Archive for aborted

Bus driver told child he should have been aborted because of Romney sign in his parent’s yard

Posted in Bully, Obama, Romney with tags , , , , , , , on October 16, 2012 by saynsumthn

Joey Hartlaub, age 12, lives in a Milwaukee suburb and takes a bus to school. After his mom put a Romney sign in their yard, his pro-Obama bus driver harassed Joey for two weeks, eventually telling him: “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.” This first-ever on-air interview of Joey’s mom, Debbie, was broadcast by Milwaukee talk radio host Vicki McKenna on 10/10/2012.

Pro-life vaccine company created?

Posted in Abortion, Vaccinations with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Foe, Tracy Deisher, Seeks to Market Pro-Life Vaccines
Luke Timmerman 10/1/10
The woman who helped bring the U.S. embryonic stem cell research enterprise to a standstill for a couple weeks this summer is also a Seattle biotech entrepreneur who wants to create what she calls the first pro-life vaccine company.

Theresa “Tracy” Deisher, a Stanford-trained molecular physiologist, made national news in late August as one of the co-plaintiffs who successfully challenged the Obama Administration’s year-old policy that provided additional funding for embryonic stem cell research. The big news broke when a U.S. District Court judge agreed to block the Obama Administration’s executive order, saying it violated a federal ban on embryo destruction dating back to the 1990s. The Obama Administration is appealing the judge’s ruling, and an appeals court judge has since allowed federally funded stem cell research to continue while the legal argument continues.

The latest chapter in the stem cell research controversy has rekindled this decade-long debate that has the classic ingredients of a big story—religion, science, politics. Deisher, along with co-plaintiff James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute, were at the center of it all, appearing in a flurry of stories from the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and other media outlets.

While most of the attention focused on the legal and political storylines, not much has been written about Deisher’s career or her for-profit and non-profit ventures here in Seattle. So naturally I wanted to know more. And as luck would have it, her lab and office is one floor downstairs from my office on Seattle’s First Hill, so she came over a couple weeks ago to talk about it.

Deisher made clear that her goal is to create a new kind of biotech enterprise, Ave Maria Biotechnology, built to serve a moral purpose. The idea is to provide vaccine alternatives for people with strong religious beliefs, who reject standard commercially available vaccines that were derived via cells from aborted fetal tissue.

“We are clearly unique in that we are open and upfront about our pro-life mission,” Deisher says. “Our pro-life work is our top responsibility. For most companies, fiduciary return is the top priority. We hope our investors will make lots of money, but that’s not our first objective. We won’t compromise our pro-life mission for economic returns.”

Deisher, 47, was born and raised in Seattle. She got her scientific training at Stanford, and received a PhD in molecular and cell physiology in 1990. She ended up coming back to Seattle to work as a scientist at some of the region’s best known companies—ZymoGenetics, Immunex, and then Amgen. After that came a stint at CellCyte Genetics, a company that ran into trouble with federal securities regulators when it made exaggerated claims about stem cell research. Deisher had a public falling out with that company over their exaggerated claims, which the SeattlePI wrote about in February 2008.

Deisher’s political leanings changed dramatically over the course of her life, according to the Wall Street Journal. Deisher told the Journal she was once a “radical feminist” but changed her mind after seeing the negative effects of abortion on some of her friends. She has moved on to speak at antiabortion rallies.

Now Deisher is in an unusual position to apply her scientific background in a way that’s consistent with her beliefs. After she left CellCyte, Deisher decided to set on out on her own. She founded the for-profit Ave Maria Biotechnology, also known as AVM Biotech, and the nonprofit Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute.

Ave Maria Biotechnology was registered as a for-profit company with the Washington Secretary of State’s office in June 2008. Ave Maria has mostly been financed by Deisher herself, and has relied heavily on young scientific staff who are willing to donate their services for the cause, Deisher says. About 11 months after the company was founded, it raised $175,000 in equity, debt, and warrant securities out of a financing round that could potentially be worth $1 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company, on its website, says it objects to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in biomedical research, a practice that has become increasingly common in the pharmaceutical industry over the past decade. While many scientists have argued these cell lines are necessary to provide realistic conditions in the lab, Deisher rejects that idea.

“It has not held up empirically,” Deisher says, adding that pharma and biotech companies have haven’t been able to improve their success rate at creating new drugs and vaccines by using fetal cell lines in research.

Vaccines are a particular point of interest: Two mandated childhood vaccines (measles/mumps/rubella and chickenpox) are derived from fetal cell lines, Deisher says. Those vaccines alone generate about $1.2 billion in revenue for pharma companies each year, or a little more than one-fourth of the vaccine market. AVM notes that there are just over 4 million live births in the U.S. each year, and about one-tenth of those children don’t get vaccinated because their parents have religious or moral objections.

So the company’s plan is to make new vaccines that are produced without any fetal cell lines, not just for the 400,000 that morally object, but for others who take existing vaccines but would prefer to take those not derived from fetal cells.

“As a pediatrician, if you object morally to the current vaccine, you have no choice,” Deisher says.

Of course, no bootstrapped biotech like AVM has the wherewithal to finance and conduct clinical trials of a new vaccine. Instead, AVM is hoping to obtain commercial rights to a measles/mumps/rubella vaccines derived from animal cell lines that Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, has taken off the market. That vaccine is already cleared for sale by the FDA, it just isn’t currently being marketed by Merck, Deisher says. Vaccine makers have been shifting toward vaccines derived from fetal cells because they thought they would be slightly cheaper to produce, and that’s important for low-margin commodity products, she says. “The primary driver was economic,” she says.

If AVM can get ahold of this license, it would have something it could market to the many parents who choose not to vaccinate their children on religious grounds. AVM, on its website, says it “will provide commercial vaccines produced using morally acceptable cell sources and methods. We hope to be an answer to these parents’ prayers.”

While the for-profit venture hasn’t yet secured such a commercial asset, Deisher’s nonprofit venture has found better fortune. The Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, which was registered in Washington as a nonprofit the same day as AVM was formed and is located in the same office, picked up a two-year $500,000 grant earlier this year from the MJ Murdock Charitable Trust, a Vancouver, WA-based foundation that supports faith-based initiatives. The Murdock grant is set aside to perform research that looks for a connection between traces of human DNA in childhood vaccines and autism.

Deisher, who announced the Murdock grant in a newsletter in April, said she was “thrilled” to get the new funding. “Shouldn’t we determine whether injecting residual human fetal DNA into our children is safe, or not?” she wrote. She added: “The grant is a major step forward for Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, however, we are left with a funding gap. Please consider joining the Trust to help fund this critical research.”
The effort, based on Deisher’s July newsletter, appears to be struggling to gain momentum. The nonprofit institute has seven employees, and has sought to put them to work with basic equipment like a centrifuge, a biologic safety hood, pH meters, and incubators, Deisher wrote. After paying rent and buying lab supplies, “we have $25,000 for our employees, before mandatory taxes. We can’t retain our scientific talent with these wages,” Deisher wrote.

But research isn’t the only activity at the nonprofit institute. Deisher hopes to hire a marketing person to help with a program that will label various pharmaceuticals as “Pro-Life Produced” or “Pro-Life Approved.” This would be a certification label, like organic produce, that says whether or not a pharmaceutical or vaccine was developed using any human fetal DNA or proteins. There’s a need for certification, the nonprofit says, because 10 vaccines and three biotech drugs were produced in the U.S. with aborted human fetal cell lines. About 85 additional biotech drugs produced in this manner are “coming soon,” according to the institute.

Deisher has certainly made her share of enemies in the stem cell research field through her legal case, and any widespread effort to challenge the ethical basis of new biotech drugs is sure to run into well-financed opposition. A couple of scientists I sought comment from about Deisher politely declined to say anything on the record. Deisher didn’t have anything to say about her critics, either, but she made clear that she believes very strongly in what she’s doing, and gives no hint of backing down.

“This is a country founded on respect for the morals of others,” Deisher says. “Parents and pediatricians who object to existing vaccines should have another choice.”
Luke Timmerman is the National Biotech Editor of Xconomy, and the Editor of Xconomy Seattle.

Gianna Jessen testimony- aborted as a baby tells her story

Posted in Abortion, Late term abortion, Video with tags , , , , , , on September 28, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Gianna Jessen testimony- aborted as a baby tell…, posted with vodpod

New Zealand Government document targets Downs SyndromeChildren for Eugenics as “cost beneficial for the population”

Posted in Abortion, Eugenics with tags , , , , , , , , on September 17, 2010 by saynsumthn

Screening on slippery slope to eugenics
By Garth George
Garth George writes that an expanded screening programme for Down Syndrome may go against the rights of the disabled.

Back in February this year, the Government instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and Other Conditions – Quality Improvements” programme.
This programme, which received but cursory mention in the press, was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the ministry’s National Screening Unit without, according to pro-life sources, any public consultation.

In this newspaper it was presented simply as “an expanded, safer screening programme to detect Down syndrome during pregnancy” and the report quoted the Health Ministry as saying that its review of the screening was not about reducing the number of babies born with Down syndrome.

However, pro-life sources tell me cabinet papers they have obtained under the Official Information Act state the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of babies with Down syndrome, with some 90 per cent of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being aborted.

The programme is funded by the state and targets all pregnant women in New Zealand in their first trimester on the basis of providing information to women to make decisions about their pregnancies, including abortion.

But, say pro-lifers, people with disabilities are the only group targeted for selective abortion. Down syndrome and other conditions targeted are genetic conditions that have no cure.

“This is eugenics,” says Ken Orr, spokesman for Right to Life, “which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a search and destroy mission and is a further major step on a slippery slope.”

He accuses the Government of seeking to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than a state-sanctioned national screening programme.
“The Government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. But we should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning.

“Right to Life contends that the Government has decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community. Its intention, then, is to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome.”

Mr Orr says the “insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth. With the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources the health care for the disabled will be restricted”.

It seems obvious to me that the basis of first-trimester screening is to enable women to have an abortion within the 20-week timeframe if an abnormality is detected, since other reasons for prenatal diagnoses are left until the later stages of pregnancy.

Jane McEntee, manager of antenatal and newborn screening at the National Screening Unit, was quoted in this newspaper in February as saying that the new system “is about making sure the screening is safe and reliable and that women are fully informed around what screening means and what may follow screening and any decisions that they may need to make”.

However, documentation obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Health by Whangarei engineer Mike Sullivan, parent of a Down syndrome child, includes a report which states that “the [Down syndrome screening] programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system … the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long-term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome.”

The pro-life movement also maintains that the preventing of birth of a group of people falls within the definition of genocide under international law, particularly Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which New Zealand signed in 1948. This article forbids signatory states from imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Mr Orr says people with Down syndrome fall within the definition of “disabled persons” and are recognised under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as a group which forms part of a nation.

Under that Declaration disabled persons “have the same civil and political rights as other human beings” and “must be protected against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature”.

These rights, says Mr Orr, are further reinforced under Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled, which states: “State parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”

I know that men and women and boys and girls with Down syndrome are loved and valued members of their families and their communities, and contribute to society in a variety of ways. God help us if they are, in fact, destined to be victims of the thin end of the eugenics wedge.

Garth George is the father of a Down syndrome son, now in his mid-40s.