Archive for NIH

NIH funded University of California’s lab attempts aborted fetal tissue purchase from pro-life group

Posted in Aborted Baby Body Parts, Center for Medical Progress, Fetal Organs, fetal Remains, fetal research, Fetal Tissue, NIH, Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts, University of California, University of California San Diego with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 29, 2019 by saynsumthn

University lab mistakenly tries to buy fetal body parts from pro-life group

ectopic pregnancy, eight weeks, miscarriage, baby, fetus, embryo, fetal

New information from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) alleges that a “government-funded” university laboratory is seeking fresh aborted baby body parts — and is willing to purchase them from just about anyone.

CMP wrote in a tweet, “Apparently the government-funded laboratories at  are so greedy for “fresh” aborted baby body parts, they will try to buy them from ANYBODY — even without bothering to check who they are emailing.  please STOP this now!  CMP linked the tweet to a document of e-mail exchanges with what appears to be researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

Tweet from CMP about go funded laboratory and fetal body parts request from UCSD

The e-mail thread, running from April 1, 2019, to May 6, 2019, appears to show a request by Dr.Agnieszka DAntonio-Chronowska, from a “genomics and genetics” lab at the UCSD contacting CMP for “human fetal pancreas” with “optimal age of donor” or baby “between 4-8 weeks embryonal development” or “any other available embryonal stage.”

 

D’Antonio-Chronowska’s signature states she is a “Senior scientist in laboratory of Kelly A. Frazier, PhD.” at UCSD’s “Cellular and Molecular Medicine Building.” According to the Frazier Lab at UCSD, Dr. Frazer is an “internationally renowned leader in the field of genome biology and medicine. She is the director of UC San Diego Institute for Genomic Medicine and founding chief of the Division of Genome Information Sciences in the Department of Pediatrics at UC San Diego.”

The requested “specimens” (ages 4-8 weeks) could potentially include preborn babies whose fetal heartbeat can be detected and ones many pro-life Heartbeat Bills were created to protect.

 

The correspondence continued, with the Center for Medical Progress answering Dr. D’Antonion-Chronowska’s questions very carefully and factually, without stating that they actually offered any specimens….

Email from CMP to UCSD for human fetal pancreas

In the email shown above, CMP was referring to two of Planned Parenthood’s California facilities that were part of an undercover investigation into the selling of aborted baby body parts. A past CMP press releasestates in part:

Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, formerly known as Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties, is a large and wealthy Planned Parenthood affiliate doing business in southern California. PPPS performs nearly 17,000 abortions every year[10]and operates two main surgical abortion offices, one in downtown San Diego and one in Riverside. The San Diego and Riverside clinics both advertise abortions up to 6 months (24 weeks) for any reason.[11]Since at least 1999, PPPS has had a contract with ABR to supply aborted fetal organs and tissues.

The release goes on to describe Planned Parenthood’s contracts with Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR). An ABR spokesperson is seen addressing its fetal body parts procurement program below:

 

Live Action News previously documented how Planned Parenthood is increasing facilities that offer later term abortions, committing abortions up to 24 weeks in San Diego, CA and Riverside, CA, among other locations.

In response:

  • D’Antonio-Chronowska told CMP, “We are indeed in contact with few other organizations in California however it is critical for us to find a reputable and reliable source which could provide the samples.”
  • D’Antonio-Chronowska then asked CMP for “heart specimens from 3 donors.”
  • She added, “We understand the difficulty in obtaining such early samples therefore samples from later gestation stages would also be acceptable.”
  • CMP asked UCSD what their funding source was: “(NIH, CIRM.)?”

 

The correspondence appears to end there.

Image: Email from UCSD to CMP for human fetal heart specimens

Email from UCSD to CMP for human fetal heart specimens

In 2018, UCSD received $52,099,084 from taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants.

University of California San Diego NIH grans FY 2018

UCSD is part of the University of California Universities (UC). According to UC’s latest financial audit (2018), “In 2018, federal grants and contracts revenue increased $43.0 million, or 1.3%, as compared to 2017. In 2017, federal grants and contracts revenue increased $14.0 million, or 0.4%, as compared to 2016. Federal grants and contracts include federal facilities and administrative cost recovery of $782.0 million, $764.0 million and $745.6 million in 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively….”

University of California 2018 Audit shows taxpayer funding

NIH grants to UC projects for FY 2019 alone total over $77,000,000 with over $19,000,000 for UCSD.

University of California NIH grants FY 2019

search of overall HHS grants to UCSD for several years reveals a staggering amount of tax dollars being funneled to the University.

University of California San Diego HHS grants various years

Live Action News previously documented that Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, a UC San Francisco (UCSF) program — which is also taxpayer-funded — trains abortion providers.

“Even as the Department of Health and Human Services continues an agency-wide audit of fetal experimentation and the U.S. Department of Justice investigates the sale of aborted fetal tissue at Planned Parenthood and their business partners, government-funded researchers do not seem to have curtailed their appetite for aborted baby body parts one bit,” CMP founder David Daleiden told Life Site News.

“It is far past time for HHS to end the barbaric practice of taxpayer-funded fetal experimentation, and for the Department of Justice to do their job and hold Planned Parenthood and other baby body parts traffickers accountable to the law,” he added.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Taxpayers send millions to abortion training program at UCSF

Posted in Abortion Pill Connections, Abortion Pill Study, Abortionist, Abortionist Training, Bill Gates, Fellowship in Family Planning (FFP), Hewlett Foundation, Innovating Education in Reproductive Health, National Abortion Federation, Packard Foundation, Philip Darney, Ryan Residency, Uta Landy with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2019 by saynsumthn

Who’s paying millions for this abortion training program? Taxpayers.

third trimester abortion, abortion training

Abortion training is being orchestrated out of a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) program which receives millions in government dollars. UCSF trains abortion providers through their Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health , which claims to be “one of the few research institutions to unflinchingly address abortion, investigating multidimensional aspects of abortion care in the United States and globally.” Bixby claims their work has:

According to Bixby’s annual reports, in 2014, nearly $22 million dollars (52 percent) of Bixby’s revenue came from the taxpayer, although the report does not specify whether the funds were state or federal. By 2015, although Government dollars made up only 18 percent of Bixby’s revenue, it totaled over $18 million in taxpayer dollars. Bixby is conveniently located in California, which permits millions in taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and has no requirement that abortion numbers be reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for data analysis.

UCSF Bixby Gov Funding 18 million in 2015 to 2016 AR

Taxpayer dollars sent to UCSF for fetal research include millions from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A recent report published by CNS News breaks down the dollars of the multi-year contract:

[T]he Department of Health and Human Services has granted contracts to UCSF to make “humanized mice.”… According to contract information published on the Federal Procurement Data System, the new three-month extension will pay UCSF $521,082—bringing the total payments the federal government has made to UCSF for this contract to $10,596,960. If the government continues renewing the contract through Dec. 5, 2020, HHS would end up paying UCSF a total of $13,799,501.

In addition to government (taxpayer) dollars, Bixby receives funding from a number of organizations collaborating to expand abortion, such as:

UCSG Bixby trains abortion to increase access (Image: Twitter)

According to Bixby, which was created to address a shortage of abortionists dating back to the mid 1980’s, the number of US abortion providers decreased by 38% between 1982 and 2005, and some 87% of US counties do not have an abortion provider.

Bixby runs two flagship programs, which “provide the opportunity to develop high-level research and clinical skills in abortion and contraception:”

FFP was established by Dr. Philip Darney, and as previously reported, FFP’s website makes it clear that abortion is their mission, stating that the family planning fellowship is a “two-year fellowship focused on subspecialist training in research, teaching and clinical practice in abortion and contraception… and they play an active role in discussions in the media related to family planning access and advocate for their patients in popular media outlets.”

Fellowship in Family Planning FFP FB Page (Image credit: Facebook)

Live Action News also previously reported how the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning was founded in 1999 by Dr. Uta Landy, a former director of the National Abortion Federation and a recipient of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s infamous Margaret Sanger Award. According to the Bixby Center, Landy established “one of the first abortion clinics in New York after legalization in 1970, and became the first executive director of the National Abortion Federation in 1979.” Landy was recently caught in undercover footage from the Center for Medical Progress talking about late-term abortions.

Philip Darney and Uta Landy at UCSF abortion training

The Ryan program is now at 70 major medical schools in the US and Canada, according to their website.

The Bixby Center was originally founded as the Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy in 1999 by Philip Darney, MD and Nancy Padian, who were shortly thereafter joined by Claire Brindis, DrPH, MPH, and Felicia Stewart, MD, according to their report. The Center offers online abortion training courses and lectures through its Innovating Education in Reproductive Health which is described as “a digital hub that highlights innovative family planning and abortion curricula, tools, teaching techniques and research from educational leaders around the world.”

Innovating Education at UCSF abortion training

The group’s week by week abortion course, “Abortion Quality Care and Public Health Implications,” has a stated goal to destigmitize abortion, among other things. The “career planning brochure” instructs graduates to “moonlight” at abortion facilities and to “highlight [their] abortion training as a special skill set” when they apply to a practice.

Innovating Education Abortion Career Planning Brochure

The abortion training course is introduced by Jody Steinauer, Associate Professor at UCSF. The course is “directed at health care students and professionals.”

The video lectures lead up to the topic of  “abortion after the first trimester,” in week four, where Steinauer admits that later abortions “can be a difficult topic to discuss for many due to feelings about a more developed fetus.”

Jody Steinauer at UCSF abortion training

Despite the abortion industry’s frequent denial of facts about fetal development, Bixby’s TEACH Program (Training Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare) workbook acknowledges that the fetal heartbeat can be detected very early, around six weeks gestation (dates used are gestational, which is measured at two weeks more than the date of fertilization):

The embryo follows a predictable path of development and therefore can be used to date a pregnancy based on its size. The embryo appears at approximately 6 weeks and grows 1 mm per day thereafter until 12-14 weeks. After 12 weeks, fetal flexion and extension make measuring length more challenging and using the fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) is preferred. Cardiac activity appears around 6 ½ weeks.

Bixby abortion training workbook TEACH

The workbook then gives suggestions on how to speak to an abortion patient about the baby. But because this is about ending the life of a developing human person in the womb, the workbook suggests abortion providers use euphemisms like “pregnancy” instead of scientifically correct terminology such as fetus or baby.

“Your pregnancy is 8 weeks along,” instead of  “Your baby is 8 weeks old.”

Bixby abortion training workbook TEACH communication

In upcoming Live Action News articles, we will highlight various teaching lectures published by the UCSF abortion training program.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Human-animal hybrid research combine to make Chimeras

Posted in Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), Animal Human Hybrid, Chimeras, fetal research, Fetal Stem Cell, Fetal Tissue with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 7, 2018 by saynsumthn

Chimeras become a reality in disturbing new human-animal hybrid research

chimeras

Recently, scientists have made breakthroughs in the creation of human-animal hybrids known as chimeras(ky-MEER’-ehz), or a mix of human cells with an animal host. Nature.com explained, “To create chimeras, scientists generally inject pluripotent stem cells — which can become any type of organ — from one species into the early embryo of a second species.”

According to Science Alert, the term comes from “a legend in Greek mythology, describing a monster which was often depicted as a lion with a goat’s head sticking from the side of its neck, and a snake for a tail.”  A 2011 report from UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences notes that “human cells used to create chimeras can be taken with appropriate consent directly from early embryos (e.g. surplus from IVF treatments), aborted fetuses, or a live-born person (e.g. human liver cells, or a cancer biopsy) or from cultured human cell lines.”

Recently, Live Action News reported on how the FDA is contracting with Advanced Bioscience Resources to obtain fetal parts for experiments involving “humanized mice”. The contract states, “ABR is the only company that can provide the human fetal tissue needed to continue the ongoing research being led by the FDA. Fresh human tissues are required for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system.”

Image: FDA Chimeric fetal tissue research

FDA Chimeric fetal tissue research

Live Action News consistently reports on the ethics of using aborted fetal parts for ghoulish experiments:

  • Videos from the Center for Medical Progress showed Planned Parenthood staffers haggling over the price of aborted baby body parts.
  • In the 1970s, aborted babies were being used for medical research funded by taxpayers at the EPA.
  • Experiments on aborted children date back to the 1930’s, including a number of experiments on living abortion survivors.
  • The National Research Act established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, was chaired by Kenneth John Ryan, MD, who taught abortions.
  • Taxpayers have funded millions of dollars for human fetal tissue experiments for years through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), estimated to spend $103 million in FY2018 and $95 million in FY2019. It is unclear which of those studies include more ethical sources of tissue other than tissue from aborted fetuses.
Image: Human fetal research NIH estimates updated

Human fetal research NIH estimates updated

In 2016, NIH announced plans to rescind their moratorium forbidding federal funding of human/animal chimera embryo research. Alan Moy, M.D., CEO of Cellular Engineering Technologies and scientific director of the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, opposes the mixing of species.

Image: Objection to animal human chimera research

Objection to animal human chimera research

And, although it is unclear whether the controversial research uses human adult or embryonic tissue or cell lines, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops objected to the “problem of exploiting human embryos as cell factories for research”.

NPR report also expressed ethical concerns. “One issue is that scientists might inadvertently create animals that have partly human brains, endowing them with some semblance of human consciousness or human thinking abilities,” the report read. “Another is that they could develop into animals with human sperm and eggs and breed, producing human embryos or fetuses inside animals or hybrid creatures.”

George DaleyDirector of Stem Cell Transplantation at Samuel E. Lux Children’s Hospital Boston, who presented at a 2015 NIH workshop on “animals containing human cells,” argued that, “Humanized mice have been essential for cancer research.”

Image: Humanized Mice Chimeras

Humanized Mice Chimeras

But Daley also admitted that even scientists had concerns about “the chimerizing of human cells with non-human primates over mice.” “[W]hat is the plausibility, with which a human cell would fundamentally change the nature of the animal host?” he asked.

Image: NIH Workshop concerns over chimerizing embryos

David Resnik from the Netherlands Institute of Health Sciences (NIHES) (6:06:16) pointed out that the “potential to humanize an animal’s brain” may cause the public to become uncomfortable, because “science moves fast… the specter of an intelligent mouse being stuck in a laboratory somewhere screaming ‘I want to get out’ can be very troubling to people… ”

“The public can change it’s mind just like that as we saw; the videos of… the abortion clinics… can have a tremendous impact on the public… “

In a January 2017 paper published in the journal Cell, scientists at the Salk Institute reported a breakthrough in “generating human cells and tissues in early-stage pig and cattle embryos” where they “[S]uccessfully implanted sows with those embryos”. Nature detailed how scientists “allowed the pig–human chimaeras to develop for three to four weeks before destroying them, according to ethics regulations”.

Image: Human Pig Chimeras

In 2011, media in the UK blew the lid on a secret program that created 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories. According to a report in the Daily Mail, which explained, “This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.”

In 2018, National Geographic reported the second successful human-animal hybrids: sheep embryos that are are 0.01-percent human by cell count.

Image: Human-pig Chimera

In 2016, Congressman Chris Smith introduced legislation to prohibit human/animal chimeras. The bill has essentially gone nowhere. In 2017, pro-life leaders asked the secretary of HHS for NIH to “withdraw the proposed changes to NIH guidelines which would allow funding for research which attempts to create human-animal chimeras… ”

To date, that has not happened.

$1 million to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood for aborted fetal tissue from ABR

Posted in Aborted Baby Body Parts, Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), Center for Medical Progress, Chimeras, FDA, fetal research, Fetal Tissue, Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby parts with tags , , , , , , , , on September 6, 2018 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood got over $300,000 in 6 years from one fetal tissue harvester

Planned Parenthood

Live Action News recently reported about how the FDA is contracting with Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) to obtain “fresh human tissues” — aborted fetal body parts — “for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system.” ABR’s history with fetal tissue research goes back years. According to the Center for Medical Progress, ABR is “the largest and oldest fetal tissue seller in the U.S.” It was founded in 1989, and is the primary supplier of fetal tissue for the U.S. government. And it has paid numerous abortion facilities a great deal of money for this tissue — including a number of Planned Parenthood centers.

The stunning graphic below from the House Select Investigative Panel report summarizes known ABR payments to various Planned Parenthood facilities for fetal tissue — totaling more than $350,000 over the course of six years, from 2010 to 2015:

Image: ABR 2015 Fetal Sales to Top 5 Customers Product and Totals (Image credit: Congressional Investigation)

ABR 2015 Fetal Sales to Top 5 Customers Product and Totals (Image credit: Congressional Investigation)

According to a 2015 report from Politico:

The Food and Drug Administration has also paid about $73,000 to the company since 2009… mostly for liver and thymus tissue that are used largely to develop a human-like immune system in mice…. The NIH, with a $30 billion budget for research nationwide, funded about $76 million in dozens of fetal tissue projects in 2014.

Image: FDA Chimeric fetal tissue research

FDA Chimeric fetal tissue research

The FDA has a dozen contracts with ABR for various items, including lab equipment and supplies, according to the General Services Administration’s Federal Procurement Data SystemOnline records at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicate ABR is regularly granted federal dollars for various projects.

READ: FDA buys ‘fresh’ aborted body parts from company referred for criminal charges

The 2015 Congressional investigation regarding the illegal sale of fetal body parts, following undercover videos released by CMP, led to a report. In this report, quoted below, it was revealed that ABR had been contracting with universities and abortion facilities for years:

  • Before [founder and CEO Cate Dyer] began StemExpress, she worked for Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR)
  • The University of Minnesota (UM)… obtains fetal tissue from procurement companies—in this case, Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) and StemExpress—in addition to an area clinic.
  • The University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public Health (UW SMPH)… more recently obtained fetal tissue for research from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, UW, and ABR.
  • Colorado State University (CSU)… receives a significant amount in federal grants and obtains much of its fetal tissue from ABR and StemExpress. Between 2010 and 2015, CSU received seven NIH grants to support their projects using fetal tissue, at a taxpayer expense of $3.5 million.
  • According to productions made by 25 clinics from which ABR has received fetal tissue, ABR paid them a total of $1,002,147 from 2010 to 2015…. The chart below shows ABR facility fee payments from 2010 through 2015 to the abortion clinics from which it obtained fetal tissue:
Image: ABRs abortion clinic facility fees 2010 to 2015 (Image credit” Select Panel investigation of fetal tissue)

ABRs abortion clinic facility fees 2010 to 2015 (Image credit” Select Panel investigation of fetal tissue)

The panel then detailed ABR’s 2015 fetal parts sales to its top five customers:

Image: ABR 2015 Fetal Sales to Top 5 Customers Product and Totals (Image credit: Congressional Investigation)

ABR 2015 Fetal Sales to Top 5 Customers Product and Totals (Image credit: Congressional Investigation)

In a letter from Rep. Marsha Blackburn to the then-District Attorney of Riverside, California, the Congresswoman detailed ABR’s relationship with Planned Parenthood:

Image: ABRs interactions with Planned Parenthood fetal tissue

ABRs interactions with Planned Parenthood fetal tissue (Image credit: Letter from Rep. Marsha Blackburn)

In 2016, Houston attorney Briscoe Cain claimed he found evidence of four Texas medical schools purchasing fetal tissue from ABR. Invoices from to one of the schools, given to KFOX14 Investigates and reported by CBS4, show the school paid at least $4,000-$5,000 for fetal parts including livers, spleens and thymuses.

Image: ABR invoices for fetal tissue to Texas Universities

ABR invoices for fetal tissue to Texas Universities

Image: ABR invoices for fetal parts to Texas Universities

ABR invoices for fetal parts to Texas Universities

“The research being done is humanized mice. Scientists inject the mouse with fetal tissue so the mouse is genetically altered to accept the graphing of human tissue,” Cain said at the time.

In 2011, the University of Minnesota contracted with ABR for “human fetal pancreas tissue” between 16-24 weeks.

Image: ABR contract with U of Minnesota for fetal tissue 2011

ABR contract with U of Minnesota for fetal tissue 2011

In 2000, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was tasked to study “the involvement of federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education in the acquisition of human fetal tissue for biomedical research.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told GAO that “NIH is the only federal agency under the Labor, HHS, and Education Subcommittee’s jurisdiction that sponsors research using human fetal tissue.” But Live Action previously showed that the EPA used aborted fetal tissue for research in the 1970’s.

According to that report, NIH sponsored three central human fetal tissue supply organizations:

  • The Birth Defects Laboratory at the University of Washington, which distributed 2,869 human fetal tissue samples and collected $52,035 in fees directly from researchers in fiscal year 1999.
  • The Brain and Tissue Banks for Developmental Disorders at the University of Maryland and the University of Miami School of Medicine/Children’s Hospital of Orange County, primarily to serve as suppliers of human nonfetal tissue…. The University of Maryland Bank provided 195 human fetal tissue samples to investigators in fiscal year 1999, and the University of Miami Bank provided approximately 40 samples between March 1 and August 31, 1999.

GAO states that researchers also obtained human fetal tissue from private organizations that did not directly receive federal funds, including ABR.

1970’s Commission looks into fetal experimentation and research

Posted in Abortion History, Fetal Development, fetal heartbeat, Fetal Homicide, Fetal Organs, Fetal Pain, fetal Remains, fetal research, Fetal Stem Cell, Fetal Surgery, Fetal Tissue, The Ryan Program with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2018 by saynsumthn

Some abortion survivors were kept alive almost a day for experimentation

Image: 10 week old Fetus kept alive via artificial womb (Image credit: Life Magazine Sep 10, 1965)

In part one of this series on fetal research, Live Action News detailed a number of experiments conducted on living abortion survivors. Due to the outrage over such experiments reported in the media in the 1970s, the National Research Act established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The commission was chaired by Kenneth John Ryan, MD, an abortionist who also taught others how to do abortions.

IMage: Dr. Kenneth Ryan chaired commission on fetal research (Image credit: Harvard Gazette)

Dr. Kenneth Ryan chaired commission on fetal research (Image credit: Harvard Gazette)

A report published by the Harvard Gazette at the time of Ryan’s death states:

 President Jimmy Carter appointed Ken to chair the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

…When he became the Chief of Staff at the Boston Hospital for Women in 1973, one year after the Roe vs Wade decision, he established the first abortion service in a university hospital and included training in the necessary skills as a routine part of residency education. In 1975 Ken credentialed and granted admitting privileges to Dr. Kenneth Edelin, an African-American, even as he was under indictment for manslaughter in a politically motivated prosecution for performing a legal abortion at Boston City Hospital.

The Ryan Program, which bears the doctor’s name and partners with Planned Parenthood, was established in 1999 to train OB-GYN residents in abortion.

Dr. Paul Ramsey, a Professor of Religion at Princeton University, also served on the commission. He wrote a lengthy opinion in the section entitled, “Moral Issues in Fetal Research,” criticizing NIH definitions of life and death regarding the preborn child, with good reason:

The answer seems clear enough: the difference between the life and death of a human fetus/abortus should be determined substantially in the same way physicians use in making other pronouncements of death… the 1973 NIH proposed guidelines studiously refuses to speak of the previable fetus as “living” or having “life.” By studiously refusing to speak of a previable fetus/abortus who may still be medically “alive” and by leaving the determination of viability entirely to the discretion of physician researchers (not even excluding abortuses with respiration from being deemed previable and entered into experimentation), the American guidelines can be faulted for lack of definitional clarity. Indeed, if and only if the previable fetus is human, unique for certain purposes, and alive in significant medical respects–i.e., if it is not dead–could claims be made that researchers need the knowledge uniquely to be gained by using the fetus/abortus while it is still living, growing and reacting as a tiny, whole fetal human being or entity.

This national commission was tasked to investigate and study research involving abortion survivors, and to recommend whether and under what circumstances such research should be conducted or supported by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Up to this time, the July 1974 “National Research Act” had ruled that the “Secretary may not conduct or support research in the United States or abroad on a living human fetus, before or after the induced abortion of such fetus, unless such research is done for the purpose of assuring the survival of such fetus.”

Report Research on the Fetus

At the time the commission began, a New York Times article detailed how members of the commission had reviewed existing research of human fetuses. Members told the paper that the amount of research already conducted using aborted fetuses was “so substantial as to seem surprising.”

Image: article Hundreds of aborted fetuses delivered outside womb, NYT 1975

Hundreds of aborted fetuses delivered outside womb, NYT 1975

The most controversial form of research the commission found was on the “fetus outside the womb,” involving “fetuses delivered by abortion.” The commission claimed hundreds of reports of such cases had been conducted. Experiments were also conducted on already expired fetuses from spontaneous or induced abortions. Below is a small sample of what the commission found:

  • Physiologic and Metabolic Studies: Fetal hearts, removed just after death of a fetus following hysterotomy abortion, have been studied to establish physiologic response data.
  • Studies of the Pregnant Mother: Women undergoing elective midtrimester abortion have been starved for 87 hours before abortion in an attempt to learn the effects of caloric deprivation on pregnancy and to gain some information as to whether the fetus could adapt to fuels other than glucose.
  • Research With the Previable Fetus Outside the Uterus: To learn whether the human fetal brain could metabolize ketone bodies, brain metabolism was isolated in 8 human fetuses (12-17 weeks’ gestation) after hysterotomy abortion by perfusing the isolated head (the head was separated from the rest of the body). The study demonstrated that, similar to other species, brain metabolism could be supported by ketone bodies during fetal life suggesting avenues of therapy in some fetal disease states.
  • Another technique for studying the ability of the midtrimester fetus to carry out endocrine reactions used 4 fetuses (16-20 weeks’ gestation) immediately after hysterotomy abortion. The fetuses were perfused through their umbilical veins while being housed in a perfusion tank. Fetal tissues were examined at the end of the study.
  • After studies with newborn and fetal mice, cutaneous respiration (breathing through the skin) was studied in 15 fetuses (9-24 weeks’ gestation) from induced abortions. The fetuses were immersed in a salt solution with oxygen at high pressure. The fetuses were judged to be aliveby a pulsating cord or visible heart beat; if necessary the chest was opened to observe the heart. Four fetuses were supported for 22 hours in this attempt at developing a fetal incubator.
  • Seven previable fetuses (200-375 grams) from spontaneous or induced abortions were immersed in a perfusion tank and perfused with oxygenated blood through their umbilical vessels. The fetuses survived and moved for 5-12 hours.

Interestingly, in addition to general experimentation, the commission noted that if the fetus could “feel pain” then experimenting on abortion survivors would not be permissible. Of course, that debate continues to linger despite evidence that they do feel pain.

Still, members were mixed:

The fetus in utero or in process of being aborted provides a more difficult ethical analysis than does the dead fetus or the living viable infant. There is a presumption of viability at any stage in gestation for the living fetus as long as it remains inside the uterus. Thus experimentation involving that fetus must have acceptably low risk of any harmful effect on viability or on the potential for meaningful, healthy life. If the process of abortion has begun, the life of the fetus will soon end. There is debate about whether different standards apply in that situation and we disagree in our own analysis.

One view holds that no risks can be imposed that would not be acceptable for the fetus which was continuing life. Another view will accept an increase in risks if the information is important and alternate ways of obtaining the information are not practical, if the methods of the experiment are acceptable in themselves (i.e., would be used in other classes of human subjects), and if the process of dying for the fetus were not altered in an unacceptable way.

In any event, expected benefits from the experimentation still must be clear and must require the use of the human fetus to gain the desired information. Ethical considerations as to sensory perception by the fetus also must be addressed. We know of no evidence to suggest or support a contention that the fetus at midgestation or earlier, when abortions are performed, is aware of pain or has a psychologic fear of death.

Image: Ban on experimenting on live aborted fetuses (Image credit NYT, April 1975)

Ban on experimenting on live aborted fetuses (Image credit NYT, April 1975)

The commission ultimately drafted several recommendations, including a restriction on experimenting on living abortion survivors. But their report also recommended that research resulting in “no harm to the fetus” be permitted, so long as that research might benefit other fetuses.

Unfortunately, this did not stop the push for the research nor the push to obtain federal funding. According to a historical timeline of fetal research regulations published in a report by the Institute of Medicine:

After the National Commission issued its report (Report and Recommendations: Research on the Fetus), fetal research following abortion was permitted under subsequent [Department of Health Education and Welfare] DHEW regulations for therapeutic reasons, but otherwise held to the standard of “minimal risk.” Minimal risk means that no more potential harm is tolerated than would be encountered in daily life. In the case of a fetus, almost all interventions exceed minimal risk, and the regulations did not distinguish between fetuses that were carried to term and those intended for abortion. The DHEW regulations, however, contained the possibility of waiver of the minimal risk standard on a project-by-project basis by a complicated procedure to be decided ultimately by an Ethics Advisory Board.

Image: article 1975 Ban funding fetal research (Image credit Corpus Christi Times)

1975 Ban funding fetal research (Image credit Corpus Christi Times)

The first Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) was convened in 1978. The sole waiver issued by this body was to test the efficacy of using fetal blood samples for prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. The charter for the EAB expired in 1980, and despite publication of a draft charter in 1988, it has not been reactivated.

According to CQ Researcher, in 1988, an NIH commission “voted 18–3 to pronounce fetal tissue transplant research ‘acceptable public policy’—a position then unanimously endorsed by the standing advisory committee to the director of the NIH. That advice, however, was rejected in November 1989 by Louis W. Sullivan, the Bush administration’s secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH’s parent department. Sullivan decided instead to extend, indefinitely, the moratorium on NIH funding of fetal tissue research first ordered by the Reagan administration in March 1988. The moratorium barred NIH funding of clinical transplantation studies using tissue from induced abortions.”

However, “The NIH moratorium did not affect privately funded research in the United States.”

Co-chairman on that 1988 NIH panel was none other than Kenneth Ryan, the same abortionist/trainer who chaired the 1970’s commission. When the push for federally funded research failed, Ryan began calling for private funding to experiment on aborted children.

In part three of this series, Live Action News will detail who eventually lifted the ban on federal funding of fetal tissue research and how much taxpayers spend on this research every year.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

ObamaCare NIH Death panels for the elderly?

Posted in Death Panels with tags , , , , on October 3, 2013 by saynsumthn

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is soliciting applications for federal grants worth up to $275,000 to research ways to provide elderly patients with “palliative care” – even in hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units.

Palliative care is commonly understood to mean medical treatment that focuses on relieving symptoms, including pain, instead of trying to treat or cure the underlying disease.

But researchers will not be studying the use of palliative care to relieve the suffering of dying patients. “Hospice and end-of-life settings are not included within the scope” of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), the grant notices specifically state.

Instead, they will be looking at new ways to provide elderly patients with palliative care long before they are at death’s door.

The palliative care will be provided in “a variety of settings, including ambulatory care, hospitals (and specific sites within hospitals including specialty wards, intensive care units and emergency departments), assisted living facilities, and short- and long-term care facilities.”

– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/nih-offering-grants-study-palliative-care-elderly#sthash.OnIbs32z.dpuf

Nephew of American Eugenics Society former Vice President leads National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Posted in Eugenics, Guttmacher, NIH, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2010 by saynsumthn

Alan E. Guttmacher, nephew to Alan F. Guttmacher a former vice president of the American Eugenics Society, assumed the duties of NICHD Acting Director on December 1, 2009. Now a detailed interview with Alan Guttmacher’s nephew, named after his Uncle, Alan Guttmacher reveals that he has been placed in charge of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Alan Guttmacher (Jr.), a Harvard-trained geneticist and pediatrician, is the new acting director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the federal agency that finances research into child and maternal health. Dr. Guttmacher, 60, previously worked with Francis Collins on the Human Genome Project and then as the deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Asked this by the New York Times:

Q. YOUR UNCLE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND A TOWERING FIGURE IN THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS MOVEMENT. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CRITICISM OF APPOINTING ANYONE NAMED ALAN GUTTMACHER TO THIS POST?
Guttmacher (Jr.) replies, ” I have not been aware of any. The name does stand for something. Planned Parenthood was more of a social movement until my uncle said, “If we’re making all these decisions, we need to make sure that it is backed up by good scientific information.” So he started the think tank that became known as the Guttmacher Institute. One finds that people know the name primarily because of that. But people on both sides of the abortion debate tend to use their data as the reliable data. So, to some degree, my appointment has been less controversial than some might think.”

Guttmacher also bragged that in 2009, N.I.C.H.D.’s funding for research on reproductive health totaled more than $254 million.

Guttmacher also uses a term used many times in Eugenics Science, the term “Family Pedigree” – Guttmacher, “When I was fixing up my office, I found these three grocery bags from a previous occupant filled with documents and pedigrees for a Vermont family with HHT. I’d saved them. So my visitor looked over these pedigrees and asked, “Would you be willing to find these people, get their medical histories, examine them, get some blood for DNA and tell us which ones have the disease.” So that’s what we did.”

Guttmacher’s profile on the NIH website states that Guttmacher, also oversees the NIH’s involvement in the U.S. Surgeon General’s Family History Initiative, an effort to encourage all Americans to learn about and use their families’ health histories to promote personal health and prevent disease. ( Hmmm)

Alan E. Guttmacher is a former board member of the Guttmacher Institute the research arm of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and according to Guttmacher Institute’s own stats, abortion kills almost 5x’s as many black babies as white ones. Planned Parenthood clinics are set up strategically in black neighborhoods, causing some to claim that it is a deliberate attempt to limit black populations.

A stated goal of The Guttmacher Institute is legal abortion:

The Guttmacher Institute envisions a world in which all women and men have the ability to exercise their rights and responsibilities regarding sexual behavior, reproduction and family formation freely and with dignity. In this world, women and men in every country are able to avoid unwanted pregnancies, prevent and procure treatment for sexually transmitted infections, obtain safe abortions, achieve healthy pregnancies and births, and have satisfying sexual relationships.

Alan E. Guttmacher’s uncle, Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher was the Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. Guttmacher was also a former president and board member of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood’s founder , Margaret Sanger was also a member of the American Eugenics Society and she admittedly gave speeches to the Klan regarding her so-called “important eugenic work”.

From it’s beginning, Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood has been muddied up in eugenics and now abortion has been the tool used to drastically limit the Black and Latino populations.

For more on this troublesome trend watch the film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Preview below)

Alan Guttmacher founded the Gutmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. In 1966- Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation told a symposium at the University of California Medical Center that a sensitive area in the field of birth control was, “the belief that the white middle class was coercing their own poor and people with black and yellow skins to reduce family size because the middle-class whites are frightened of being outnumbered.” … “ The only way the mounting feeling that birth control is a tool of racism can be handled, is to involve knowledgeable leaders from the minority groups who understand and are favorable to the philosophy of birth control. They, in turn, must translate their appreciation of the contribution which birth control can make toward family stability to their own people.” (SOURCE: New York Times: Doctor blames his profession for delays on Family Planning: 1/16/1966)

Blacks rejected Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood’s eugenic birth control push and saw it as Genocide in their community. In another effort to bring Black on board the Eugenic Plan, a A January 28,1966 internal memo from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe, outlines the plan for winning over the Black Community. The memo begins by calling the new plan, a “Community Relations Program.” The “program” is to, “form a liaison between Planned Parenthood and minority organizations.” The plan, according to Planned Parenthood, will emphasize that “all people have the opportunity to make their own choices,” rather than, as the memo states, “exhortation telling them how many children they should have.” One way to get the message is out is to “ get assistance from black organizations like The Urban League and the AME church,” and according to the memo they need to employ, “ more Negro staff members on PP-WP [Planned Parenthood-World Population] and Affiliate’s staff, as well as recruit more Negro members for the National Board- at least 5.” Along with this Guttmacher suggests that they initiate cooperation with the National Medical Association [NMA] , a Black medical association, and encourage them to establish a committee on reproduction and family planning. Guttmacher also hoped to “secure at least three Negro physicians for membership on the PP-WP Medical Committee, and he planned to invite NMA leaders to address their convention. Also on the radar was a comprehensive plan to address the Black media by, “specially developed news and feature articles for Negro newspapers.” Guttmacher ends by stating that the above suggestions are “long overdue” but stresses, “we do not need to panic. In fact, if we panic and continue to publicize the “problem”, we may well exacerbate it ( SOURCE: Memo dated: January 28,1966 from Alan Guttmacher and Fred Jaffe located in the Planned Parenthood Federation Papers, Black Attitudes from 1962, copied from the Sophie Smith Collection, Sophie Smith College , Box 107/Folder 11:)

A Planned Parenthood memo dated: January 10,1966, reads, “Baker told us that Dr. Guttmacher is correct in feeling that civil rights leaders are beginning to take a hostile position toward population planning on the ground that it is an attempt to halt the growth of the Negro population.” … Baker chastised a speech that Guttmacher made where he admitted some on the Planned Parenthood Board may be there solely for a racist agenda, Dupont’s Public Relations Representative, Mr. Glen Perry writes, [ Baker] was especially critical of Dr. Guttmacher’s admission that there might be some members of Planned Parenthood who had the political objective attributed to the organization by civil rights leaders. Such an admission could easily be taken out of context, and used to the detriment of the organization.”
( SOURCE: January 11,1966, letter from L. Du. P. Copeland to Alan Guttmacher and January 10,1966 letter from Mr. Glen Perry to Lammont Du. P. Copeland Planned Parenthood Federation Papers, Black Attitudes from 1962, copied from the Sophie Smith Collection, Sophie Smith College , Box 107/Folder 11)

But, in 1970, Alan Guttmacher made this stunning statement, “ My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage. ( SOURCE- The Baltimore Magazine: Dr. Guttmacher still optimistic about the population problem, Vol. 63, no. 2: Feb 1970, published, Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Baltimore )