conceded

that the rest of the world believed the right to life to be the most basic of all rights. Thus, anyone

who has an abortion performed on a baby, or performs an abortion, or assists in one, or facilitates

one violates the baby’s Civil Rights which attach at the moment of the baby’s creation, which is

conception, since all men are created equal, and may be prosecuted federally for depriving the

baby it’s Civil Rights.

Moreover, since personhood begins at the moment of conception when the baby’s 46

human chromosomes come into existence and DNA code locks in forever, Civil Rights, especially the right to 

life, attach at the moment of conception, has the right to have  it’s Civil Rights enforced…

16 – The Common Law And The U.S. Constitution Are Based On God’s Law

            Blackstone’s Commentaries states that the Common Law is based on Natural Law and God’s Revealed 

law, and “upon these depend all human laws”, and no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” Jones’ 

Blackstone, Vol. 1, Section 40, at p. 42, Ed. By William Casey Jones, Claitor’s Publishing  Division, 1915, 1976, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Natural Law, according to Professor Mulalley of the philosophy Department of Queens 

College of the University of the New York is “Man’s participation in God’s eternal  law”. Blackstone’s 

Commentaries states that Natural Laws are the “immutable laws of human nature” laid down by God regulating

restraining man’s free will. Jones’ Blackstone, Ibid., Vol. 1, Section 39.

            American Law is the Common law, which is based on the Natural Law and God’s law. Jones’ Blackstone, 

Ibid.  The U.S. constitution, according to the framer, James  Madison, in the Federalist papers, paper no. 43, is 

based on the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Thus, both Common law and the U.S. Constitution are based on 

Natural law and God’s Law. Natural Law is based on God’s Law. All statues and court decisions in this nation must 

conform to the U.S Constitution. Thus, they must all conform to God’s Law, or they cannot stand. Roe v Wade,  

Doe v Bolton, and N.O.W. v Terryviolates God’s Law.They violate the Fifth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). The 

Ten Commandments are God’s revealed law (Exodus 31:18).  Roe and Doeviolates the self-evident, that all men are 

created equal. They cannot stand. 

            Separation of Church and State is no excuse. The Common Law has already been based on God’s Law for 

centuries. The U.S. Constitution was based on God’s Law centuries ago. The framers framed it so.  They admitted 

the existence of God and the foundation of this nation’s law on God’s law.

            All the Constitution prohibits regarding religion is the establishment of one sect of religion as having 

to be practiced by the population as a form of worship as opposed to other religions. But it did not deny the 

existence of  God. It protected the worship of God as one sees fit. The absence of religion cannot be established as 

the state religion by the American Judiciary and thereby prevent the practice of religion, 

——————————————————————————————————————–

 The side of principle is not well funded. But it is the side of truth. It is standing for principle, while government has abandon  it….

.. But the side of principle must prevail, and the government must adopt it in order to survive. As Sophocies’ Antigone  stated, no government can exist outside of God’s laws ………  Robert J. Winnemore 

Euthanasia

Arguments Against Euthanasia

Source: https://www.all.org/learn/euthanasia/arguments-against-euthanasia/

  1. Euthanasia is selling death, not life. http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/nancy-valko-rn-the-dark-side-of-euthanasia-selling-death-2011.html
  2. No matter what you call it, euthanasia, assisted suicide or something else, it is wrong. http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide.html
  3. Understand the language of promoters of euthanasia and you can understand how to fight against them: http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/confusing-language-masks-deadly-agenda.html
  4. Death by dehydration is ugly, painful and wrong. Terri Schiavo’s story makes that point: http://www.lifeandhope.com/terri_schiavo
  5. Stealth Euthanasia: Using palliative care and hospice to kill people prematurely http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/stealth-euthanasia.html
  6. There is no “duty to die!” http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/nancy-valko-rn-futility-policies-and-the%20duty-to-die-2003.html
  7. Organ Donation: Crossing the Line: Linking the “right to die” with organ donation has opened a terrible Pandora’s Box. http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/nancy-valko-rn-organ-donation-crossing-the-line-12-2011.html
  8. Refusing to donate your organs may save your life! http://www.prolifehealthcare.org/organ-donation-refusal-may-save-your-life-julie-grimstad.html
  9. Train young people in these arguments by using the Culture of Life Studies Program unit study “Euthanasia: An Introduction”http://cultureoflifestudies.com/blog/euthanasia-an-introduction-released/
  10. “Life, Life Support and Death” booklet. This is an in depth examination of the use of life support machines and why the crucial difference between ordinary and extraordinary care is so important to avoid imposed death for a loved one. $3.00 each http://www.all.org/life-life-support-and-death/

American Life League acknowledges the outstanding work of the American Life League Culture of Life Studies Program, the Pro-life Healthcare Alliance and the Terri Schiavo Foundation websites from which our material was taken and to which you are invited to go to read the complete articles providing arguments against acts of euthanasia for high school students and others of every age.

Euthanasia, Incrementalism and Euphemisms; April 2020 Health & Science, Life News

Websites

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Not Dead Yet Assisted Suicide Talking Points

National Catholic Bioethics Center

Patients Rights Council

Reasons to Oppose Assisted Suicide

Opposition to Assisted Suicide is bipartisan & reasonable

Opposition to NY Assisted Suicide

Opposition to Assisted Suicide Educational Conference

Infanticide

INFO ON NY RHA ACT:

http://www.prolifeli.org/images/pdf/NYS-RHA-S240-20190122.pdf

http://www.prolifeli.org/images/RHA-Fact-vs-Fiction-NYersForLife-2019.pdf

                                 

  • https://youtu.be/ItF1RBsUxXE
  • On January 22, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Como signed into law “The Reproductive Health Act”. The name of the legislation is a euphemism for legalizing the killing of fully formed human beings.  

    This act strips abortion from the penal code. Under prior New York State –(NYS) law only the “life 
    of the mother” would allow a third trimester abortion.  Under the new law, the “health
    of the mother” would allow it.  Because of definitions in previous Supreme Court decisions, specifically “ Doe  VS Bolton”, those factors that defer to the health of the mother are broadly defined;  physically, emotional,  psychological, familial, and the woman’s age.  The health of the woman is so broadly defined as to make almost any issue sufficient for a woman to get an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

    Under the new law Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED. This law gave full civil rights protection to a child born accidentally in a post 20 week abortion, required that such abortion be done in a hospital, and that a second doctor be available to provide care to the infant.  This new law now in effect legalizes infanticide.

    Under the new law, you do not have to be a doctor to do surgical abortions. This means that nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives will be able to do so also.

    Under the new law , an attack on an unborn child that does no harm to the mother, but causes a miscarriage – because the unborn child is not a “person” under our law, -the only possible crime to prosecute might be misdemeanor assaults on the woman, a woefully inadequate remedy for such a heinous offense.

    Under the new law, it says that anyone that becomes pregnant has the fundamental right “to abortion. The term “Fundamental right” is extremely significant. It means that abortion cannot be regulated except for compelling state interests and in the narrowest way possible.  Virtually no regulations of abortion survive this “strict scrutiny” standard.  Therefore the abortion laws in NYS are dismissive of the real health of the mother. Those receiving an abortion by NYS law are not entitled to “informed consent” as every other invasive surgery requires. They also do not need parental consent or parental notification to perform an abortion in a minor, neither do they need spousal notification. 

    In New York state only a fraction of abortion providers are being inspected and only very rarely. Some are going without inspection for as long as 10 years.
    By contrast, restaurants in NY City are inspected and graded every year, and tanning salons every 2 years. This lack of inspection poses a safety concern according to documents obtained by the NY Post.

    The new law says “the state shall not discriminate against, deny or interfere with the exercise of the rights set forth…  The language poses a threat to religious freedom and conscience rights. The state can deny licenses to individuals and institutions that do not cooperate with abortion.

     Only 15.6% of those having abortions in NY pay out of pocket according to the NYS Dept. of Health. The rest are paid for through insurance or Medicaid. In fact over 50% of NY City abortions in 2016 were paid for by tax payers through Medicaid.

    New York State will become an abortion destination- because we will be one of the few States in the nation that permits late term abortions for any reason without any regulations.

                                                                                        Submitted by 
                                                                                        Chris Moore – Feb 2019
                                                                                        Past LICL Suffolk Chair

    Look at some of the people these laws would have killed…
      https://theabortionsurvivors.com

    The Faces of Choice  See incredible video of actual abortion survivors! There ad was rejected for airing  as Super Bowl commercial! 

Handicap/Down Syndrome

Handicap / Down Syndrome

Note: The article transcripts above have been generated from original source text. While the transcript rarely is inaccurate, thing happen. For a 100% percent accurate copy of any of the above articles, click the download button to get a PDF.

Eugenics

Eugenics

Articles

American and Korean scientists published an article in nature announcing they successfully edited a single gene in human embryos. Lauran Neergaard reported at AP that“researchers safely repaired a disease-causing gene[MYBPC3] in human embryos, targeting a heart defect best known for killing young athletes – a big step toward one day preventing a list of inherited diseases… a research team led by Oregon Health & Science University reported that embryos can help fix themselves if scientists jump-start the process early enough…Previous embryo-editing attempts inChina found not every cell was repaired, a safety concern called mosaicism. Beginning the process before fertilization avoided that problem.”

 

Neergaard reported, “The team programmed a gene-editing tool, named CRISPR-Cas9, that acts like a pair of molecular scissors to find that mutation – a missing piece of genetic material… Researchers injected sperm from a patient with the heart condition along with those molecular scissors into healthy donated eggs at the same time. The scissors cut the defective DNA in the sperm. Normally cells will repair a CRISPR-induced cut in DNA by essentially gluing the ends back together. Or scientists can try delivering the missing DNA in a repair package, like a computer cut-and-paste program. Instead, the newly forming embryos made their own perfect fix without that outside help, reported Oregon Health & Science University senior researcherShoukhrat Mitalipov.” Neergaard continued, “It worked 72% of the time, in 42 out of 58 embryos. Normally a sick parent has a 50-50 chance of passing on the mutation.”Mitalipov, stated, “Every generation on would carry this repair because we’ve removed the disease-causing gene variant from that family’s lineage. By using this technique, it’s possible to reduce the burden of this heritable disease on the family and eventually the human population.”Mitalipov also stated that until now, “everybody was inject-ing too late.” According to Neergaard, the researchers stated that “intense testing [did not] uncover any ‘off-target’errors [or] cuts to DNA in the wrong places…The embryos weren’t allowed to develop beyond eight cells, a standard for laboratory research. The experiments were privately funded; US tax dollars aren’t allowed for embryo research.”

 

Victoria Aitken reported at the Daily Mail, “It has the potential to revolutionize medicine and could lead to the eradication of inherited diseases such as cystic fibrosis and breast cancer. Campaigners warned however that it might also open the door to ‘superior designer babies’ with genes modified to improve physical appearance, strength or even intelligence.” Dr. David King of Human Genetics Alert stated, “What concerns me most is that we will start making babies order, and then expecting them to perform according to the way we have genetically designed them…That is because the nuclear DNA at the heart of a cell, which these scientists tweaked, also determines personal characteristics.This raises the prospect of genetically engineered‘superheroes’ made to be more athletic or extra intelligent at the request of parents…But the researchers have edited only a single gene so far, using a technique which has still to be proven to work in babies rather than just embryos.”

 

Neergard said,”’ germline’ changes – altering sperm, eggs, or embryos – are controversial because they would be permanent, passed down to future generations.” She noted that “genetics and ethics experts not involved in the work say it’s a critical first step – but just one step – toward eventually testing the process in pregnancy, something currently prohibited by US policy. “This is very elegant lab work, but it’s moving so fast that society needs to catch up and debate how far it should go,” said Johns Hop-kins University bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn. And lots more research is needed to tell if it’s really safe, added Britain’sRobin Lovell-Badge. He and Kahn were part of a NationalAcademy of Sciences report earlier this year that said if germline editing ever were allowed, it should be only for serious diseases with no good alternatives and done with strict oversight. “What we do not want is for rogue clinicians to start offering treatments” that are unproven…Among key questions: Would the technique work if mom,not dad, harbored the mutation? Is repair even possible if both parents pass on a bad gene? …Mitalipov said the research should offer critics some reassurance: If embryos prefer self-repair, it would be extremely hard to add traits for ‘designer babies’ rather than just eliminate disease,“All we did is un-modify the already mutated gene.”

 

Sciencenews.org reported on 7/5/17 that genes associated with the coronary artery disease are also linked to fertility, as well as fetal development and survival. “A June 22ndreport in PLOS Genetics showed a genetic connection between reproduction and heart disease. The Scien-cenews.org article concluded, “This study may be a warning for gene therapy since it suggests there are many genetic connections between different bodily functions that scientists don’t yet understand…If scientists want to treat coronary artery disease by editing a person’s DNA, it is important to know what other traits might be affected. The new findings also raise questions about the various functions of other disease-related genes…For instance, a future study could examine whether genes associated with cancer have any hidden evolutionary benefits.” Sciencenews.orgalso reported on 7/20/17 that resistance to CRISPR gene drives occurred at high rates in experiments with fruit flies.

 

Michael Cook commented at Bioedge.org 8/5/17, “For others, creating and destroying human embryos for research is itself anathema. In this experiment, dozens of embryos were created, and all were destroyed before they had grown beyond a few days. But everyone recognized the potential for a new generation of eugenics, which has long been under the shadow of the Nazis’ discredited ideology. David Albert Jones, of the UK’s Anscombe Institute, penned a withering critique, Unethical research with eugenic goals. “The whole rationale for this experiment is to take a step towards genetic modification as assisted reproductive technology. We are manufacturing new human beings for manipulation and quality control, and experimenting on them with the aim of forging greater eugenic control over human reproduction. This is not a case of using bad means for a good end, but of bad means to a worse end.”

 

Wesley Smith questioned at LifeNews.com on 7/27/17“So are we going to just watch, slack-jawed, the double-time march to Brave New World unfold before our eyes? Or are we going to engage democratic deliberation to determine if this should be done, and if so, what the parameters are? …Mr. President: We need a presidential bioethics/biotechnology commission now!”

Michael Cook, editor of MercatorNet.com, published an article on 2/22/17 concerning the breakdown of the public’s trust of the science/research community. The Na-tional Academy of Sciences and the National Academyof Medicine recently released a report entitled “HumanGenome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance”.Cook states that “the central question it poses is whethereugenics is safe and ethical. Its answer is that eugenicswould be ethical if it were safe. This is oversimplifyingthe tentative prose of this dense 300-page report, ofcourse, but not greatly.”Cook acknowledges that “there is an urgency to thesequestions. A technique has been found which can modifythe human genome quickly and efficiently. Called CRIS-PR/Cas9, it allows scientists to snip strands of DNA, re-moving some genes and inserting others. The opportuni-ties and the dangers are immense. If it is confined to non-reproductive cells, it can be used to develop therapiesand cure diseases. Curing ailments in utero is particularly promising.“But it will also be possible to modify the humangermline cells, of the eggs and sperm or the resultingembryo so that genetic changes can be passed on to fu-ture generations. If this happens, society could be re-lieved from the burden of genetic diseases; parents willbe able to design their offspring; and the dreams of trans-humanists will start to unfold. In plain language, this iscalled eugenics.”The authors of the report admit that it will be hard to stopthe spread of ‘do-it-yourself’ eugenics in the UnitedStates. The authors stated, “Access to germline genomeediting would be consistent with the broadest legal andcultural interpretations of parental autonomy rights in theUnited States…Precluding access to this technologycould be regarded as limiting parental autonomy, de-pending upon the country and the culture. Indeed, somepeople feel they have a religious or historical mandate tohave genetically related children.”On February 18th, the Economist ran an article (Leaderssection, “Sex and Science”) about the report and stated,“Happy parents and healthy children make a pretty goodrule for thinking about any reproductive technology. Aprocedure’s safety is the central concern. Proving this isa high hurdle. Researchers are, wrongly in the eyes ofsome, allowed to experiment on human embryos whenthey consist of just a few cells…Defining the limits ofwhat should be allowed is more slippery. But again, thetest of happy parents and healthy children is the rightone. Growing sperm and eggs from body cells is surelythe least problematic new technique soon to be on of-fer…But the law should insist that two people be in-volved. If one person tried to be both father and motherto a child, the resulting eggs and sperm would, withoutrecourse to wholesale gene editing, combine to concen-trate harmful mutations in what would amount to theultimate form of inbreeding…The first gene editing willeliminate genetic diseases in a way that now requiresembryo selection – an advance many would applaud.Adults should be able to clone perfect copies of themselves, as an aspect of self-determination. But breedingbabies with new traits and cloning other people raisesquestions of equality and whether it is ever right to useother people’s tissues without their consent. The ques-tions will be legion. Should bereaved parents be able toclone a lost child? Or a widow her departed husband?Should the wealthy be able to pay for their children tobe intelligent and diligent, if nobody else can afford todo so? Commissions of experts will need to search foranswers; and courts will need to apply the rules – toprotect the interests of the unborn. They will be able todraw on precedents, such as identical twins, where soci-ety copes with clones perfectly well, or ‘savior sib-lings’, selected using IVF to provide stem cells that cancure a critically ill older brother or sister. Any regimemust be adaptable, because opinions change as peopleget used to new techniques. Going by the past, though,the risk is not of people rushing headlong to the repro-ductive extremes, but of holding back, and leaving peo-ple to suffer out of a misplaced sense of what feelsright.”Cook stated that it was only a little over a year ago thatthe National Academy of Science held a summit andconcluded it would be “irresponsible to proceed withany clinical use of germline editing [until it was safeand] there is a broad societal consensus.” Cook went onto say that even though these conditions have not beenmet the latest report recommended that “with stringentoversight, heritable germline editing clinical trials couldone day be permitted for serious conditions. He notesthat even though the report sounded cautious, its ethicsare clear – “there is nothing intrinsically wrong witheugenics, provided it is safe and legal.”The [National Academy] report suggests that the gov-ernment needs to launch a public engagement programto overcome the public’s resistance. Cook concluded,“this sounds suspiciously like what used to be calledpropaganda… [and was used successfully in the UK] topermit the creation of human-animal embryos and three-parent embryos…It is projects like this expensive exer-cise in justifying eugenics which widen the gap betweenthe science community and the public. They strengthenthe view that scientists regard ethics merely as an obsta-cle to progress. And that’s not what most Americansbelieve.”Michael Cook, editor of MercatorNet.com, published anarticle on 2/22/17 concerning the breakdown of the pub-lic’s trust of the science/research community. The Na-tional Academy of Sciences and the National Academyof Medicine recently released a report entitled “HumanGenome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance”.Cook states that “the central question it poses is whethereugenics is safe and ethical. Its answer is that eugenicswould be ethical if it were safe. This is oversimplifyingthe tentative prose of this dense 300-page report, ofcourse, but not greatly.”Cook acknowledges that “there is an urgency to thesequestions. A technique has been found which can modifythe human genome quickly and efficiently. Called CRIS-PR/Cas9, it allows scientists to snip strands of DNA, re-moving some genes and inserting others. The opportuni-ties and the dangers are immense. If it is confined to non-reproductive cells, it can be used to develop therapiesand cure diseases. Curing ailments in utero is particularlypromising.“But it will also be possible to modify the humangermline cells, of the eggs and sperm or the resultingembryo so that genetic changes can be passed on to fu-ture generations. If this happens, society could be re-lieved from the burden of genetic diseases; parents willbe able to design their offspring; and the dreams of trans-humanists will start to unfold. In plain language, this iscalled eugenics.”The authors of the report admit that it will be hard to stopthe spread of ‘do-it-yourself’ eugenics in the UnitedStates. The authors stated, “Access to germline genomeediting would be consistent with the broadest legal andcultural interpretations of parental autonomy rights in theUnited States…Precluding access to this technologycould be regarded as limiting parental autonomy, de-pending upon the country and the culture. Indeed, somepeople feel they have a religious or historical mandate tohave genetically related children.”On February 18th, the Economist ran an article (Leaderssection, “Sex and Science”) about the report and stated,“Happy parents and healthy children make a pretty goodrule for thinking about any reproductive technology. Aprocedure’s safety is the central concern. Proving this isa high hurdle. Researchers are, wrongly in the eyes ofsome, allowed to experiment on human embryos whenthey consist of just a few cells…Defining the limits ofwhat should be allowed is more slippery. But again, thetest of happy parents and healthy children is the rightone. Growing sperm and eggs from body cells is surelythe least problematic new technique soon to be on of-fer…But the law should insist that two people be in-volved. If one person tried to be both father and motherto a child, the resulting eggs and sperm would, withoutrecourse to wholesale gene editing, combine to concen-trate harmful mutations in what would amount to theultimate form of inbreeding…The first gene editing willeliminate genetic diseases in a way that now requiresembryo selection – an advance many would applaud.Adults should be able to clone perfect copies of them-selves, as an aspect of self-determination. But breedingbabies with new traits and cloning other people raisesquestions of equality and whether it is ever right to useother people’s tissues without their consent. The ques-tions will be legion. Should bereaved parents be able toclone a lost child? Or a widow her departed husband?Should the wealthy be able to pay for their children to be intelligent and diligent, if nobody else can afford to do so? Commissions of experts will need to search for answers; and courts will need to apply the rules – to protect the interests of the unborn. They will be able to draw on precedents, such as identical twins, where society copes with clones perfectly well, or ‘savior siblings’, selected using IVF to provide stem cells that can cure a critically ill older brother or sister. Any regime must be adaptable, because opinions change as people get used to new techniques. Going by the past, though,the risk is not of people rushing headlong to the reproductive extremes, but of holding back, and leaving people to suffer out of a misplaced sense of what feels right.”Cook stated that it was only a little over a year ago that the National Academy of Science held a summit and concluded it would be “irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germ line editing [until it was safe and] there is a broad societal consensus.” Cook went onto say that even though these conditions have not been met the latest report recommended that “with stringent oversight, heritable germline editing clinical trials could one day be permitted for serious conditions. He notes that even though the report sounded cautious, its ethics are clear – “there is nothing intrinsically wrong with eugenics, provided it is safe and legal.”The [National Academy] report suggests that the government needs to launch a public engagement program to overcome the public’s resistance. Cook concluded,“this sounds suspiciously like what used to be called propaganda… [and was used successfully in the UK] to permit the creation of human-animal embryos and three-parent embryos…It is projects like this expensive exercise in justifying eugenics which widen the gap between the science community and the public. They strengthen the view that scientists regard ethics merely as an obstacle to progress. And that’s not what most Americans believe.” 

Note: The article transcripts above have been generated from original source text. While the transcript rarely is inaccurate, thing happen. For a 100% percent accurate copy of any of the above articles, click the download button to get a PDF.

Ectogenesis

Ectogenesis

Articles

Ectogenesis is the gestation of a fetus in an artificial environment. Georgi Boorman reported at the Federalist(10/26/17) that researchers project that in less than 10 years we should be able “to improve the survival rates of extremely premature babies by letting them develop inside“extracorporeal devices,” or artificial wombs. It has been successfully tested on 8 lambs from what equates to 22-24weeks’ human gestation.” The lambs remained in the Biobags for 28 days, but the researchers stated that the lambs could have stayed in the Biobags longer. The study, published in Nature Communications, was led by fetal surgeonAlan Flake at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He stated, “The whole idea is to support normal development; to re-create everything that the mother does in every way that we can to support normal fetal development and maturation.” According to Boorman, Flake “hopes to test the device on premature infants within the next 3-5 years, but they don’t plan on pushing viability back any farther than about five months’ gestation.”
Xavier Symons wrote at Bioedge.org (10/28/17), “the possibility of ectogenesis raises significant ethical questions, such as: “will ectogenesis allow us to reconcile pro-choice and pro-life positions on abortion?” Some ethicists feel that this new technology will remove the physical burden that a child poses during the duration of fetal development. University of Toronto bioethicists Eric Mathison and Jeremy Davis argue that women have a right to abortion – having the fetus removed from their bodies – but not a right to kill the fetus; by removing the fetus and placing it in ectogenesis the rights of both the mother and the fetus are respected. Mathison and Davis call this solution ectogenesis abortion’. Symons stated that other ethicists“ are suspicious of this view.” Joonas Rasanen wrote in the journal Bioethics, “…if ectogenesis abortions become reality, some women (and men) will have genetic children… who carry their genetic material without their consent…their right to genetic privacy has been violated, and the only way to avoid this is if they have a right to the death of the fetus…the genetic parents own the fetus, and because of that, their property rights are violated if the fetus is gestated in an artificial womb without their consent.”Boorman warns, “While this technology holds much promise for premature babies, we should…think through the potential ramifications…explore the ways in which artificial wombs could impact reproduction and our society…we must consider these potential outcomes with care. Technology is not to be feared, but the vast capacity of humans to use it for evil is important to guard against…as man’s power over nature increases, his ability to love and care for his fellow man is bound up with the ability to abuse and exploit him.”
Boorman refers to bioethicist Dena Davis of Lehigh University, who said that Biobags would ‘blur the line’ between a fetus and a baby, requiring an ‘overhaul of abortion law’. Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life explained that “according to the court’s formulation of abortion doctrine, ‘being born’ means ‘term’, but according to laws regarding fetal homicide, unlawful death, and fetal injury, ‘being born’ means ‘outside’ [the womb] without regard to gestational age.” Boorman reflects that “artificial wombs would force the law to line up with itself”. The legal definition of viability varies from state to state, and the artificial womb has the potential to push viability back much earlier than five months. Forsy the asked, “If you have an available artificial womb…can the law treat the child as viable?”
Another question raised by Boorman was if the “mere fact that artificial womb technology (AWT) can save an extremely premature baby [does that mean] that all babies of AWT-viable age should be protected from abortion? Complicating matters is that not just the artificial womb must exist, but the technology to evacuate the baby in a manner that is relatively safe for the mother.” Law professor Stephen G. Gilles argues that the “concept of viability is in question, not just the gestational age at which it is set.” The Roe v Wade and Casey decisions defined viability as when the fetus can survive outside any womb – not simply outside the mother’s womb. Gilles admits “the literal language about ‘artificial aid’ could be stretched to cover artificial wombs.”
The authors of the lamb study are aiming to help save human preemies between 22-24 weeks gestation. However, Boorman acknowledges that as technology advances, viability outside the womb could be pushed much earlier. Currently, “roughly 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester, which is well beyond AWT’s supposed capability ten years out.”
Boorman points out several other questions that will be raised with AWT. Gilles argues that “the right to elective abortion will continue to apply to fetuses that are not yet developmentally viable-even though these fetuses can be rescued [with AWT].” Does a woman have a right to a ‘terminative abortion’ or an ‘evacuative abortion’? AWTforces abortion extremists to admit that abortion is not about bodily autonomy, but the right to beget a child. Should courts order the removal of preborn babies from damaging circumstances? Does the welfare of the child compel the government to override ‘my body, my choice?” Will AWT require ‘womb orphanages’ or ‘preborn care centers’ that are government-run or subsidized? Could the number of abandoned babies surpass the current number of abortions? The surrogate industry will be impacted by AWT. Matthew Eppinette of the Center for Bioethics and Culture warns that we would “still be faced with pregnancy contracts and the commodification of human life…[AWT] brings the specter of the manufacture of children to reality in a whole new way.” WillAWT lead to the growth of “fetus farms” for research and tissue harvesting? Will AWT lead to the degrading of the organic family? Epinette asks, “What is the line between sharing and forming children on the one hand, and designing and manufacturing them on the other? Where is the space to have this conversation, when the overriding factor is cost vs. benefits? The argument typically begins with, ‘this will relieve so much suffering.’ But it doesn’t end there. Soon it becomes, ‘We can control this rather than leaving it to chance. We can improve this. We should improve this. We must improve this.’And so on.” Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435
Editor’s Note: The Good Samaritan Family Resource Center affiliated with Planned Parenthood, referenced in the Nov. 2017 H & S column, is in San Francisco,CA.

Websites

Note: The article transcripts above have been generated from original source text. While the transcript rarely is inaccurate, thing happen. For a 100% percent accurate copy of any of the above articles, click the download button to get a PDF.

Assisted Suicide

Assisted Suicide

Jason Negri, M.S., J.D., of the Patients’ Rights Council, recommends that the term Doctor-Prescribed Suicide be used instead of Physician-Assisted Suicide or Medical-Aid-in-Dying, as it more accurately describes the process. His seminar on May 21st sponsored by the Long Island Coalition for Life Educational Trust was extremely informative.

One of the most glaring misunderstandings is that a patient takes “a pill” and slips away peacefully. However a massive dose of drugs is required – 90 to 100 pills. A doctor writes the prescription, but is not usually present when the individual ingests the pills. A therapeutic dosage for Seconal or Nembutal (barbituates) is 100 -200mg. A doctor-prescribed suicide dose is 90 to 100 times the usual therapeutic dose – 9000 to 10,000mg. Individuals often require “help” from a family member or friend to complete the process.

Negri warned that the Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia movement in the United States today is similar to the abortion movement pre-Roe (prior to 1973). Prior to the very public assisted suicide of Brittany Maynard in 2014, there were 5 to 8 states a year considering doctor-prescribed suicide. Negri stated that this year there are 28 states with proposed legislation.

Wesley Smith, in the Spring 2017 issue of the Life Legal Defense Foundation’s Lifeline magazine stated that the “greatest efforts [are] focused in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. While this issue mostly plays out at the state level, there is potential for the debate to go federal. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. I believe advocates would like to try again for an assisted suicide Roe v. Wade – such as they recently achieved in Canada – but they would need around twenty states to legalize in order to make another go at it. Opponents of assisted suicide could strike a body blow by amending the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the use of federally regulated drugs in the intentional ending of life. Indeed, during the Bush years, the Department of Justice interpreted the CSA to that effect, but that interpretation was deemed invalid by the United States Supreme Court, for failure to follow proper administrative procedures. It is worth noting, however, that the Court ruled that Congress could pass such a prohibition. Perhaps some intrepid congressperson or senator will take up that important cause.”

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, reported at LifeNews.com (6/5/17) on a Canadian study that examined the reasons behind euthanasia cases in four major hospitals in the Toronto area. “The results of the study demonstrate that the main factor behind euthanasia deaths relates to existential distress. Indeed, the primary reason given by patients concerned the loss of autonomy – and not the unbearable pain that was conveniently sold to us from the beginning. Other reasons included fear of becoming a burden to those around them, fear of losing one’s dignity, or the fact of no longer appreciating one’s life. In other words, the Canadian picture continues a portrait well known in other parts of the world, in which the same motives are evoked to request assisted suicide. This pattern also confirms what we already knew: euthanasia is primarily a question of how we relate to others and how society views vulnerable people. Moreover, when loss of autonomy is evoked as an indignity that deserves death, we should first see it as a petty social judgment that affects all persons who suffer from a disability or a serious illness. Furthermore, we have the duty to fight this pernicious and intolerable verdic.”

Margaret Somerville reported at MercatorNet.com(5/22/17) that Dutch professor Dr. Theo Boer, a former member of one of Holland’s five Euthanasia RegionalReview Committees (2005-2014) will soon publish a study which shows, in Boer’s words, “the assumption that euthanasia will lead to lower suicide rates finds no support in the numbers. The percentage of euthanasia deaths of the total mortality rate tripled from 1.3% in 2002 to 4.08% in 2016. During that same period, the suicide numbers did not go down: From being 1,567 in 2002, they went up to 1,871 in 2015, a rise of 19.4%. The suicide rates reached a relative low of 1,353 in 2007, compared to which the 2015 numbers constitute a rise of 38.3%. This is even more significant given the fact that from 2007 on euthanasia started becoming available to people with chronic diseases – psychiatric diseases, dementia, and others…For the sake of comparison, I have looked at the suicide rates of some countries which are close to the Netherlands in terms of ethnicity, age, religion, and language, but which, with the exception of Belgium, lack the option of euthanasia. If the suicide numbers in the Netherlands have gone up, one would expect, at least a similar increase in the suicide numbers would occur in countries without the option of euthanasia. However… the Netherlands of all countries show the biggest increase in the suicide numbers.”

The national disability rights group Not Dead Yet countered the recent May 9th Albany lobby day for assisted suicide proponents by wearing hot pink Not Dead Yet– The Resistance t-shirts. The Albany Times Union reported “Opponents of aid in dying have said that if legislation is approved, medical research, health care providers and the disabled could be negatively impacted. Opponents also have warned that without proper oversight, there is potential for abuse by those who want to end the burden of caring for a terminally ill loved one.” Adam Prizio, manager of governmental affairs for the Center for Disability Rights, and Not Dead Yet’s attorney in the friend-of-the-court brief filed in the NY assisted suicide case that was heard in the NYS Court of Appeals in late May stated, “There’s no way to open this door just enough. No matter where you open it, some number of people with disabilities will be killed through coercion, through abuse, or through insurance companies trying to save money.” Schadenberg concluded, “In the face of this real ideological scourge, we must continue to promote a benevolent and inclusive vision that values those who are made vulnerable by sickness, old age, or disability by giving them the means to live with dignity and to be accompanied and comforted until their last breath.”

There are two physician-assisted suicide bills currently in committee in the NYS Legislature: A.5261B (Paulin) /S.5814 (Bonacic) and A.2129A (Rosenthal) / S.3685(Savino). A lawsuit has also been filed by an assisted suicide advocacy organization to overturn NY’s ban. NewYork’s current law prohibits assisting in suicide by anyone, including doctors who prescribe lethal doses of drugs. This law was challenged in 1994 and upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court in Vacco vs.Quill in 1997.

The 2011 Code of Medical Ethics of the AmericanMedical Association states, “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” The 2015 position statement of the MedicalSociety of the State of New York reads in part,”Compelling arguments have not been made for medicine to change its footing and to incorporate the active shortening of life into the norms of medical practice.

“The Memorandum of Opposition of the New York Association on Independent Living (NYAIL) states,” Assisted suicide legislation reinforces the idea that people with disabilities are burdensome and our lives are not worth living. Fears of becoming disabled and facing functional loss are often reported by doctors as reasons patients request assisted suicide. Proponents of assisted suicide often cite a loss of dignity as a reason to terminate one’s life. The disability community strongly opposes the belief that requiring the assistance of another individual activity of daily living such as dressing, bathing, and toileting is undignified or a legitimate reason to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

“Proponents of physician-assisted suicide often argue that this option is necessary to prevent suffering at the end of life. This is not the case as there are alternative options to prevent suffering. It is already legal in New York for individuals to create an advance directive to cease treatment under any circumstances they choose and to refuse treatment at any time. Palliative care is available and can provide pain relief to ensure a person is not in pain…NewYork should invest in educating the community about these options and focus on promoting and expanding palliative care so that it is an available option for anyone facing painful illness…The concern arises when a physician is permitted to sanction and actively facilitate such an act. People trust their doctors, yet doctors are sometimes wrong. Certainly, there are numerous instances where individuals have been told they have a terminal illness, only to live long, fulfilling lives. A CBS report last year found that12 million Americans annually are misdiagnosed. Yet patients tend to trust their doctors and may choose assisted suicide if it is presented as the best option without accurate informed consent, giving up good months or years of life.

“Furthermore, there is a significant risk that people may be steered into this decision for financial reasons. Government and private health insurance companies and healthcare providers would find physician-assisted suicide far less expensive than providing lifesaving treatments. Direct coercion is not even necessary. If insurers deny, or even merely delay, expensive life-saving treatment, the person will be steered toward assisted suicide. People with disabilities and serious illnesses should not be pressured into assisted suicide for economic reasons.

“The proposed legislation is based on the laws in Washington and Oregon, which have proven to have ineffectual safeguards against abuse. There is nothing in the legislation to effectively prevent a coercive family member or caregiver from doctor shopping with the individual to find a physician who will provide the fatal drug. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would prevent an abusive caregiver or family member from steering the individual toward physician-assisted suicide, witnessing the request form, picking up the lethal dose, and even administering the drug. With no independent witness required at the death, there is no assurance of self-administration or even consent.

“Finally, the New York assisted suicide bills to contain no reporting requirements aside from a few entries in the medical record and the request form, which are subject to the strict confidentiality requirements of HIPAA. The proposed bills are simple immunity statutes, protecting everyone involved in the death except for the patient, no questions asked.”

The NYS Catholic Conference position paper on assisted suicide states, “New York State rightly spends millions of dollars each year in efforts to prevent suicide…. legalizing assisted suicide would send an inconsistent message by saying that some lives are not worth living. This double standard would be based entirely on disability, as patients fear “losing autonomy” or “being a burden” to others because of their disabilities from the terminal illness. LiftingNew York’s ban on assisted suicide would provide a deadly, unnecessary option to patients, many of whom fear pain, depression, and abandonment. These persons can be significantly helped through pain relief, palliative care, and the hospice environment and compassionate loving care.”

On September 11, 2015, the California legislaturepassed ABX2-15, the “End of Life Option Act,” whichlegalizes physician-assisted suicide. On October 5, 2015,California Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill saying hewouldn’t want to be in pain in his final days. Carol Tobiasof National Right to Life said the law “shows a blatant dis-regard for the lives of California’s medically vulnerablecitizens and sends a message to these citizens that theirlives are less worthy to be lived. The so-called ‘right to die’movement promotes these laws as simply ‘another medical option at the end of life,’ but their real goal is euthanasia on demand for any reason. There are no real safeguards…Itis a well-established fact that nearly every terminally illpatient who desires death is suffering from treatable de-pression…Rather than treat clinically depressed patients…the system that would be established by the Californiabill…indicates that you instead help the patients kill them-selves.” An article about the bill’s passage written by IanLovett in the New York Times referred to an observationby Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics pro-gram at the University of California, Irvine, School ofMedicine, “…[Kheriaty] said that low-income and underin-sured patients would inevitably feel pressure to end theirown lives in some cases, when the cost of continued treat-ment would be astronomical compared with the cost of afew lethal pills.” (www.lifenews.com, 10/5/15)

Jacqueline Harvey, Ph.D., and bioethicist with theCharlotte Lozier Institute, wrote an open letter to GovernorBrown regarding this bill. Her letter noted that “grosslyinappropriate tactics [were] employed to pass this hastylegislation without the vetting that killed virtually identicallegislation just months ago…The evidence on the dangersof assisted suicide has killed over 175 bills in 35 statessince the early ‘90’s. Assisted suicide bills fail 99.95% ofthe time when treated like every other piece of legislationand subjected to expert testimony, debate and possibleamendment…When legislators hear about the dangers ofassisted suicide in hearings, they reject it virtually everytime…This is what you will ensure for California, notmerely the death and destruction that legal assisted suicidewill wreak, but a bogged-down Assembly condemned todeal with the issue for years to come.” Harvey continued,“Consider that ABX2-15 was only passed by hijacking ses-sions you convened to focus on finding budgetary solutionsin health care and transportation …the healthcare financetopic in particular places you in a position of suggestingsuicide is a cost-containment measure in healthcare, like inOregon where requests for real treatment will not be paidfor, but suicide is completely covered. To affirm this be-havior by signing this bill would foremost result in badpolicy…As we end suicide prevention week, let your lega-cy be talking the suicidal down from the ledge – not givingthem a push.” (www.lifenews.com 9/16/15)

The American College of Physicians (ACP) sent a let-ter to Governor Brown on 9/16/15 urging him to veto thislegislation. The letter stated, “This is a physician-assistedsuicide (PAS) bill. ACP does not support PAS as an appro-priate action…Terms such as ‘end of life option’ and ‘aid-in-dying’ used in the bill are confusing and obscure what isat stake when physicians are asked to facilitate suicide. Weare deeply sympathetic to the concerns and fears patientsand their families have at the end of life. However, PAS isnot the answer and in fact, ACP sees it as abandonment ofthe dying patient. It is not the role of the physician to giveindividuals control over the cause and timing of death-themedicalization of suicide. The physician must always act inthe best interests of the patient as healer, comforter andtrusted advisor. PAS undermines trust in patient-physicianrelationships and trust in the profession of medicine. Pro-ponents of PAS claim it is an act of compassion in keepingwith the physician’s role as comforter. However, this argu-ment incorrectly assumes that physicians can only providecomfort for certain patients through facilitating suicide. Infact, physicians can and do provide comfort to dying pa-tients. It is a lack of awareness of these services and a per-ceived concern that patients will not have access to thiscare that helps drive interest in PAS as an option. We needto ensure that all patients have access to palliative care andhospice services at the end of life rather than promote sui-cide. Surveys show that many individuals do not knowwhat palliative care is but when told its definition, theyoverwhelmingly respond that they would want it for them-selves or their family members if they were severely ill…The highest priorities for care of dying patients should beexcellent palliative care, including alleviation of pain andother symptoms.”

The ACP letter concluded, “Patients often fear pain at the end of life, but physicians have an ethical obligation to treat pain with competence and compassion. Aggressive management of pain at the end of life is ethically acceptable, even when the risk of hastening death is foreseeable if the intent is to relieve pain…Procedurally, we were also very troubled by the last-minute inclusion of the PAS bill in the special legislative session on health care financing, bypassing usual procedures. We also note the paradox of access to PAS where there is no general right to health care. In Oregon, the irony of difficulties getting coverage for palliative services and pain drugs under the state’sMedicaid program-but no problem receiving PAS paid forms a covered service-has been noted…PAS is especially troubling in an environment of cost control in health care and continuing disparities in care. We hope you will join ACP in advocating that society should encourage those who seek suicide with a physician’s help to instead be provided with full access to the care and compassion that can alleviate their suffering. No Californian, or any American, should have to fear an undignified or pain-filled life or death. Providing greater access to palliative and hospice care needs our full attention. In this way, physicians can fulfill their mission and give dying patients and their families the care, compassion, and comfort they need and deserve.”

Note: Articles with a date come from the Health & Science Report in Long Island Coalition for Life’s Publication, “Life News”

Bioethics

Bioethics

Articles

Wesley J. Smith wrote the following at LifeNews.com on September 7th and 19th: “If you want to see what is likely to go awry in medical ethics and public healthcare policy, pay attention to the advocacy of bioethicists – at least those who don’t identify themselves as ‘conservative’ or ‘Catholic.’ In their many journal articles and presentations at academic symposia, they unabashedly advocate for discarding the sanctity – and equality-of-life ethic as our moral cornerstone. Instead, most favor invidious and systemic medical discrimination predicated on a patient’s ‘quality of life,’ which would endow the young, healthy, and able-bodied with the highest moral value – and hence, with the greatest claim to medical resources.

“Thanks to the work of bioethics, life-taking policies that a few decades ago were ‘unthinkable’ now are unremarkable. Withholding tube-supplied food and water from the cognitively disabled until they die – Terri Schiavo’s fate – is now legal and popularly accepted. The legalization of assisted suicide is a constant threat. (A reality now in 6 states.) Even where lethal prescriptions or injections cannot be legally provided, some of our most notable bioethicists urge that doctors be permitted to help elderly and others commit suicide by self-starvation – a process known in euthanasia advocacy circles as VSED (Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking).” Some of the dangerous ‘advances’ being promoted in bioethics include:

Infanticide: “When German doctors were hanged at Nuremberg for committing infanticide, it was thought that killing disabled babies was an unrepeatable historical evil. But human memory is short…on September 4 of this year, Newsweek published an article promoting late-term abortion and infanticide in response to the Zika outbreak.” Cornell Law Professor Sherry F. Colb wrote, “Because bodily integrity may no longer be a plausible driver of the abortion right [at the late stage of pregnancy], the choice to terminate the life of the fetus or child truly becomes a form of euthanasia rather than abortion…the issue of euthanasia nonetheless lurks and beckons to us to answer the question: might some lives be better off ended than permitted to continue, given what is in store for them?” Smith concludes, “In the Netherlands, a checklist called the Groningen Protocol is used to determine which disabled or dying infants are eligible for infanticide. In our current bioethical climate, infanticide falls somewhere between ‘debatable’ and ‘justifiable’.

Killing for Organs: “The ‘dead donor rule’ which says that vital organs can only be taken from the certifiably deceased, has been under steady attack for years. The latest example was just published in the Journal of Medical Ethics by bioethicist Zoe Fritz: “Where it is inevitable that an incapacitous patient is going to die – and specifically when it has been agreed through the courts that a patient in a PVS is going to have CANH [tube-supplied sustenance] withdrawn, it could be in a patient’s best interests to have a drug that would stop their heart and to have vital organs donated to a family member…By extension, it could also be in the patient’s best interests to donate their organs to someone else, if that was consistent with their previously expressed wishes.” Smith comments, “I can think of no faster way to destroy people’s confidence in organ donation than to kill people for their organs. Not only that, but if this were permitted, decisions about withdrawing care would quickly become intertwined with the issue of organ harvesting, transforming patients into organ farms. Killing for organs – which is not yet happening – is currently considered ‘debatable’.” Euthanasia laws are some of the most liberal in the world in the Netherlands and Belgium. More than 40 patients have already had their organs harvested after being euthanized in these countries.

“Futile Care”: “Medical futility, or ‘futile care,’ permits a doctor to withdraw wanted life-sustaining treatment from a patient based on the doctor’s perception of the patient’s quality of life – and, less mentioned, based on the cost of the patient’s care. Texas has a law that allows hospital bioethics committees to refuse service or discontinue treatment – even against a patient’s written advance directive. Many a patient has died after such forced removal of treatment. There has been abundant litigation surrounding the issue, with the bioethics movement leading the charge to allow bioethicists and doctors to decide when a patient should die. Despite this contentiousness, I believe that futile care is at this point considered ‘justifiable.’ These and other policies that view imposed or chosen death as the answer to human suffering and medicalresource concerns are the products of careful planning and promotion. In 1970, an editorial in California Medicine celebrated the ‘inevitability of death selection and death control’ in a project that would culminate in the ‘fulfillment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a biologically oriented world society.’ Back then, the very idea of death control was unthinkable. A mere forty-six years later – intellectually gestated by the bioethics movement – it is quickly becoming unexceptionable.”

Michael Cook reported at MercatorNet.com on Oct 29th that Stephanie Packer,33, from California, has scleroderma, a terminal disease. She claims that her insurance company refused to pay for an expensive chemotherapy drug which could extend her life and give her more time with her children. However, the insurance company did agree to cover the cost of drugs for assisted suicide – and she would only have to pay $1.20 in out-of-pocket costs. She says the State’s broken health care system must be fixed “so that people start to live instead of feeling that they have to choose to die.”

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435

HEALTH & SCIENCE

FDA PURCHASES ABORTED BABY PARTS

Information published by the FDA and the
General Services Administration indicate that the Food and Drug Administration has signed a new con- tract to purchase body parts from aborted babies. A June 13 ‘pre-solicitation notice’ for the contract stated, “The objective is to acquire tissue for humanized mice. [The contractor would] provide the human fetal tissue needed to continue the ongoing research being led by the FDA. Fresh human tissues are required for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system.”

The GSA’s federal contract database states that Ad- vanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), a non-profit based in the San Francisco Bay area, was awarded this $15,900 contract, which runs through July 25, 2019. The Congressional Research Service states that “Fetal tissue used in research is obtained through elective abortions. CNS News reported that the FDA is using federal tax dollars to create a demand for human body parts that must be taken from babies who are aborted.” Steven Ertelt wrote at Lifenews.com on August 7th, “Because it would not be able to create its ‘humanized mice’ without fresh tissue taken from aborted babies, the FDA also has an interest in the continuation of le- galized abortions at a stage in fetal development when the tissue needed to create these mice can be retrieved from the aborted baby.”

CNS News contacted the FDA concerning this con- tract. The FDA confirmed that its June 13 pre- solicitation notice for a contract to “acquire tissue for humanized mice” and the July 25th contract it signed with ABR refer to the same deal. However, the FDA declined to answer 17 other questions from CNS News. The FDA provided CNS News with a three- paragraph statement, stressing that it was committed to making certain its research followed “all legal require- ments” and met “the highest ethical standards”.

Ertelt reported that in addition to the “destruction of human life and the exploitation of aborted babies by using their body parts for research, the pro-life move- ment has long questioned the ethics of transplanting human brain cells into other species.” Research at the University of Rochester involved injecting mice with glial cells from human fetuses. Glial cells…support neurons in the nervous system. The mice incorporated these glial cells into their brain and “outperformed normal mice almost fourfold in a variety of cognition tests.” The researchers stressed that the mice still had mouse brains, saying “This does not provide the ani- mals with additional capabilities that could in any way

be ascribed or perceived as specifically human. Ra- ther, the human cells are simply improving the effi- ciency of the mouse’s own neural networks. It’s still a mouse.”” The paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience clearly states that the glial cells came from second trimester abortions. The scientists are hoping to study the contribution of glial cells to hu- man neurological disorders. The ends can’t justify the means. Ertelt stated, “the source of the glial cells morally taints all their research. They could have used cells from ethical sources like a natural miscar- riage, but they did not.”

Ertelt notes that “the mixing of human brain cells with those of other species, especially those of other primates, raises serious ethical considerations.”

Dr. David Prentice, Vice President and Research Director at the Charlotte Lozier Institute stated, “It is outrageous that the FDA would aid in the trafficking of aborted baby parts and fetal tissue. This not only fosters government-sponsored participation in unethi- cal research but continues use of outdated scientific methods. Humanized mice can and have been made, for years, using ethical cell sources, including umbili- cal cord blood and peripheral blood stem cells. High quality, modern scientific research has no need for unethical, tainted practices and grisly sources. Our government should lead in ethics and science and should rescind any contracts for use of aborted tis- sue.”

Tom McClusky, President of March for Life Ac- tion noted, “After an undercover investigation (David Daleiden/CMP videos) and a Congressional investi- gation exposed the horrors of an industry that har- vests and sells baby body parts, there is no excuse for anyone, much less the taxpayer funded federal gov- ernment to enter into contracts that prop up this grue- some practice. Such contracts should be immediately terminated, and the baby body parts trafficking indus- try shut down.”

Lila Rose, Live Action Founder and President said, “The FDA’s purchasing of fetal tissue from aborted babies is immoral and horrific, violating hu- man dignity and implicating the American taxpayer in the gruesome trade of human body parts…These children deserved care and protection, but instead were violently stripped of their fundamental rights and are now being sold piecemeal. The company that the FDA is doing business with, ABR, is currently under federal investigation for colluding with Planned Parenthood to sell aborted baby body parts for profit. We call on the FDA to terminate its con- tract with ABR immediately and cease the experi- mentation on the bodies of aborted children.”

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435

HEALTH & SCIENCE

FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH

Two house subcommittees were scheduled to hold a hearing December 13th regarding ethical alternatives to fetal tissue research. The Health and Human Ser- vices Department is reviewing contracts involving federal funds used for research involving fetal tissue harvested from elective abortions. In 2015, David Daleiden, through the Center for Medical Progress, released undercover videos which revealed repre- sentatives of abortion facilities and related compa- nies discussing the sale of baby body parts. Those videos led to congressional investigations which re- sulted in criminal referrals of procurement compa- nies and abortion providers. These violations in- volved profiting from the sale of tissue, infringing on patient privacy and modifying surgical abortion procedures to obtain certain tissues.

David Prentice and Tara Sander Lee, scholars from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, spoke at the Heritage Foundation’s “Fetal Tissue Research: Antiquated and Unethical” event in December. Prentice and Lee noted that in 1988 President Reagan issued a mora- torium on the use of federal funds for research using fetal tissue obtained through abortions. President Clinton lifted that moratorium in 1993. In 1993, Congress then passed legislation on transplantation research using fetal tissue which included provisions and guidelines for informed consent and payments for procuring and transferring the tissue.

Those who support fetal tissue research use the ex- ample of the polio vaccine. However, these propo- nents neglect to mention that advancements were made using ‘historic fetal cell lines.’ These cell lines do not rely on current abortions. The original polio vaccines used monkey tissue and fetal cell lines. Currently, there are no vaccines made with fresh fetal tissue. In addition, transplanting fetal tissue to treat diseases such as anemia, diabetes and Parkin- son’s has been unsuccessful. The transplantation of fetal stem cells has also been unsuccessful.

Prentice and Lee noted that fetal tissue research has become a $100 million industry with very little oversight. For example, a consent form from a Planned Parenthood facility to procure tissue from an aborted baby claimed that fetal tissue research led to a “cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and AIDS. Prentice and Lee said this blatantly false statement should never have been printed or used to influence a woman’s deci- sion regarding an abortion. Researchers are currently

targeting the use of fetal tissue for research regarding Zika, respiratory distress syndrome in infants, Down’s and HIV/ tuberculosis.

Lee said Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), based out of California, is the “oldest continuously operating whole- saler of aborted fetal body parts in the United States. A re- port in September from the Center for Medical Progress concluded that Advanced Bioscience Resources has played middle-man for tens of millions of dollars in transactions over freshly aborted baby body parts since its founding in 1989.” ABR records indicated that in June 2014 they paid $60 for a 20-week-old aborted fetus, and sold the baby’s organs and tissues, including brain, eyes, liver, thymus and lungs to five researchers and received over $2,000. ABR considered that a ‘service fee’. They also charged for ship- ping, screening and freezing. Lee stated there “was much more money that was transferred in addition to just that ser- vice fee that they claim.”

Lee continued, “So the real question is, is this a service fee or was there a profit being made? [ABR] determined prices that they wanted to charge depending on how old the fetus was. If the fetus was in the second trimester, they would charge like $200 back in 2010. But then in 2015, they upped that to $340. Whereas for a first trimester fetus, they were charging $420 in 2010, but then that increased to $550 in 2015. If this is truly just a simple service fee, why did those numbers increase over the years?”

There are ethical alternatives to tissue derived from abor- tions. These sources include the placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, discarded surgical tissue, and postmortem tissue. Prentice and Lee highlighted the use of discarded surgical tissue to identify “key mechanisms involved in de- veloping human pulmonary valves.” They also brought to light the fact that a “small biopsy of skin may be used to grow cells that can imitate and resemble embryonic stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells then can be pro- grammed to generate an ‘organoid’ that can resemble a brain, lung, kidney, or liver.” Adult stem cells have been used to treat over 1.5 million people worldwide for cancer, stroke, spinal cord injury, and other diseases and conditions.

There have been so many scientific advances using ethical alternatives to aborted fetal tissue. HHS should issue a mor- atorium on federal funding for aborted fetal tissue research and promote ethical alternatives. As Lee noted, ethics must be our priority – “Using ethical sources is absolutely always the right decision.”

(Sources: The Daily Signal, Rachel Del Guidice, 12/3/18 and Melanie Israel 12/6/18)

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435

HEALTH & SCIENCE

Genetic Disruption of Human Beings

Margaret Somerville, professor of Bioethics at the School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Austral- ia, addressed the ethics of three-parent babies at Merca- torNet.com on July 18, 2018. She stated, “Now we are faced with unprecedented 21st century reproductive tech- nologies which can be used to change the genetic es- sence of ourselves (our DNA) when we are embryos and in such a way that the changes will be passed on to our future descendants. Should we do this? In other words, is it ethical to disrupt our modern-human genetic heritage which has evolved naturally over at least the last 200,000 years?” She continued, “proponents of the technology [three-parent IVF] want [the term] replaced by the less alarming and more normal and familiar sounding ‘mitochondrial DNA transplants.”

Currently in Australia it is criminal to create an em- bryo other than for reproduction, or with more than two biological parents, or who has inheritable alterations of the human germ line – genes passed on from generation to generation – or to implant such an embryo in a wom- an’s uterus.

Somerville said, “Good facts are essential to good ethics.” She then explained the technology involved in three-parent embryos. “An embryo results from the un- ion of a man’s sperm and a woman’s ovum. The ovum has a DNA nucleus and, external to that, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the cytoplasm surrounding the nucle- us. The mtDNA is inherited only from the woman and, from the time we are conceived until we die, converts energy from nutrients to energy for the cells that consti- tute every human being. Some women have defective mtDNA which can result in mild to very serious disease in their children. Three-parent embryos are created using IVF and replacing the defective mtDNA of the woman who will have the child with the healthy mtDNA of an- other woman. This is known as mitochondrial replace- ment therapy (MRT) which can be carried out in four different ways, but the two most prominent are maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT).

“MST involves using a donor ovum with healthy mtDNA, extracting its nuclear DNA and replacing it with the nuclear DNA removed from an ovum of the in- tended mother, resulting in a ‘combination ovum’ with mostly healthy mtDNA, which is fertilized with the fa- ther’s sperm to create an embryo. Importantly, MST does not involve creating an embryo from the donor’s ovum and then destroying that embryo by enucleating it. The embryo’s mtDNA is only ‘mostly healthy’, because some of the mother’s defective mtDNA in her ovum’s cytoplasm is ordinarily attached to the nuclear DNA and transferred with it.

“In contrast PNT does involve creating an embryo with the intention of destroying it. An embryo is created from the future mother’s ovum and the father’s sperm

(‘mother’s embryo’) and another embryo from a healthy mtDNA ovum donor and the father’s sperm (‘donor em- bryo’). The nuclear DNA is removed from the ‘donor embryo’, destroying it, and the nuclear DNA from the ‘mother’s embryo’ is transferred to the enucleated do- nor embryo creating an embryo with mostly healthy mitochondria.”

There are several ethical questions regarding this process. Three-parent embryos are created using IVF technology in the lab. Those who regard the IVF pro- cess as morally unacceptable would reject this process from the outset. There are others who may have “limiting conditions”. Those might include not creating more embryos than those that will be implanted, thus allowing all created embryos a chance to live. This would make MST acceptable, but not PNT, as PNT re- quires creating an embryo and then destroying it when the nuclear DNA is removed. Those who do not believe that embryos have any moral status would accept these procedures.

Somerville said the ethical concerns go “beyond the ethical issues raised by the technology itself to matters such as claims of rights to have a genetically related child, the ethics of alternative means of founding a fam- ily, and so on. A technology-related consideration in- cludes the ethics of alteration of the human germline, a possibility that for many elicits intense fear and for some great hope…when we didn’t have the technology to alter the germline, there was almost universal agree- ment among bioethicists that such alteration would al- ways be ethically wrong. Rather, we agreed that we had obligations to hold the germline intact for future genera- tions as the common heritage of human kind. Now, when human germline alteration has become possible, some bioethicists see it as ethically acceptable in order to avoid serious genetically transmitted diseases…If germline modification were allowed, we would need to consider whether its use as therapy for serious, other- wise untreatable, genetic diseases is ethically different from its use for enhancement, that is, creating designer children. Another issue is whether three-parent IVF would establish a precedent of the ethical acceptability of ‘designer children’”. She warns that we must look at the risks and harms of this procedure. It is possible for donors to be exploited. She asks if creating a three- parent embryo is “manufacturing a child…a contraven- tion of human dignity?” Somerville also addresses the question of informed consent. Would couples consent to great risk and harm in order to have a child? Does the child have the right to know the identity of the mtDNA donor? The IVF industry would support this technology as a source of increased business. Governments would likely support it as a cost-saving measure (social ser- vices costs for children with mtDNA disease). Canadian ethicist Francois Baylis concluded that this technology is inevitable as “no genetic or reproductive technology seems to be too dangerous or too transgressive” in to- day’s culture.

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435

Last year, Chinese researcher He Jiankui an- nounced that he used the gene-editing tool Crispr to alter the DNA of twin girls by inserting a mu- tated variant of a gene into the girls’ chromosome at the embryo stage to make them immune to the HIV virus. Jiankui’s ‘creation’ of the first gene- edited babies was criticized world-wide as being unethical and risky. Chinese authorities subse- quently announced a moratorium on the practice stating it “seriously violates” national law and medical ethics.

A recently released study of genetic make-up and death registry information warned that indi- viduals with this mutated gene have a 20% higher risk of early death compared to the global popula- tion. The study was done by researchers at the University of Berkeley California. The study ex- amined data on over 400,000 people of British ancestry from the UK Biobank. Those studied inherited the specific mutation. Jiankui attempted to create the same mutation but failed. The twin girls carry different alterations of the same gene.

Malcolm Ritter explained at APNews.com on 6/3/19 that when the gene “is working normally, it lets certain cells of the immune system display a protein on their surfaces. HIV has co-opted that protein to use as a doorway to infect those cells. The mutation prevents that protein from appear- ing, and so sharply reduces the risk of HIV infec- tion…studies have suggested that carrying the mutation has some drawbacks, including a heightened risk of death from flu.” Ritter noted that the Berkeley study “suggests tinkering with a gene to try to fix one problem may cause others.”

Rasmus Nielsen, senior author of the study, stated, “You should consider all the effects of mutations you induce.” Ritter reported that Niel- sen said the study does not apply to gene therapy that is currently used to inactivate the gene in the blood cells of individuals already infected with HIV to keep the virus under control. In these cas- es, the disabled gene is probably an advantage.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, ex- plained that current gene editing experiments fo- cus on the replacement of a defective gene with a working gene or removing a harmful gene. The Nielsen study subjects did not have a normal working version of a gene. That is what Jiankui tried to create. Ritter wrote, “Fauci said the work

is more a lesson that genetic protection against one thing can raise vulnerability to something else.” The Berkeley study’s authors wrote, “The cost of resistance to HIV may be increased susceptibility to other, and perhaps more common, diseases…Introduction of new or derived mutations in humans using Crispr technology…comes with considerable risk even if the mutations provide a perceived advantage.”

Patrick Galey wrote at Agence France-Presse (6/3/19), that the authors warned “there was a clear statis- tical trend that should discourage repeats of He’s experi- ment…David Curtis, honorary Professor at University College London’s Genetics Institute said the new study provided a clear look at the possible unintended conse- quences of gene-editing in humans.” Curtis said, “There are many other examples in medicine where an interven- tion intended to treat one condition inadvertently causes major unexpected problems elsewhere. This sends us a warning that we should be extremely cautious around the introduction of therapies involving modifying the genetic code.” Galey also quoted Robin Lovell-Badge of the Francis Crick Institute in London: “All this shows once more that He Jiankui was foolish to choose CCR5 to mu- tate in his attempts at germline genome editing. We simply do not yet know enough about the gene.”

Christine Rousselle reported at CNA (6/4/19) that the House Appropriations Committee “reinstated a condition in 2020 spending bills prohibiting embryonic gene edit- ing. The amendment was passed in a vote of the full House Appropriations Committee…Without the amend- ment, U.S. scientists would be able to approve and con- duct clinical trials that would involve the creation or modification of human embryos…After a congressional subcommittee passed a draft of the annual appropriations bill omitting the rider, an amendment to reinsert the ban passed with near unanimous consent…Since 2016, the appropriations bill has contained language that bans the Food and Drug Administration from performing research in clinical trials “in which a human embryo is intentional- ly created or modified to include a heritable genetic mod- ification.”… Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), ranking member of the subcommittee…said that human genetic experimentation is loaded with ethical questions largely unaddressed by researchers. “If we cede this framework of science and ethics to maverick bioengineers who are detached from larger societal considerations, the risks of harm are real, and we will divert these resources away from real, viable alternatives.”” Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, stated in March 2019, “Given the lack of compelling medical need, the safety concerns, and the profound societal and philosophical issues—NIH strongly agrees that an international mora- torium on reproductive uses of human germline gene ed- iting should be put into effect.”

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro 631-243-1435

Human Animal Chimeras – September 2019

HEALTH & SCIENCE

Human Animal Chimeras

Nicola Davis reported at The Guardian on 8/3/19 that the ethical debate regarding the creation of hu- man-animal chimeras has been “rebooted” as a re- sult of a report in the Spanish newspaper El Paísthat researchers produced monkey-human chimeras. Chimeras are organisms with cells from two or more individuals [species]. Japanese researchers recently received government support to create mouse-human chimeras. This past March the Japa- nese lifted a ban on allowing these embryos to de- velop past 14 days and being planted in a uterus.

Michael Cook, editor of BioEdge, wrote on 8/3, “In a stunning example of evading ethical contro- versy by exporting it, Spanish and American re- searchers have created monkey-human chimeras in China. The hybrid embryos will be destroyed after they develop a central nervous system and will not be brought to term. The experiment is ethically risky. What if the human cells develop in the mon- key brain and become conscious? What if they be- come sperm or egg cells? Although the researchers, from the Salk Institute in California, and Murcia Catholic University brush off these fears, they are legitimate and widely shared…Letitia Meynell, of Dalhousie University told Gizmodo that it was “really depressing to see the willingness of scien- tists to engage in research tourism when the ethical standards in their home country make it impossible to conduct that research there. Certainly, these are ethically controversial issues. However, scientists who are willing to flout the ethics of their home countries and institutions should see themselves as obligated to make the ethical case for what they are doing.”

Davis explained that the development of chime- ras is related to the lack of organs for transplanta- tion and the issue of organ rejection. “Scientists believe organs genetically matched to a particular human recipient could one day be grown inside ani- mals. The approach is based on taking cells from an adult human and reprogramming them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species…scientists have previously man- aged to produce both pig embryos and sheep em- bryos which contain human cells, although the pro- portions are tiny…only one cell in 10,000 was hu- man. Pig-human and sheep-human chimeras are attractive in part because pigs and sheep have or- gans about the right size for transplantation into humans.”

Alejandro De Los Angeles of Yale University said the monkey-human chimeras were made to try to improve the proportion of human cells in the organisms. He stated, “Making human monkey chimeras could teach us how to make human-pig chimeras with the hope of making organs for transplantation. It could teach us which types of stem cells we should be using, or other ways of enhancing what’s called ‘human chimerism levels’ inside pigs.” De Los An- geles said the human-monkey chimeras are only permitted to develop for a few weeks, before organ formation. He has noted that monkey-human chimeras might provide a way to study neurological and psychiatric diseases in humans.

Robin Lovell-Badge of the Francis Crick Institute doesn’t feel the current experiments are ethically controver- sial because the embryos are not permitted to develop to the point where they have a nervous system. He did acknowledge that there would be concerns if the chimeras could develop more. “How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ you want to make? If that is a pancreas or a heart or something, or kidney, then it is fine if you manage to do that. [But] if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from the hu- man cells, then that obviously becomes a concern…Clearly if any animal born had aspects of human appearance, their faces, their hands, their skin, then I suspect, while scientifi- cally very interesting, people might get a little upset with that.”

In response to the researcher’s admission that the study was being conducted in China where ethical standards are lower, Cook asked, “How do you classify that sort of atti- tude toward ethics? Arrogant, Undemocratic? Secretive? Publicity-hungry? Immoral? Take your pick.”page1image62943616page1image62944384page1image62943232page1image62941120page1image62943040

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro

631-243-1435

HEALTH & SCIENCE Oct. 2019

“What are they doing with the bodies”?

The August 23rd edition of ProLife This Week at American Life League asked, “What are they doing with the bodies?” The article noted that there is increased pressure in the United States to lift some of the restrictions on medication abor- tions (the abortion pill – Mifepristone – RU486). Medication abortion requires the administration of two pills. The first pill, Mifepristone (RU- 486), blocks progesterone, the hormone that helps in the development of the lining of the uterus dur- ing pregnancy. This lining is the source of nutri- tion and protection for the developing baby. Es- sentially, the baby is starved to death. The second pill, misoprostol, causes contractions which expel the baby from the womb. Some former FDA offi- cials as well as medical professionals support more access to medication abortions, including telemedicine abortions (video chat with a ‘doctor’ followed by administration of the first pill in the ‘office’).

Medication abortions result in a dead baby (usually 5 to 10 weeks old). “These dead babies leave the mother’s body in places other than a hospital, a clinic, or medical office… after taking the first pill at a facility, they take the second pill one to two days later – presumably at home or some other non-medical location. So, what do the mothers do with the bodies of these dead babies? The usual answer we get to the question is that they flush them down the toilet. But what then?

“Recently a STOPP researcher went to her local water treatment plant and asked for a tour of the facility. During the tour, she asked her guide: What do you do with the babies? The guide knew she was talking about the bodies of babies flushed down the toilet who would travel through the sewer system and wind up at the treatment plant. He said, the bodies get caught by the screening system in the plant and are taken, along with other debris, and dumped in a local landfill. Medication abortions are becoming the largest method of abortion in the United States. Hun- dreds of thousands of babies are aborted at home every year. It appears that most of their bodies wind up at the sewer plant and treated as just some kind of debris. Most states have laws gov- erning the disposal of fetal remains, but we have not, yet, found any medication abortion provider that tells the woman that they are expected to fol- low those laws to dispose of their baby’s body.

“Whenever you hear anyone talking about medication abortion and how it is growing in use and should be made more available, ask the question: What are they doing with the bodies? When you get a blank stare, ask again: What are they doing with the bodies? We try to stop as many abortions as possible, but when one does happen, we should know the answer to the question: What are they doing with the bodies?”

In-Utero Blood Transfusion

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children re- ported on 8/26/19, that an unborn child, Edward, had de- veloped anemia in the womb. A doctor used ultrasound to insert a needle through the uterus and into the umbilical cord. The boy received 5 blood transfusions before he was born. Michael Robinson, Director of Communica- tions for SPUC Scotland noted that “the option of in- utero surgery, which can save and improve the life expec- tancy of unborn children, is becoming a far more positive prospect. Currently, in-utero surgery can treat a number of fetal health conditions including Spina Bifida, fetal tumors, Cerebral Palsy, fetal cardiac conditions and Hy- perthyroidism.”

In May doctors “performed key-hole surgery on an unborn baby with Spina Bifida, which was the first opera- tion of its kind in the UK. Unborn baby Jaxon received the operation at just 27 weeks gestation, and as a result had the ability to move his legs after being born six weeks later. Similarly, unborn child Ethan Leibbrandt underwent in-utero surgery to remove the benign tumor which consumed 50% of his lung space. The in-utero sur- gery was successful and life saving as without it, Ethan would have died of cardiac failure.”

Robinson concluded, “The early interventions that can now be used to treat and save unborn children are truly astonishing. The story of Edward once again proves that science is on the side of the pro-life movement. Indeed, scientific developments and new technology is now in- stilling a sense of awe that society never really had be- fore, about the beauty and dignity of every unborn child. This case illustrates the terrible irony that medical teams spend enormous effort, time, and money to deliver babies safely and nurse premature infants back to health. Yet, in the UK we routinely and deliberately end the lives of 600 babies a day. Whilst pro-abortion campaigners insistently refer to unborn children as ‘blobs of cells’ or ‘parasites’, the use of in-utero surgery highlights that unborn children are human and worth saving and protecting.”

Submitted by Regina Carbonaro

631-243-1435

Note: The article transcripts above have been generated from original source text. While the transcript rarely is inaccurate, thing happen. For a 100% percent accurate copy of any of the above articles, click the download button to get a PDF.