Stem Cell Research

Well those "radical" pro-lifers are at it again. (I choose to add the term radical; because some pro-life people are sane and sensible and they would shudder in horror at the idea a woman would be forced to have a C-section, appalled by the idea in vitro fertilization should be banned, and might even support steam cell research). But these radical pro-lifers are using scare tactics to halt steam cell research.

The ballot measure, known as the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures initiative, would amend the state constitution to permit all stem-cell research allowed under federal law. That would include research using stem cells taken from fertilized eggs left over from in vitro fertilization treatments and stem cells created in the lab by cloning a patient’s own cells.
Supporters say the regenerative capacity of early ( also called embryonic ) stem cells holds the potential to cure diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal injuries and a host of other chronic conditions.

Opponents, led by the Catholic Church and other abortion opponents, argue that both the fertilized eggs and the cloned cells are humans who are killed when the stem cells are extracted.

You would think that people that claim to care about life would be in favor of research to cure diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal injuries and other chronic conditions.

Mother Punished for Not having C-Section

In Utah, a woman serves 18 months' probation for child endangerment after refusing to undergo a Caesarean section to save her twins, one of whom died.

This is ridiculous! Why should a woman have to have surgery that she doesn't want? A Caesarean section is major surgery with risk to both the Mother and the baby. Since it's the Mother's body shouldn't SHE be the one to decide if she wants to take the risk of a C-section or deliver naturally? And shouldn't she be free to make the decision without having to worry about being sent to jail for choosing not to have a C-section?

And this isn't an isolated incident.
Amber Marlowe anticipated an easy delivery when she went into labor on January 14, 2004. But after a routine ultrasound, doctors at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, in Pennsylvania, decided that the baby--at what looked like 13 pounds--was too big to deliver vaginally and told her that she needed to have a cesarean. The mom-to-be, however, wasn't convinced: After all, she'd given birth to her six previous kids the natural way, including other large babies. And monitoring showed that the fetus was in no apparent distress.
After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."
Yet hospitals in at least a dozen states have obtained court orders to compel unwilling women to undergo this major abdominal surgery. And while Marlowe was able to escape the scalpel, other patients were operated on-- despite their verbal or even physical resistance. In a tragic 1984 case, staff at a Chicago hospital forcibly tied a pregnant Nigerian woman who had declined a c-section to her hospital bed with leather wrist and ankle restraints. The woman objected to the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where the operation wasn't readily available, and she rightfully worried about health risks, including a ruptured uterus, if she became pregnant again and had another child vaginally back home. As she screamed for help and frantically tried to free herself, doctors, with a judge's permission, wheeled her off to the O.R. to perform the procedure.
Years ago, a Washington, D.C., hospital got a court order to perform a c-section on Angela Carder, who was gravely ill with cancer. Since the mom was in such poor health, the hospital's doctors believed that delivering the 26-week fetus immediately would give it a better chance of survival than waiting for a natural delivery. The result? Carder and her baby both died soon after the operation.

Why do pregnant have less rights then anyone else? You can't be legally compelled to undergo any other medical procedure for the benefit of another person. "You don't have to donate your kidney, your bone marrow, or your blood, even if someone else might die without it," explains Howard Minkoff, M.D., chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York, and coauthor (with Paltrow) on an analysis of the Rowland case published in the December 2004 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. You also can't be prosecuted for murder if you refuse. "So why should c-sections be any different?" the doctor adds. "That's saying pregnant women have fewer rights than anyone else, including a fetus."