Wesley Smith on the chutzpah of some embryonic stem cell research advocates (Mildred Cho and David Magnus) who are now (after an initiative they favored fooled the California public by promising to save lives) talking about therapeutic misconceptions the public may have after they were promised cures from embryonic stem cells. Here's a key paragraph from embryonic stem cell research advocates:
Even CIRM's (California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) strategic plan recognises that it is unlikely that there will be any treatments within the next decade. Women's voluntary donation of oocytes may be critical to research, but it is far too early for women to do so with the expectation that their donation is going to lead to cures anytime soon.They go on to empathize in their conclusion that research using embryonic stem cells are "experiments." Embryonic stem cell advocates oversold the "potential" and "promise" of embryonic stem cells and now they're backpedaling.
A student in Virginia is suing her school after they prevented her from starting a prolife club.
Dennis Byrne has an editorial in the Chicago Tribune about the Planned Parenthood in Aurora.
In other words, the clinic's cheerleaders believe the clinic can deny to a certain segment of the public information that it has a right to receive. The reason is Planned Parenthood doesn't like to face the tests of a democratic society -- meaning protests, public demonstrations and the constitutional right to petition government.
The Catholic Church in Michigan is working to make sure we're not the next Missouri.