Tag Archives: FDA

Pro-life blog buzz 5-8-15

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • Wesley J. Smith comments on the new California bill that would require pro-life pregnancy resource centers to refer clients for abortions. California already opts out of abortion reporting and allows abortions to be performed by non-physicians. If you thought they couldn’t get any worse, you would be wrong. From AB 775:

    (a) A licensed covered facility shall disseminate to clients on site the following notice in English and in the primary threshold languages for Medi-Cal beneficiaries as determined by the State Department of Health Care Services for the county in which the facility is located.

    (1) The notice shall state: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].

  • John Smeaton invites you to consider spending your summer as a pro-life intern in London:

    Every year SPUC offers internship places at its headquarters in London to young people seeking work experience in the pro-life movement. This year, SPUC is offering two places to applicants aged 18-25. The internship programme covers all aspects of SPUC’s work, including a substantial amount of research, writing, and campaigning, along with some administrative tasks.

image004

  • Saynsumthn’s Blog discusses the dispute between actress Sofia Vergara and her former fiance Nick Loeb over the fate of frozen embryos now that they are no longer a couple. Loeb is fighting for custody of the two female embryos. Of the situation, he says:

    This has to do with bigger, really moral – you know – legal or ethical concepts that are out there about lives that we’ve already created and nothing to do with anything else. It has nothing to do with whether it is her baby or a baby. Lives were already created.

    You know a lot of the question is why don’t you move on and meet somebody else and no doubt I would love to do that. But doesn’t it matter that two lives have already been created? I wouldn’t just toss them aside – no different than a child that had been born.

    Watch the full interview on Today here.

  • At Priests for Life, Kevin Burke asks if Mother’s Day is the right time to talk about abortion. In his opinion, yes:

    As we celebrate Mother’s and in June Father’s Day, most of those that have participated in abortion decisions and procedures know the truth; abortion is anything but a simple matter of personal choice. The Shockwaves of abortion have far reaching effects beyond the mother impacting fathers, siblings, grandparents and other relatives and friends who have been part of the abortion decision and procedure.

    For moms with living children, as they are honored with those precious home-made cards and a breakfast in bed they are reminded that a child (or children) is missing from their celebration. They can feel (with varying levels of awareness) guilt, grief and shame because they participated in the death of another little one who will not share in the joy of that day. These feelings may be disconnected from the actual abortion event. But symptoms such as depression, anxiety and insomnia can surface, triggered by the special focus around this holiday on motherhood. For those who struggle with infertility (which can be directly related to a previous abortion procedure) this day can be especially painful. Mothers can be tormented by the tragic choice to abort their only opportunity to love, nurture and parent a child.

Abortion Barbie’s replacement in TX Senate to wear “Stand for Life” boots when sworn in

Screen-Shot-2015-01-13-at-8.14.04-AM-640x477

Who can forget the pink Minuzos former Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis wore when in 2013 she filibustered an omnibus pro-life bill for 13 hours?

texas_monthly_bum_Steer_wendy_davis_texas_democrats_0The tennis shoes became sacred, as Andrea Grimes of RH Reality Check dramatized in an article lambasting Texas Monthly for desecrating them on its December 2014 cover:

Those sneakers carried so much more than a single legislator through her history-making stand against the most extreme package of anti-abortion laws in the country.

They carried the hopes of thousands of Texans who came to occupy the halls of the capitol building during the summer of 2013, some of whom drove hundreds of miles….

And this month, those sneakers are slathered in cow sh** on the cover of Texas Monthly.Wearing them is a grotesque caricature of Wendy Davis, the exaggerated wrinkles on her face contorted in abject horror as she realizes she’s stepped in manure, her body twisted into a kind of faux-dainty, Barbie-esque revulsion. Alongside her is a cow that looks personally offended that Davis had the gall to smear its precious turd pile….

For the “national magazine of Texas” to smear cow sh** on those shoes, and all that they and Wendy Davis stood for, is to punch many, many orders of magnitude down….

[W]hat Wendy Davis did, and what she stood for in those now-sh**-smeared pink sneakers, is something that is worthy of our utmost respect….

Oh, for heaven’s sake and big eye roll. Those pink tennis shoes “carried the hopes of thousands of Texans”? Give me a break.

Those tennis shoes stood for continuing the slaughter of 20-week-old and up preborn babies by unaccountable snake-oil abortionists in unregulated Wild West abortion mills – some dispensing abortion pills in gross violation of FDA protocol.

That’s what those infamous pink tennis shoes really stand for.

konni-burton_jpg_800x1000_q100Meanwhile, Davis has been replaced in the state senate by pro-lifer Konni Burton, pictured left.

And when Burton is sworn in today, her footwear will send quite a different message, “a pair of custom made black leather boots with a ‘Stand for Life’ logo in purple lettering on the front,” writes Sarah Rumpf at Breitbart.

Rumpf adds, “During Davis’ filibuster, #stand4life became a nationally trending hashtag, and it remains a popular slogan among pro-life activists to use on social media.”

Kick some pro-abortion a** with those boots, Senator Burton.

What 6-3 Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion law means

Supreme Court votes 6-3 to block texas abortion clinic regulationsAs most know by now, the U.S. SUPREME COURT ruled by a lopsided 6-3 majority on October 14 that Texas could not enforce that part of its 2013 omnibus pro-life law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers, this while the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals makes its decision on the case.

SCOTUS also blocked Texas from forcing abortionists at clinics in McAllen and El Paso to have admitting privileges within 30 miles of their clinics, also pending the 5th Circuit’s final decision. All other Texas abortionists must meet this requirement.

Otherwise, other prongs of the far-reaching statute are being enforced, and the contended issues are still in play. Most pro-lifers did not expect Chief Justice Roberts to side with the liberals, and many were surprised to see Justice Kennedy do the same.

Before I get to analysis of the votes, I’d like to untangle the chain of events, which has involved two lawsuits and many, many court decisions.

Passage of bill: June 18, 2013

Wendy Davis filibuster HB2 anti-abortion billHB 2 was signed into law three weeks after state Senator Wendy Davis’s (pictured right) infamous filibuster trying to block it. It includes:

  1. a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization, at which point it is known preborn babies feel pain
  2. a requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic
  3. a requirement that the RU-486 chemical abortion regimen follow protocol approved by either the FDA or American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  4. a requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers

Planned Parenthood v Abbott: Sept-Oct 2013

On September 27, 2013, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit to block two of the first three parts of HB 2 before they were scheduled to take effect on October 29, 2013: the admitting privileges and RU-486 requirements.

I’m going to skip the details and get to the bottom line, which is that as of today Planned Parenthood has failed.

The only recourse Planned Parenthood now has is to ask SCOTUS to reverse the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I explained on October 7 why it would be risky for the abortion industry to ask SCOTUS to hear a case on RU-486.

The ball is in Planned Parenthood’s court, while meanwhile the RU-486 requirement is currently in effect as well as the admitting privileges requirement for all abortion clinics save two, as described below.

Whole Woman’s Health v Lakey: Apr 2014-present

On April 3, 2014, five independent abortion clinics sued to block the fourth component of HB2 from taking effect on September 1, 2014: the ASC requirement. They also sued to block the admitting privileges requirement at two outlying facilities in McAllen and El Paso. abbott-greg_jpg_800x1000_q100

After a lower court judge intervened on behalf of the abortion industry, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (pictured left) asked the 5th Circuit to let the newly questioned parts of HB2 take effect while the state appealed.

On October 2, a 5th Circuit of three judges agreed to Abbott’s request.

On October 3, 13 of the remaining 21 abortion clinics in Texas closed.

The clinics filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to block enforcement while they appealed to the full 5th Circuit.

On October 14, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6-3 decision.

All this means is clinics not up to ASC standards can remain open while their case is appealed, and abortionists in McAllen and El Paso can continue to abort without admitting privileges during the appeal process.

So here are the parts of HB2 in effect and not in effect at present. All parts of the law in italics or struck are in limbo. All other parts of the law are being enforced:

  1. a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization, at which point it is known preborn babies feel pain
  2. a requirement that abortionists must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic – except in McAllen and El Paso
  3. a requirement that the RU-486 chemical abortion regimen follow protocol approved by either the FDA or ACOG
  4. a requirement that abortion clinics meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers

 What does the 6-3 Supreme Court split mean? 

Reading tea leaves on Supreme Court decision on TX anti-abortion lawThere are two schools of thought when trying to read the tea leaves for the day this case may return to the Supreme Court.

The following opinion is being heard quite a bit among DC pro-lifers who study and work with the Supreme Court:

There is confidence SCOTUS will hear either this case soon or a case regarding regulation of RU-486.

Again, the 6-3 ruling did not overturn the parts of the Texas law in question. It simply prevented them from taking effect while the 5th Circuit debates the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy, being the swing vote, likely did not want to prejudice himself by tipping his hand, thinking he is going to hear this case.

Kennedy joining with the liberals made the tally 5-3.

Since the decision was already 5-3, there was nothing for Roberts to gain by making it 5-4. Roberts is probably playing politics and wanting to keep dialogue open with the liberals by siding with them.

The other school of thought is more cynical. Fr. Ben Johnson of LifeSiteNews.com expresses it well in an email statement: john-roberts-smile-ap

Justice Roberts (pictured left) has cast some praiseworthy votes on issues affecting the pro-life movement. However, his vote suspending enforcement of HB2 allows subpar abortion facilities to go back into the business of preying on women and killing unborn children – and it makes Roberts partially responsible for their actions until the law is upheld.

Roberts is the author of an incomprehensible ruling upholding Obamacare, a facially unconstitutional bill that some believe represents the greatest expansion of abortion funding in U.S. history. And he has left conservative justices twisting as he voted against them on procedural issues.

I would like to believe when the final vote on HB2 comes that Justice Roberts will be inclined to follow the better angels of his nature and uphold the inherent dignity of life at every stage of development.

However, I could see the liberal bloc convincing him to ignore the underlying issues and rule on the law’s effect, as he did in McCullen v. Coakley. Although a win, that ruling simply said the anti-free speech zone around Massachusetts abortion facilities was too large.

The court’s liberals would be content to have a similar decision on HB2  – that eliminating abortion facilities for hundreds of miles places an “undue burden” on women’s “right” to an abortion under Planned Parenthood v. Casey – in the process upholding bad precedent. I hope everyone will pray for Justice Roberts’ impending decision.

One final thought. Notice the abortion industry has not yet touched the 20-week ban in a lawsuit. There isn’t any other explanation than it expects the 5th Circuit would uphold the ban, creating a circuit court split with the 9th Circuit, which struck down Arizona’s 20-week ban in 2013. In the event of a circuit split, SCOTUS would be likely to hear the merits of the case, which the industry likely fears. How do you think a Supreme Court vote would go?

[Many thanks to Mailee Smith of Americans United for Life with her help on this post!]

Why abortion industry won’t push FDA to change RU-486 protocol

RU-486 abortion pill, take only as approved by FDAThe abortion cartel has reacted to a new genre of pro-life laws, which force abortion clinics to administer RU-486 per FDA protocol, in a way that makes no sense.

Four states – Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma – have now passed a version of this law, and the abortion lobby has responded by taking the more difficult path – suing to block the statute.

In terms of PR, this is an uphill battle. Abortion proponents are trying to justify giving RU-486 off-label by framing the FDA as incompetent. Quoting Tulsa World, October 1:

The law intrudes on women’s reproductive rights because it forbids the safer, more effective drug process used to end a pregnancy, the lawsuit claims….

House Bill 2684… requires physicians to ignore decades of medical research, the opinion of leading medical organizations, and their own clinical experience, and instead administer medication abortion according to an outdated and inferior” regime, the lawsuit says.

If all this is true, it would seem smart for the abortion lobby to press the FDA to update its protocol, not only because it is supposedly dangerous as it stands, but also because doing so would pull the plug on an increasingly popular piece of pro-life legislation that hinges entirely on the FDA’s current protocol.

Such an effort would make abortion groups look like leaders in the field of research for advancing abortion safety. It would also save them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.

Abortion groups are certainly up to such as task. We now know they goaded the FDA into legalizing RU-486 in the first place. They also successfully applied pressure when wanting Plan B legalized, and then when wanting to make it available over-the-counter.

So why, particularly with an abortion-friendly president puppet master, aren’t abortion groups pressuring the FDA to update its 14-year-old protocol on the dosage, routes of administration, and gestational limits of RU-486?

Here are three of the most likely reasons.

Lying about safety of RU-486 off-label?

The most obvious answer is the abortion industry is lying. As Americans United for Life attorney Mailee Smith noted, eight women are known to have died after using RU-486 per off-label abortion clinic protocol (including 18-year-old Holly Patterson, pictured below left, following a chemical abortion at a California Planned Parenthood in 2003), but no women are known to have died using FDA protocol (which is not to say that’s safe either).Holly Patterson died of RU-486 abortion at Planned Parenthood

So platitudes are preferable to cold, hard statistics, especially against the prospect of comparing complications.

In Ohio, for instance, there were 42 reports of complications from off-label RU-486 abortions during an 18-month period between 2011-13, 35 of which required a follow-up surgical abortion.

The reality is the abortion industry wants to follow off-label protocol to save on drug expenses, abortionist expenses, and overhead – in other words, to increase its profit margin.

Implications the abortion lobby can’t tolerate?

Laws regulating RU-486 open a new legal door: legislating against abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy.

“This is a significant place legally for state government to be,” explained Ovide Lamontagne, General Counsel for AUL, in an email. The abortion lobby knows this as dangerous precedent and may think it has no choice but to try to beat it back in court.

Chinese manufacturer of RU-486 says screw that?

In this scenario the abortion industry is hoist by its own petard. Since no American pharmaceutical company would touch the manufacture of RU-486, the dirty work was punted to Shanghai New Hualian Pharmaceuticals in China. Shanghai New Hualian - manufacturer of RU-486 MIfepristone abortion pill

Shanghai New Hualian is not known for its concern for humanity. In 2008, the company was caught selling tainted drugs that left “nearly 200 Chinese cancer patients… paralyzed or otherwise harmed,” according to the New York Times.

While Shanghai New Hualian’s RU-486 plant was not implicated in the scandal, the point is corporate likely has zero interest in taking on the expense of conducting new clinical trials for the purported well-being of American abortion patients – particularly to make less money, since the abortion industry advocates using 1/3 the currently recommended dosage. As the proverb goes, “Do not wake sleeping dogs.”

Furthermore, the abortion industry likely has zero interest in showing its “evidence” on the safety of off-label chemical abortions. A “study” it published last year had more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

As I wrote yesterday, RU-486 regulation laws stand a great chance of getting the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention, which bodes well for our side.

If SCOTUS confirms states have a right to regulate RU-486 according to FDA protocol, this would really hurt the abortion trade, particularly Planned Parenthood, which runs 90% of RU-486 clinics, and help save babies.

The abortion industry’s looming RU-486 legal crisis

RU-486 mifepristone abortion pillA Politico article today about new abortion cases that could reach the Supreme Court gave bare mention of its potential review of RU-486 regulation.

But due a circuit court split on laws regulating the administration of RU-486, such a review looks likely – and promising for the pro-life side.

Quick history of RU-486

In an unprecedented move the FDA approved the abortion pill RU-486 (now known as mifepristone/mifeprex) in 2000 to sell in the U.S. using a fast-track process reserved only for drugs to combat life-threatening diseases, like AIDS.

RU-486 abortion pill NOW mifepristoneIt seemed obvious at the time, and was later confirmed, that “the Clinton administration pushed the abortion pill through the approval process to appease the abortion lobby,” reported Judicial Watch in 2006 after reviewing newly released documents that showed “the RU-486 approval process was infected by raw politics.”

But pro-lifers have recently begun turning the abortion industry’s political ploy on itself.

Importantly, with the FDA’s fast-track approval came “restricted use,” meaning the agency discourages “off-label” administration of RU-486.

In 14 years the FDA has never deviated from its recommended protocol for RU-486, which requires three doctor visits and specific dosages and routes of administration, all within 49 days from the beginning of a pregnant mother’s last period:

  • Day 1: administer three 200 mg tablets (600 mg total) of RU-486 orally to kill the baby
  • Day 3: administer two 200 mcg tablets (400 mcg total) of Cytotec (misoprostol) orally to expel the baby
  • Day 14: check-up to ensure the abortion was completed

Violating FDA protocol at every step

But abortion clinics violate FDA protocol in every possible way. A survey of National Abortion Federation members showed only 4% follow FDA guidelines, and Planned Parenthood is the biggest culprit. It owns 158 of 175, or 90%, of all known chemical abortion facilities in the U.S.

Telemed abortion of RU-486 mifepristoneAccording to court documents, Planned Parenthood commits RU-486 abortions up to 63 days from the first day of a pregnant mother’s last period.

It gives only one 200 mg tablet orally at the abortion clinic, then instructs the woman to take one 200 mcg Cytotec at home by letting it dissolve under her tongue (getting into the system faster than if swallowed).

Worse, Planned Parenthood has lately been trying to do all this via telemed – dispensing chemical abortion drugs via remote computer, so the abortionist never comes in contact with the patient.

The pro-abortion claim that “off-label” use of drugs is commonplace is disingenuous, because the pathway by which RU-486 was approved placed it in a restricted category.

Abortion industry’s cash cow

RU-486 is the abortion industry’s new cash cow business model, as verified by the surge of Planned Parenthood’s chemical abortion business. A 2014 Guttmacher report indicated that while abortion dropped 13% in 2011, the percentage of chemical abortions increased by 20% from three years earlier, to account for 22.6% of all abortions.

Abortion clinics are obviously trying to cut corners. And safety be damned because, as Americans United for Life attorney Mailee Smith noted:

Eight. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection following use of RU-486. In all eight cases, the women were instructed to use the abortion drugs in a way that has not been approved by the FDA.

Zero. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection after using RU-486 in the way approved by the FDA.

AUL has written model legislation that forces abortion clinics to comply with FDA protocol on RU-486 drug administration.

Four states have thus far passed legislation based on AUL’s language: Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

The abortion industry has sued to block all four laws. To date the federal 5th and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals have both ruled in our favor, and the 9th Circuit has ruled in the other side’s favor.

This gives us a “circuit split,” making it more likely the Supreme Court will weigh in.

Supreme Court precedent satisfied

Smith cited three reasons AUL is “confident” the language AUL has encouraged states to adopt falls well within Supreme Court precedent for both the Casey and Gonzales decisions:

  1. The first so-called right at issue is the right of a woman to make the ultimate decision to have an abortion, and the regulation of chemical abortion does not interfere with that.
     

  2. The court has said state legislatures are given wide discretion to legislate when there is medical uncertainty over a procedure or regulation. Here we know the unapproved use of RU-486 regimen has been tied to eight deaths. The other side argues that the off-label use did not cause those deaths. What’s important here is the cause is unknown. That is what creates the medical uncertainty.
     

  3. In Gonzales the court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban in part because there were other commonly used methods still available. If the regulation of chemical abortion means a woman cannot have one because she’s past gestational dates, she still has the option of surgical abortion. Surgical abortion is the most common method, and there is peer-reviewed evidence it’s safer than chemical abortion.

Were SCOTUS to uphold chemical abortion regulations, more state legislatures would be encouraged to regulate them, making abortions harder for the industry to commit.

[Screenshot of telemed abortion in Iowa via LifeSiteNews.com]

Pro-life news brief 9-12-14

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards has an editorial at CNN which claims that making the birth control pill available over the counter would “push women back to 1950s.”

    Compare this recent editorial to a Huffington Post piece written by Richards in 2013 where the FDA’s decision to make emergency contraception available over the counter for women of all ages (including teen girls) was described as “wonderful news” and meant that there would be “no barriers, no shame.”

  • It appears that Ohio abortionist Raymond Robinson may have settled in a lawsuit against him as the plaintiff has dismissed the case:

    Attorney James Gutbrod said a confidentiality agreement reached between Knights and the Akron Women’s Medical Group prohibits him from commenting on whether a settlement was reached….

    Knights, 23, said in her lawsuit against the clinic and Dr. Raymond Robinson that she sought an abortion in February 2012 because she has a genetic disorder in which she has a double uterus with individual cervices. The condition put her at risk of death if she delivered a child, she said.

    Despite undergoing the abortion procedure, she discovered a short time later during an emergency room visit that she was still pregnant. Seven months later, she safely delivered a 6-pound baby girl, her second child.

  • In her recently released book, Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis claims her unborn daughter Tate Elise was suffering and this is one of the reasons she opted for an abortion:

    At some point in the almost two weeks of second and third and fourth opinions and tortured decision making, I could feel her little body tremble violently, as if someone were applying an electric shock to her, and I knew then what we needed to do. She was suffering …”

    An unborn child in the second trimester was suffering physical pain?

    That’s a strange assertion coming from Davis who claimed just the opposite when she famously filibustered against the pro-life law in Texas.

    At about the 13 minute mark of the video below, Davis begin discussing a paper in which the authors claim fetal pain probably isn’t possible until the third trimester:

  • YouTube Preview Image

    She continues in this video:

    YouTube Preview Image

    So Davis’ position is that Texas shouldn’t ban late second trimester abortions based on unborn children feeling pain because they don’t feel pain but I had a late second trimester abortion because my unborn child felt pain and I didn’t want her to suffer any more.

Journal of Public Health publishes study linking autism to vaccines made with aborted fetal cells

study linking autism to vaccines made with aborted fetal cells

I’ve written previously (here and here) about the possible connection between autism and vaccines made with aborted fetal cells.

Now, the September issue of the prestigious Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology has published a study conducted by scientists at Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute that shows an spike in autism in country after country where vaccines using fetal cells from aborted babies have been introduced.

The implicated vaccines are MMR (measles/mumps/rubella), Varicella (chickenpox), and Hepatitis A.

Using data from the U.S. government, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Western Australia, researchers found a spike in autism around the world after vaccines using animal cells were replaced by vaccines using aborted fetal cells:

Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for the UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark. Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines….

This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.

Lead researcher Dr. Theresa Deisher noted something more alarming, “Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas.”

Right to Life of Michigan goes into great detail explaining the origin of the aborted fetal cell vaccine lines. The implicated manufacturers are Barr Labs, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur.

The RTL Michigan website lists other vaccines using aborted fetal cells and some alternatives. Unfortunately, there are currently no approved alternatives to the MMR, Varicella or Hepatitis A vaccines.

CDC and FDA implicated in cover-up

The bombshells don’t stop. From Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute’s press release announcing the publication:

Their study comes on the heels of recent breaking news that the CDC deliberately withheld evidence of the significant increase in autism among African-American boys who were vaccinated prior to 36 months of age.

So it should come as no surprise that the FDA has known for decades about the dangers of insertional mutagenesis by using the human fetal cell lines and yet, they chose to ignore it. Instead of conducting safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng.

Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher’s team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called “safe” level.

“There are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus – the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus) and its association with childhood lymphoma,” noted Dr Deisher. “The MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a right to know this!”

Certainly these discoveries by SCPI should generate an immediate investigation by FDA officials, if not an outright ban on the use of aborted fetal cell lines as substrates for vaccine production. There are numerous other non-human FDA-approved cell lines that can and should be used.

Pro-life blog buzz 8-5-14

pro-lifeby Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

  • Bound4Life writes about Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in which they are seeking to prevent the enforcement of legislation that would require them to prescribe the chemical abortion pill RU-486 according FDA safety guidelines. So much for caring about women’s safety.

NortheastOhioWomensHealth

  • ProLifeBlogs links to a story from Soconvivium about an Ohio Planned Parenthood abortion clinic that was fined $25K for “shocking” health violations. These stories are becoming more and more common – and less and less shocking:

    These stories are no longer all that shocking because freestanding abortion facilities often slum it in terms of adhering to medical regulations. As the Kermit Gosnell story illustrates, state regulators often ignore abortion mill violations.

  • At First Things, Michael J. New says there are reasons for optimism, despite a judge’s recent ruling striking down Alabama’s admitting privileges law:

    The 11th circuit may look to the 5th circuit for guidance, as they have recently considered the constitutionality of two similar laws. They upheld a Texas law requiring admitting privileges for abortion doctors, but struck down a similar law in Mississippi. However, the fact that the Mississippi law would have likely resulted in the closing of the lone abortion center in the state weighed heavily on the judges. However, since there are abortion doctors with admitting privileges in Alabama, this law would not close every clinic in the state. Furthermore, in their ruling on the Texas law, the 5th circuit did not find that increasing the travel distance to obtain an abortion posed an undue burden. Time will tell.

  • Kansans for Life notes that a recently closed abortion facility blames the state law requiring informed consent – that medically accurate information must be given to women and girls considering abortion. However, on their website, the facility went so far as to insult Republicans (“They are stupid. Let’s vote them out of office.”) in the introductory paragraph before posting the required information. They also posted screed that would make Amanda Marcotte proud:

    Aid for Women so hated having to post the statement, “The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” on their website’s consent form, that they added this ‘commentary’:

    This [statement] is untruthful because the fetus is quite dependent upon, not separate from, the maternal placental oxygen and nutrient acquisition and kidney’s waste disposal. The word “whole” implies “complete” but the fetus is not truly completed until birth. Also, cancer is unique, human and living, yet not deserving of life.

    So much for expecting an abortion facility to provide medically accurate information.

  • Clinic Quotes shares a 2004 statement from former Planned Parenthood President, Gloria Feldt, who refused to participate in a TV interview discussing the murder of abortionist Bernard Slepian after the program host asked a National Right to Life representative to join the discussion:

    But by air time, the host had found a representative from the National Right to Life committee to oppose me. “To be fair,” she explained… Fairness, my eye. Would you have gay bashers on to “debate” the murder of Matthew Shepard? Give Al Qaeda operatives airtime to present their views in defense of the bombing of the World Trade Center? Sociopaths don’t deserve this kind of attention.

fifty-shades-of-grey

  • At Live Action, Becky Yeh says Planned Parenthood should be turning 50 shades of pink over their promotion of abuse – romanticized in the novel 50 Shades of Grey – to teens as sex education:

    Like Christian Grey, Planned Parenthood whisks away naive, inexperienced young girls like Anastasia Steele through charisma and curiosity. Though Steele is punished and abused through the BDSM relationship, Grey has no intention of loving her. Teens are tricked to hand over their virginity, like Steele, in order to be subjected to torture and abuse in the name of pleasure. The crux of 50 Shades affirms that.

    Consider how Planned Parenthood caters its sex education materials to young people. Under guise of safety, the organization’s promotion of abortion-inducing drugs, BDSM and other controversial sexual practices, is anything but safe. The organization continues to push the normalcy of dangerous sexual practices through its printed materials, education and through a panel of sexperts who encourage teens in dangerous 50 Shades type relationships. Not only does the organization have an ironclad grip on children at a local level, Planned Parenthood’s pen pals in the White House and state legislatures continue to enforce the institution’s pro-abortion ideology through legislation and funding. In fact, Planned Parenthood was a key sponsor of a seminar for educators of teenagers titled “50 Shades of Safe,” which promotes BDSM relationships as safe and normal.

    Live Action‘s latest SEXED investigations further expose Planned Parenthood’s dangerous sex advice for kids. The series under covers Planned Parenthood counselors teaching teens how to whip and torture their partner, visit local adult sex shops and view pornography secretly. Teens are counseled to use handcuffs, watch “educational pornos,” tie their partner to a bed or tree, and even defecate on each other for sexual pleasure….

[Photos via newsnet5.com and libertosdoopressor.blogspot.com]