New HESC Cell Lines for Research

I got this in my inbox recently...

The NIH on Monday announced that it is now accepting requests for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines to be approved for use in NIH-funded research. The review process and submission form were detailed earlier. The NIH Director also announced the members of a new working group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD): the Working Group for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Eligibility Review. The Working Group, which will vet requests and advise [sic] the NIH Director, is being chaired by Jeffrey R. Botkin, M.D., M.P.H., professor of pediatrics at University of Utah's School of Medicine. He is also the associate vice president for research integrity at the University of Utah. Among the other Working Group members are: Pamela B. Davis, M.D., Ph.D., dean of the Case School of Medicine; David A. Grainger, M.D., M.P.H., University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita; Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., Yale School of Medicine; Bernard Lo, M.D., UCSF; Terry Magnuson, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine; and, Jeffrey C. Murray, M.D., University of Iowa Children's Hospital.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2009/od-21.htm

New Prez Making More Pro-Death Moves

Demise of America

STEM CELLS
.

As fellow blogger, Matt, wrote on Friday, the American Pro-Death president wishes to appease and fulfill promises made to baby-killing scientists to fund the evil practice of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). He is doing so despite the fact that little or nothing has been achieved through ESCR. However, virtually all stem cell breakthroughs and accomplishments have been made using ethical adult stem cells.

Not only is ESCR unnecessary, it is wasteful of funding that could go to adult stem cell research were there has been noted success. There has been little private funding of ESCR. There is a reason. It is also morally repugnant to kill human beings for the purpose of some pie-in-the-sky unproven hope for future cures. What does this say about our society, our culture? We are barbarians at best, baby killers at worst. Shame on you President Soetoro (a/k/a Obama), because your wicked intent to allow the creation of life in order to kill it in some unfounded hope to cure some. Really, you are only enriching some research centers and scientists you will allow to blatantly murder innocent human beings.

Both the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/) and ABC are reporting that President Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) plans to rescind the Bush policy limiting federal funding for destructive human embryonic stem cell research on Monday (March 9, 2009). According to news reports, a signing ceremony will take place on Monday at 11 A.M. This despite the progress made with ethically noncontroversial stem cells, which makes expanded taxpayer funding of human embryonic research untenable.

According to the Washington Post, “proponents expect Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) will simply lift the restriction without caveats and let the NIH work out the details.” Obama has said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

OneNewsNow.com ran an AP story on its website over the weekend which quoted Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC). He spoke in opposition to this move to provide funding to misuse human beings in experimentation. He said, "Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life. President Soetoro's (a/k/a Obama) policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."

I conclude that either the president is a fool or he is so bent on marginalizing life that he will stop short of nothing to degrade and disrespect it.

CONSCIENCE CLAUSE

The following information was received from the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF).

The Soetoro (a/k/a Obama) Administration is also taking action to rescind Conscience Clause regulations enacted under the Bush Administration by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Proposed Rule to rescind the Conscience Regulations has been published in the Federal Register.

The proposed rule can be read in its entirety at http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-05067_PI.pdf.
Excerpts of the regulation state, “The Department is proposing to rescind in its entirety the final rule entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law,” published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008 (73 FR 78072, 45 CFR Part 88).

Commenters asserted that the rule would limit access to patient care and raised concerns that individuals could be denied access to services, with effects felt disproportionately by those in rural areas or otherwise underserved.

The Department believes that the comments on the August 2008 proposed rule raised a number of questions that warrant further careful consideration. It is important that the Department have the opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy.

Accordingly, we believe it would benefit the Department to review this rule, accept further comments, and reevaluate the necessity for regulations implementing the statutory requirements. Thus, the Department is proposing to rescind the December 19, 2008 final rule, and we are soliciting public comment to aid our consideration of the many complex questions surrounding the issue and the need for regulation in this area.”

You may wish to submit comments by email at proposedrescission@hhs.gov . (See the proposed rule for detailed information about other submission options.) You can also call or write letters:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 202-619-0257
Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775

According to the Proposed Rule comments should address the following:

1. Information, including specific examples where feasible, addressing the scope and nature of the problems giving rise to the need for federal rulemaking and how the current rule would resolve those problems;

2. Information, including specific examples where feasible, supporting or refuting allegations that the December 19, 2008 final rule reduces access to information and health care services, particularly by low-income women;

3. Comment on whether the December 19, 2008 final rule provides sufficient clarity to minimize the potential for harm resulting from any ambiguity and confusion that may exist because of the rule; and

4. Comment on whether the objectives of the December 19, 2008 final rule might also be accomplished through non-regulatory means, such as outreach and education.”

Information on the Conscious Clause was taken from information received from the Life Legal Defense Foundation, P.O. Box 2105, Napa CA 94558, (707) 224-6675 (http://lldf.org)

Another Advance in "Stem-Cell" Research

You may remember the above video of Michael J. Fox lobbying for Claire McCaskill for Senate because he wants to lift the "ban" on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Various developments have proven, however, that this barbaric practice is unecessary. But imposter President Barry Soetoro has recently decided to lift the funding ban anyway. Its disgusting to see not only Mr. Fox's exploitation of innocent little boys and girls in this way, but it really galls me to hear scientists say things like, "We have been operating with one hand tied behind our back," as if it is impossible to do research without federal funding and as if that wasn't a violation of our rights as citizens under the 10th Amendment.

And now there is even more reason to reject embryonic stem cell research. As I reported before, a Japanese scientist (Shinya Yamanaka) developed a method for converting skin cells into cells which are just as good as embryonic stem cells and without the ethical concerns. Later scientists used this technology to make pancreatic cells as I reported here. Now scientists have used these cells which have been converted to an “embryonic state” to develop neurons (or nerve cells) that can be used for treating Parkinson’s patients. These are BETTER than embryonic stem cells because they come from the patient’s own cells instead of being savagely harvested from innocent human beings which have to be killed in the process. The method still needs to be perfected before the cells are actually transplantable, but this is only a few years away according to Dr. Anders Bjorklund, research scientist at Lund University in Sweden.

You can read more about this in an article on Michael J. Fox’s own website:

http://www.michaeljfox.org/newsEvents_parkinsonsInTheNews_article.cfm?ID=467

Please contact him and tell him that we do not need to kill innocent people to save others.

The Search for a New President

Yes, Bible believing Christians need to start searching for a new President. But first, I want talk about someone else who is searching for new president.

The University of Cincinnati announced last week that their president, Nancy Zimpher, has resigned to take a position in New York. I have several reasons for saying good riddance to this.

She did not lift a finger to stop University Hospital from performing abortions. There is only one other hospital in the Cincinnati area that does.

She has continued to follow a policy of gouging taxpayers with all the wasteful government grants that U.C. gets. These are both unconstitutional (10th amendment) and unnecessary. They’re unnecessary because corporations would provide adequate grants to do the research that is really valuable. But the way it is now, the corporations “piggy back” on taxpayer’s funded grants so that they don’t have to spend as much of their own money. If you don’t want your money going to pay for experiments that you find morally reprehensible, you can boycott the corporations which perform them by not buying their products. But you can’t boycott the tax man without leaving the country or going to jail.

Zimpher did nothing to stop the medical school from teaching med students the “benefits” of teaching children the “safe” way to fornicate themselves. If fact, she approved a recent week long series of events sponsored by a sexual enhancement product company at the U.C. Wellness Center called “Sexploration”.

Unfortunately, one of the leading candidates to replace Zimpher can’t be much better. She uses U.C.’s email system (paid for by taxpayers) to send us (employees) messages to pass on to our legislators in support of the same wasteful and morally reprehensible policies. Examples include the messages in support of the recent economic stimulus bill (and adding more on to it) and messages against Ohio legislation to ban cloning and embryonic stem cell research. It’s not just that this U.C. employee is on the wrong side of these issues, but it is illegal and unfair to use taxpayer’s money to support a political cause. Hopefully someone else will step forward to reverse this increasing trend to wickedness.

And yes, we do need another POTUS as well. At least if we are going to remain a union of states. Barack Obama’s wasteful spending, his intentions to prevent murderers of the unborn from receiving justice, his continuance of the bloody wars and failure to reign in our overextended military are just a few of the reasons that it is imperative to remove B.O. from office.

We have talked several times on this blog about his lack of proper citizenship credentials calls into question the very legitimacy of his oath of office. Should we obey laws passed by Congress and signed into law by this usurper? Should the members of the military disobey orders given by B.O. as Commander and Chief? I’m curious about what the other contributors of this blog would have to say about this. If you were in the military now, would you disobey your commander’s orders if they originated with B.O.?

More Evidence that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Unnecessary

Last year I wrote a report on this blog about how a scientist developed a way to transform ordinary skin cells into stem cells that could serve as a suitable ethical substitute for embryonic stem cells. The stem cells could then be changed into a variety of different types of cells.

Now scientists have come up with a way to convert normal cells directly into another closely related type of cell without going through the stem cell step at all. They have done it with mice pancreas cells, converting ordinary pancreas cells which don’t produce insulin into differentiated type that does produce insulin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082701829.html

Citizens for Community Values Candidate Survey

At last its here! Citizens for Community Values has excellent candidate survey questionnaires. I saw the answers given for my local candidates. I really like this because they ask good questions of all local candidates—something that no other organization (that I know of) in my area does. But in this election, they also had different questionnaire that was answered by the presidential candidates. I am wondering why the questions they were given were different than for the local candidates. They seem less relevant. The content of this page has changed twice in recent days, so I would strongly suggest checking it again on March 4th (Election Day for Ohio voters) before voting.

In this post, I would like to comment on some of Ron Paul’s answers that some people may not understand. Most of these questions have to with stem cell research, cloning, and such.

1. What form of stem cell research would you permit access to federal funds?
• Therapeutic cloning (SCNT)• Adult stem cell research• Leftover embryos derived from in vitro fertilization• Embryo destructive research• Human/animal hybrids• Umbilical cord blood banks
It says under Ron Paul’s name “Did Not Answer”, but this is because he is against federally funding of any of these types of research. He did in fact, vote against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

2. Would you support a federal law prohibiting states from engaging in research in which (or which relies on research in which) a human embryo is destroyed?
Ron Paul answered “no”. He is known for his strong beliefs in states rights. But there is another reason for saying “no”. Why have a law specifically prohibiting research? Why not just say that all human life from conception onward should be protected under the law (as Ron Paul has already said). If such a law would not prohibit the destruction of human embryos, but only the research, then it would be completely meaningless. He explains why such a law would be heavy-handed here. Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, if it had passed, would have actually protected human embryos from destruction.

3. Would you support a federal law prohibiting human cloning?
Ron Paul answered “no”. He did in fact vote against such a law. First of all, though human cloning is an abhorrent procedure, it doesn’t necessarily involve the killing of a human being, and therefore, in these cases, does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Secondly, we don't need a specific law for every procedure which does harm to an individual. This issue should be left up to the states.

4. Would you support, and continue, President Bush’s ban on the use of federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001?
Ron Paul answered “no”. I don’t know why, but again, look at his voting record.

5. In light of the recent scientific discoveries regarding skin cells would you support/oppose continuing federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research?
Ron Paul gave no answer. Probably because he thinks that recent discoveries are irrelevant.

6. Would you support laws requiring abortion clinics to show all women an ultrasound image of their unborn baby?
Ron Paul gave no answer. These laws neither bring justice to killers nor protect the unborn.

7. Would you support or oppose a federal parental notification law?
Ron Paul said “oppose”. Again this law takes the focus off of what the real issue is—murder. Parental rights have traditionally been an area in which the states have sole authority.

8. Will you support the continuation of the Faith Based Initiative (on the federal level) to guarantee the right of religious social service providers to access federal programs on an equal basis?
Ron Paul said “no”. Government should stay get of the “social service” business altogether. The reasons he gives here are the similar to Alan Keyes statements on this issue.

9. Do you support or oppose federal legislation limiting the ability of government to take private land for private development purposes?
Ron Paul said “support”. Huckabee and McCain gave no answer.

Ron Paul also said that he opposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as “one man and one woman” only. Of course he is not in favor of gay marriage, same-sex civil unions, or the like. I explained his opposition to the FMA in a previous post, in which I provided a link to Ron’s opinion on this issue in his own words. Also read this link (scroll down to where it says, “Protect all voluntary associations; don't define marriage”).

For the rest of the questions, Ron Paul gave answers that you would expect a conservative to give.

The presidential candidate portion of the survey I found to be disappointing. One could answer all the questions favorably (from a pro-life standpoint) and still be a total pro-abort. The local candidate questions are better. If you don’t live in Ohio, but want to see more of this survey, click here for republican candidates and here for democratic candidates.

A Recent Advance in Stem-Cell Research

Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a Japanese scientist has come up with a way to make ordinary skin cells behave like embryonic stem cells. He was able to find four genes that could be inserted into the DNA of mice skin cells which caused them to revert to an embryonic-like state. He says that this research could lead to a way grow tissues or even whole organs from one’s own cells, reducing the need for organ transplants. Dr. Yamanaka says that it would more likely be used a research tool in the development of drugs by the pharmaceutical industry. If Dr. Yamanaka’s techniques are extended to human beings, then the cells could be used to make a less costly to way screen drugs for side effects. He thinks that someone will do this in within a year.

All this could be done without any funding of embryonic stem-cell research. All this could be done even if embryonic stem-cell research were banned. We don’t even need government funding of any medical research at all. The pharmaceutical industry should pay for it since they are the ones benefiting from it. "I don't know how they can spend $3 billion in 10 years on stem cells," Yamanaka says, referring to the recent Schwartzeneger initiative to fund stem-cell research.

Yamanaka has made this advance which would help the cause of defunding and criminalizing the cannibalizing of human beings and he thinks that embryos shouldn’t be regarded as just cells. However, he is still willing to take an innocent life to save another. He stops short of being 100% pro-life because he says that the embryos should be used if they are going to be thrown away anyway. But they don’t have to be thrown away or cannibalized. They could be protected by law just as all other human beings should be.

Dr. Yamanaka’s work is published in the journal Nature.