Ever notice how the media has a knack for pulling on our heart-strings in an attempt to divert us from the real facts of the matter? In logic, this fallacy is called, “A red herring.”

A great example of this is the news coverage surrounding an amendment proposed by U.S. Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) regarding the protection of embryonic stem cells. But before we discuss the current legislation, let’s get a running start, and get some background on the issues behind it.

The Christian, pro-life position is that human life begin at conception. A normal human embryo has all 46 chromosomes innate to human development, and is already pre-programmed with the biological data needed to grow to a fully-formed adult. Every human embryo contains an eternal soul that must be protected.

The Ethics of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

When an infertile couple is seeking to conceive, one method they may pursue is IVF. In this process, it is common for multiple embryos to be created. The ensuing problem is that some of these embryos are not used by the hopeful parents, leading to the dilemma of what to do with the frozen embryos that are left over from this procedure. Storing the embryos indefinitely can be costly, and often the parents have no practical way to bring them to full-term.

People choose different approaches to dealing with these embryos, including:

1. Donating them to another infertile couple who “adopts” their embryo and attempts a successful pregnancy and delivery (this option is rarely chosen).
2. Donating the embryos for stem-cell research.
3. Thawing without donating (thus terminating the life of the unborn embryo).

From a Christian worldview, clearly only one of these choices is viable (adopted embryos), as the other choices destroy human life.

Stem Cell Research

We must be careful in our discussion of these topics with others, that we have the issues clear in our mind. Christians are NOT opposed to stem cell research. There are different sources for stem cells, including adult stem cells derived from human fat. These stem cells offer the promise to potentially cure all sorts of physical maladies. We encourage this kind of research and hope for medical breakthroughs along with everyone else.

What we oppose, is the practice of conducting stem cell research on human embryos, because of the fact that a human life is destroyed in the process.

The Harris Amendment

So back to the current legislative situation. Military personnel who serve in our armed forces are sometimes injured in their line of duty in a way that causes permanent reproductive harm to their bodies. Our government has decided to fund IVF options for those veterans who wish to grow their families through this means.

Representative Harris has presented an amendment that specifies that any federal funding provided in any act of law may only be used to provide IVF treatments if such treatments do not result in the destruction of viable human embryos before embryo transfer. His amendment was adopted by a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee by a vote of 29-21.

There has been an immediate push-back on this, because it would eliminate the immediate thawing, or research options, leaving only continued freezing (at a cost) or donation for embryo adoption. The argument is that this bill is not practical. It is inconvenient and will make this process more difficult for those who want to choose IVF.

The “red herring” in this story is that this involves our wounded military veterans. The media is choosing to portray this as showing a lack of support and compassion for those who have given so much (even potentially their hopes for a future family), in defense of our nation. Anyone who supports the Harris Amendment could be portrayed as unpatriotic, or unsympathetic to our troops.

What Is the Right Choice?

In any situation, we must avoid the tug of emotion and always ask ourselves, “What is the right thing to do?” Pragmatism is the view that “Whatever works is right.” The end justifies the means. It doesn’t matter what approach or method you choose, as long as you get the desired outcome. The problem with that view is that it isn’t wise or safe. Pragmatism has been behind many human atrocities in the past century, including eugenics.

As much as we want to see our veterans receive proper care and medical services, we cannot do so at the cost of human life. They put their life on the line to defend U.S. citizens, and that defense should be extended to unborn Americans as well.

A friend of mine recently put the matter as concisely and clearly as I believe it can be expressed:

“Any legislation that ends with,
‘And then the baby dies…’
is bad legislation.”

Opponents of the Harris Amendment suggest that an embryo isn’t truly human life because it is too small (size), or the embryo doesn’t have cognition (level of development), or it isn’t in the mother’s uterus (environment), or because it can’t sustain life on it’s own if unfrozen (degree of dependency).

Christian apologist, and pro-life advocate, Scott Klusendorf, has created an acronym (SLED) from these arguments that can help us to remember them, and be able to articulate a consistent and rational position on the defense of human life. None of these elements define human life. If you argue on that basis of any of them, you can easily also argue for infanticide or euthanasia.

The worth of a human life can never be equal to convenience on the scale of justice. Once intrinsic human life is devalued, on any level, it is only a matter of time until the taking of more lives will be justified by the same extended arguments.

Let us pray that efforts like Congressman Harris’ will find a hearing and that those in our nation’s leadership will seek to defend the most basic tenet of our inalienable rights: the immutable right to life.

IFI Faith, Family & Freedom Banquet

We are excited to have as our keynote speaker this year, former Congresswoman and Tea Party Caucus Leader, Michele Bachmann!  She distinguished herself by not only forming and chairing the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 in the U.S. House but also through her courageous and outspoken pro-life leadership as attested to by her rating of zero from NARAL.

Please register today before the early bird special expires.

Last month a leading American research company abandoned the world’s first clinical stem cell pilot program. Officials claim money troubles have forced the first company doing a government-approved test of embryonic stem cell therapy to discontinue further human stem cell programs and lay off much of its staff. Nov. 14 Geron Corp., the world’s leading embryo research company, announced it is eliminating 66 full-time jobs, or 38 percent of its staff.

The Menlo Park, California-based company blamed the pull out on the high costs and bureaucracy of stem cell research and ‘uncertain economic conditions’. Some never believed the treatment really was actually going to produce the marvels promised.

“We are encouraged that neither voters nor investors think research that destroys human embryos is worth funding,” said David E. Smith Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, “and hope that companies will turn their energies to the much more productive field of adult stem cell research and therapy.”

New Jersey voters overwhelmingly turned down a ballot initiative to fund human embryonic stem-cell research on the taxpayer’s dime. In 2007 voters in the Granite State rejected borrowing $450 million to pay for stem cell research grants in the state for 10 years. The last time New Jersey voters defeated a statewide ballot question was 1990.

“Deciding to move out of the stem cell business was a very difficult decision to make,” said chief executive Dr. John A. Scarlett.

Illinois Family Institute (IFI) says it has long opposed the research on and the cloning of human embryos for the purposes of research since a life is destroyed in the process. In addition, IFI has trumpeted the many advances made through adult stem cell research and called on researchers and scientists to continue their work in finding an alternative to using human embryos.

“The news from Geron Corp. demonstrates that human embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce the medical miracles promised by proponents,” said IFI executive director David E. Smith. “If taxpayers are going to be forced to pay for research, it should be research that is not only ethical but also successful. While much of the rest of the world has rejected human embryonic stem cell research as a hopeless waste of money, in the United States our politicians continue to try to raid the empty public trough to prop up failing research. It’s another bailout that simply must stop.”

Geron officials note the company is working to find partners to take over its stem cell research and focus more of its energies into cancer research.

“Geron ‘s decision to abandoned embryonic stem cell research is just another example of what pro-life and pro-family organizations have been saying for years — there are no benefits to patients with human embryonic stem cell research,” said Ralph Rivera, IFI lobbyist and longtime pro-life advocate. “If venture capitalists were convinced that they could make money doing human embryonic research, there would be many billions of their dollars invested. Only one or two have been ‘fooled’ into thinking this was a good investment. That is why so-called “researchers” have sought to ‘fool’ States like Illinois into giving our tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.”

IFI will continue to oppose human embryonic stem cell research and taxpayer funding of this research while pointing to the success ofadult stem cell research.

On Thursday (September 9th), the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia lifted a ban on federal taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research pending further review.

Proponents of the research involving the destruction of human embryos have been up in arms that new funding approved by President Barack Obama’s administration had previously been blocked by a federal judge. As a result of an injunction on the funding issued by U.S. Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia, the National Institutes of Health had announced it was suspending consideration of new grants for the research.

According to Tony Perkins of The Family Research Council, “The Judge’s initial opinion noted that ‘ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo,’ and the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, passed by Congress every year since 1996, says that no federal funds shall be used for ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.'”

The Judge added, correctly, that, “In this Court’s view, a stay [of the injunction] would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.” The judge added, “defendants are incorrect about much of their ‘parade of horribles’ that will supposedly result from this Court’s preliminary injunction.”

The appellate court decision at least temporarily reverses Judge Lamberth’s ban on the taxpayer funding.

This new legal battle has ripped open the debate over taxpayer funding of research that is unethical, illegal and complete fruitless. Rhetoric from researchers that benefit financially from the grants and politicians and organizations bent on making sure human embryos are not recognized as having any intrinsic value continues unchanged. They again are claiming that the use of human embryonic stem cells is the only hope for those who suffer from disease and paint those opposed to embryonic stem cell research as “anti-science.”

The truth is, as usual, much different. Those that oppose continued funding of failed research instead point to the multitude of successful treatments and cures from adult stem cell research. Dozens of effective and lifesaving treatments are not simply a pipe dream but a reality with adult stem cells which can be manipulated to act in much the same way as human embryonic stem cells. If we want to be pro-science and pro-hope for sufferers of disease, shouldn’t we be funding and supporting the science that is actually working and actually producing cures?

If taxpayers are going to be forced to pay for research, it should be research that is not only ethical but also successful. While much of the rest of the world has rejected human embryonic stem cell research as a hopeless waste of money, in the United States our politicians continue to try to raid the empty public trough to prop up failing research. It’s another bailout that simply must stop.

A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday, stopping the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research in the Obama administration’s new guidelines.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed by Dr. James L. Sherley, a former MIT professor and scientist, and other researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. They also made the very sensible argument that funds plowed into useless ESC research are depriving life-saving research and cures with adult stem cells.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding that the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated current law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

The lawsuit says the guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker appropriations provision regarding embryo research that prohibits federal funding of the creation of human embryos by any method, explicitly including humancloning, or any “research in which” human embryos are harmed in any way.

The National Institutes of Health received 50,000 comments almost all of which were opposed to funding this research on human embryos, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments.

Human embryonic stem cell research has yet to help a single patient, unlike adult stem cell research — which has helped patients with more than 100 diseases and medical conditions and which President George W. Bush supported with hundreds of millions in federal funding.

The Obama administration could appeal the decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law. Since the judge implied they would not win on appeal, they might go to Congress. They will have to pass something before the end of this session.

Human embryonic stem cell research has been a failure.

The difference between human adult stem cell and human embryonic stem cell treatments could not be any more evident. After years of rigorous studies, researchers report vision restoration to patients’ eyes damaged by chemicals, adult stem cells transplants have become lifesaving measures for people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases, ease of symptoms in heart failure, and much more.

According to St. Louis Today, a few months ago, Dr. Thomas Einhorn treated a patient with a broken ankle which after several surgeries wouldn’t heal. Einhorn pressed on and drew bone marrow from the patient’s pelvic bone. He condensed the marrow and injected the liquid into the man’s ankle. Miraculously, four months later the ankle healed. Einhorn, chairman of orthopedic surgery at Boston University Medical Center, acknowledges adult stem cells in the marrow injection. A study published in France encouraged Einhorn to try the procedure.

His actions are an example of pioneering therapies doctors are studying with regards to adult stem cells.

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) research is moving fast. CLI patients suffer from tissue loss, ischemic neuropathy or interruption of blood supply in the short posterior ciliary arteries, and restricted blood flow to the leg by artery blockage which may require amputation.

According to Dr. Warren Sherman of Columbia University, ischemia research and adult stem cell treatment is showing “very, very encouraging [results].” And Dr. Grabriel Lasala of TCA Cellular Therapy also reported positive results which include Rodney Schoenhardt of Metairie, Louisiana.

Schoenhardt already had surgery on both legs for the disease. His surgeon was talking about left leg-amputation. Due to severe pain, Schoenhardt had to use a wheelchair. Schoenhardt received 40 shots in each leg over a year ago, with adult stem cell going into his left calf and a placebo dose in the other. Shortly thereafter, he said the pain in his left leg was gone. At 58, he now mows his lawn, has remodeled his living room and says, “My wheelchair is in my garage collecting dust.”

It is important to note sacrificing life to improve the life of another won’t yield promising returns. Our own body has healing capabilities and if harnessed properly and within ethical boundaries we could use those capabilities to improve the quality of life. Adult stem cells are the medical answer for several health problems so instead of investing on embryonic stem cell research, which for decades has not yielded positive results, we should continue to invest in adult stem cell research.

It was following California’s passage of Proposition 71 that Illinois felt the need to start funding embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money. However, after five years, California’s budget-busting $3 billion embryonic stem cell research project has yielded no cures, no therapies and little progress, explains Investors.com.

The backers of Prop 71 are now admitting failure. “The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state agency created to, as some have put it, restore science to its rightful place, is diverting funds from ESCR to research that has produced actual therapies and treatments: adult stem cell research. It not only has treated real people with real results; it also does not come with the moral baggage ESCR does.”

The article accuses the backers of Prop 71 of using a classic bait-and-switch tactic by trying to take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research that they once cavalierly dismissed. The Institute is attempting to do this by funding adult stem cell research. Nearly $230 million was handed out this past October to 14 teams, but notably, only four of those projects involved embryonic stem cells.

The article concludes:

Real promise is held in what are called induced pluripotent stem cells. In 2006, researchers led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Japan’s Kyoto University were first able to “reprogram” human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. They can do everything stem cells from destroyed embryos can do.

The National Institute of Health has said that this type of stem cell offers the prospect of having a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, to name a few.

It is ESCR researchers who have politicized science and stood in the way of real progress. We are pleased to see California researchers beginning to put science in its rightful place.

Source: California’s Proposition 71 Failure (Investors.com)