Hilary White

Obama admin’s FDA mulling three-parent embryo creation

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 31, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While some European ethicists and politicians have called for an end to the creation of “three-parent” IVF embryos, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced it is considering allowing the practice - without having held a public consultation.

Researchers say that the technique “modifies standard IVF technology” to create an embryo from the eggs of two women and sperm from one man.

The FDA’s most recent draft guidance on the issue included no mention of the ethical concerns over the nature of the procedure itself, but only offers suggestions for developing early stage clinical trials.

“This guidance is intended to facilitate [cellular and gene therapy] development by providing recommendations regarding selected aspects of the design of early-phase clinical trials of these products,” the document said.

The FDA’s Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee had planned on holding a public consultation in Silver Spring, Maryland, on October 22-23, but an announcement said they had postponed it because of the federal government shutdown.

No new consultation date has been announced.

Among those objecting to the FDA’s proposal is the Arkansas-based Family Council, who have published their response to the consultation, listing three reasons the creation of children with three genetic parents should not be allowed.

First, they said, the technique, like human embryonic stem cell research, inevitably involves the creation of human embryos whose sole purpose is to be “created and killed in the name of science.”

They also said that the research, while it is purported to be about preventing genetic disorders, “could also be used by polygamous or polyamorous ‘families’ to ‘create’ children biologically-related to all the adults involved in the relationship.”

The document also warns of potentially wide-ranging issues in law and public policy related to child welfare or parental rights, all of which currently “assumes children have two biological parents.”

“While it’s fairly common for children to be reared by only one parent, or for someone other than a biological parent to have custody of a child, it is not known what damage could be done to the rights of two-parent children if the laws change to accommodate parents of three-parent children,” the group said.

The Vatican is on record against the procedure. The document, Dignitas Personae, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, says that, since all research used to develop such therapies starts with the artificial creation of human embryos, most of which are then destroyed, “it must be stated that, in its current state, germ-line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.”

Much of the objection to the proposal comes from the fact that alterations to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) result in genetic changes that will be carried down the line of inheritance when the embryo becomes an adult and has his or her own children.

This “germ-line” genetic therapy was condemned by the 2008 CDF document, which said when “genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential offspring,” the procedure cannot be morally licit.

The ethics of the procedure are not the only concerns. The Scientist also reports that some clinical “safety” issues remain unresolved. The researchers who developed the technique reported genetic abnormalities in about half the embryos created, and other researchers have expressed concerns “about the compatibility of the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from two different donors.”

Most of the research community is dismissive of such concerns. In 2012, Sir Mark Walport, then head of the UK’s Wellcome Trust, described mitochondrial gene transfer as merely the equivalent of “changing the batteries in a camera.” The trust had just awarded a grant of £5.8 million to researchers at Newcastle University, a major center for embryo research.

The procedure was described in an article in The Scientist as a means of avoiding the various pathologies caused by genetic anomalies in the mitochondria, the tiny organelles found in the cytoplasm that act as “batteries” providing power to an organism’s cells.

In it, the nucleus from the ovum of a woman carrying “mitochondrial defects” is transferred into the second “donor egg,” whose cytoplasm is free of the mitochondrial defects and from which the nucleus has been removed.

The result is an ovum, (oocyte or female gamete) that has the nuclear DNA of the first woman, but with the defect-free cytoplasm of the second woman. The resulting genetically modified ovum is then fertilized with the sperm, becoming an embryo which can be implanted in the “donor” who has the mitochondrial disorder.

The technique was developed by a team of biologists at Oregon Health and Science University in Beaverton in 2009, which created healthy rhesus monkeys free of mitochondrial genetic disorders. In 2012, the same team announced success in human trials, having created a dozen human embryos, all of which were later “destroyed,” who had no mitochondrial disorders.

Those with concerns may contact the FDA:

Gail Dapolito

Phone: 301-827-1289,

Fax: 301-827-0294

e-mail: [email protected]

Writers are asked to use “Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee Meeting Comment” as the e-mail’s subject line.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook