U.S. Member of Congress displays breathtaking ignorance on embryonic stem cell research

I attended a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday at which several friends and colleagues were testifying. Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Cathy Ruse of Family Research Council testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, in favor of H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”
After the police cleared out demonstrators who inexplicably stood up wearing red headbands across their mouths (which they surely intended to symbolize something related to the hearing, but it was unclear exactly what), the hearing was progressing predictably on party lines until a Democrat Congressman, Mike Quigley (Il.-5th) decided to venture off the usual talking points.
Mr. Quigley pressed Richard Doerflinger about embryonic stem cell research. Trying to show why the U.S. government should not refrain from funding abortion simply because the Catholic Church opposes it, Mr. Quigley suggested that if the government adopted that approach, the government would have to stop funding all the cures for patients coming from embryonic stem cell research.

The question revealed, to the astonishment of many of us familiar with embryonic stem cell research, that Mr. Quigley thought such cures actually existed. They don't. As the video at left shows, Richard patiently explained (after Mr. Quigley repeated the question that it seemed he could not possibly have asked), embryonic stem cells are so volatile and unpredictable, forming cancers in animal studies, that it is highly unlikely that they would ever yield any actual help for patients whatsoever, much less cures for diseases.
The Congressman's ignorance of the truth about embryonic stem cell research illustrates the power of propaganda that grant-seeking researchers and their political allies have managed to foist not only on Members of Congress but on the American public as well. The propaganda is propping up hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds and private investments that could otherwise be accelerating the tremendous progress in stem cell research that doesn't destroy living embryonic human beings and is already producing cures and hope for patients worldwide.
Meanwhile, the witnesses at the hearing made a strong case for passing HR3, which would, as the House Pro-Life Caucus notes,

"establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding abortion and insurance coverage that includes abortion. The bill contains language to prevent funding through programs like Medicaid and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, as well as the tax credits established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

"Additional provisions apply the principles of the Hyde amendment to ensure that abortion is not given tax preferred status through flexible spending accounts and certain deductions. Since abortion is not health care, the U.S. tax code should not create tax incentives for abortion. [Note: H.R. 3 would not affect tax policies for employer-sponsored health insurance.]

"One section of the bill prohibiting taxpayer subsidized abortion coverage to abortion funding in the District of Columbia generated a small protest at the beginning of the hearing. Since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress holds complete legislative authority over D.C. Congress has the authority to prevent all public funding for elective abortion in the District of Columbia. Congress authorized taxpayer funding for abortion in D.C. (as long as the funds were identified as “local” funds) for Fiscal Year 2010, and now, as confirmed by the Washington Post today, D.C. is using public funds for abortion."

Health care bills introduced in beginning of 112th Congress

Below is a sampling of the healthcare-related bills introduced at the beginning of the 112th Congress. You can read the full text of the bills below by searching http://thomas.loc.gov/ for the bill number (e.g., HR2, in which HR stands for House of Representatives).

• Rep. Cantor (R-VA) – H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act – would repeal ObamaCare.
• Rep. King (R-IA) – H.R. 141: To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 – would repeal ObamaCare.
• Rep. Mack (R-FL) – H.R. 145: To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Related Health-Care Provisions – would repeal ObamaCare.
• Rep. Poe (R-TX) – H.R. 154: Defund the Individual Mandate Act – would prohibit the use of any federal funds to implement or enforce any federal mandate to purchase health insurance.
• Rep. Broun (R-GA) – H.R. 299: To Repeal To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes – would repeal ObamaCare, repeal the 7.5 percent threshold on the deduction for medical expenses, provide for increased funding for high-risk pools, allow individuals to acquire health insurance across State lines, and allow for the creation of association health plans.
• Rep. Garrett (R-NJ) – H.R. 21: The Reclaiming Individual Liberty Act – would repeal the mandate included in ObamaCare that individuals purchase health insurance.
• Rep. Graves (R-GA) – H.R. 127: To Deauthorize Appropriation of Funds to Carry Out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act – would deauthorize the appropriation of funds to carry out any of the provisions ObamaCare.
• Rep. Fleming (R-LA) – H.R. 38: To Rescind Funds Appropriated to the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund under the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 – would rescind any funds remaining of those appropriated for the implementation of ObamaCare.
• Rep. Forbes (R-VA) – H.R. 334: The Prevent IRS Overreach Act of 2011 – would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from hiring new employees to enforce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
• Rep. Lungren (R-CA) – H.R. 4: The Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011 – would repeal section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires every corporation to file a 1099 form for each payment of over $600 made to individuals or corporations.
• Rep. Scalise (R-LA) – H.R. 60: To Repeal the Expansion of Information Reporting Requirements for Payments of $600 or More to Corporations – would repeal section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires every corporation to file a 1099 form for each payment of over $600 made to individuals or corporations.
• Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) – H.R. 371: Health Care Choice Act of 2011 – would repeal Title I of ObamaCare, which includes the health insurance provisions of the law. It also provides for the purchase of health insurance across state lines.
• Rep. Burton (R-IN) – H.R. 105: The Empowering Patients First Act – is the reintroduction of the Republican Study Committee’s health care reform bill from the 111th Congress. Further information and short and extended summaries are available here.
• Rep. Stearns (R-FL) – H.R. 171: The Health Care Tax Deduction Act of 2011 – would allow individuals to annually deduct the combined sum of all qualified health insurance costs and any unreimbursed prescription drug expense paid for by the individual for themselves or their spouse and dependents.
• Rep. Pearce (R-NM) – H.R. 346: Health Care Choice Act of 2011 – would allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines and provide a procedure for independent external appeals.
• Rep. Austria (R-OH) – H.R. 369: The Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2011 – would allow individuals to annually deduct the combined sum of all qualified health insurance costs. It would also grant an increase in health savings account (HSA) contribution limits and allow both spouses to make catch-up contributions to an HSA.
• Rep. Thornberry (R-TX) – H.R. 314: The Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act of 2011 – would provide grants to several states for the development, implementation, and evaluation of health care tribunals. A health care tribunal is a trial court or administrative tribunal whose sole function is to adjudicate disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers. The judges for such a tribunal have health care expertise and rely on independent expert witnesses.
• Rep. Thornberry (R-TX) – H.R. 315: The Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act – would reduce the amount of paperwork and improve payment policies for health care services, and prevent fraud and abuse through health care provider education. It would establish a National Bipartisan Commission on Billing Codes and Forms Simplification, create a simple process for physicians and providers to receive assistance with questionable codes and procedures, and reforms the implementation process for new evaluation and management guidelines under the Medicare program and the treatment of physician overpayments by the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) – H.R. 103: The Health Care Choices for Seniors Act – would allow seniors to choose their HSA over Medicare without penalty. The bill splits the connection between Social Security and Medicare, provides a voucher for those that opt-out of Medicare in return for their years of paying Medicare payroll taxes, and would allow individuals to continue tax-free contributions to their HSA. Additionally, the bill would delay enrollment penalties until age 70 to allow seniors more flexibility to keep their HSA after age 65.
• Rep. Blackburn (R-TN) – H.R. 234: The Savings for Seniors Act of 2011 – would prohibit Congress from spending Social Security surpluses and form a bipartisan commission to consider the best use of those funds. Social Security tax receipts that are not used to pay current Social Security expenses would be placed in an off-budget account and remain there until Congress passed legislation that approves an investment vehicle for the funds. This would serve to prevent Social Security surpluses from being invested in the obligations of the Federal government.

Pro-life bills introduced in Congress - a quick summary

Here's a quick summary of key pro-life bills introduced in the House of Representatives in this new 112th Congress that relate to health care, conscience rights, abortion and human cloning.
You can read the full text of the bills below by searching http://thomas.loc.gov/  for the bill number (e.g., HR2, in which HR stands for House of Representatives). The bill title and number are followed by the legislator who introduced the legislation.

Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (H.R.2) ( Rep. Cantor, Eric [VA-7]) - repeals the Democrats' healthcare reform law passed in 2010. Physician lawmakers, including a number newly elected to Congress, helped pass this repeal bill on Jan. 19, largely along party lines. While prospects for Senate passage of the House repeal bill at this time appear unlikely, Senate procedural rules could be employed to force a vote, putting senators on record on the highly controversial law. Meanwhile, over half the states are now challenging the law in court.

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 3) ( Rep. Smith, Christopher [NJ-4]) -

• No tax subsidy: "No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion. No health care service furnished--(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or (2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician's or individual's employment, may include abortion.
• No discrimination: "A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance (either directly or indirectly), may not subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 217) ( Rep. Pence, Mike [IN-6]) - prohibits family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions: "The [HHS] Secretary shall not provide any assistance under this title to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion."

Protect Life Act (HR 358) ) Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]) - amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Democrats' healthcare reform bill passed in 2010) to provide:

• No abortion requirement: "Nothing in this Act … shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or to allow the [HHS] Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services."
• No discrimination: "A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination … on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;(B) require or provide such training;(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or (D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions."

Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (HR 361) ( Rep. Fleming, John [LA-4]) - would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit certain abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities, including if a healthcare "entity" (including professionals) refuses: "to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions; to require or provide such training; to perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or to provide referrals for such training or such abortions."

Patients First Act (awaiting introduction; previously H.R.877) - would "(1) intensify research that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions; (2) promote research and human clinical trials using stem cells that are ethically obtained and show evidence of providing clinical benefit for human patients; and (3) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines without the creation of human embryos for research purposes and without the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo."

Human Cloning Prohibition Act (awaiting introduction; previously H.R.1050) - Unlike phony "bans" that actually allow creating a human clone and then mandate the embryo's destruction after two weeks of life, this pro-life bill defines `human cloning' as "human asexual reproduction, accomplished by introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into a fertilized or unfertilized oocyte whose nucleus has been removed or inactivated to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution. The bill would make it "unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce to perform or attempt to perform human cloning; to participate in an attempt to perform human cloning; or to ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose."

Incredibly blaming taxpayers for Gosnell abortion mill's concentration camp inhumanity

Confronted with the horrors of live babies killed with concentration camp inhumanity and of women who suffered and died in a filthy abortion facility described as "a bad gas station restroom," the executive director of the Women's Medical Fund incredibly responds in a Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece by blaming Dr. Kermit Gosnell's abortion butchery on taxpayers' opposition to funding abortion.
It seems inconceivable that abortion advocates could remain so fixated on their ideological agenda that they can no longer feel the instinctive human revulsion at the unconscionable abuse of human life displayed in this case.

As Karen Heller righly observed in her Jan. 26 Inquirer column, "People on both sides of the abortion debate should have been outraged by what was happening."
This case provides a teachable moment for us all to better comprehend the palpable horror of abortion and a legislative moment to address a corrupt regulatory system. That scandalously politicized system has allowed butchers like Dr. Gosnell to take the lives not only of babies but also of their mothers, with impunity. Those who choose to obscure or deny the reality of abortion clinics and stand in the way of reform will find themselves out of step with Pennsylvanians and most of humanity.

Deploring "women as commodities," "Eggsploitation" wins documentary award

My colleague Jennifer Lahl's documentary, "Eggsploitation" this week was named Best Documentary in the 2011 California Independent Film Festival Slate Awards. The film exposes how women are being exploited commercially and harmed physically in order to obtain their eggs for use in reproductive technology related to infertility. Human cloning also uses women's eggs, and a ridiculous number of eggs (and the corresponding number of exploited and harmed women) would be required to get anywhere near the imagined therapies supposedly arising from human cloning. From the news release:

Jennifer Lahl, President of The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network and writer, director, and producer of Eggsploitation said, "We are thrilled to have been named Best Documentary by the California Independent Film Festival. California has been referred to as the 'reproductive tourism capital of the world' so it's fitting that a film drawing attention to the issue of egg donation and the health risks to young women would be so honored."

Eggsploitation profiles three highly educated young women—Calla, Alexandra, and Sindy—who suffered extreme health consequences related to their egg "donation." Dangerous health complications can occur during the egg donation process as a result of taking high doses of fertility drugs, during the egg retrieval surgery, or both. Their disturbing testimonies about their experience with egg donation are a wake-up call regarding a highly unregulated, multi-billion-dollar industry that jeopardizes the health of young women.
The film has received international attention, with sales and showings in more than 15 countries. In addition, Eggsploitation is making a big push on university campuses across the United States, where egg donation ads heavily target young women. This spring, Eggsploitation is scheduled to show at Columbia, Fordham, Yale, and Notre Dame law schools, as well as at Loyola-Marymount, Boston College, and many more.

For more information about the film and the issue of egg donation, and to view the trailer and clips from the film, visit www.eggsploitation.com.