CONGRESSIONAL ALERT

Congress May Vote Soon on the Creation and Killing of Human Embryos

Congress may decide the fate of thousands of embryonic human beings by roll call votes probably over the weeks and months immediately ahead.

Banning Human Cloning

Human cloning is a process in which genetic material from one person would be artificially transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human individual. He/she would have only one parent and be genetically identical to that parent. NRLC believes each human life at every stage of biological development deserves respect and protection, regardless of the circumstances of creation. But Biotechnology corporations wish to use cloning to mass-produce human embryos for use, and then killing, in medical research.

During July 30-August 3, the U.S. House of Representatives may consider the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 1644), sponsored by Reps. Dave Weldon (R-Fl.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). This bill, supported by NRLC and many other organizations, would prohibit the use of cloning to create any human beings.

The Weldon-Stupak bill faces intense opposition from the powerful Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). It represents biotechnology corporations seeking to use cloning to mass-produce human embryos to harvest their stem cells for medical research, or to subject them to other lethal manipulations. The biotechnology firms refer to this as "therapeutic cloning," but pro-life groups call it "clone and kill."

The "clone-and-kill" approach is embodied in (H.R. 2172) introduced by Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) as a hostile alternative to the Weldon-Stupak bill. Supporters of the Greenwood bill claim it would "ban the cloning of human beings," but they mean to exclude human embryos from the class of "human beings."

In fact, the Greenwood bill would permit the use of cloning to specially create human embryos for lethal research. It would only discourage placing of any such embryo in a woman's womb (which some call "reproductive cloning"). Thus, the Greenwood bill would amount to a federal legal mandate that any human embryo created by cloning must ultimately be killed. NRLC is strongly opposed to Greenwood's "clone and kill" legislation.

In the Senate, pro-life Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) has introduced a bill (S. 790) identical to the Weldon-Stupak bill.

Sheep, monkeys, and some other mammals have been cloned, but so far there is no confirmed report of any researcher successfully using cloning to create human embryos. However, the urgent need for enactment of the Weldon-Stupak and Brownback legislation was demonstrated by a report in the July 12 Washington Post that Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts, a major biotechnology firm, acknowledged it has an active project underway to try to create cloned human embryos for destructive research.

Also revealed is the corporation’s team of consultants hope to invent a new term to describe the embryos they intend to create. This is an attempt to soften what they anticipate will be adverse public reaction to their project. Some of the consultants believe "it would be useful to call the cells something less inflammatory than an embryo." One consultant suggests the term "activated egg."

Embryo-Destructive Stem Cell Research

There is another congressional battle, i.e. whether the federal government should provide funds for stem cell research in which human embryos are killed.

In 2000, the Clinton Administration authorized the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to accept applications from researchers for federal money for research on stem cells obtained by killing human embryos, usually 5-6 days old. The Bush Administration has blocked approval of such grants while reviewing the Clinton policy. Pro-life groups are urging the President to prevent federal funding of research using stem cells of embryonic human beings

Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD), said if President Bush attempts to permanently block funding of embryo-destructive stem cell research, he will move legislation to mandate such funding, e.g. some version of the Specter-Harkin bill (S. 723), which would authorize federal funding of all stages of embryo-destructive research.

Both NY senators and U.S. House members must hear from constituents who oppose federal funding of embryo-destructive research.

In a national poll conducted in early June by International Communications Research, the public opposed federal funding of stem cell research in which "live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development," by a margin of 70% to 24%.

Fortunately, stem cells for medical research may be obtained without killing human embryos. Researchers have obtained stem cells from adult fat, blood, and bone marrow, and also from umbilical cords and placentas. In a June poll, the public supported the funding of these ethical alternatives to embryo-killing research, 67% to 18%.

On June 7, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act (H.R. 2096), to authorize expanded federal funding of research using stem cells from these sources. Above information from National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Federal Legislative Office.

*** Write to your U.S. House member. Urge him/her to support the Weldon-Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 1644) and oppose the "clone and kill" alternative bill (H.R. 2172) proposed by Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), to permit use of cloning to mass-pro-duce human embryos for lethal medical research.

***Also, ask your lawmaker to oppose federal funding of any stem cell research harmful to human embryos. Urge your representative to support the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act (H.R. 2096), sponsored by Congress-man Chris Smith (R-NJ), to expand federal funding of research on stem cells obtained from adults and from umbilical cords -- without harming human embryos.

Address for all members of the House of Representatives is: The Honorable _______________
U.S. House of Representatives; Washington, D.C. 20515

*** Write to our two U.S. Senators, Hillary Clinton & Charles Schumer. Urge them to support Senator Brownback's S. 790, to ban all human cloning, and to oppose any substitute measure that would allow, "therapeutic cloning." Tell them this term really means that human embryos would be created in large numbers simply to be killed in research ("clone and kill").

***Also urge them to oppose Senator Specter's S. 723, which would authorize federal funding of research in which human embryos would be killed in order to obtain their stem cells.
Address for all U.S. Senators is: The Honorable_______ U.S. Senate; Washington, D.C. 20510

If you use e-mail, include your regular mailing address in the e-mail. Otherwise, they have no way of knowing whether you are actually a constituent.

E-mail addresses for House members are available through www.house.gov, & senators at www.senate.gov.

GOP House leaders strongly oppose embryonic stem cell research

Editor’s Note: The following is taken from a joint statement by House Majority Leader Richard Armey, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, Jr.

"It is our sincere hope that the Bush Administration makes the right decision on the stem cell issue to uphold current law and prohibit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while promoting adult stem cell alternatives.

"The federal government cannot morally look the other way with respect to the destruction of human embryos, then accept and pay for extracted stem cells for the purpose of medical research. It is not pro-life to rely on an industry of death, even if the intention is to find cures for diseases. We can find cures with life-affirming, not life-destroying, methods that are becoming more promising with each passing day."

"Republicans in Congress take a back seat to no one when it comes to promoting medical research. Under our leadership, the National Institutes of Health has received record levels of funding in order to find cures for diseases. We will continue to properly fund this crucial research, but it must advance the cause of life without sacrificing some lives to better others." House Pro-Life Caucus; July 2, 2001

Few understand the stem-cell issue

Most Americans do not understand the debate about research on human embryonic stem cells. We are conflicted about using human embryos to develop medical therapies, according to a 7/10-11 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. In the poll of 998 adults 57% said they don't know enough about the topic to say whether the federal government should fund research.

Now, human embryonic stem cells come from spare embryos donated by couples who had them created at fertility clinics while attempting to become pregnant. When told stem cells would come from "spare" embryos from fertility clinics, 54% supported federal funding of such research; 39% opposed it; 7% had no opinion. 54% said the federal government should not permit scientists to create embryos for research, something two groups reported doing this week; 38% said it is okay.

Many say embryonic stem cells will transform treatments for conditions. e.g. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes. Cell removal destroys the embryo, causing moral and ethical concerns. Many … oppose funding the re-search on grounds that destroying an embryo at any point is the same as abortion.

The poll found 34% believe the research morally wrong but perhaps necessary. Most revealing: 38% said they have followed the debate about government funding of stem-cell research either very or somewhat closely. Comparably, 63% said they have been closely following the case of missing former intern Chandra Levy.

''Despite the hype and rhetoric of the religious-right leaders, the conservative-Christian community is without a buzz about stem-cell research,'' according to Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville. ''There is neither serious moral discussion within churches nor casual conversation taking place. . . . People of faith are over-hearing the debate in Washington without completely tuning in to it.'' USA TODAY July 13, 2001

Write or call our Senators and your Congressperson now
For them and thousands more,
It’s a matter of life or death before birth

U.S. House upholds pro-life Mexico City policy

On May 16, 2001, on a roll call vote on the "Mexico City Policy," the House passed the "Mexico City Policy." The 218 to 210 vote was closer than anticipated.

The "Mexico City Policy," is a ban on U.S. funding of private organizations that perform abortions or work to legalize abortion in foreign countries. The "Mexico City Policy" had been in effect during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It was nullified early in President Clinton’s tenure with his foreign aid program actively promoting the legalization of abortion in foreign nations. Shortly after his election, President Bush restored the pro-life policy. That provoked strong negative reaction from pro-abortion members of Congress. Provisions were introduced to various bills to overturn the Mexico City Policy with pro-life House members offering amendments to oppose the pro-abortionists’s efforts.

The 5/16/01 vote was on Congressman Hyde’s amendment to strike the pro-abortion provision in a State Department reauthorization bill to overturn the Mexico City Policy. After defeating the provision to end the Mexico City Policy, the House then passed the State Department bill itself.

The U.S. Senate has not acted on the State Department bill as passed by the House. The Senate will include language attacking the Mexico City Policy. However, the pro-life victory in the House ensures that the attack language will not be in the final State Department bill that will come from a House-Senate conference committee.

Rochester Area Representatives:  Their votes followed their well established voting patterns on the abortion issue. Voting for the ban were Walsh (R), Reynolds (R), LaFalce (D) and Quinn (R). Voting against the ban were Hinchey (D), Slaughter (D), and Houghton (R).

"Futile Care" and its "friends" wanting to decide when your life is no longer worth living

When John Campbell's son Christopher became comatose after a 1994 car accident, Campbell, a corporate executive, had excellent health insurance. But one month later, Christopher developed a 105⁰ fever. Campbell asked the nurses why his son was not being treated for the condition that now threatened his life. He soon found out.

Christopher's doctor was out of town. The on-call physician refused to order care. The nurses could not act on their own. Christopher's fever was then 107⁰ degrees. Campbell demanded treatment to reduce his son's fever. First, the doctor refused and actually laughed, Campbell recalled. The distraught father did not give up: Finally, reluctantly, the doctor ordered nurses to provide fever-reducing medicine; the fever subsided.

Christopher, unresponsive for more than four months, then awakened. Now, after years of rehabilitation, he lives with his parents, a disabled young man who counsels troubled teenagers and who, with his father's help, created a foundation that feeds 30 hungry African children breakfast 365 days a year. Had Campbell not successfully pressured the doctor into saving Christopher's life, none of that would have happened. Christopher Campbell would be a cherished memory instead of a living son.

The physician's refusal to provide Christopher desired life-sustaining treatment was an early application of a relatively new bioethical theory that has since swept the Western medical world. "Futile care theory" holds that when a physician believes the quality of a patient's life is too low to justify life-sustaining treatment, the doctor is entitled to refuse care as "inappropriate" -- even if treatment is wanted. It is the equivalent of a hospital putting a sign over its entrance stating, "We reserve the right to refuse service." Editor’s Note: Wesley Smith’s excellent article is too long to be completely covered in this LIFE-LINES. It will be continued in the next issue. To read it sooner, it first appeared in Weekly Standard; July 23rd Issue and in The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org on 7/17/01

NY State Assembly votes for Medicaid abortions

States can, but are not required to fund abortions for Medicaid eligible women except to save the life of the mother. With that criterion, very few abortions, i.e. >100 per state, have been Medicaid funded.

However, states may provide Medicaid funding for abortions for whatever reasons they choose. Some states provide Medicaid funding for abortion-on-demand. New York so generously funds Medicaid abortions that abor-tionists often do not even give a reason for the abortion on their bills.

In the NY State Assembly, an amendment was proposed to eliminate Medicaid abortion funding for poor women except to save the life of the mother and/or pregnancy as the result of rape or incest. The amendment failed 31 to 74. Area Assemblymembers votes follow:

The people named above were elected by us to represent us. Our words of appreciation or disapproval should be communicated to them. Check your phone book for the address/phone number of your Assemblymember. Your call or letter will take just a few minutes. It is a matter of life or death for the babies.

RU-486 not selling well

Dr. Randall O’Bannon, Director of Research for the National Right To Life Committee's Educational Trust Fund said the demand for the abortion pill "RU-486," aka "mifepristone," has slowed because of successful education of Americans about the drug's harmful side effects. At the June NRLC Convention in Charlotte, NC, O’Bannon quoted a San Diego, Ca. doctor: "there are a lot more problems with using that drug than the public's been led to believe." "

"But doctors are also showing some hesitation. Even among the doctors …offering it, they are telling their patients to consider surgical abortions as quicker, less painful and requiring fewer office visits." O'Bannon quoted National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League, (NARAL), President Kate Michelman, who said RU-486 should be available to American women, given its success both in the U.S. and overseas. "Mifepristone has been -available to women in Europe for over a decade…"she said.

"Mifepristone must be administered by a woman's doctor and requires three visits to a clinic or doctor's office. "The drug also holds promise for the treatment of endometriosis, uterine fibroids, certain breast cancer tumors, and meninginomas and for decreasing the replication of HIV; reducing the symptoms of certain types of Cushing's syndrome; and accelerating the healing of wounds and burns." "The availability of mifepristone would greatly expand women's options and allow them to exercise their right to choose in privacy, making it more difficult for those who oppose abortion to single out women for harassment and intimidation," Michelman concluded.
Charlotte, N.C. (CNSNews.com) -Pro-Lifers Claim Success In Cutting Demand For RU-486 June 28, 2001 in Pro-Life E-News 06/29/2001

Michelman’s unsubstantiated claims are as numerous as the unsubstantiated claims for success in curing countless illnesses with stem cell therapy. A pattern appears to exist.

Scientists find stem cell defects

Researchers have discovered that even apparently healthy clones may harbor unpredictable genetic abnormalities. Scientists have discovered clones created with embryonic stem cells develop capricious errors in when and how their genes become active. Those errors can lead to premature death or serious abnormalities. It is now known that embryonic stem cells are genetically unstable in mice. The "regulatory mayhem" in cloning is suspected as reason why cloned animals die before birth and live born clones are often defective. Stem cells from defective clones are not a reliable source of treatment?

These findings strengthen the scientific case against cloning. Democrat and Chronicle; 7/6/01 + Washington Post & Los Angeles Times

New Poll Shows Decline in Abortion Support

An ABC poll, done June 20 – 24, showed public support for legal abortion, recently weakening. It has slipped to its lowest level in polls since 1995. 52% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is down from 59% in January and almost back to where it was (53%) last summer. 43% said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Other polls, using questions pro-life advocates considered more fair and reaching true belief on abortion, showed opposition to abortion ranging from 55 to 60%; abortion support from 40 to 45%.

This ABC News poll found that religious belief informs a substantial portion of opposition to abortion. Among people who oppose legal abortion, half gave their religious beliefs as the main factor in their opinion. The other half divided among a range of influences, including their personal but nonreligious views.

Support for legal abortion has other sources: 35% of supporters cited their personal nonreligious views, 22% cited their education, 10% claimed personal experience made them supporters of abortion. Fewer than one in 10 supporters cited religious belief as the chief factor in their view.

Chief factors in views on abortion:

Among all Americans, 28% cited personal non-religious beliefs as the main factor in their abortion opinion; 27% cited religious beliefs; 16% their education. Compared to the much more recent issue of stem-cell research, fewer cited news reports as the main factor in their views, and more cited personal, nonreligious beliefs.

Evangelism is a specific religious factor in views on abortion. There's a sharp difference in opinions between evangelical white Protestants, who are about half of all white Protestants; and their non-evangelical counterparts.

Among white Protestants who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical, 63% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. Among non-evangelical white Protestants, 66% said abortion should be generally legal. Evangelical white Protestants also were more than twice as likely as their non-evangelical counterparts, 39% to 16%, to say religion is the main influence in their view on the subject. Still, even among evangelical white Protestants, most cite factors other than religion as the main factor in their thinking on abortion.

Catholics, by contrast, looked like the public at large in their views on abortion, despite their church’s position. 55% of Catholics said abortion should be generally legal; 28% said their religion is the main factor in their opinion on abortion. This closely mirrors the population at large.

Group opinions differ on abortion Older, less educated, lower-income adults are more apt to say it should be illegal. Blacks are more likely than whites to oppose legal abortion. Older people and blacks also are more apt to cite religious beliefs as the main factor in their opinion.

Categories of support or opposition for legal abortion both cover a range of opinion. About a fifth of Americans take the views that either abortion should be legal in all cases, or illegal in all cases. Barely a quarter said it should be illegal in most cases, but not all. 31% said it should be legal in most cases. 35% of Evangelical white Protestants were among the groups most likely to say abortion should be illegal in all cases. Apparently among evangelicals, nearly two-thirds reject a complete ban on all abortions. About half as many Catholics, 19%, support making abortion illegal in all cases, as do 11% of non-evangelical white Protestants.

Since this question was first asked in July 1995, support for legal abortion has moved within an eight-point band from 60% to 52%, with no clear pattern. Opposition has ranged from 36% percent to 43%. Support for legal abortion has averaged 56% in a dozen polls the last five years; opposition, 41%.This ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll was conducted by telephone June 20-24, among a random national sample of 1,022 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa. Source:   ABC News; July 2, 2001

"So great is the confusion at times that for many people the difference between good and evil is determined by the opinion of the majority, and even the time-honored protectors of human life – the family, the law and medicine – are sometimes made to serve the culture of death." Pope John Paul II

Quotable Quotes

Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il, was instrumental in getting the House to approve President Bush’s pro-life "Mexico City Policy." In debates, he said:

"Nobody is being gagged. If you want to talk about abortions, talk away – but not on our dime."

"Abortion is not family planning.
Family planning is helping you get pregnant or keeping you from getting pregnant.
It is not killing an unborn child after you become pregnant."

Save-a-Baby Campaign

The annual campaign began in June. You, by now, should have received coupons for participating in this annual activity sponsored by New York State Right to Life Committee and its affiliates across the state.

Participation is totally voluntary with no donation required. Campaign awards are: 1. Week for 2 in private condo at St. Croix + airfare + $350; 2. $1,000; 3. $500. Award recipients will be identified on January 22, 2002. The only requirement is return of the campaign tickets to the RARTL office.

Also, there will be "Early Bird" awards of $100 Bonds. These will be determined on August 6^th, September 10, and November 26, 2001. Eligibility for these awards only requires that you return your award tickets before these dates, with or without a financial donation.

Should you decide to make a donation as you participate in this campaign, the donation will not be eligible for an income tax deduction. It will, however, mean a great deal to the state and the Rochester group. Proceeds are split between the state and statewide local groups to help both cover the types of ongoing expenses that are necessary for the groups to advocate for the unborn and the ill/aged. Both the state and local committees rely on volunteer help for the bulk of what is done. The costs incurred are for items such as postage, rent, service expenses and supplies.

Thanks for your participation in Save-a-Baby 2002

Suggested Prayers

Please become a prayer partner by spending 5-10 minutes daily in prayer about life issues. We hope this partnership will fill 24 hours of each day to have a prayer shield over the area. Please join in the following suggested weekly prayer themes that

August 5     There be an increase in bearers of the pro-life message to all of our community
August 12 Understanding increase of the need to protect rather than destroy human life, no matter the "justification"
August 19 Women struggling to cope with a past abortion seek the loving forgiveness of God and then her human family
August 26 Those working in the abortion industry become life-embracing people
September 2 Women overwhelmed by a pregnancy turn to God and the abundant resources of her family and community for help in choosing life
September 9 We have the courage to defend the right to life for all innocent human beings threatened by abortion or euthanasia
September 16 Successful education be given to people of all ages about the dangers of cloning to obtain unborn babies for "research" in which they will be killed.

January 19 – 20 – 21 – 22, 2002

The Rally and the March for Life will be on Tuesday, January 22, 2002. Monday, January 21^st is a national holiday for Martin Luther King’s birthday. It is indeed fitting for us to emphasize that the struggle for civil and human rights continues for the whole class of our preborn brothers and sisters,

Activities are being planned for this 4 day block of time. As questions or need for more information arise, contact: March for Life Education & Defense Fund; P.O. Box 90300; Washington, D.C. 20090; 1-202-543-3377; Fax: 1-202-543-8202; or www.marchforlife.org.

Office Hours
8 AM to 4 PM
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday
Always good to call before coming: (716) 621-4690

Please pardon us; it’s the computer

During the last week of June, a serious computer glitch occurred on the RARTL office computer. As usual, the glitch successfully did mischief to some files.

We ask for your patience as the mailing list is fully restored. Please check your mailing label carefully. If any corrections, additions or deletions are necessary, please call the office so we can correct them. Also, should you learn of anyone not receiving this newsletter, have them call so the deletion can be corrected.

Thank you for your help and patience.

Our wonderful, newly designed display board

RATL has a tri-fold display board, which has been used over the years at numerous fair, school and church programs. It did need updating and freshening.

Jessica Stupp is a 12-year-old home-schooled student. Jessica, with her mother, Kimberly’s assistance, took on the project of re-doing the display board. The result has been highly praised.

The board content is a comprehensive, accurate, effective display of pertinent information on abortion and RARTL. Done through the eyes and ideas of a 12 year old, it is a display that speaks to people of all ages.

We recently used the display board at the Holy Name Health Fair in Greece and will be using it for five days at the Monroe County Fair.

Thanks you, Jessica and Kimberly, for your use of your skills and talents on behalf of the unborn. We are most grateful.

The loss of Mary Studier

Mary, well known for her Irish wit and active pro-life support with numerous area pro-life organizations, was a staunch defender of the unborn. As many of you undoubtedly know, Mary died July19th after a long illness. She was a reliable volunteer, active supporter with her garage sales, ready participant in pro-life activities, the "pro-life pillar " of her church and a friend.

Mary had another talent that she used well and often for the unborn. She was an excellent writer whose "Letters to the Editor " spanned decades. Never harsh, she was factually accurate and very effective.

Mary had not been able to continue her writing in the last years. Petite Mary left giant size shoes to fill. We hope there are people who will attempt to keep the issue as clearly in the public eye as Mary did