Thursday, July 20, 2006

President Vetoes HR-810 on 7-10-06

Photo and Associated Press article courtesy of AP

On July 18th, the Senate voted on three critical bioethics bills:

1) Santorum-Brownback: Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006 (S. 3504)
2) Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754)
3) Taxpayer Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research on "spare" IVF embryos (H.R.810)

All three passed through the Senate with the first two bills passing 100-0. The third, the Human Embryo Experimentation bill (H.R.810) unfortunately passed 63-37. The good news is that President Bush vetoed this awful bill today, July 19th!

We ask you to contact the White House today and offer encouragement to the President for doing the right thing in vetoing H.R. 810. Here is the White House contact information: Comment line: 202-456-1111, or leave an email: comments@whitehouse.gov.

Following the Senate votes, the House took up both the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006 (S. 3504), and the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754). They passed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act unanimously as the Senate had, but the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act did not pass. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) joined forces and fought hard against the bill and successfully brought it down by a vote of 273-154 claiming that the bill would distract from embryonic stem cell research. Although Hawaii Right to Life strongly opposes Mr. Castle's H.R. 810, there is nothing inconsistent about voting for both H.R. 810 and S. 2754. Voting for both bills would place a Member on record as favoring federal funding of stem-cell research that requires killing human embryos, but also exploring alternative methods that do not require killing human embryos. However, if a Member votes for H.R. 810 but against S. 2754, the logical interpretation would be that the Member has no interest at all in advancing stem cell research UNLESS it is research that also requires killing human embryos. Both of Hawaii’s Senators and Representatives voted for H.R.810 and against S.2754.

We encourage you to contact your Senators and Congressmen to let them know how you feel about the way they voted on this legislation. Here is their information:
Senator Daniel Inouye inouye.senate.gov/webform.html (808) 541-2542 FAX: (808) 541-2549
Senator Daniel Akaka akaka.senate.gov/email.cfm (808) 522-8970 FAX: (808) 545-4683
Representative Neil Abercrombie neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov (808) 541-2570 FAX: (808) 533-0133
Representative Ed Case ed.case@mail.house.gov (808) 541-1986 FAX: (808) 538-0233

We have included the voting results for H.R. 810 below. Following the vote results is an article about the President’s first veto in 5&1/2 years.

Vote Results for H.R. 810 (Taxpayer Funding for Human Embryo Experimentation)
NOTE: The vote was 63 to 37. Nineteen Republicans voted in favor of this human embryo experimentation legislation and one Democrat voted against it. Unfortunately, both Hawaii Senators voted in favor of this horrible bill.

Yea : 63 Members Nay : 37 Members

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Ted Stevens (R-AK) Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Mark Pryor (D-AR) Wayne Allard (R-CO)
John McCain (R-AZ) Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Ken Salazar (D-CO) Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Larry Craig (R-ID)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Joseph Biden (D-DE) Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Thomas Carper (D-DE) Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Bill Nelson (D-FL) Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI) David Vitter (R-LA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Barack Obama (D-IL) Jim Talent (R-MO)
Evan Bayh (D-IN) Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Richard Lugar (R-IN) Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Ben Nelson (D-NE)
John Kerry (D-MA) John Sununu (R-NH)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) John Ensign (R-NV)
Susan Collins (R-ME) Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) George Voinovich (R-OH)
Carl Levin (D-MI) Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) James Inhofe (R-OK)
Mark Dayton (D-MN) Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS) Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Trent Lott (R-MS) Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Max Baucus (D-MT) John Thune (R-SD)
Richard Burr (R-NC) John Cornyn (R-TX)
Kent Conrad (D-ND) George Allen (R-VA)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Judd Gregg (R-NH) Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
John Warner (R-VA)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
John Rockefeller (D-WV)


Here is an article on the subject:
Bush vetoes stem cell bill as promised

President Bush, right, holds up 15-month-old Try Jons, a frozen embryo adopted baby, from Cypress.

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON July 19th, 2006 - President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary."

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children.

"Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said.
The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto.

Bush's support was the strongest in the House, which was expected to take up the veto as early as later Wednesday.

"We will go back and sustain his veto this afternoon," veto supporter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., told reporters at the White House after the event. "We had 52 votes to spare when it passed and I predict the House will sustain that veto."

Bush has supported federally funded research on only those stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, the date of his speech to the nation on the subject.

The president vetoed the measure shortly after it came to his desk. His position was politically popular among conservative Republicans, and it was sure to be an issue in the midterm congressional elections.

Announcing the veto, Bush was surrounded in the East Room by so-called "snowflake" families, those with children born through embryo donation. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. The remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals," Bush said. He said the bill would have crossed a line and "once crossed, we would find it impossible to turn back."

At the same time, Bush announced he had signed another bill, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, that would pre-emptively ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research. Moments after Bush spoke, the vetoed legislation was returned to Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was quick to criticize the president's veto. "I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

Said Bush: "As science brings us every closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience in history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation.

"America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life," he added. "We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity, instead of the other way around."

Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans had failed to t move Bush. He acted after two days of often wrenching emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that had cast lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

Strong majorities in the House and Senate joined sentiments with most Americans in passing the bill, which would have lifted restriction currently limiting federally funded research to stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

"I expect that the House will sustain the president's veto," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, in advance of Bush's action.

Disappointed lawmakers said they intended to keep pushing to lift the restrictions. Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah said in advance that the veto "sets back embryonic stem cell research another year or so."

The Senate voted 63-37 on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.

Bush had made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking.

Bush's stand against embryonic stem cell research is popular among conservative Republicans whom the party will rely on in the congressional elections this fall. Many of those opponents are the same voters who have felt alienated by Bush's actions to increase legal immigration, and the veto could bring them back into the fold.

Although many in the religious right are passionately opposed to embryonic stem cell research, most Americans support it, and Bush risks alienating that majority in the critical midterm year.

To read NRLC's letter to the House in support of the veto of H.R.810, click here.
To read or view President Bush's remarks at the White Housere: H.R.810, click here.

For more information on human embryo research, human cloning, human fetus farming, and related issues, see:
NRLC
and
Stem Cell Research

Abortion and Breast Cancer

Pat C. wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:49 PM
To: mayoinfo@mayoclinic.com
Subject: Abortion and breast cancer.

According to renowned scientists around the world, there is indeed a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Estrogen, the hormone responsible for breast growth, is incresed by 2000% by the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. If a pregnancy ends before 32 weeks, the lobules are type 2 and flooded with estrogen. If the pregnancy goes past 32 weeks, the lobules would have progressed to type 3 which are more resistant to cancer. Breast lobules of type 1 or 2 copy their DNA faster than type 3 lobules. The faster the DNA is copied, the greater the risk of mutations or cancer cells forming.

The risk of breast cancer is greater when greater amounts of estrogen occur together with immature lobules (types 1 or 2). A pregancy that ends early on by natural miscarriage would not increase cancer risk as these pregnancies tend to have low levels of estrogen.

Thank you for your time and for reading this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Contact Us - Mayo Information"
Dear Pat;

Thank you for your e-mail to MayoClinic.com. We value our users' feedback and appreciate you taking the time to share your comments with us. I will certainly forward your e-mail to our staff.

Sincerely,
Stacey
Mayo Clinic Online Services

Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama



Photo and article courtesy of WorldNetDaily

Posted: July 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?

But that's not why Obama's opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for him.

Obama recalled Keyes' statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece but omitted his reasoning.


I know his reasoning, because I was there.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)

So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.

I have framed on my wall a Chicago Sun-Times cartoon published during the campaign. Obama is holding a sign with "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION" on it. God is reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of Obama, and the baby is reaching up to God. Obama is yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"

In his USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.

Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be "amenable to reason."

OK, Sen. Obama, let's reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, "It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.

Third of male fish in rivers are changing sex

By FIONA MACRAE, Daily Mail 19:36pm 19th July 2006

A third of male fish in English rivers are changing sex due to 'gender-bending' pollution, alarming research shows.
Experts say female hormones from the contraceptive pill and HRT are being washed into our rivers and causing male fish to produce eggs.


The problem - which is country-wide - has raised fears that the pollutants could also be contaminating our drinking water - and even be affecting the fertility of men.

The Environment Agency study looked at the health of more than 1600 roach found in 51 rivers and streams around the country.

Overall, a third of the male fish were between sexes. However, in one waterway, near a particularly heavy discharge of treated sewage more than 80% had female characteristics.

Tests showed the males developed female sex organs and were producing eggs. Such fish also produce less sperm and the sperm that is produced is of low quality. Females may also be affected, producing abnormal eggs.

Previous studies have that cod, trout and flounders are all being feminized.
Researcher Professor Charles Tyler said that the fish are swimming in a soup of estrogen-like compounds, found in the Pill and in HRT.


The hormone, which is also produced naturally by women and found in industrial waste, is released into our waterways after surviving the sewage treatment process.

professor Tyler, one of the country's leading authorities on the effects of estrogen, said: 'There is a soup of estrogen compounds, all with different degrees of potency and they are interactive in their effects - if you add them together, you add there are additional effects.

'This soup of estrogen is responsible for causing these changes to the fish. It is abnormal. These fish should be male or female. The fact that we have got such a large proportion right across the country is not right.'

The Exeter University professor said it is too early to say what the long-term implications will be for Britain's fishlife.

While it may not initially have a big impact on stock levels, a reduction in the number of breeding males could lead to all sorts of genetic problems in later years.

'Effects like a change in how many males can contribute to the population can change the genetic structure of the population,' he said. 'In five years' item, the whole system could go belly-up.'

Human health could also be at risk, with estrogen from contaminated food and water building up in our bodies.

Although there is no conclusive proof, it is thought the hormone, which has similar actions in fish and humans, could be partly to blame for falling sperm counts in men.

British men's sperm counts dropped by almost a third between 1989 and 2002, and one in six couples now have difficulty conceiving.

Prof Tyler said: 'There is certainly the potential for it to have an effect in humans - and possibly a marked effect.'

The Environment Agency is looking at ways of improving the sewage treatment process, to either remove estrogen during the process or reduce the amount that is discharged into our waterways.