Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Opinion

Pontifical Academy for Life back on track: tackles umbilical blood research, post-abortion syndrome

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

ROME, February 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The mood was decidedly chipper on Friday at the most recent gathering of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV). The Academy is recovering, many said, from more than a year of scandals and difficulties, and is back on its normal track, discussing issues related to the sanctity of life and the dignity of the person. Praise was particularly reserved for the new president, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, who, it was said, was bringing the Academy balance and a strong pro-life direction.

The meeting this year focused on ethical and medical issues surrounding umbilical cord stem cell research and post-abortion trauma, a topic that still gets little play in the mainstream of either the media or psychological field. Academy members told me that they have high hopes that the Academy’s confidence is restored and that more meaty issues will be covered in discussion over time.

Christine Vollmer, a founding member of the Academy and the head of the Latin American Alliance for the Family, said that it is “nice to have things back to normal,” to be finished with the scandals and upset caused by the Academy’s previous president. “This is how the Academy is supposed to be,” she said.

I asked several people if they thought the topics chosen were somewhat tame, particularly the issue of umbilical cord research, but I learned that the issue is not so straightforward, in terms either of ethics or of medical benefits, as the media may have led many of us to believe.

One presentation made a strong case for the banking of umbilical cord blood to be carefully re-thought. One researcher pointed out that much of the blood that is in an umbilical cord at the time of birth is needed for the baby. Various possible medical consequences were mentioned of depriving the child of this blood, including aenemia, respiratory illness and even cerebral palsy.

“Clamping” was an issue brought up by many who warned that cutting off the umbilical cord too close to the baby’s body would deprive the newborn of much-needed blood and immune system boosters found in the blood.

All of this raises issues of consent. Dr. Paul Byrne, an American neonatologist, pointed out that parents “do not own their children” and that any consent given for experimental treatment must be intended primarily for the child’s good. Parents, he said, must be informed fully of any possible medical consequences of collecting and banking umbilical cord blood immediately after birth for unknown future needs.

Another issue was the proliferation in the developed world of for-profit umbilical cord banks, and the possibility of market forces overtaking purely medical motives. Some members spoke of parents being pressured to bank cord blood, even if a child has no sign of genetic or other illness, at a cost of sometimes thousands of dollars. Another member warned that the profit motive will drive up costs far beyond the means of those parents in the developing world, leaving umbilical cord blood banking a phenomenon of the wealthy west.

The prospect of treatments developed from umbilical cord stem cells was also discussed, with some pointing out that despite the media hype, few “standard treatments” have been developed and most are not past the experimental stage. One member warned that the media does little to help the public understand the difference between a tried and tested treatment and the various, and inevitably slow, stages of medical research. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, one medical researcher said, are intended biologically for the child and using them as a substitute for another patient’s own stem cells is as yet a dubious medical prospect.

However, Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau, the PAV’s Scientific Director, said that umbilical cord blood, correctly monitored and regulated, can be the answer to the phenomenon of “saviour siblings,” the creation of a child in order to harvest its tissue to treat a previous child. He also pointed out that although the media often fudges the details in search of a story, medical research needs publicity in order to generate grants.

After these discussions, at the tea break, I was pleased to be able to congratulate in person Fr. Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, who was inducted into the academy on Thursday. There’s no doubt that Fr. Pavone’s presence on the Academy membership roster is a good sign for the direction and priorities of Bishop Carrasco.

Before his notorious L’Osservatore Romano article, the former head of the PAV, Archbishop Fisichella, had already caused pro-life people around the world grave concern when he made the PAV a co-sponsor of an international organ transplant conference in 2009, at which no mention was made of any ethical worries. On that occasion, the situation was left to the pope himself to correct. Benedict’s address to the multi-million dollar transplant conference brought the problems of “brain death” and other death criteria into the fore, a move that was seen as an indirect rebuke. 

However, Dr. Byrne was at this year’s conference seeking advice on how to bring the matter to the attention of the PAV under its new leadership. He was advised that Bishop Carrasco would almost certainly grant him a fair hearing and bring his concerns to the membership.

Mrs. Vollmer said that more meaty issues such as brain death criteria are likely to be on the roster in coming years. We must not be too hasty, she told me, pointing out that the Vatican is not a place where things happen quickly. She also affirmed her confidence in the new PAV president, who has a strong academic background in the bioethics issues and track record of staunchly defending the Church’s position.

Joseph Meaney, the interim director of the Rome office of Human Life International was also at the meeting and said he also had the impression that the mood was positive: “There was a lot of lively participation in the discussions and debates, which is good considering they weren’t exactly controversial topics,” he said.

Those who had fought to have Fisichella removed as head of the Academy, Meaney added, “seem to feel vindicated.”  “They’re happy to put the matter to rest and carry on. To carry the PAV forward and turn the page.”



Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Donald Trump says he will promote LGBT ‘equality’ as president

Lisa Bourne

CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.

Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.

In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.

Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.

A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”

Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”

STORY: ‘Anyone but Donald Trump’: Here’s his record on life, marriage, and religious liberty

“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”

Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.” 

“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.” 

When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.

NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”

NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”

New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.

The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Greg Quinlan

Opinion, , ,

The unravelling of Chris Christie

Greg Quinlan

February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.  I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.  I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.

Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009.  Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign.  And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it.  Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs. 

One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General.  Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers.  This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.  Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.

Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families.  This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex. 

His judicial appointments were also confusing.  While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it.  Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served.  The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member.  He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law. 

In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality.  As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs.  However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor.  Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff.  As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and  Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.   

New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth."  This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.

As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress lead investigator David Daleiden speaks at an event in Washington, DC, before the 2016 March for Life. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

News,

Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.

The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."

CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.

According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.

URGENT: Sign the petition to Harris County urging them to drop the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Click here.

"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.

Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.

However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.

The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”

This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.

The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.

According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”

NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.



Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook