3) Remember to register online for our first annual fundraising dinner! We are looking forward to seeing you there.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL NEWSLETTER. 

As Holy Week begins and we reflect on the passion of Jesus Christ, it is especially appropriate to remember another person who eight years ago at this time was subjected to a tortuous, brutal and heinous death – one whose anniversary falls this year on Easter Sunday: Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

And just as the Church now ushers in our new Pope Francis, I am reminded how two days after Terri’s death we also lost our Holy Father.  As Pope John Paul II lay dying at the Vatican his aides would later tell the Schindlers that when he learned of Terri’s death, it was “the final blow to his broken heart.”

For most pro-lifers following Terri’s case of “legal” murder by her estranged husband Michael and his right-to-die advocate attorney George Felos, the verdict was a haunting reminder of the “lawful” murder of millions of our innocent preborn. In fact, many began calling it the Roe v. Wade of euthanasia.

But in Roe v. Wade few remember that it was actually a legal precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that set the stage for current abortion laws. In Griswold, the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of contraceptives was unconstitutional under an alleged “right of privacy.” Who would have thought that Griswold, combined with a later alarming Florida legal precedent, would predetermine Terri’s fate?

In 1986, Estelle Browning, an 86-year-old woman, suffered a stroke that left her severely brain-damaged. Unable to swallow, a feeding tube was inserted by attending physicians. Browning, however, had a written advance directive, stating she didn’t want artificial sustenance if she became terminally ill. In 1987, the court denied her cousin’s petition to remove the tube, basing its decision on Florida’s Life-Prolonging Procedures Act, which allowed patients to refuse medical treatment only under specific circumstances. Browning, the judge ruled, did not qualify.

After Browning’s natural death in 1990 the Second District Court of Appeals overturned this decision based on the “right to privacy,” and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the ruling. According to Justice Rosemary Barkett, who wrote for the 6-1 majority, “The right to privacy and freedom from intrusion into one’s own body is rooted in our nation’s philosophical and political heritage.”

In absence of written directives, the evidence of a patient’s wishes could also be determined solely by the guardian, which is called “substituted judgment.” This “judgment” is supposedly not what the guardian wishes, but what the patient (allegedly) desires. The only necessary qualifier would be “clear and convincing evidence” as simple as an oral statement, claiming that the person would not want to live. Once this is satisfied, the Court ruled, the State can not override the so-called “right to privacy.”

Ten years later, this “clear and convincing evidence” became the entire focus of Terri Schiavo’s case. However, the testimonies given from both the Schiavo and Schindler witnesses were contradicting hearsay, leaving Judge George Greer as the sole and final arbitrator of whom he chose to believe.

Media reports claimed that at least 19 other judges had reviewed the case, but in reality not one other judge heard any testimony whatsoever. The Courts simply rubber-stamped a legal decision, not an evidentiary one. In their view, Greer had acted in accord with the letter of the law, despite that the “clear and convincing” evidence was simple hearsay. The appellate courts only had to ensure that the law was followed—not that the evidence was credible—because hearsay is subject to opinion, not legalese.

During Terri’s final weeks, as the State Department of Children and Families attempted to take Terri into protective custody, attorney George Felos reminded Judge Greer of a startling fact: Even if Michael himself suddenly decided not to remove Terri’s feeding tube, it still had to be done, because the court had determined by “clear and convincing evidence” that this was Terri’s wish.

More appalling was Greer’s reaction to the Schindlers requests for swallowing tests for Terri as he angrily thundered, “I don’t want anybody putting anything into that girl’s mouth!” Horrifically, this statement would later be used to deny Terri the right to receive Holy Communion. However, food and water given orally is not considered medical care even by Florida’s weak definition.

In addition, sustenance provided artificially or naturally cannot be denied to a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It states: “Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.”

But because the Federal Court refused to hear simultaneous lawsuits brought by 26 disability groups decrying these and other violations, Greer’s ruling stood unchallenged. Not only had Terri’s nurses testified that they had fed Terri gelatin and pudding in the past, but Terri also easily swallowed the average one-liter output of saliva healthy people consume daily. That Greer would not allow oral feeding, swallowing tests or therapy simply codified his own intent to mandate Terri’s execution.

The second determination for ordering Terri’s feeding tube removal was the claim that she was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope for recovery. Two of Michael’s and one state-appointed neurologist testified that Terri was in a PVS, completely contradicting 16 other medical professionals who attested she was not.

Judge Greer later admitted he didn’t bother reading any of those statements because he simply didn’t find them credible. Never mind that one of Michael’s witnesses, Dr. Ronald Cranford is an advocate for “End-of-Life Choices,” a group promoting euthanasia. Or that the court appointed witness, Cleveland neurologist Peter Bambikidis, a colleague of Felos, spent only 30 minutes examining Terri. In truth, Greer’s mind was set.

During subsequent hearings in early 2005, 33 others – including 14 physicians (6 who are neurologists) submitted testimony declaring Terri had been misdiagnosed, while none were submitted by Felos to contradict their findings. Again, Judge Greer refused to consider the growing and glaring evidence. Consider what neurologist Dr. James Gabel, M.D., M.S., F.A.H.A, reported:

“Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain which would allow her to perceive pain, her thalami, were clearly intact and visible on her CT scan images shown by her own husband, Michael Schiavo, on national television. The parts of Terri Schiavo’s brain, which would allow her to swallow on her own, were also intact, and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one’s own saliva.”

In short, Terri was not dying. She was not suffering or receiving any type of life support. She was simply disabled and unable to feed herself.

Terri could have been fed orally and by law she should have been. Granted, she might have needed swallowing therapy to stimulate the muscles in her throat that had not been used for many years, but this would have been a relatively short and simple treatment. Yet Judge Greer refused to even consider it, incredibly noting that “Terri might aspirate food into her lungs and die a cruel and painful death.”

The day before the scheduled removal of Terri’s feeding tube on March 18, 2005, the Senate Health Committee and the House Government Reform Committee issued congressional subpoenas requiring both Michael and Terri to appear before Congress for a March 28 hearing. That morning, while Hospice was being served with Congressional letters instructing them not to remove Terri’s feeding tube, Attorney Barbara Weller and Terri’s sister Suzanne were happily explaining the upcoming trip to an elated Terri. But unbeknownst to them, the opposition was quickly moving to seek Greer’s intervention. As the 2:00 PM deadline approached, Greer made an unprecedented ruling to ignore the Federal subpoenas and ordered Hospice to proceed with the tube removal according to the court mandate.

This would be the first instance of Congress’ utter failure to legally preserve Terri’s life. It is a federal crime to obstruct or prevent such witnesses from appearing and while members of Congress appeared outraged and threatened to charge Greer with Contempt of Congress, they did nothing to enforce the subpoena, nor did they punish Greer for his judicial misconduct.

In the final week before Terri’s death, Congress passed legislation that was immediately signed into law by President Bush requiring the Federal Court to do a “de-novo” review of the entire case. Yet once more, they did nothing to enforce the very legislation they passed.

Clearly, Judge Greer violated several Federal Laws and stretched the interpretation of Florida statutes as well. But in the end, it would be the appalling court precedent of Estelle Browning’s case that allowed him to do so. In truth, one relatively insignificant district judge usurped the authority of the State Legislature, the State Executive office, Congress and the President of the United States. He succeeded in condemning an innocent woman to death for no other “crime” than that of being disabled.

Eight years ago this might have been simply viewed as “the perfect storm”.  Timing is everything, they say.  But frighteningly enough with Obama-care looming, it is now an inevitable “climate change” – a mere glimpse of the government-mandated “futile care policies” descending upon us.

Without question, such laws, the courts, and tyrannical authority must be stopped. For if our society becomes one that judges on the basis of a “quality of life” ethic, that society will selfishly seek any means to rid itself of any imperfections or burdens—at any cost. In the words of Clemens Von Galen, the Bishop of Munster, Germany, who fought fiercely against Hitler’s euthanasia policies in 1939, “Once we admit the right to kill unproductive persons, then none of us can be sure of our own life.”

No better time than this week to reflect – Terri – we will never forget!

Also published on Catholic Stand –  http://catholicstand.com/the-homicide-of-terri-schindler-schiavo/

Sherley, “We Can Find Common Ground” http://www.frc.org/   January 8, 2013

  After three long years, a lawsuit to stop taxpayer-funding of embryonic stem cell research finally    hit a dead end today when the Supreme Court declined to take the case, Sherley v. Sebelius. Dr. James Sherley and Dr. Theresa Deisher, two adult stem cell scientists, brought the suit in 2009 to block the President’s decision to throw open the door to more embryonic stem cell funding. The administration’s expanded regulations, which paved the way for large-scale human embryo death, were put in place over the objections of pro-lifers who flooded the government website in opposition. (Later, the administration admitted to willfully ignoring over 30,000 comments of a total 49,000 it received about the guidelines).

A great many of those comments came from FRC supporters, and we thank you for speaking up for those who have no voice. Human embryonic stem cell research relies on the destruction of young humans, and it’s very likely that a great deal more human embryos will be destroyed in this research now. We ask you to join us in thanking Dr. Sherley and Dr. Deisher, who fought the good fight and courageously risked their careers to stand for the truth that every life is sacred and worthy of protection under our laws. We’re also grateful for their gutsy legal team–Tom Hungar of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Sam Casey of Law of Life Project, Steve Aden of Alliance Defending Freedom, and their colleagues, who gave this battle–and so many innocent lives–their absolute best.

While it’s a disappointing finish to this legal battle, you can rest assured that FRC will continue to speak out in defense of all human life.

In a second press release by The Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project, www.lawoflifeproject.org  DC attorneys noted that:

The petition made two central arguments: first, that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in holding that President Obama’s Executive Order issued in 2009 can and did excuse an agency’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act; and second, that that a preliminary injunction ruling is binding ‘law’ of the case. In declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court did not decide these questions, but did effectively end the case.

Sam Casey, JC-LOLP’s General Counsel who served as co-counsel for Petitioners in the case, described the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling today saying:

“After almost four years of litigation the courts are apparently telling Congress that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment’s language isn’t plain enough to achieve its intentions. To fix this ‘ambiguity’ Congress at least will need to consider changing the phrase “research in which” to “research involving” and the phrase “are destroyed” to “are or have been destroyed.” Hopefully, Congress will do so, along with any other steps deemed necessary to once again make plainly unlawful the federal funding of destructive human embryo research which the record shows continues to be an unnecessary, unethical and a wasteful use of the federal taxpayer’s money.”

Petitioner adult stem cell researcher Theresa Deisher said:

“This lawsuit brought critical information into the public forum that had been suppressed by embryonic stem cell proponents. While the legal fight seems to have been lost for now, unless and until Congress acts to correct this waste of taxpayer funds, this case brought adult stem cells to the forefront of many scientists’ minds and contributed significantly to the adult stem cell progress and focus that many scientists and clinicians are following. Without this suit many of these scientists and clinicians might have traveled blindly down the embryonic and aborted fetal stem cell roads. Patients will benefit because we raised the issue and brought awareness to the importance of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells continue to be safe, effective and affordable while embryonic and aborted fetal stem cells therapies fail patients by their tumor forming capacity, exorbitant cost and moral harms.”

Casey concluded by saying:

“Sure we are disappointed that the Court declined to hear our clients’ case. Each time federal grant money is awarded to support human embryonic stem cell research, living human embryos are at risk. Not only is this an ethical tragedy, as well as a waste of taxpayers’ money on unethical research that has not to date led to any therapeutic benefits, but it is also a clear violation of what we believe Congress intended when it passed the current federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Sadly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeal found ambiguity in the statutory language that we continue to believe is not there. We also think that the President, by authorizing NIH non-compliance with federal law, overstepped his legal boundaries, and it is now imperative that Congress step in to clarify the law. The Constitution and the Supreme Court say Congress enacts the laws in this country, not the Executive Branch. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear our case, the matter necessarily returns to Congress who will have to decide whether to amend the Dicker-Wicker Amendment to make it even clearer for the courts that Congress does not want NIH expending federal taxpayer funds on unethical and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of living human embryos.”

Read the entire story here. http://www.cogforlife.org/ChickenpoxAutism.pdf

“We are extremely pleased to see Novartis advance in the market over those such as Sanofi Pasteur who are developing influenza vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines,” said Children of God for Life Executive Director Debi Vinnedge.  “Novartis built its new facility in Holly Springs NC focusing on a moral cell line and they are to be commended for listening to public concerns.”

Novartis, along with several pharmaceutical companies had taken license in early 2001 to aborted fetal cell line PER C6 and there was public concern that this cell line would replace the current and slower techonology of using chick embryo to produce influenza and H1N1 vaccines.

But Novartis changed direction and unlike some of its competitors chose the option of using a tested and safe mammal cell line that would not infringe on moral concerns.   Vinnedge says she is thrilled they are the first to bring the new technology to market.

“We have been watching this closely for the past 10 years,” noted Vinnedge.  “We encourage the pubic to write Novartis to congratulate and thank them for their new Flucelvax vaccine that will not force anyone to violate their religious and prolife beliefs.”

Contact Novartis through their contact link on the website at: http://www.novartisvaccines.com/us/index.shtml or at:

Novartis Corporation Corporate Communications
230 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10169

Futher reading:

http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/media-releases/en/2012/1659272.shtml

Novartis receives FDA approval for Flucelvax®, the first cell-culture vaccine in US to help protect against seasonal influenza

• Cell-culture technology, an alternative to traditional egg-based production, is the most significant advancement in influenza vaccine manufacturing in more than 40 years[1]
• Flucelvax is the only influenza vaccine of its kind in the US and does not contain any preservatives, such as thimerosal, or antibiotics[2]
• Approval demonstrates Novartis leadership in advancing novel influenza vaccine research and manufacturing technologies

Never before in the history of our country have we faced such a monumental and critical decision as in the 2012 Presidential election.  The transformation we face is something that may very well permanently alter the very structure and freedoms our nation has enjoyed for over 200 years to the point where we may never recover.

It is important to remember that in casting our vote, we are not choosing someone who is our personal idol, fitting nicely into our own perfect comfort zone; our own vision of ideology, morality, personality or religion.  We certainly may choose our spouses, friends, employees and places of worship based on our such standards, but electing the next President of the United States is not a personal choice, it’s  a patriotic one.

So when very good-intentioned people talk about casting their vote for a non-electable 3^rd party candidate or maybe even not voting at all, it is not only alarming but perhaps one of the most irresponsible choices a person could make.  And while it is quite true that a person must follow their moral conscience in making important decisions, it is imperative that in this case especially, one must have a properly formed conscience.  Because my friends, this time there is no room for error.

We have heard enough from those who are adamant that they will not settle for the “lesser of two evils” but such is not the case.  Because in reality those choosing a non-electable candidate have already selected a greater moral evil, rather than choosing the greater moral good of the country. That is, they jeopardize the election of a viable candidate who has the ability to lessen abortion, if not eliminate it entirely.

Some have gone so far as to quote from the Papal Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, section 73 to determine that it is wrong to vote for a candidate whose position on abortion is one that would allow exceptions only in the cases of rape or incest.  But abortion is not the only major moral issue facing voters.  There are in fact, five “non-negotiables” in our voting considerations of which one presidential candidate has failed miserably in all five.  They are: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.  So if one is going to look at that lesser evil argument there is a lot more on the table to consider.

In addition, not only has there never been a viable Presidential candidate who did not believe in abortion exceptions since the inception of Roe vs. Wade, the Catholic document in question is also being erroneously interpreted.

To begin with, Evangelium Vitae does not discuss candidates; rather, Pope John Paul II discusses voting for enactment of laws.

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.

Clearly, there is a major difference between voting for a Presidential candidate who in his future position has no authority to introduce a new law or amend an existing one, versus a law itself that would be immoral.  No future President will make laws himself; Congress does.  However, that future president does have the power to approve or veto pro-life or other morally sound legislation handed to him by Congress.

So now one must look at what will happen if we have a pro-life House and Senate who do enact laws that would either limit or even overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Which Presidential candidate would sign or veto that legislation?  Which one would sign the Defense of Marriage Act?  Which one would overturn federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?  Which one would remove death panels from healthcare legislation?

And of even greater importance, which one would appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court?  Justices Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their seventies and considering retirement. The next president has the potential to tilt the Supreme Court with like-minded justices for decades.

Now one must ask themselves if they are truly pro-life: what about THOSE “exceptions”?  Is not every life sacred?

One might compare this to a person who notices 10 people in the water drowning.  His lifeboat only has room for seven so does he say, “Well I can’t save them all so I will let them all drown?” Would he not instead try to save as many as possible?

Just what does Evangelium Vitae say about this situation?

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, [ie, the presidential power to veto or enact the law handed to him by Congress] aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions,  [emphasis added] in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on… In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects” (John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae [25 March 1995], n. 73)

Now in this context, Pope John Paul II notes “an elected official whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known” as a guiding criteria. So what happens when the candidate personally supports exceptions in the case of rape or incest?  Does this disqualify him as one we could legitimately vote for?  Hardly. Because that presidential candidate would be making “a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

This brings us to the central question:  Can a person in good conscience vote for another 3^rd party candidate who may be opposed to abortion in all cases but has no chance of winning the election?  If one follows what the Pope said, the answer is obviously negative since in doing so, they are doing nothing to limit evil.  Catholic or not, if the person is truly pro-life, the answer should still be glaring.

A third party, no-exceptions, 100% pro-life candidate who has absolutely no chance to become elected could ironically, very well ensure the guaranteed slaughter of millions more babies by his very presence on the ballot.  For it is not righteousness or goodness that compels a Presidential candidate to continue his campaign when it is clearly lost, but rather, self-indulgent arrogance.

It’s difficult to imagine just how such a candidate sleeps at night knowing that his own egotistical political pontificating will lead many very good intentioned people to feed his ego with their vote. And in doing so, the slightly less-desirable candidate may very well lose to the obviously evil one. That is neither righteous nor honorable on the 3^rd candidate’s part; it is wickedness.

Likewise, if a person were to write in a candidate of their choice who has no possible chance of election, that person feeds their own wounded self-image, but does nothing to further the prolife cause and in fact, may very well damage it for years to come.  Because without question when the votes are counted, we will either get pure adulterated evil for at least the next four years (and perhaps, permanently) or we get at least a fighting chance to make changes, convert middle of the road hearts and do the greatest good possible right now for our country.

We are given an enormous responsibility and privilege in voting in this upcoming election. If we do not do all in our power to mitigate wickedness, we are no better than the useless servant in the Gospels who buried his talents; he has no profit, no gain, to give his Master.  And what will Our Lord say to such a person who had the ability to help make a positive difference but did nothing?

^“And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25:14-30)

Taylor:

So what are some of the pro-life objections I have been reading?

First, there is a concern that iPSCs are dangerous because it is possible they can be used for cloning purposes. The concern stems from work where scientists, testing the pluripotency of the cells, were able to grow a mouse from just iPSCs suggesting that induced pluripotent stem cells are just like cloning, on their own able to produce a human being. But looking closer you find that the scientists had to manipulate some of the iPSCs with something called tetraploid complementation, so that the iPSCs could become the extra-embryo tissues like placenta. So while cloning creates a complete human embryo capable, at least some percentage of the time, of implanting in a uterus and continuing to grow, reprogramming adult cells back to pluripotency (upon my reading) only creates stem cells, not a complete organism.

Our Response:

This is scientifically inaccurate.  Yamanaka himself noted the danger of being able to produce an entirely new embryo by reprogramming the adult cells back to the state of TOTIPOTENCY – that is the stage of a cell capable of forming all cells, tissues and organs PLUS entirely new embryos.

Taylor:
Second, there is an objection that the viruses used for the reprogramming were grown in a cell-line called HEK 293. Cell line HEK 293 was derived from the kidney tissue of a boy aborted in the 1970s. HEK stands for “human embryonic kidney.” The HEK 293 line was subsequently genetically engineered with viral DNA and is now available for sale from a common chemical supply. While I have never personally worked with HEK 293, I understand that this cell line is commonly used just about everywhere, which of course does not negate the ethical implications, but does shed some light on why HEK 293 was used in developing iPSCs.

Our Response:

They not only used HEK-293, but also IMR-90, MRC-5, Detroit 551 aborted fetal cell lines AND human embryonic stem cells: MEL-1 hesc. http://www.millipore.com/catalogue/item/scc020

Taylor:
The objection of course is that by using HEK 293 to grow virus used in the technique, all iPSC research is morally tainted. To some extent that is true for early research, but scientists are getting away from using viruses for the reprogramming, so iPSC research can be free of this particular stain.

Our Response:

This is simply not correct.  Scientists continue to use both aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells in their experiments.

Taylor:
Analogously, vaccinations are commonly grown in 2 cell lines derived decades ago from aborted fetuses. Since no new abortions are needed to keep these cell lines going and vaccines are generally seen as vastly improving public health, Catholics can vaccinate their children if they ask for alternatives and voice their objections.

Our Response:

Apples and oranges: you cannot compare vaccine recipients to the researchers.  The Vatican is implicitly clear that the use of the cell lines by researchers is illicit.  Citing Donum Vitae, Dignitas Personae and the PAFL:

Dignitas Personae 35:
“Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.”

Evangelium Vitae 63:
“[T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.54 These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.55

Donum Vitae PAFL I:4:
“The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided”

PAFL 2005: Pg 7
“As regards the preparation,  distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary  abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines.”

Taylor:
It is my opinion that the same applies here. I object to the use of HEK 293 for research period. Please, scientists, find a suitable alternative. That being said, it is possible that iPSCs in the future can be free from any moral taint coming from DNA or cell lines derived from illicit origin.

Our Response:

And why would scientists switch to moral cell lines as long as people continue to say its okay to use the existing methods?  This is her opinion indeed – but certainly not Catholic opinion. As stated, the use of aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells by researchers is illicit and it will not end until it is soundly condemned as such.

Taylor:
Another objection is the iPSCs are just like embryonic stem cells and so are no good for treating patients. It is true that because iPSCs are pluripotent like embryonic stem cells they will likely have many of the same safety issues for transplantation. More research is needed. What iPSCs are good for is creating model tissues for scientists to use to study disease progression and treatment. As I have written before, previous to iPSCs, scientists would have to create a mouse or other animal that exhibited the symptoms of a human disease that they were interested in studying. Now they can take a skin cell from a person with a disease, reprogram that cell back to a pluripotent state, and then differentiate them into cells of interest whether they be neurons or fat cells. iPSCs can continue to grow in culture and be frozen giving researchers a nearly limitless supply of diseased cells to work on. This is especially useful in brain disorders because isolating neurons from the brain of a patient is dangerous. Scientists can use the iPSCs to generate tissue used for testing new drugs or other methodologies in the fight against disease.

Our Response:

Scientists have not “generated tissue” nor have they shown they could do so in any iPS cell research without using immoral sources.  There is no science documentation to back such a claim.

Taylor:
Another objection is that iPSCs have been used to generate gametes for IVF in animal models. This is true. Scientists have created mouse egg and sperm with this technology and then used them to create mice. Some pundits are talking about using this technique to allow gay couples to have genetically related children. I see this as a problem not with iPSC technology per se, but as a problem with the fertility industry that has an anything goes attitude toward procreation. Get the fertility industry under control with some regulations prohibiting genetically modifying or manipulating gametes and embryos and this objection evaporates.

Our Response:

Taylor misses the central concern because not only is this a fertility issue, it allows full production of embryos that will be destroyed for their stem cells.  The point is that full blown cloning is not only possible, it has already been done by producing both ovum and sperm with iPS cells.  So “getting the fertility industry under control” does not solve the problem!

Taylor:
Stepping back and looking at the big picture, iPSCs I believe are something pro-lifes can be happy about with the knowledge that their history is not perfect. But remember that before iPSC technology, the talk was of nothing other than destroying IVF embryos and creating and destroying embryos through cloning as the “best” ways to develop stem cell cures. Now we have an alternative, developed directly as a way to avoid creating and destroying embryos. Which is why moral theologian Father Thomas Berg praised the work of Dr. Yamanaka for helping to “put human embryonic stem-cell research largely out of business.”

Our Response:

If indeed Fr Berg knows the truth about the use of aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells in iPS cell research and still praises it, that position would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

To say that scientists will no longer need embryos is foolish fallacy and wishful thinking as reported:  “We agree with Dr. Jamie Thompson, who published the first two studies on iPS with Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, that we must continue work on hES while pursuing iPS. Thompson cautioned that researchers still “must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos. And while those studies are under way…it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos.”  http://www.americansforcures.org/article.php?uid=1154

Taylor:
I think that is reason to celebrate.

Our Response:
Don’t be offended if pro-lifers don’t raise a toast with you.

(Clearwater, FL) Children of God for Life is reporting that recent news stories touting the success of turning adult blood into embryonic-like stem cells is once again, off the mark as far as being research done in a fully moral manner.  In various publications, writers noted last week that the advancement is a “a way to obtain stem cells, the basic building blocks of human life, without destroying embryonic life.”

“While the current experiments did not involve the direct destruction of ‘embryonic life’ by the scientists themselves, they most certainly did use the remains of innocent human beings who were deliberately destroyed by someone else,” stated Children of God for Life founder, Debi Vinnedge.

Scientist, Elias Zambidis, from Johns Hopkins Institute for Cell Engineering and the Kimmel Cancer Center explained that they took cord blood cells, treated them with growth factors, transferred 4 genes into them and voila, they reprogrammed the cells to the stage of a 6 day old embryo.

“What they did not reveal was that they used 20-22 week gestation aborted fetal liver and lung in that reprogramming which were obtained from AllCells and Lonza Biologics,” Vinnedge noted. “And as in all previous experiments we have reported on over the past 4 years on iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells), they also used stem cells from destroyed human embryos in comparative studies to ensure the iPS cells were indeed, embryonic-like.”

Dr Theresa Deisher of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), a pro-life, non-profit biomedical research organization is also voicing her concern over the recent news.

“The use of electively aborted fetal liver by this group, as by any group is morally problematic,” she noted. “These investigators did not need to use any fetal or embryonic materials; they chose to.”

Dr Deisher points out that the John’s Hopkins scientists reported that using stem cells taken from fetal liver was a more efficient way to generate iPS cells than using morally acceptable stem cells from cord blood.  Knowing that the process may be more economic using aborted fetal cells, scientists and companies may therefore choose to pursue aborted fetal cells if the public is not made aware and does not raise their voices in concern. Without public oversight scientists may very well choose aborted fetal cells for future therapies, despite the fact that patients could be treated using non-problematic stem cells.  .

And that will put thousands of morally minded patients in an unacceptable and unnecessary position of compromising their faith and values in order to obtain potentially life-saving treatments.

“These companies can and should choose cord blood or adult peripheral blood instead and put in the time and resources to make these sources more efficient,” noted Dr Deisher.  “It is deplorable to produce treatments that only those who see nothing wrong with destroying human life for their own benefit would be able to use.”

Currently, SCPI is the only company in the US that is taking the time and expense to do this sort of work in a totally moral fashion.

The studies were published at:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_researchers_return_blood_cells_to_stem_cell_state and in the on-line science publications of PLOS at:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042838