Category: government

Save rats? Kill people? GE looking for ways to further research

TBLeave a comment

From CNSNews.com comes this story about GE Healthcare, a subsidary of General Electric, and its efforts to use embryonic stem cell research to test drug toxicity and spare poor lab rats:

On June 30, GE Healthcare and Geron Corporation announced a multi-year alliance where Geron will provide GE scientists with an undisclosed amount of human embryonic stem cells.
 
The human cells will be used “to develop and commercialize cellular assay products derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) for use in drug discovery, development and toxicity screening,” according to a news release.
 
GE Healthcare, which is based in Britain, hopes that human embryonic testing will spare lab rats from having potentially toxic drugs in or on the animals.
 
“This could replace, to a large extent, animal trials,” Konstantin Fiedler, general manager of cell technologies at GE Healthcare, told Reuters.
 
“Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now, your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells,” he added.

But this is all nonsense, says Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for life science at the Family Research Council:

[Prentice said] that embryos must be killed before stem cells can be derived from them for research purposes.
 
“Human embryonic stem cell research is ethically irresponsible and scientifically unworthy, as well as useless for patients,” Prentice said.
 
Prentice explained that General Electric’s optimism in saving lab animals from testing by using hESCs is also largely unfounded.
 
“There is always going to be a problem on trying to rely just on cultured cells to do drug testing,” Prentice explained.

The problem, he said, is that many drugs are metabolized in the liver and other parts of the body and those metabolized substances then become the active ingredients of the drugs.
 
“Treating just cells in culture will give you some idea of toxicity or perhaps effectiveness on a certain cell type, but will not actually work for the whole organ, or the entire system, or the organism,” Prentice said. “So this is not going to replace all animal testing.

Prentice also pointed out that most of the research involving embryonic stem cells thus far has produced no valid therapies, while successful therapies for several diseases and conditions are already in place using adult stem cells, he said.

But, of course, the problem with adult stem cells, which have no ethical baggage associated with them, is that the president who said we must not put ideology over science has pulled government funding for that research.

Another controversial person: Sarah Palin. Why’d she quit?

TBLeave a comment

John Fund, who writes the Political Diary for the Wall Street Journal online, writes that people misunderstand when they think that Sarah Palin’s decision to leave her role as governor of Alaska was a recent one. He contends that the people who hated her and what she stands for turned her job into a quagmire. In driving her from office they made it clear that she was not one of them:

She made many mistakes after being thrust into the national spotlight last year, but hasn’t merited the sneering contempt visited upon her by national reporters. She simply was not their kind of feminist — and they disdained the politically incorrect life choices she had made.

What kind of “sneering contempt,” you say? The kind that David Kahane writes about in National Review Online:

Did Sarah stand for “family values”? Flay her unwed-mother daughter. Did she represent probity in a notoriously corrupt, one-family state? Spread rumors about FBI investigations. Did she speak with an upper-Midwest twang? Mock it relentlessly on Saturday Night Live. Above all, don’t let her motivate the half of the country that doesn’t want His Serene Highness to bankrupt the nation, align with banana-republic Communist dictators, unilaterally dismantle our missile defenses, and set foot in more mosques than churches since he has become president. We’ve got a suicide cult to run here.

And that’s why Sarah had to go. Whether she understood it or not, she threatened us right down to our most fundamental, meretricious, elitist, sneering, snobbish, insecure, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders bones. She was, after all, a “normal” American, the kind of person (or so I’m told) you meet in flyover country. The kind that worries first about home and hearth and believes in things like motherhood and love of country the way it is, not the way she wants to remake it.

So, Fund writes, because she was so controversially “normal,” her critics relentlessly attacked her and paralyzed her in her role as Alaska governor. But the message they sent is not a good one, he says:

In helping to convince Sarah Palin that her road forward in national politics would demand even more sacrifices and pain than exacted from most politicians, the media did nothing to encourage women or people of modest means to participate in politics. By sidestepping her critics, Sarah Palin is now moving to another playing field where she has more control over the rules of the game. Her friends say her critics may call her a “quitter” now, but they should wait and see what new role she decides to fill. She may wind up having the last laugh.

Single-payer health care, Canada style: Is this something we want?

TBLeave a comment

I posted earlier this year about how Canada’s health care system is being attacked in the courts by people who are finding it not only lacking but dangerous to their health. In light of the push by President Obama to nationalize this country’s health care system comes this story:

A critically ill premature baby is moved to a U.S hospital to get the treatment she couldn’t get in the system we’re told we should emulate. Cost-effective care? In Canada, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for.

Ava Isabella Stinson was born last Thursday at St. Joseph’s hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Weighing only two pounds, she was born 13 weeks premature and needed some very special care. Unfortunately, there were no open neonatal intensive care beds for her at St. Joseph’s — or anywhere else in the entire province of Ontario, it seems.

Canada’s perfectly planned and cost-effective system had no room at the inn for Ava, who of necessity had to be sent across the border to a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital to suffer under our chaotic and costly system. She had no time to be put on a Canadian waiting list. She got the care she needed at an American hospital under a system President Obama has labeled “unsustainable.”

Or consider this episode, from the same story:

In 2007, a Canadian woman gave birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets — Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia Jepps. They were born in the United States to Canadian parents because there was again no space available at any Canadian neonatal care unit. All they had was a wing and a prayer.

The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician flew from Calgary, a city of a million people, 325 miles to Benefit Hospital in Great Falls, Mont., a city of 56,000. The girls are doing fine, thanks to our system where care still trumps cost and where being without insurance does not mean being without care.

When the government starts calling the shots about health care, the fear is that there will be hard decisions made about what care is cost effective and what care is deemed as unnecessary. When private doctors are competing against the government, you have to wonder what choices will be left for the average citizen. While we have talked much here about how abortions are pushed as the choice for parents with Down syndrome babies, consider how choices will be made for women facing difficult pregnancies under a nationalized system. Again, from the Yahoo! article:

Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and a single-payer system is supposed to be better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.

As she points out, in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, apremature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They’re considered “unsalvageable” and therefore never alive.

Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world — until you factor in weight at birth, and then its rate is no better than in the U.S.

In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hours are also excluded and are classified as “stillborn.” In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth.

A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a “miscarriage” and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters in length.

In 2007, there were at least 40 mothers and their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia alone to the U.S. because Canadian hospitals didn’t have room. It’s worth noting that since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S.

It must be embarrassing to Canada that a G-7 economy and a country of 30 million people can’t offer the same level of health care as a town of just over 50,000 in rural Montana. Where will Canada send its preemies and other critical patients when we adopt their health care system?

There is no doubt that health care costs are high in this country. But it is also true that it is more likely people will get critical care in a timely manner here than in other parts of the world. We have to ask ourselves: Is what we see outside this country really enough better to trash what we have now?

The times are a changin’ when it comes to public opinion

TBLeave a comment

President Obama, barely in office four and one-half months, has brought tremendous change already. From Rasmussen Reports on Monday comes evidence:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance.

Republicans now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

Young woman making a difference exposing Planned Parenthood

TBLeave a comment

Reuters recently profiled 20-year-old Lila Rose, who has gone undercover to expose how Planned Parenthood is working in several states to cover up abuse suffered by young women and push abortions. From the story:

Rose stages her own sting operations at Planned Parenthood clinics, posing as a pregnant teenage girl to shine a light on what she says is the taxpayer-subsidized organization’s cover-up of sexual abuse.

She claims Planned Parenthood counselors routinely ignore their duty to report statutory rape when dealing with young girls impregnated by older men and often tell them to lie about their age or the identity of their sex partners rather than alert authorities.

Planned Parenthood declined to discuss specifics for the story, but maintained that they have strict guidelines for dealing with mandatory reporting. The organization also says that corrective measure have been taken in instances where employees violated policy. Still, the fact that the same thing has occurred time after time leaves one with the impression that Planned Parenthood is talking out of both sides of its mouth, so to speak. Because Planned Parenthood is a taxpayer-funded organization, there are ramifications for this kind of blatant disregard. From the Reuters article:

Because minors cannot legally consent to sex with an adult, health providers are required to alert authorities when an underage girl has been impregnated by an older man.

A grand jury in Marion County, Indiana, is investigating Planned Parenthood based on Rose’s videotapes and authorities in Tennessee and Arizona say they are reviewing the matter.

Officials in Tennessee and Orange County, California, have considered suspending public funds to the organization.

For people who care about abuse and torture, please note that Planned Parenthood gets $320 million each year from U.S. taxpayers so they can send children back to abusive situations for the sake of keeping abortions under cover. If protecting women’s rights is the big deal in this country that it’s supposed to be, more people should be made aware of this.

The campaign to bring change to national security

TBLeave a comment

From Jim Geraghty, at NRO, on President Obama’s campaign speech on national security Thursday:

Obama mentioned the conviction of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, but did not mention his sentence. Upon hearing that an admitted al-Qaeda sleeper-cell member who studied chemical weapons is free to leave prison in 9 to 15 years, this “try them all if we can” may not sound so reassuring to the American people.

Beyond that, there was this glaring contradiction in Obama’s speech. He lamented the past decisions — even half-sneering that the previous administration had left “a mess” — but then said that when all the reviews were finished, there would be some prisoners who could not be tried, who could not be shipped to another country, and who could never be released. And they . . . will be detained indefinitely, he admitted.  So it is okay to hold some people for the rest of their lives without trial, but only if the president has determined that they are a serious threat to U.S. national security. Thank goodness this administration’s approach is so different from Bush’s!

Medicare has a gun to your head

TBLeave a comment
John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:
“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar
it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far
higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute
(www.aei.org).
The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.
So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them
“greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken
from every paycheck they earned.
But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.
“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.
Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good
conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry
about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six
working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is
four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.
Medicare is unsustainable.
“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.
That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.
Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:

“This program, Medicare, is essentially ripping my generation off,” Zach Hadaway said.

Policy experts say the kids are right.

“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org).

The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.

So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them “greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken from every paycheck they earned.

But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.

“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.

Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.

Medicare is unsustainable.

“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.

That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.

Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

Mohler: Obama avoids the issue of abortion itself

TBLeave a comment

Alber Mohler says that President Obama, in his address at Notre Dame, talked about talking about abortion but never addressed the issue itself. Rather, he gave some evasive phrases:

Mr. Obama went on to call for “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” In the end, the President’s comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion. There was no serious consideration of abortion itself. President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.

This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue. If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion — if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position — he would have dignified the issue. Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, “we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually,” he failed to make clear why this is so. If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so “heart-wrenching?” If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst? Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is “heart-wrenching” make it right or rational?

Taking issue with Obama’s speech at Notre Dame

TBLeave a comment

Don’t worry, this isn’t demonizing. It’s just taking issue with some of the things the president said Sunday during his commencement speech at Notre Dame. From Wesley Smith at Secondhand Smoke:

President Obama spoke at Notre Dame today, an invitation that created divisions within the Catholic Church that are beyond our scope or concern here. But in reading about the president’s speech, I was reminded of how adept Obama is in saying one thing while doing just the opposite; such as claiming in his speech to support a conscience clause for health professionals on the issue of abortion (which would also apply to assisted suicide, etc.). From the story:

He called for an effort to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,” Obama said.

Obama plans to revise a Bush-era “conscience clause,” which would cut off federal funding for hospitals and health plans that didn’t allow doctors and other health-care workers to refuse to participate in care they believe conflicts with their personal or moral beliefs. Women’s health advocates and abortion rights supporters say it creates a major obstacle to family planning and other treatments.

No, Obama–or at least his administration (is there a difference?)plans to revoke the Bush conscience clause, not revise it. That is hardly honoring heterodox thinkers’ consciences.

And if we are going to base policies on “sound science,” how about starting with the biological fact that embryos and fetuses are living human organisms? Alas, during the campaign, then Senator Obama said such determinations are above his “pay grade.” (Not anymore, they’re not.) Pretending that human embryos and fetuses are not “human life” (what are they, Martian?) may not resolve these contentious ethical issues, but if our policies are going to reflect “sound science,” so that we can create policies based on “clear ethics,” then the biological facts should quit being fudged.

No, Mr. President. Killing is killing

TBLeave a comment

As the president comes out today to tell us that we need comprehensive health care reform in our nation, I think this is something we should think on. Who will make reforms for the most defenseless in our country?

John Piper’s response to President Obama on abortion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O68MByaMVdM&feature=player_embedded

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he released this statement,
We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
To which I say:
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.
* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.
Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.
We have hope in our sovereign God.

From the transcript:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, [President Obama] released this statement,

We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

To which I say:

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.

Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.

We have hope in our sovereign God.