abortion

Medical Professionals, Planned Parenthood and Fetal Tissue from Aborted Babies

nancyvalko abortion, family planning, fetal tissue, medical ethics, organ donation, Planned Parenthood

On August 6, 2015, the Medscape website for medical professionals had an article: “Reader Poll: “Should Medical Societies Support Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood?” with 3 questions:

1. Do you agree that Planned Parenthood should continue to receive federal funds for non-abortion-related care?
2. Do you believe that these 18 medical societies were justified in stating their support for Planned Parenthood?
3. Do you believe that it is ethical for Planned Parenthood to donate aborted fetal tissue for use in medical research?

Not surprisingly, given how these questions are worded, a large majority voted yes.

The Medscape article referenced a letter to Congress dated 8/3/2015 by 18 medical societies supporting continued funding for Planned Parenthood.
However, when I accessed the letter, it surprisingly says nothing about fetal tissue research.

I am including the actual letter and its signers below.

I wonder if these groups’ members feel the same way. I checked on two groups and couldn’t find the letter on the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or Society’s for Adolescent Health and Medicine’s websites.

I would encourage members of these groups as well as other ethical doctors and nurses to contact to contact these organizations to encourage them to protest this position (and the use of aborted babies for fetal tissue research), especially since it appears that many medical professionals are unaware of the issues involved.

I have seen this before.

Even though the American Nurses Association did not sign this letter and a current search shows no position on Planned Parenthood or fetal tissue use on its website, I was a member of the American Nurses Association (ANA) years ago and tried to work within that organization at a state level on several ethical issues. I read every issue of ANA’s Journal of Nursing, particularly the political section. When the ban on partial birth abortion came up in Congress, I read nothing about it in the Journal.

Awhile later, I was watching a political talk show and one of the panelists mentioned that the ANA was against the ban. That was news to me so I searched for the information on the internet. It took some time but I finally found the letter.

I tracked down the public relations director of the ANA and called her. At first, she said that she didn’t know what I was talking about but eventually found the information herself and seemed surprised.

I told her that I no longer could be a member of ANA not only because of its’ stance on partial birth abortion but also because of the secrecy. We members were not polled or even informed. I also told her that I would encourage other ANA members to also leave if the ANA did not change its position or inform its membership.

The PR person apologized. I gave her my phone number and encouraged her to have someone from the ANA contact me.

I never heard back from them.

We need accountability from our professional organizations, especially since these organizations claim to represent the interests of groups of medical professionals.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

In a letter dated August 3, a group of 18 medical societies, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, ask the Senate and House leadership to continue to allow Planned Parenthood to participate in federal health programs.

https://filemanager.capwiz.com/filemanager/file-mgr/acog/Provider_Ltr_in_Support_of_Planned_Parenthood_Funding_Updated.pdf

August 3, 2015

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner:

As organizations representing health care professionals and the people they serve across the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned Parenthood health centers from participating in federal health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood from public health programs will severely curtail women’s access to essential health care services, including family planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when we should be focused on improving the health of all people, it is frustrating to witness ongoing attempts to cut off access to life-saving preventive care.
Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in improving the health and lives of people across the country. In fact, 2.7 million people rely on Planned Parenthood for health care. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care—offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to women’s health and well-being. Each year, Planned Parenthood health centers provide nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and nearly 500,000 breast exams.

Additionally, Planned Parenthood provides over 2.1 million contraceptive services and nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve women’s health, prevent an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.
Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public health funding would hurt millions of women and undermine health care access in communities across the country. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in addition to those who rely on other essential programs, including maternal and child health programs and Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer screening programs.

In some states, Planned Parenthood is the only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50 percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a medically underserved or health professional shortage area. Because federal law already requires health care providers to demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion, prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these life-saving services.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to health care has on women and communities across the country, and we therefore strongly support policies that improve access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we strongly oppose any effort to do so. Should you have any questions, please contact ACOG Government Affairs staff, Rachel Gandell at 202-863-2534 or rgandell@acog.org.

Sincerely,

American College of Nurse-Midwives
American Congress of Obstetrician and Gynecologists
American Medical Women’s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Public Health Association
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Doctors for America
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Physicians Alliance
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
cc: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Money, Consent and Dishonesty on “Fetal Tissue Research”: The New York Times editorial “The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood”

nancyvalko abortion, fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood

In this editorial, the New York Times defends the Planned Parenthood practice of “donating” fetal body parts in abortion by  arguing that the mothers make “voluntary and potentially lifesaving tissue donations” and that Planned Parenthood “only accept money — between $30 and $100 per specimen, according to Dr. Nucatola — to cover costs associated with collecting and transporting the tissue”.

Not surprisingly, the NYT doesn’t-or most likely won’t-discuss how these baby “donations” are done or other ethical/legal issues.

However, the NYT does reveal that “Last year, the National Institutes of Health gave $76 million in grants for fetal tissue research. Planned Parenthood is certainly not the only collector of fetal tissue — clinics associated with universities also supply tissue for research.” (emphasis added)

Obviously, there is a lot of money to be made obtaining fetal tissue, including from taxpayers. The media should be following the money involved.

For example, note this quote from a May, 2015 USA Today article “Fetal stem cells and the sports heroes they revitalized-A special report by USA TODAY Sports reveals how a stem-cell manufacturer averted controversy in the treatments of Gordie Howe and John Brodie”: “”We don’t use the word fetal too much,” said Maynard Howe, Stemedica’s CEO, who is no relation to Gordie Howe. “We just don’t want to get people confused about what it is. They’re really considered legally adult stem cells even if they’re fetal-derived.“’ (emphasis added) Besides the deceptive terminology, have or are fetal tissues being set up for commercialized medical use?

As a former reporter, I am constantly amazed by the lack of investigative reporting on the issue of harvesting fetal body parts in abortion.

In just a few minutes of research, I found this on the website of StemExpress, one of the companies mentioned in articles about the controversy:

“Partnerships-Easy to Implement Program + Financial Profits
StemExpress promotes global biomedical research while also providing a financial benefit to your clinic. By partnering with StemExpress, not only are you offering a way for your clients to participate in the unique opportunity to facilitate life-saving research, but you will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic. The stem cell rich blood and raw materials that are usually discarded during procedures can, instead, be expedited through StemExpress to research laboratories with complete professionalism and source anonymity.” (emphasis added)

StemExpress also includes a convenient site  for purchasing “fetal liver” cells, including the incentive of “Become a StemExpress Customer Today to Receive 10% off Your First Order up to $1000”

Regarding consent, StemExpress has a “Statement of StemExpress Concerning Recent Media Stories”  that states “Written donor consent is required for any donation, including bone marrow, tissue of all types or blood.” If so, what does the form say? When and are the risks and benefits of abortion/donation written or explained to the women ready to abort so that their consent can be informed? As a nurse, I am very familiar with the standards for written consent before any surgery or procedure and few people “volunteer” to sign consent forms instead of being asked.

Planned Parenthood needs to be challenged on its defense as well as the politics, ethics or legality of harvesting body parts in abortions.

Media Bias? Two articles contrast coverage of newest Planned Parenthood video on using fetal body parts

nancyvalko abortion

A new Planned Parenthood video on the use of fetal body parts after abortion was just released. While much of the mainstream media seems to be ignoring the story right now, here are two articles from major media that are radically different in tone and content. One is from the UK’s Daily Mail and titled “New Planned Parenthood video shows doctor haggling over prices for aborted fetuses, talking about ‘crunchy’ methods and her hopes of buying a Lamborghini”. The other is from the US’s Washington Post newspaper and titled “Antiabortion group releases second Planned Parenthood video”.
Please go the links for both articles and let me know what you think.

1. UK’s Daily Mail newspaper
New Planned Parenthood video shows doctor haggling over prices for aborted fetuses, talking about ‘crunchy’ methods and her hopes of buying a Lamborghini

2. Washington Post newspaper
Antiabortion group releases second Planned Parenthood video

“What Does the Planned Parenthood Video Show?” and not show

nancyvalko abortion

One of the most compelling articles on the undercover Planned Parenthood video and its’ implications is in the July15, 2015 Atlantic magazine article “What Does the Planned Parenthood Video Show?” by David A. Graham. The article also contains a link to a much longer video of the Planned Parenthood medical director discussing the harvesting of unborn babies’ body parts in abortions.

But I have yet to see the current mainstream media investigate the companies receiving the aborted fetal parts and how such parts are used. For example, in light of Planned Parenthood’s defense stating that they only “donate” fetal tissue from abortions for “lifesaving scientific research”, note that a 2009 Washington Times article “Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams”  showed that fetal tissues have been used for non-medical and even commercial uses.

Also unmentioned by the media is the controversy about using aborted fetal tissue cell lines to grow vaccines. This is something many people would object to-or even refuse to receive-if they knew about this. (See the article “Human Cell Strains in Vaccine Development’ which also includes the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s evaluation.

Obviously, there seems to be a lot more to this story than just the undercover video.

Our Grandson Was Saved By An Adult Stem Cell Transplant

nancyvalko abortion, organ donation

Wednesday, July 1, 2015, our 2 year old grandson Liam and his family were featured on the local news by the St. Louis NBC affiliate. The video segment titled “St. Louis family meets life-saving bone marrow donor” is now online at:
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/outreach/2015/06/30/bone-marrow-transplant-donor-reunion/29537057/ and it is wonderful.

It told the basic story about how our 2 year old grandson Liam Bryant, who like his deceased older brother Noah, had a bone marrow transplant for a rare autoimmune disease called HLH and is doing well thanks to the generosity of a stranger named Kevin who donated his bone marrow. There were many tears of joy when Liam and the family were able to meet Kevin in person.

But there is much more to the story.

There are two types of stem cell procedures. Ethically controversial embryonic stem cell (ESC) procedures and non-controversial adult stem cell procedures. ESC procedures are controversial because the cells used are derived from human embryos – babies at a very early stage of development – who are killed in the process. ESC procedures, so far, have not proved to be the breakthrough they were expected to be.

Liam’s transplant came from adult stem cells. Adult stems cells are now proving very useful in the treatment of many diseases thanks to ongoing research, but bone marrow transplants using adult stem cells have been successful for decades.

Liam’s Parents Also Chose Life

The autoimmune disease HLH is notoriously difficult to diagnose and there is only a short window of opportunity to successfully treat the disease with a bone marrow transplant. Liam’s 6 year old brother Noah’s HLH was not diagnosed early and although he fought hard for many months, complications of his bone marrow transplant took his life in October 2012.

While we were all standing vigil for Noah two days before he finally died, Noah’s parents received the difficult news that a special prenatal test showed that Liam, Noah’s unborn brother, also had HLH. The abortion option was brought up. This happened even though little Liam himself would have an excellent chance for a bone marrow transplant cure, especially since his bone marrow transplant could be planned before he showed any sign of the disease.

I was so proud of my stepdaughter when she instantly replied to the abortion “option” with outrage. She told the doctor that it was unthinkable that she would be offered the “choice” of killing one of her children while watching another one of her children die!

The “helpful” doctor who suggested abortion probably thought that she was only being sympathetic, but, like too many people in our society, she saw abortion as an acceptable solution to a tough situation. My stepdaughter enlightened the doctor not only about the truth of abortion as killing but also about the effects on the family. So-called “therapeutic” abortion is never therapeutic for either the child or the family. How can killing a child ever prevent grief and guilt? How can anyone rationalize the very real difference between dying and being killed?

BONE MARROW AND ORGAN DONATION

As I have previously written (see my previous blogs on Non-brain Death Organ donation, Parts one and two), many people are understandably concerned about signing an organ donation card because of the controversies surrounding brain death organ donation and DCD (donation after circulatory death).

However, there are alternatives such as the donation of bone marrow, blood or even a kidney or part of a liver while still alive and healthy. In addition, after death, tissues like bone or corneas can be taken even hours after death is certain.

HOW TO BECOME A BONE MARROW DONOR FOR SOMEONE LIKE OUR GRANDSON

If you or someone you know is between the ages of 18 and 44 and wants to consider being tested for bone marrow donation, you can get more information and join the bone marrow registry at Be The Match at https://bethematch.org/Support-the-Cause/Donate-bone-marrow/Join-the-marrow-registry/

Bone marrow donation can be done by a technique that collects peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from the donor’s blood as well as by having bone marrow taken from the hip as Liam’s donor did. An explanation of both donation methods can be found at >https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/how-marrow-donation-works/steps-of-bone-marrow-or-pbsc-donation/

We will continue to be eternally grateful to Liam’s donor for a true gift of life.

Addendum from the Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance Newsletter July 23, 2015 :

There is a third designation of stem cells that is little known but is gaining momentum: the fetal stem cell. Human beings are called embryos for the first eight weeks after fertilization. After that, we enter the fetal stage, which is from nine weeks post-fertilization until birth. Fetal stem cells are stem cells harvested during the fetal stage of development. Fetal stem cells, often procured from elective abortions, are disingenuously classified as “adult” stem cells simply because they do not come from embryos. Needless to say, this creates great confusion. Be wary. See: https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/stem-cell-stealth-mode-when-terminology-masks-immorality/