Exploitation in the Making?

April 19, 2013 By

California Considers Bill that Would Allow Researchers to Pay Women for Harvesting Their Eggs

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) has introduced a bill, AB 926, that would remove the prohibition on paying women to donate their eggs for research purposes. Certain types of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research require large numbers of oocytes  which are used to create embryos that are later destroyed in the research process. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Human Cloning) is one type of research that will require numerous human eggs. (For further reading, see this piece from the Center for Bioethics and Culture.)

Currently, women who donate their eggs for reproductive purposes may receive compensation for the time and inconvenience associated with the process (note that this is inconvenience can turn into serious health risks). However, by allowing payment for research-destined egg donation, an entire new industry is created, one that will likely have an disparate adverse impact on low-income women.

“We’re talking about offering women thousands of dollars, ” comments Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation. “Understandably, this would appeal to a lot of women, especially in these economic times. But these women will undergo invasive medical procedures with significant health risks, and for what? To have their eggs harvested for use in research that destroys nascent human life.” Cody concludes: “This bill does not respect life, and it does not respect women.”

Action Item: AB 926 is currently before the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. Call or email members of the committee and urge them to oppose this harmful legislation. View LLDF’s letter of opposition.

Friend of LLDF Wesley Smith has written a post in National Review on AB926

Filed Under: hESCR -- (stem cell) research, In The Public Square

Stem Cell Research Update

November 21, 2011 By

The only company conducting FDA-approved clinical trials using human embryonic stem cells (hESC) is now calling a halt to the trials. Not only have the trials stopped, but the company, Geron, which has been considered a leader in the field, indicated that it will be turning its resources to projects other than stem cell research. Read more at LifeNews.com.

Filed Under: hESCR -- (stem cell) research, In The Public Square

CIRM Education Curriculum Perpetuates Dangerous Mindset about hESC

November 8, 2011 By

San Francisco, Calif.: “This is definitely not a fetus yet.” That is what the suggested “script” instructs presenters of an introductory stem cell power point presentation to tell students as they look at a five-day-old human blastocyst, the group of cells comprising the human embryo. The presentation is just one of several educational tools within a web-based curriculum produced by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), in collaboration with California high school teachers and U.C. Berkeley students. The curriculum is part of an ongoing effort to promote stem cell education and awareness among public high school and college students. The stem cell curriculum, which consists of five unit studies in addition to the introductory presentation, is touted to teachers as being “a central source for unbiased, accurate scientific information you can use to engage students in stem cell science while conveying underlying biological concepts and considering underlying ethical dilemmas.” The units cover a wide range of topics, touching on the several types of stem cell research processes available, including embryonic, adult, iPS, and somatic cellular nuclear transfer (SCNT). The curriculum is available to teachers (and students) in free downloads from CIRM’s website.

While the curriculum’s explanation of the biological processes underlying stem cell research may be “unbiased,” when it comes to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, at least one significant ethical conclusion communicated to the students is not. The introductory presentation highlights the fact that embryos are not defined as fetuses before at least week 5 of fetal development (even though the baby’s heart is already beating). While correct in scientific terms, this explanation of human development conveniently ignores the point—both the embryo and the fetus are human, both are developmental stages through which each of us pass. Students are assured that “embryonic stem cells used for research are harvested from 5-14-day-old embryos, WAY before organ formation starts.” The implied conclusion is that since 5-day-old embryos aren’t fetuses, they are less human than a fetus, and thus acceptable to destroy.

CIRM’s curriculum does at least admit that hESC research isn’t without ethical controversy. The curriculum mentions the ethical objections some have to hESC research, and states that the controversy surrounding hESC led in part to the development of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) research, a stem cell research process that avoids the destruction of human embryos. Nevertheless, CIRM’s introductory lesson still represents hESC as a legitimate source for research stem cells, despite the process’s “debatable” nature. This is hardly surprising, considering that the state stem cell agency gives the majority of its grant money to projects involving hESC.

CIRM recently promoted its curriculum at a meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers in Anaheim. In addition to having a booth at the conference, CIRM gave a workshop presentation to teachers, giving instruction on how to use the stem cell curriculum. The response was positive, indicating that CIRM will be influencing the stem cell education of teachers and students not only in California, but across the nation.

CIRM’s involvement in public education was authorized by the California Stem Cell and Biotechnology Education and Workforce Development Act of 2009 (SB 471), which required California’s Department of Education“in consultation with the CIRM and representatives of the biotechnology industry,” to “promote stem cell and biotechnology education and workforce development in the department’s existing programs . . .” Thoughtful Californians will wonder whether public education really fits within the original job description of CIRM in Proposition 71: to make research grants and construct research facilities. While CIRM’s involvement in public education might result in the next generations being more knowledgeable about stem cell research, it also means the continued propagation of the lie that hESC research doesn’t destroy human life. And that’s something every taxpayer should be concerned about.

Filed Under: hESCR -- (stem cell) research, In The Public Square

San Francisco Ordinance Against Pregnancy Resource Centers Passes

October 20, 2011 By

UPDATE — Please see April 2012 article.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2011, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved 10-1 the first reading an ordinance restricting what pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) are allowed to say to potential clients. The law would apply to pro-life pregnancy centers that do not counsel for or refer for abortions or the morning after pill, but would not impact abortion clinics or abortion referral services.

Supervisor Malia Cohen claims that the ordinance would prohibit pregnancy centers from making misleading or incomplete statements about their mission and scope. San Francisco’s two pregnancy resource centers already fully disclose their position on abortion to potential clients. One effect of this ordinance would be to price them out of competitive advertising.

“There has been no testimony, no documentation, no affidavits of any woman seeking service who has been misled. There is nothing in the record documenting that,” stated Sean Elsbernd, the only Supervisor to vote against the measure. “What I hear we are doing today is passing a solution in search of a problem.” The only evidence adduced in support of the measure was a Yelp.com review, hearsay testimony from a doctor and a statement from a woman who contacted one of the centers.

Similar laws in Baltimore, Maryland, and New York City have been struck down by the courts as violations of the Free Speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers. Austin, Texas is the current scene of a court challenge to Austin’s version of this legislation. The San Francisco ordinance purports to prohibit “false” and “misleading” information or omissions, but leaves a determination of violation and enforcement up to the City Attorney. Fines could be as high as $500 per violation.

“This type of legislation is a direct attack on the lifesaving work of pro-life pregnancy resource centers,” stated Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of LLDF. “Anti-life organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and its state affiliates have launched a concerted effort to undermine a woman’s right to choose life for her child. LLDF remains committed to protecting the Free Speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers so that they can continue to save lives.”

Please also see previous post on this topic.

Filed Under: In The Public Square, Main

REDWOOD CITY PLANNED PARENTHOOD DEFEATED—WILL NOT OPEN IN PROPOSED SITE

September 13, 2011 By

Redwood City, Calif.: After months of conflict over its proposal to open an abortion clinic in Redwood City, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte has withdrawn its application for a use permit, stating that the approval process at the site was taking too long. Redwood City’s initial approval of a zoning variance for the abortion clinic caused an uproar from community members, more than 40 of whom filed an appeal of the City’s decision.

Greg Weiler of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron, LLP, filed the appeal on behalf of the concerned citizens with the help of Life Legal Defense Foundation volunteer attorney Cyrus Johnson of San Mateo, Calif. and Legal Director Katie Short. The appeal challenged the City’s preferential treatment of Planned Parenthood without regard for the adverse impact on adjacent property owners who had concerns about traffic increases, incessant protests, and the devaluation and stigmatization of their property that would arise from having Planned Parenthood as a neighbor. They further argued that Planned Parenthood was improperly granted a waiver of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Besides the legal arguments raised in the appeal, concerted community activism was instrumental in generating opposition to Planned Parenthood. One local business, Enterprise Car Rental, was prepared to make the clinic opening possible by allowing Planned Parenthood to use parking spaces in its lot, since the abortion provider’s proposed site did not contain sufficient parking. After local activists made Enterprise aware of the consequences of partnering with Planned Parenthood, the national car rental chain backed off of the proposed deal. Longtime pro-life activist Ross Foti led the effort, informing Enterprise that pro-lifers would picket the company if it provided spaces to Planned Parenthood. Other pro-life activists led protests and spoke against the project. The local 40 Days for Life campaign held its vigils at the proposed site. This dedicated protest demonstrated in a highly visible way the impact Planned Parenthood would have on the community.

“Communities are better off when everyone is protected, including women and their unborn children. Removing the threat posed by Planned Parenthood is a major victory for innocent human life in Redwood City,” commented Katie Short, Life Legal Defense Foundation’s Legal Director. Life Legal Defense Foundation congratulates all those involved in preventing the opening of this abortion clinic in Redwood City, and looks forward to continuing to provide support for concerned citizens fighting the expansion of abortion within their communities.

Filed Under: Main

SAN FRANCISCO’S DOUBLE STRIKE AT PREGNANCY CENTERS

August 2, 2011 By

On Tuesday, August 2, 2011, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and City Supervisor Malia Cohen announced that they intend to “take on” pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers in San Francisco. Supervisor Cohen introduced legislation prohibiting “misleading” tactics by Pregnancy Centers. Without waiting for this new ordinance to be passed Herrera sent a demand letter to one of San Francisco’s two Pregnancy Centers threatening imminent legal action against them for “misleading” women. The Center to which the letter was directed, First Resort, responded by inviting city officials to tour their facility and observe their methods, and by stating unequivocally that they remain in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. http://www.firstresort.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage_fr

The City Attorney’s letter claims that First Resort’s website and print advertisements are confusing and misleading, causing women to think that First Resort offers abortion services or referrals. He cited the fact that First Resort uses the Google search term “abortion” in its targeted advertising. According to Herrera, “[e]ach year thousands of women in the San Francisco Bay Area find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy.” Choosing to go to First Resort instead of an abortion provider might “interfere with a woman’s time-sensitive and constitutionally protected right to terminate her pregnancy. http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=865

The same sentiments about the “threat” to “reproductive choice” caused by Pregnancy Centers were echoed in City Supervisor Cohen’s proposed legislation. The ordinance would prohibit “untrue” and “misleading” statements by Pregnancy Centers, but leaves it largely up to the City Attorney to decide what is or is not “misleading” through enforcement of the measure.

Similar legislation in Baltimore, Maryland and New York City has been struck by Federal courts as unconstitutional violations of the Pregnancy Center’s free speech rights. Statements by San Francisco officials made no attempt to distinguish or deal with the constitutional infirmity inherent in its proposed regulation targeting free speech.

It appears the actions of San Francisco officials are part of the campaign the National Abortion Rights Action League is instigating across the country to eliminate the pro-life message offered by Pregnancy Resource Centers. Earlier this year LLDF contacted centers throughout California offering assistance, and LLDF remains committed to supporting and assisting Pregnancy Resource Centers when legal attacks such as those in San Francisco arise in other cities throughout California. These Centers offer true choice and real hope to thousands of women and their children, and ought to be commended, not condemned.

Filed Under: Main

INSURERS FORCED TO COVER ABORTION-CAUSING DRUGS

August 1, 2011 By

On August 1, 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services approved a new guideline forcing insurers to cover all FDA approved birth control, including drugs such as the ella drug, which can cause abortion. The token exemption for certain religious employers does not protect those who may have conscientious objections to the guideline mandate, to say nothing of the massive increase in costs, both in terms of how the policy will impact insurance coverage and the litigation that will no doubt ensue with respect to conscience rights.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates insurance coverage of preventative care, contraceptives now being included in that classification under the new regulation. Several states have similar laws mandating coverage of contraceptives, but insurers deemed by the state not to fit within the religious exemption may drop prescription coverage altogether as an alternative to violating their beliefs.

California’s prescription drug coverage of contraception was litigated Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court. The California Supreme Court upheld the rule and disallowed the religious exemption claimed by Catholic Charities because they provide social services and not merely religious teaching. A similarly narrow exemption is included in the HHS guideline. The exemption was described in the dissenting opinion in Catholic Charities by Justice Janice Brown as “such a crabbed and constricted view of religion that it would define the ministry of Jesus Christ as a secular activity.”

While little if any relief is likely to be forthcoming from the Obama administration responsible for this new attack on conscience, the solution might come from Congress. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act—H.R. 1179 and S. 1467—would ensure that Obamacare’s mandates, such as “preventative services,” cannot be used to violate Americans’ rights of conscience.

LLDF joins pro-life groups in Washington, D.C. in supporting the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. It’s time for Congress to act to protect freedom of conscience for all Americans.

Action Item: Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. You can contact your leaders through the Family Research Council’s online action page.

For more details, LifeNews.com has full coverage and Bill Saunders has an excellentopinion piece discussing the impact this has on conscientious Americans.The guidelines can be accessed at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration web site.

Filed Under: Main

ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL ACT

August 1, 2011 By

Following the release of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report recommending that birth control be made available without co-pays because of its alleged importance for women’s preventive health care, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg introduced the Access to Birth Control Act (ABC) to prevent pharmacies from refusing to sell contraceptives based on conscientious objections due to an employee’s religious beliefs. It will require pharmacies to fill a valid prescription for contraceptives in a timely manner, and to provide what is characterized as “over-the-counter emergency contraception.” A news release by Rep. Maloney states that ABC “will stop pharmacists from infringing on the rights of individuals in this country by making pharmacy refusals illegal.”

The House version of the bill, H.R. 2259, currently has 14 cosponsors. The Senate version, S. 1415, currently has 12 cosponsors. Both were introduced July 26, 2010. This attack on the right to conscientious objection in the context of pharmacies, if successful, is but a preview of the attacks to come on the rights of conscience for all medical professionals. The bill can be read in full at the Library of Congress web site.

Action Item: Urge your Member of Congress and Senators to oppose the Access to Birth Control Act. You can contact your leaders through the Family Research Council’s online action page.

Reminder: LLDF’s seminar “Do No Harm,” which specifically addresses the legal implications of forcing pharmacists with conscientious objections to dispensing drugs harmful to human life will take place next month. Although this seminar focuses on the specific context of the pharmacy, the concepts discussed are analogous and transferable to other medical disciplines. The first presentation of this groundbreaking seminar on health care workers’ rights to conscientiously object to participating in specific medical practices will be presented on September 17, 2011. For details please visit LLDF’s website.

Filed Under: Main, Press Releases

MARK YOUR CALENDARS

July 20, 2011 By

Life Legal Defense Foundation’s Annual Benefit Dinner

Honoring the Defenders of Life

Saturday, November 17, 2012, 6:00 pm

Our Lady of Peace, Santa Clara, Calif.

Keynote Speaker—Julia Holcomb

Life Legal defends the defenders of life to save innocent lives and prevent women from suffering as Julia Holcomb has. God has used Ms. Holcomb’s tragic experience for good (Romans 8:28). “I pray that all those who have had abortions or have participated in any way in an abortion procedure may find in my story, not judgment or condemnation, but a renewed hope in God’s steadfast love, forgiveness and peace. Marriage and the family are the building blocks of all virtuous societies. I pray that our nation may find its way back to God’s plan by respecting the life of unborn children and strengthening the sanctity of marriage.”

Details to follow soon.

Filed Under: Lifeline, Main

ANNOUNCEMENT—GROUNDBREAKING SEMINAR ON CONSCIENCE RIGHTS

July 4, 2011 By

We live in a day in which there is increasing pressure placed on pro-life health care professionals to ignore deeply-held religious and moral beliefs and participate in medical procedures that violate those beliefs. As this pressure mounts, so does the need to preserve and protect the right of conscientious refusal.

Life Legal Defense Foundation is pleased to announce the first presentation of its groundbreaking seminar on health care workers’ rights to conscientiously object to participating in specific medical practices. “DO NO HARM” is an informational course aimed at educating pharmacists who object to distributing drugs harmful to human life. Although this seminar focuses on the specific context of the pharmacy, the concepts discussed are analogous and transferable to other medical disciplines as well.

Mark Your Calendars—the first-ever presentation of this seminar will be held live on Saturday, September 17, 2011 in Salem, Oregon. Attention Oregon supporters! Invite your friends and family to join us!

Time 10:30 am to 1:30 pm—Take three hours on a Saturday to become better educated on current legal issues and meet members of your pro-life community. Lunch provided, and will be served immediately following the seminar at 12:00 noon accompanied by a brief presentation by Dana Cody, Life Legal’s President and Executive Director discussing LLDF’s mission and current involvement in pro-life matters. Opportunity for Q&A regarding LLDF during lunch.

Space is limited. Please register online or, if you prefer, a PDF form for printing and mailing/faxing is available. These forms may be mailed to Life Legal Defense Foundation, P.O. Box 2105, Napa, CA 94558; faxed to (707) 224-6676; or emailed.

Questions? Call (707) 224-6675.

Costs: this event is being provided free of charge; donations will be accepted.

Coming Soon! Recordings of this one-of-a kind training will be made available for purchase following the training. Look for an announcement of availability in early October, 2011.

Location details: Kroc Community Center. 1865 Bill Frey Dr., Salem, Oregon. Directions.

Add this event to your Calendar or download cal file for import.

Filed Under: Main
« Older Posts