Susan Lloyd Yolen, a vice president of Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, declines to comment on Cramer's case on grounds that the organization "is committed to patient privacy and safety."
Fifteen patients (60 percent) could stand up, ten patients (40 percent) could walk on the parallels with braces, seven (28 percent) could walk without braces, and four (16 percent) could walk with crutches.
Attorney General Paul Morrison said Tiller didn't rely on a financially and legally independent doctor in obtaining a second opinion required under Kansas law for some late-term abortions.
"The fact is that we all die sometime. Do those of us who are going to die later have the right to kill (and exploit) those who will die sooner? Even if an individual's death is imminent, we still do not have a license to use him for lethal experiments. We cannot, for example, conduct experiments upon death-row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. Nor can we extract body parts from mortally wounded soldiers while they are dying on the battlefield."
Bill Barnes says he was scratching off a losing $2 lottery ticket around 9 a.m. June 22 at the Next Door Food Store at 4616 Alpine Avenue in Alpine Township. That is when he felt a hand slip into his front-left pants pocket, where he had $300 in cash.
He immediately grabbed the person's wrist with his left hand and started throwing punches with his right, landing six or seven blows before a store manager intervened.
Within three to six weeks after the patients were injected with their own stem cells, many who used to experience pain just from walking to the refrigerator, reported only having pain when climbing two flights of stairs, researchers reported.Don't worry this is another story of successful treatment with adult stem cells which won't get a lot of media attention.
But I already knew what I had to do....
Walking around with a belly full of broken dreams, I felt like I was drowning. I couldn't shower, because I didn't want to touch my stomach and accept that there was life in there; yet I couldn't bring myself to have a glass of wine to calm my nerves, because, of course, I knew there was....
This was a 19-week-old baby, one that I desperately wanted, that would be pulled out of me bit by bit -- that's the way it works through the "dilation and evacuation" procedure.
I stared at the screen. The president was, in essence, calling me a baby killer.
State inspectors say they found problems with infection control, documentation and the facility itself at Alternatives.Here's the abortion clinic's web site.
The authors hypothesized that because umbilical cord blood is rich in stem cells and regulatory T cells, it might over time help to enhance or restore metabolic control in children in the early stages of type 1 diabetes.
Because of the state we're in, we have about three months to make a decision one way or the other. Right now, we're leaning toward abortion. We're simply not financially secure enough to ensure that we can bring up a kid in the environment it would deserve. It's not that we're poor, we just don't have the stability that we think having a baby necessitates....Assuming this isn't a hoax (I'm nearly certain it is) I'm wondering if pro-choicers are disgusted by this. Is something like this worse than Savetoby.com hoax, where the owners of a bunny rabbit promised to kill him and eat him if people didn't donate money or buy merchandise? If it is disgusting, why is it disgusting?
It comes down to this. If we can't raise the $50,000 in the next 3 months, we'll have to choose abortion. We don't like it, and we don't like the nature of our appeal, but it is what it is.
The study showed that stem cell migration into the damaged area of the inner ear improved hearing of high frequency sound by 23 per cent, as compared to natural recovery in untreated animals.
But you know what else would help? If doctors and clinic staff dispelled the misconception many women have that the "early option" is an easy option. In all fairness, my postabortion experience was, according to several gynecologists, more severe than most. It's entirely possible that the aftershocks I suffered were magnified by grief as well as guilt that I'd brought this on myself. But was it the abortion pill that magnified my grief and guilt over ending the pregnancy or the grief and guilt that magnified my reaction to the abortion pill? There's no way to really know.
Many of Silver's quarrels with evangelical and Catholic conservatives display a weak grasp of the material. Lifenews.com is not part of the "evangelical press." The Catholic Church did not reach the conclusion that embryos should be protected from conception onward because of a belief that sperm were tiny human beings. The view that embryos have "a rational nature" is not "equivalent to saying that a single cell can think on its own and make sensible choices about its future life." The word "goods" is not "a term used uniquely by adherents of natural law." Pro-lifers have no ambition to deny other people's rights "not to hold a Christian belief in the ensoulment of an early embryo"; they merely deny that people have a right to kill embryos on the basis of their beliefs. The proposed ban on cloning would not make it a crime to go overseas to get medical treatments based on cloning and then return to the U.S. The congressman who introduced that bill is named David, not Joseph, Weldon. And so, alas, on.
Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into '08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because "security moms" saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.
Specifically, the researchers want to determine if the stem cells can prevent late scar formation and the impaired heart contraction that can result from that scarring.
I am a Conservative. Does that make me a bible-thumpin', anti-abortion, anti-science moron? No, of course not - no matter what some of the people here might have you believe. I am an Atheist. I know a fetus doesn't become a child until it can survive outside the womb without artificial means of support and, because of that, abortion is really nothing more than excising a piece of unwanted tissue in much the same way one would get rid of a cyst, tumor, or parasitic infestation. I believe my President was wrong to veto this very important bill.
I see people here making too many blanket statements and generalizations, each one taking up a position at one farthest end or the other of the political spectrum. I see a great deal of invective from both sides and the few who try to maintain intelligent discourse seem to be the targets of the most vehement attacks....
For my fellow Conservatives that argue this bill only prevents tax dollars from being spent but doesn't hinder private research, you need to understand that there are currently only a very limited number of "lines" of embryonic stemcells legalized for use in this country and no researcher may use any cells but those in their studies. This bill for Federal funding would've opened up the possibility of establishing new cell lines from the previously mentioned surplus embryos. With the bill vetoed, research is still limited to just those lines no matter how much private funding you might have.
The lawsuit alleges that Edrica Goode, 21, went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Riverside for an abortion Jan. 31 and that a nurse inserted cervical dilators, used to gradually expand the cervix in preparation for second-trimester abortions, despite the fact that Goode had a vaginal infection.
These opponents have tried to argue that time and advances in stem-cell science have undermined the principle of the Bush policy. But in reality, over the past two years a slow but steady wave of new research has begun to undermine not the Bush policy but rather the two original premises of the entire stem-cell debate. It seems that embryonic stem cells may not be unique in their so-called "pluripotency," and it therefore seems that cells with the potential scientists are after could be obtained without causing harm to human embryos.
As President, I will lift the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research and allow our scientists to pursue treatments that could help millions of Americans.Why must proponents of embryonic stem cell research continually lie about whether human embryonic stem research is banned or not and whether it receives federal funds or not?
Somewhat ironically, though, in making their case for proceeding with research on other kinds of hybrid and chimeric embryos, they use an argument that could equally undermine respect afforded to people who are disabled or elderly. For they argue that human "dignity arises from the qualities possessed by a creature, rather than species membership per se."
However, they do not define what these mystic "factors of form, function or behaviour" are. If we can justify excluding human rights from individuals who because of their immaturity lack certain undefined "factors of form, function or behaviour," then what is to prevent us from excluding those same rights from individuals who because of physical or mental impairment also lack those same factors?....
Or, to encroach on the abortion debate, at what point of maturity do embryos acquire the necessary "factors of form, function or behaviour" to merit their protection from needless destruction? At present, the creation and use of human embryos for research is not permitted beyond 14 days in vitro. In order to be consistent, should the time frame allowed for human embryo research be extended to 24 weeks to match that for abortions, should the time frame for abortions be reduced to 14 days to match that for in vitro experiments, or should some other compromise be reached?
From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood.This reminds me of something Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book Party of Death (pages 69, 71):
Freakonomics got this much right: The legalization of abortion caused the number of conceptions to go up 30 percent, while causing the number of birth to go down by only 6 percent.
Many of the unborn children who have been aborted since Roe, in other words, would never have been conceived in the first place without it.....
(Legalized) Abortion may not lead to fewer unwanted children; it may lead to the birth of more children who aren't wanted by their fathers. While this result may sound counterintuitive - and some research supports the opposite view - it is worth noting that abortion and illegitimacy rate rose in tandem during the 1970s and have fallen in tandem since the 1990s.
Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.What other "exciting" things can we do if we ignore each religion's truth claims? Maybe Redding will next believe that Jerusalem and Mecca are the same place. Or that Jesus and Mohammad were the same person. What exciting interfaith possibilities those are! Just make up whatever you want!
She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.So then Jesus is just like other humans but cooler?
The big difference, of course, is that abortion is worse than slavery. Not just in the obvious sense that it involves the taking of life rather than liberty. But because our current debate suggests that deep down most of us really know there’s something quite wrong with abortion.
Say what you will about the slaveowners, I doubt many of them sat around agonising about their decision to keep Uncle Tom and his family chained to the shack at the end of the drive. I doubt they justified it, after much soul-searching, by saying they were only painfully exercising their “choice” to own slaves so they wouldn’t have to sacrifice their standard of living.
When even Hollywood declines to celebrate the moral courage involved in choosing an abortion, it might be time we all woke up to what abortion really is.
The original research is significant because it suggests adult stem cells can develop into other cells, which is a trait previously ascribed only to the more politically touchy embryonic stem cells.
"She's a single mom with a 19 month old; co-conceiver skipped town; no child support because that dude skipped town; she is clinically very depressed and extremely desperate. She makes less than $800 a month working fulltime. She makes too much to get any state aid and definitely not covered by TNCare. She becamse pregnant after her birth control failed to prevent her pregnancy.After reading this - my first thought is what are the real problems in this woman's life? Is it that she's pregnant? Or is it that she's in a difficult spot financially, she's clinically depressed, and the man in her life has abandoned her?
Having completed her meal, the woman became nauseous, began bleeding and was close to having a miscarriage.
But behold: With this panicky recoil from the holding in Carhart, the liberals are now behind the push to have the states start legislating again on abortion. With each move, they affirm the premise that the legislatures may indeed legislate on this subject. Their aim, of course, is to vindicate the right to abortion, but they will find that, as they try to shape that right, they will also be marking, unavoidably, the limits of abortion. And those limits, they will discover, will be drawn in far less broadly than any "limits" that can be found in the law of abortion as it has been shaped by the federal courts. The champions of abortion rights fancy they are taking the initiative, resisting the Court that has been altered now by the presence of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But in the face of these initiatives, the pro-life side might well bring back that old line from Br'er Rabbit in the Uncle Remus stories: "Please don't throw me in that briar patch." But, of course, Br'er Rabbit, in the briar patch, was in his element. For the liberals to bring the issue of abortion into the arena of politics, in the legislatures, is to bring us into the briar patch, where they are likely to suffer some disagreeable surprises....
For the pro-lifers, the quibbling over trimesters touches no issue of principle, for the child does not undergo any change in species, or any morally relevant change, in the shift from the first trimester to a later one. Still, a deliberation in a legislature, even in New York or New Jersey, may find legislators trying to confine, or pretend to confine, abortions to the first trimester. But once that move is made, they would be open to the move to forbid abortion after the first evidence of a beating heart. In one recent survey, 62 percent of the respondents professed to be opposed to abortion after the evidence of a beating heart.
Lovely. Compassionate conservatives, huh?From that sarcastic post you might be thinking Jessica thinks conservatives who have rape/incest exceptions can be compassionate conservatives while conservatives without those exceptions aren't really compassionate. The problem is Jessica heaps more insults on the motives of people with exceptions.
This logic goes to show that this isn't about making sure women are informed—it's about punishing them. So women who were raped shouldn't have to have their noses rubbed in their pregnancies and be punished any further--that's just for the "bad" women who wanted to have sex. Ugh.
"Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "And that is the embryonic stem cell research."Biblical in its power to cure whom? All those imaginary patients?
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.Or being drowned out by ignorant Hollywood-types. For example, this ridiculous YouTube video by director Jerry Zucker.
Quite apart from any message this sends on human cloning (and the message it sends is roughly the opposite of the one Pelosi was trying to send) this is an extraordinarily embarrassing failure of basic management by the Speaker. Did she not count votes before bringing a bill up under suspension of the rules? All she has managed to do is put her members in an even more uncomfortable position. Meanwhile she's sending them into a vote on stem cell funding tomorrow just as front page stories appear about techniques that could one day make embryo-destructive research obsolete. The bill will still pass, to be sure, but by doing so it will raise the issue to prominence in almost the least advantageous imaginable circumstances for the Democrats.
You know, it gives you the creeps when some urging, exuberant voice jumps in, telling you where to go for good abortions. This is just so crazy! The horrifying sale pitch just sounds like telling people the killing can be safe, painless and efficient.
Yes, the battle isn't over. Yes, there's still major territory we have yet to assault. Yes, there are ways for abortionists to get around the lines drawn in this bill. But the fact that there are now lines they have to work around is a significant victory that people like Dobson (and their donors and supporters) have invested enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to win. Don't go tearing them down for celebrating it. Ripping into one another will only make it that much harder for us to get off the strip of beach we have taken and start taking some real territory.
The team states its startling conclusion in the usual mild-mannered scientific deadpan: "Our results show that the biological potency and epigenetic state of in-vitro-reprogrammed induced pluripotent cells are indistinguishable from those of embryonic stem cells." They assert with confidence that their findings "establish that somatic cells can be reprogrammed to a pluripotent state that is similar, if not identical, to that of normal embryonic stem cells." In other words a regular adult cell, like one of your skin cells, can be turned into the equivalent or near-equivalent of an embryonic stem cell, and without the need for any embryos. These are truly astonishing findings, unimaginable just a few years ago.
He thinks embryonic stem cells, to be useful, would have to be turned into adult stem cells first. In that case, he asserts, there is no need to rush into research with the embryonic cells.....
The transformation of an embryonic stem cell, he says, is a one-way street: Once one of the cells turns, say, into a pancreatic cell, it can't go back. That's different from adult stem cells, which typically divide into two -- one "differentiated" cell with a specific function and another stem cell. In this way, adult stem cells keep their own numbers steady, even as they regenerate the organ they belong to.
By contrast, tissue derived from embryonic stem cells would quickly wither away, contends Dr. Sherley, unless some of the embryonic stem cells first produced into a self-sustaining colony of adult stem cells. Or, he cautions, if the tissue stayed in a more primitive form, it would keep dividing uncontrollably and cause cancer. His conclusion: It's easiest and safest to start with adult stem cells.
'I am in favour of women doing whatever they want with their bodies,' she said. 'I went to an exhibition in New York which showed the inside of the human body and also the phases of pregnancy. Until four months into the pregnancy there is almost nothing, it's like a small grain.'At then at fourth months the child instantly develops from a "small grain" into something which looks like this. Maybe Gisele should return to that exhibit but this time bring her glasses.
Their position amounts to this: Until we can legally protect all unborn humans we shouldn't protect any of them. Absurd.
One of the most striking aspects of the film is the use of language. Throughout the film, the obscenities flow freely, yet there is one word too obscene even for these foul-mouthed characters: abortion. When Ben tells his roommates about the pregnancy his buddy Jonah suggests that Alison get a procedure that, he says, "rhymes with 'shmashmortion'." He's quickly condemned as a "monster" by another roommate for even suggesting such an inhuman action. The only other person to hint that Alison should kill the child is her horrible mother who tells her to wait till she's ready to have a "real baby."
Surgeons at Moorfields have already restored the vision of a few patients using cells harvested from their own eyes, which were moved to a new site. But this process is complicated and only a small number of cells can be moved, limiting its use.
Dr. Dobson and those who agree with his position to repent of their support for this sad, cruel Supreme Court ruling is in fact a sincere plea based on our respect for them and, more importantly, our respect for the truth.Yep, that call to repent in a newspaper advertisements was done out of respect. You're not fooling anybody.
Because an anatomical part must be removed to conduct a D&E abortion, it is apparent that the Michigan statute would prohibit D&E, and under the framework of Stenberg and Gonzales, impose an unconstitutional undue burden.
Additionally, as the plaintiffs point out and the district court found, the statute's plain language would also apply to some suction curretage abortions, medical abortions and induction abortions, because the signs of life identified in the statute, such as a heartbeat, are often present after the fetus or embryo passes beyond the vaginal introitus in such procedures.
Here is the short answer.This is the same crackpot who has compared aborting children to making women "born again."
Like multitudes before me and, I trust, multitudes to come, I eventually heard (Try as I might to avoid hearing it!) in that mother's grief-filled declaration, "Oh God, Doctor, I was hoping it was cancer", a still, small voice asking, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" to which I was at last compelled to reply, "here am I, send me."
No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at anytime, unaware that they are ending a life. We just don't believe that a developing embryo or fetus, whose mother cannot or will not accept it, has the same moral claims on us, claims to autonomy and justice, that an adolescent or adult woman has.Harrison fails to provide any reasons for why he doesn't believe the unborn have the same moral claims as older, more developed human beings.
But the truly interesting story that will go mostly unwritten is how a clearly twisted personality — driven to his assisted suicide campaign by an obsession with human vivisection and a desire to exploit the weak and desperate for crass utilitarian purposes — became, for a time, the most famous and popular doctor in the world.
Posts
