FRC Blog

FRC Submits Comments to HHS on Conscience Protection

by Chris Gacek

October 5, 2008

      On August 26, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) asked the public for comments about rules it proposed to protect the rights of conscience of health care providers - in particular, to permit them to refuse to assist in, provide, or refer patients for abortions.  These conscience rights were created by three historic federal statutes known more commonly as the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments.

     The Family Research Council and several other groups filed comments on September 25th responding to HHS.  Get a copy of them here.

     Here is a summary of our main points:

  • HHS’s proposed rules (regulations) are needed because many participants in the health care system are violating the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments. Many intended beneficiaries of these landmark civil rights laws - intended to protect health care providers’ right of religious and moral conscience - do not know their rights under the law. HHS regulations are needed to clarify the extent of these statutory protections.
  • HHS should adopt a fertilization-based definition of pregnancy (and thus abortion) because that is consistent with the prevailing medical dictionary definitions, religious thought, and medical science on when life begins: these are, after all, conscience protections, so they should protect the conscience’s of the various health care providers.
  • Even if HHS does not adopt a fertilization-based definition of pregnancy, it should reject the implantation-based definition in HHS’s human-subject regulations for a number of reasons.

 o   For example, non-uterine, ectopic pregnancies demonstrate that uterine implantation cannot define the onset of pregnancy.

  • As a final alternative, HHS should recognize that the reasonable, subjective religious or moral conviction of the individual or institutional health care provider should govern, given the statutory focus on protecting conscience. Religious freedom and conscience in this country plainly reflect the views of the individual or institution, not the views of third parties.
  • Recognizing a right of conscience does not discriminate against women or violate any concepts mandated in Roe v. Wade and its progeny which do not purport to require any particular health care provider to participate in abortions.
  • HHS should enforce the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments in the same manner as it enforces other civil rights statutes, like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
  • HHS’s Title X regulations, which require grant recipients to counsel and refer for abortions, appear to violate the law as set forth in the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments.

 

 

Continue reading

Homosexual TV Characters — Proportional Representation, or Propaganda?

by Peter Sprigg

October 2, 2008

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) reported in triumph last week that the number of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)” characters on broadcast TV will more than double in the new TV season.

Of course, TV writers, producers, and networks are free to create whatever type of characters they want, but the public needs to look at those characters and programs with a discerning eye. Are they just there to reflect what America actually looks like (GLAAD’s claim)? Or are they really there for propaganda purposes, to promote a sociopolitical agenda demanding affirmation of homosexual conduct?

There are two ways to test this question. One is to ask whether the depiction of homosexual characters is accurate. Does it accurately reflect the higher rates of sexual promiscuity, STDs, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse among homosexuals? If the homosexual characters are always depicted as the smartest, funniest, most noble characters on the show, on the one hand, or only as victims of persecution, on the other, then you know you’re seeing propaganda.

The other test is whether other groups are proportionally represented on TV as well. For example, how many evangelical Christian characters are there on TV series, and how are they portrayed? There are many times as many evangelical Christians in America as there are homosexuals, but I doubt you’ll find that reflected on TV.

[See also CNN.com: In Hollywood, sexuality is less secret, still can be big deal]

Continue reading

The Daily Buzz

by Brittany Smith

October 1, 2008

A few things we’re talking about today at FRC

Continue reading

Hitler, hate-mail, and hapless history

by Jared Bridges

October 1, 2008

Our friend Matthew Eppinette at Americans United for Life blogs about a particlularly interesting piece of hate mail that his group received.  In a response to an letter announcing their annual gala, the were greeted by a homemade flyer featuring a bizarre equation:

AUL President Charmaine Yoest + Ramesh Ponnuru = swastika

Now anyone who knows Charmaine (a former VP here at FRC) and Ramesh (author, speaker, and pro-life expert) know that they are as far removed from German National Socialism as one can get.  I doubt either of them is losing any sleep over this.  After all, the hip way these days to say “I don’t like you” is to call someone a Nazi or compare them to Hitler.  It’s the irony here that’s noteworthy.  As Eppinette observes:

I’m not sure I understand how it is that those of us who are working to protect life are to be equated with one of the most life-destroying regimes that ever existed. Some people just have too much time on their hands, I suppose.

Too much time on their hands indeed —- and too little time spent on their history homework.

Continue reading

Helping Kidneys with Adult Stem Cells

by David Prentice

October 1, 2008

Adult stem cells are being tested by a Utah research team for prevention and treatment of kidney damage in a Phase I clinical trial. Two patients recently underwent the treatment; a total of 15 patients will be recruited for this trial. This first trial is with patients who have had open-heart surgery, which can sometimes lead to acute kidney damage. The adult stem cells are obtained from healthy donor bone marrow and processed so that they are not recognized by the immune system, eliminating the need for tissue transplant matching. For treatment, the adult stem cells are injected into the bloodstream of the patient. Once in the kidney, the cells release signals that protect kidney tissue from damage and stimulate repair. The treatment is based on published work in animals showing that adult stem cells release signals in the kidney that lead to rapid, direct improvement of the tissue. The adult stem cells do not stay in the kidney but instead transiently provide the signaling that leads to a cascade of protective and repair mechanisms within the organ. This mechanism has been seen in other successful repair of tissues by adult stem cells.

Continue reading

Schwarzenegger’s Blinders

by David Prentice

September 30, 2008

arnold-blinders2.jpgCalifornia Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed S.B.1565, the Stem Cell Affordability Bill. The bill would have guaranteed accessibility for uninsured Californians to any stem cell therapies developed through the state taxpayer-funded $6 billion stem cell program, given more flexibility for approval of projects by the grants review working group, and provided for an audit of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) governing board. The bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Sens. Sheila Kuehl and George Runner, had passed through the California legislature with very little opposition (64-7 in the House, 37-1 in the Senate), despite vociferous attacks (including personal attacks on Sen. Kuehl) by CIRM surrogates. Schwarzenegger, with blinders firmly in place, said in his veto statement that voters specifically wanted to fund embryonic stem cells, and that requirements to make state-funded treatments affordable would unnecessarily restrict the agency’s authority to balance patient need with essential research.

According to CIRM’s website, their mission supposedly is to “support and advance stem cell research and regenerative medicine under the highest ethical and medical standards for the discovery and development of cures, therapies, diagnostics and research technologies to relieve human suffering from chronic disease and injury.” But apparently the only part of the statement that is true is to support [embryonic] stem cell research, without any real dedication to the patients. Apparently the scientific committee can’t be trusted to choose the most promising science for patients. California taxpayers were sold a bill of goods in Prop 71, led to believe they would receive affordable therapies from their investment in this research. Yet embryonic stem cells and cloning, preferred by Proposition 71, have yielded not a single treatment for any patient nor any return on the huge investment of taxpayer funds, and CIRM has admitted that after 10 years and all of the money spent there will still be no treatments and no return on the investment. By contrast, other scientists have shown that the new iPS cells are much more promising and easier to produce, and that real treatments are already coming from adult stem cells (CIRM has also denied funds to promising adult stem cell research that is already treating patients.) Sadly, the veto means California taxpayer money will continue to be spent on the least successful, least promising research.

The audit of the stem cell institute’s governing board, which had also been requested by Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit organization in Santa Monica, will proceed despite the veto.

Continue reading

Making Memories with Adult Stem Cells

by David Prentice

September 30, 2008

New nerve cells, produced naturally by adult neural stem cells present in the brain, appear to be essential for learning and memory. The old idea that brain cells are not renewed (that “you start with as many brain cells as you’ll ever have, and it’s downhill from there”) was tossed out the window by scientists years ago. Researchers showed in the early 1990’s that the adult brain continues to make new neurons, a process termed “neurogenesis”, throughout life (Gage has a good review of the early years.) Now researchers at Kyoto University in Japan have shown in mice that new brain cells are necessary for learning and for memory. The new research, published in Nature Neuroscience, indicates that neural stem cells in the adult brain continue to produce new brain cells that are important for memory and learning. The new study supports work published earlier this year showing that new brain cells can affect learning and memory. Last year research showed that transplanting adult neural stem cells into brain-injured mice could restore some memory, and in March 2008 another study showed that injecting human umbilical cord blood stem cells into the brains of aging animals boosted neurogenesis. A recent study also suggested that stimulating specific molecules in the brain could reactivate adult neural stem cells. Exercise has also been shown to stimulate neurogenesis in the brain. So various methods seem to have the potential to help the mouse remember where he put his cheese, or where you left your keys, by stimulating your own brain adult stem cells.

Continue reading

Fireproof Lights Up the Box Office

by Michael Leaser

September 29, 2008

Score another success for Alex and Stephen Kendrick. The creators of Facing the Giants have offered up an unexpectedly poignant film about a firefighter trying to save his failing marriage. And moviegoers have responded with a $6.5 million opening weekend, giving Fireproof the second-highest per-screen average behind Eagle Eye. This on a budget of just $500,000, paltry by Hollywood standards. By comparison, Facing the Giants earned $1.3 million in its opening weekend on its way to a surprisingly successful take of $10 million in its 117-day run, and that on a $100,000 budget.

Like its predecessor, Fireproof employs amateur actors for most of its roles with mixed results, but the leads are solid, and Kirk Cameron is particularly effective as the frustrated fireman who’s not even certain at first that he wants to save his marriage. The film definitely has a low-budget look to it, but Alex Kendrick and his camera crew clearly know their craft. They make every dollar in that budget count. The story itself, though, is reason enough to see the film, especially for recently engaged or newlywed couples. One rarely sees such a life-affirming, marriage-affirming tale on the big screen. Fireproof doesn’t claim marriage is easy, but it should successfully convince skeptics that it’s well worth the work.

Continue reading

Archives