Skip to Content


FDA approves first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans

and is some background on embryonic vs. adult stem cells.  Despite that information, the FDA has determined the show must go on.  via :

Washington, DC ( -- The Obama administration has approved the bid by cloning company Geron to undertake the first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans. They have never been used before in people because the cells cause tumors and have been plagued by immune system rejection issues when tried in animals.

Scientists and pro-life advocates say human embryonic stem cells are not ready for trial because problems associated with the cells in animals haven't been solved.

The Food and Drug Administration had initially placed the trial on hold but Geron indicated today that the agency is now allowing it to proceed with an early stage trial on a stem cell therapy for acute spinal cord injury.

The FDA placed a hold on the trial last August, when evidence showed Geron's GRNOPC1 encountered safety issues when used in animal studies. Geron's own data showed higher frequency of small cysts within the injury site in the spinal cord of animals injected with the embryonic cells.

“We are pleased with the FDA’s decision to allow our planned clinical trial of GRNOPC1 in spinal cord injury to proceed,” said Thomas B. Okarma, Geron's president, in a public statement today. The company's stock rose in value following the announcement.

Previously, Dr. John A. Kessler, chairman of neurology and director of the stem cell institute at Northwestern University, said the first application from Geron for the embryonic stem cell trial was flawed.

“We really want the best trial to be done for this first trial, and this might not be it,’’ he said at the time.

Responding to the news today, Dr. David Prentice, a former biology professor at Indiana State University who is now a fellow at the Family Research Council, tells those concerns should still exist.

"It's unfortunate that the FDA has released Geron from the safety hold on their embryonic stem cell trial," he said. "Even many pro-embryonic stem cell scientists have expressed reservations about Geron's trial, that it is not proven even in rats. The concern for many of us is that Geron is endangering patient's health and very lives, to make a political point and increase their stock price."

Prentice also said the trial's approval makes it so the use of adult stem cells, which are safely helping patients battling more than 100 diseases and conditions already, continue to be ignored.

"In the meantime, adult stem cells have already shown published scientific evidence for safety and successful repair of spinal cord injury in patients. Only adult stem cells offer both an ethical and successful path to healing," he said.

Quoting from one of the background articles above, "These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely."  Literally, that would mean creating babies for the sole purpose of being destroyed.

Ethics complaint papers ready to be filed for disbarment of Elena Kagan

Yikes!  Not a good thing if you are a Supreme Court hopeful.  Not only would this be grounds for not approving the SC nomination, but it could also disqualify her from practicing law altogether and possibly set her up for jail time.

One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join – and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution – for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.

Larry Klayman, founder of and , is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.

, dozens of pro-life organizations are already asking the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

In her confirmation hearings, Kagan defended the amendment, saying, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."

Several analyses have concluded, however, that Kagan's amendment dramatically changed the meaning of the ACOG statement, and court records show the statement was passed off on the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, even though the ACOG's panel of scientists never approved Kagan's wording.

Klayman told WND he believes Kagan's behind-the-scenes work constitutes "conspiracy to defraud the Supreme Court," and he intends to take to file a complaint before the clerk's office of the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have Kagan disbarred as a practicing lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.

But Klayman said he isn't stopping there.

"Then I'm going to ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation and possibly prosecution of obstruction of justice," he told WND, "because it was reasonably foreseeable that her altering that [ACOG] report would ultimately be used in court proceedings, including but not limited to the Supreme Court."

Two more reasons to just say no to Kagan confirmation

First, C. Everett Koop chimes in and recommends a "no" vote due mainly to her :

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written an extensive letter to members of the Senate calling for a no vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. The letter focuses attention on the Clinton administration memos Kagan authored showing her attempting to manipulate abortion opinion.

Specifically, Koop refers to the ways in which Kagan influenced the language of a 1997 statement by American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on partial-birth abortions.

Whereas ACOG found no occasion in which the three-day-long abortion procedure is medically necessary for women, Kagan pressured ACOG to include language saying there may be instances where it is and the Supreme Court eventually relied on that language to overturn state bans on the abortion procedure.

That eventually kept partial-birth abortions legal for several years longer until the Supreme Court reversed itself when considering a national ban Congress approved with medical findings that partial-birth abortions are medically unnecessary.

In his letter, Koop calls "unethical" and "disgraceful" Kagan's effort to persuade the medical group to change its expert opinion to conform to her political demands.

"She was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data," writes Koop.

"Kagan's political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG's Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade," he said.

He condemns Kagan for having “manipulated the medical policy statement on partial-birth abortion of a major medical organization.”

Second is her promotion of Shariah while at Harvard:

First plan for tax-funded abortions approved under new health care law

From .  As if the have received over the years was not enough, now we are all funding the practice via insurance programs made possible through the new health care legislation.

Washington, DC ( -- The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.

The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.

"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

The news keeps getting worse for Planned Parenthood

From .  I saw this article last week but it took me a while to get it posted.  This time it appears they have been double-billing and inflating the prices for some of their, umm, "services." I am pretty stunned that this is coming from the 9th Circuit Court.  'Bout time they got their feel held to the coals.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has stopped Planned Parenthood of California's attempt at silencing a whistleblower who alleges the abortion provider has billed taxpayers $180 million in fraudulent birth-control charges.

Victor Gonzalez, the former chief financial officer of Planned Parenthood's Los Angeles branch, exposed though a federal lawsuit California clinics purchasing birth-control pills at discount prices, then billing both self-pay clients and federally funded state programs inflated prices.

Through its dozens of affiliated "health centers" over several years, Gonzalez estimates, Planned Parenthood had profited over $180 million from overbilling.

Planned Parenthood, however, had won a dismissal of the fraud case in district court by arguing that a state audit had also found the overbilling, and, therefore, Gonzalez didn't really qualify as a whistleblower.

And since the state opted not to take punitive action following the revelation of wrongdoing, it may have appeared Planned Parenthood had gotten away with decades of profiting off overbilling taxpayers.

But the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit's court of appeals this week has brought the scandal back to light.

Syndicate content

by Dr. Radut