Using Over-The-Counter Abortion Pills to Trick Your Pregnant Girlfriend


Another WordPress blogger who runs a site entitled “saynsumthn” has provided the following harrowing story:

Another recent example which received national attention was the arrest and indictment of a Florida man who tricked his pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pills to abort her pregnancy. Authorities say that 28-year-old John Andrew Welden did not want to be a father, so when his girlfriend, Remee Jo Lee, got pregnant, Welden faked a prescription for an abortion pill, switched a label so the medication appeared to be a common antibiotic, and gave her the drug. The drug did its job. The unborn baby died. Now Welden, is facing the possibility of life behind bars without parole, charged with murder under a rarely used federal statute known as the “Protection of Unborn Children Act.”

Now folks, even though Plan B does not seem to have a lot of side effects, its over-the-counter status means that it is as easy to get as chewing gum. Look for this sort of thing to happen a lot more often with the legalization and over-the-counter status of Plan B. Rapists, child molesters, incestuous family members can simply slip their victims Plan B to cover up their crime.

Giving Plan B over-the-counter status is a bad idea and this demonstrates it. Welden should have been charged with drug tampering and administering medicine without a license, but since Plan B is over the counter, he cannot be charged with such a crime even though he ought to be. What happens when these monsters start giving Plan B to pregnant women after the time of its efficacy? What birth defects await us?

Oh wait, plan B is not supposed to cause an increase in birth defects because it’s the same hormones that are in many daily birth control pills. But what about the dosage? The Princeton University Student Health Center’s own fact sheet states:

When dedicated ECPs are not available, certain ordinary birth control pills can be used in specified combinations as emergency contraception. In either case, the regimen is one dose followed by a second dose 12 hours later, where each dose consists of 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 pills, depending on brand. Currently, 19 brands of combined oral contraceptives are approved in the United States for use as emergency contraception.

Now wait a minute people – emergency contraceptive pills or ECPs can be replaced by 1-6 regular birth control pills taken at 12 hour intervals. But these do not cause birth defects? Has this been studied? Not really.

What about Ella or ulipristal acetate, which is an antiprogestin that antagonizes the activity of progesterone on the uterus? The relative of this drug is mifepristone, which is a component of the “French abortion concoction” RU-486. This will cause birth defects if it fails to elicit abortion. How is it that Ulipristal doesn’t?

Additionally, why is it that Plan B is classified as a pregnancy Category X drug, meaning that it could lead to serious problems when taken during pregnancy, such as miscarriages or birth defects?

I do not believe the talking points concerning Plan B. Making it over the counter was a political decision pure and simple.

John Gurdon Embraces Human Cloning


Wesley Smith has reported that Nobel Laureate John Gurdon, who shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine this year with Japanese induced pluripotent stem cell discoverer Shinya Yamanaka, has come out in favor of human cloning.

From the story in the Daily Mail:
‘I take the view that anything you can do to relieve suffering or improve human health will usually be widely accepted by the public – that is to say if cloning actually turned out to be solving some problems and was useful to people, I think it would be accepted,’ he said. During his public lectures – which include speeches at Oxford and Cambridge Universities – he often asks his audience if they would be in favour of allowing parents of deceased children, who are no longer fertile, to create another using the mother’s eggs and skin cells from the first child, assuming the technique was safe and effective.

‘The average vote on that is 60 per cent in favour,’ he said. ‘The reasons for “no” are usually that the new child would feel they were some sort of a replacement for something and not valid in their own right. ‘But if the mother and father, if relevant, want to follow that route, why should you or I stop them?’

 

Smith then quotes from his magnificent book “Consumers Guide to a Brave New World,” which all my readers to RUN out to buy and read over and over again:

Scientists would have to clone thousands of embryos and grow them to the blastocyst stage [one week] to ensure that part of the process leading up to transfer into a uterus could be “safe,” monitoring and analyzing each embryo, destroying each one in the process. Next, cloned embryos would have to be transferred into the uteruses of women volunteers [or implanted in an artificial womb]. The initial purpose would be analysis of development, not bringing the pregnancy to a live birth. Each of these clonal pregnancies would be terminated at various points of development, each fetus destroyed for scientific analysis. The surrogate mothers would also have to be closely monitored and tested, not only during the pregnancies but also for a substantial length of time after the abortions.

Finally, if these experiments demonstrated that it was probably safe to proceed, a few clonal pregnancies would be allowed to go to full term. Yet even then, the born cloned babies would have to be constantly monitored to determine whether any health problems develop. Each would have to be followed (and undergo a battery of tests both physical and psychological) for their entire lives, since there is no way to predict if problems [associated with gene expression] might arise later in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, or even into the senior years.

 

Smith, in my view, is spot on. Therapeutic cloning will not stop at using cloned blastocysts to make patient-specific embryonic stem cell lines. The reason for this is that even though cells made from differentiated embryonic stem cells can have therapeutic value, such cells can also be rejected by the immune system of the host animal. A much more fail-safe way to do this experiment is to gestate the embryos to the fetal stage and use the fetal tissues.

Once we go down the road of cloning and destroying embryos just to make embryonic stem cell lines from them, what’s to keep us from aborting fetuses just to get their cells? This slippery slope is real and speaks volumes, none of it good, about a society that sacrifices its youngest and more vulnerable members to serve the needs of others. It cheapens human life to the nth degree and at its lowest point, it simple murder.

Gurdon, however, speaks of reproductive cloning to replace children lost through tragedy. While I can appreciate the sentiment, sentiment is an extremely poor reason basis for ethics. Folks, biology is not destiny. Cloning experiments in animals have shown us that even cloned embryos made from material taken from the same mother, that are genetically identical are neither identical to their mothers nor are they identical to each other. Random events that occur during development and the way each individual responds to their environment shapes them in a unique manner. The cloned sheep Dolly was completely unlike her cloned siblings in personality, behavior, or overall appearance. The same can be said for CC (for “Carbon Copy”), the first cloned cat, which looked unlike her mother and had a very different personality.

Yet these cloned children are asked from the second they are born to replace another child who is unlike them. The cloned child is a human person and while the right for each person to be authentically who there are in an inherent right of all human beings, this very right is denied these cloned kids – they are born for the very reason that they can be someone else. This is a violation of everything it means to be human, and it is the very reason no good thing can come from human cloning.

Gurdon is a brilliant scientist, but as we have seen before, great scientists sometimes make terrible ethicists.

Todd Akins and Pregnancy as a Result of Rape


Republican candidate for U.S. Senator from the state of Missouri, Todd Akin, really stuck his foot in his mouth during an interview on the Jaco Report on Fox. After he stated that abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother, the host asked if it should also be legal in the case of rape.

Akin responded: “People always want to try and make that as one of those things, well, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, that from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it is a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment should be of the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Akin issued an apology but the damage is already done. His statement was poorly worded and garbled. He probably meant to refer to a forcible rape, which is also known as an assault rape as opposed to a date rape. He was probably trying to make this distinction since there have been cases whereby women who become pregnant from consensual intercourse have later claimed rape. His wording failed to properly clarify what he meant.

Even worse was his statement that ” the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.” Again I think he was trying to refer to the physical trauma experienced by a woman when she is raped. Stress and emotional factors can alter a woman’s menstrual cycle. In order to get pregnant, and stay pregnant the body of the woman must produce a complex mix of hormones. This hormone production is under the control of the brain and the part of the brain that controls reproductive hormones (the limbic system) is easily influenced by emotions. An assault rape certainly qualifies as great emotional trauma. Such trauma can radically upset ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even the nurturing of a pregnancy.

Having said all that, women do get pregnant from assault rapes. Approximately 1 in 15 women who are raped will get pregnant from it (see Statistics on Sexual Violence Against Women: A Criminological Study, 1990). Another article by Holmes, Resnick, Kilpatrick, and Best (Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women) from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1996 Aug;175(2):320-4; discussion 324-5), finds that the national rate of rape pregnancies is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45). This rate is higher because some women who are raped are too old or too young to become pregnant from the rape. Nationally, there were an estimated 32,101 rape pregnancies each year. Only 11.7% of rape victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. 32.2% kept the infant, 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption. 11.8% had a spontaneous abortion.

Thus the statistics show that pregnancy as a result of an assault or forcible rape does occur frequently enough so that pro-life politicians, thinkers and workers must take it seriously. The simple fact is that the baby should not pay the price of his or her life for the crimes of the father. That is the crux of the pro-life position. Abortion as a that ends the life of a baby who is the product of a rape still ends the life of a baby who had nothing to do with the crime still kills a baby. Had Akin put it this way, then he would not have stuck his foot in his mouth the way he did.

There are complications with forcing the woman to be a life-support system for a baby she did not wish to conceive, but the fact still remains that a baby’s life hangs in the balance. In the scheme of things, it seems to me that having the woman bear the brunt of the pregnancy is the lesser of two evils and saving the life of the baby is a greater good.  Trying to be cute about it will only get you in trouble and mark you as ignorant and insensitive to women.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Commercial Surrogacy Bill


Because this is a biotechnology/bioethics site, it is entirely appropriate for us to discuss the subject of commercial surrogacy. This week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have relaxed New Jersey’s strict surrogate parenting law. He said that his state had not yet properly addressed what he called the “profound” questions that surround creating a child through a surrogacy contract.

Gov Christie made a statement that explained the reasons behind his veto: “Permitting adults to contract with others regarding a child in such a manner unquestionably raises serious and significant issues. In contrast to traditional surrogacy, a gestational surrogate birth does not use the egg of the carrier. In this scenario, the gestational carrier lacks any genetic connection to the baby, and in some cases, it is feasible that neither parent is genetically related to the child. Instead, children born to gestational surrogates are linked to their parents by contract. While some all applaud the freedom to explore these new, and sometimes necessary, arranged births, others will note the profound change in the traditional beginnings of the family that this bill will enact. I am not satisfied that these questions have been sufficiently studied by the Legislature at this time.”

I personally applaud Gov. Christie’s veto. Commercial surrogacy employs a gestational carrier who carries the baby for another couple. When the gestational carrier gives birth to the baby, she is paid a prearranged sum of money for her services and for the transfer of her parental rights to the contracting parents.

Since the gestational carrier is being paid to surrender her claim to the child, it seems very clear to me that commercial surrogacy is baby selling. Any argument that tries to redefine what the payment to the gestational carrier is for seems, at least to me, to be inaccurate at best and dishonest at worse. Commercial surrogacy is baby selling and a society that values children should not be in the business of baby selling. Furthermore if we are truly dedicated to the proposition of the value of each human being not matter what their age, socioeconomic status, or gender, then no one regardless of their should be sold. It is degrading and debasing to the humanity of the person and to all people for that matter.

Altruistic surrogacy seems to me to be a different matter. It is not baby selling because the gestational carrier is only paid for her medical expenses. There is no payment for the exchange of parental rights and there is no baby selling.

While many infertile couples have contracted with women to carry their babies, and have received to blessing of a children, I cannot agree with the means by which that child was acquired.

Letter from a Nurse With MS – FDA’s Cells = Drugs Hurts People


At the Regenexx Blog site is a letter from a Registered Nurse who has Multiple Sclerosis. The drugs for MS do little to stop the progression of the disease and they have remarkably bad side effect. On top of that they are very expensive. Despite some exceedingly robust results with animals models with a form of MS and stem cell treatments, and human clinical trials with a patient’s own mesenchymal stem cells, the FDA has yet to budge because according to your FDA cells = drugs and they get to regulate them into the ground.

This letter from the nurse really nails it on the head and shows how the FDA’s policy is a) crap, and b) actively hurting sick people. Read about it here, and then write your Congressperson.

Infanticide Advocate Peter Singer is Awarded Australis’s Highest Civic Award


Princeton University’s Professor of Ethics Peter Singer has been appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia (he is a native Australian). I will not mince words on this one. This is a new low for the government of Australia. Here are some of the things Singer has advocated:

He is best known for ethically endorsing infanticide. According to Singer, people are not human persons unless they can do certain things. This is called functionalism, and it leads people to regard certain human beings as being in a class of “human non-persons.” For example, Singer does not think humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. He supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons” fo0r any reason. Not liking the color of their eyes, they cry too much. they pooped on your carpet, they threw up on your nice clothes, they are a girl and not a boy. Mind you, this is the same chap who gets all choked up about the use of animals in research because is multiples animal suffering. Instead of appealing to the more noble aspects of human nature, where we exercise those properties that make us truly human (compassion, defending the weak and defenseless), Singer would have us eat our young the way brute beasts do. Furthermore, he would commend us for it. We used to demarcate between barbaric societies and civilizations that did such things. Now we have become the barbarians, but according to Singer, that’s just fine.

In keeping with this disgusting, misanthropic philosophy, Singer supports using cognitively disabled human beings in medical experiments instead of animals. The laboratory animals, you see, have a higher “quality of life” according to Singer. How does he know that? Well they can do more. They can walk, groom themselves, feed themselves, and defecate without anyone’s help. The mentally disabled person it still essentially a person, but Singer doesn’t let that get in the way. People who cannot do are not people any more. They might even be trapped inside a body that no longer works, but Singer does not let that get in the way either. As far as he is concerned, person is as person does. He forgets that must BE something to eventually DO something. He has gotten the cart before the horse and we have abortion on demand, euthanasia in Holland and Brazil as the result of it.

Singer has also defended bestiality. These are, according the Singer, “mutually satisfying activities” between humans and animals should not be opposed. Now, pray tell, how does Singer know that the animal is enjoying it? Is he also Dr. Doolittle and can talk to the animals? This is disgusting. We used to think such people were sick in the head (not to mention to horrific sexually transmitted diseases you can get from such activities), but Singer thinks they are just alright.

Singer started the “Great Ape Project.” This project would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. The day one of those creatures asks me for admission to such a project, I will think about it, but for now, they are too busy killing each other in the wild and spreading their feces all over each other to care about it.

Singer has also questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable.” Do we need any more evidence of his own self-loathing?

Finally, Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. Oh, just between you and me, racism is a HUMAN concept. Bringing animals into it is a category mistake of the first degree. Humans are exceptional among the creatures of the earth. We and we alone are the stewards of the earth and its resources. The animals don’t give a rip about such things and it is not even on their cognitive radar. Human exceptionalism is the basis of human law, human rights, and everything from property values, antislavery movements, anti-genocide activities and so on. Without human exceptionalism, we become no better than the animals.

Singer’s philosophy is perverted. It takes what is profane, disgusting and devilish, and calls it morally upright. It is the result of misanthropy and self-loathing and he wants use to hate ourselves as much as he hates himself. His philosophy produces a society that is unworkable and objectionable in every way. He should not be rewarded, but derided.

Mifepristone – Not as Safe a Drug as you Might Think


According to data released by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the abortion pill, mifepristone, more than 1.2 million unborn children have lost their lives because of it, but even more stunningly, thousands of women have been injured and this includes more than a dozen who have died in the United States alone.

Just after the approval of mifepristone during the Clinton administration, the FDA released a report in 2006 that showed that more than 1,100 women had been subjected to “adverse effects” after taking mifepristone.  Pro-life advocates have waited five years for the FDA to come out with a new report of the adverse effects associated with this drug.  This drug seems to continue to kill and injure women all across the globe.

Mifespristone, which is marketed under the trade names Mifeprex and Korlyn, is still known by the name given to it when it was an experimental drug, RU486.  Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid drug that binds to the progesterone receptors in cells in the endometrium and prevents the progesterone receptor from receiving signals from progesterone.  Because the endometrium requires constant progesterone signaling to maintain itself, mifepristone causes the endometrium to breakdown.  It also causes the cervix to soften and induces the release of mo9lecules called prostaglandins.  These prostaglandins causes the smooth muscle of the uterus to contract, but mifepristone, also increases the sensitivity of the smooth muscle of the uterus to prostaglandins.  The breakdown of the endometrium and the contractions of the uterine smooth muscle cause the embryo to detach.  This eventually kills of all sources of progesterone production in the mother’s body, and the embryo dies.  Typically, mifepristone is followed by an oral prostaglandin (misoprostol) to increase uterine smooth muscle contraction and expulsion of the dead embryo.  Mifepristone is used to terminate pregnancies that are not older than 49 days.  The approval of mifepristone did include a Black Box Warning, as required under Subsection H.

There are several excellent articles about this FDA data.  Read about it here, here and here.  Mifepristone also has caused problems in women all around the world.  These data in this report is limited to adverse effects in the United States only.