Why Is Congress Ignoring The Incredible Promise Of Adult Stem Cells?

Liberal Republicans and Democrats in Congress are rushing to overturn President Bush’s ban on expanded use of human embryos in stem cell research this week. Under consideration this week is H.R. 3, a bill that is designed to institutionalize the killing of unborn humans for their stem cells.

Why are liberals so determined to expand on the killing of the unborn? They already vigorously defend the so-called “right” of an abortionist to “terminate” the life of unborn children—even those in the ninth month of life. What drives these individuals to now view human embryos as spare body parts for others?

But, more to the point: Why do liberals consistently refuse to consider the promising results of adult stem cells, which are already being used to cure diseases?

For years, physicians have used adult stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, placentas -- as well as gene therapy -- to help individuals with diseases. Significant progress is being made in the field of regenerative medicine – which uses the body’s own cells to regenerate damaged tissue.

The Washington Post, (January 8, 2007) reported on the promise of using cells in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women for the healing of diseases. These cells can grow into brain, muscle and other tissues!

These cells are apparently even easier to retrieve and to store than are embryonic stem cells – and don’t carry the ethical baggage with them. These cells can potentially be frozen and kept in a personalized tissue bank for future use. This is the latest breakthrough in the use of non-embryos for stem cells – and should be vigorously pursued.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have already been used to treat diseases successfully. The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that 50% of those with Lupus who were treated with adult stem cells were disease-free 5 years after treatment; The Journal of Rheumatology found that 73% of those with rheumatoid arthritis could be controlled on medication after being treated with adult stem cells; and the journal Nature has reported that vision-impaired mice injected with adult stem cells showed improvement.

There is more: In 2004, the National Right To Life Committee reported that adult stem cells are used in more than 30 anti-cancer therapies! In addition, adult stem cells injected into damaged hearts have become healthy muscle tissue. Harvard Medical School researchers have successfully reversed juvenile onset diabetes in mice by using “precursor cells” taken from the spleens of healthy mice. In addition, severed spinal cords have been regenerated in mice by the use of gene therapy!

These are only a few of the many examples that can be given of the successful use of adult stem cells to cure diseases. On the contrary, there is not one case I’m aware of showing that the use of stem cells from unborn humans has been successfully used to cure any disease.

Why is Congress so eager to normalize the killing of unborn humans for their body parts? What sort of grisly mindset compels these legislators to believe it’s ethical to kill one human to benefit another? Is it because the embryo can’t donate, scream, protest, or picket? How can a civilized society accept the high-tech cannibalism involved in the deliberate killing of a human embryo to harvest its parts?

Perhaps our Congressmen should research the horrific practice in Communist China of killing political prisoners for their body parts. The same logic applies to the killing of unborn embryos for their parts. After all, why waste those eyes, livers, spleens, etc., of dead prisoners when they could benefit a high-ranking member of the Red Chinese Army? This is what has regularly occurred in China over the past decades. (After denying this practice for more than a decade, China’s leaders admitted what they were doing in 2006. They have now supposedly banned this practice. Lying to Capitalist news outlets is standard practice in this ruthless dictatorship so their assurance is suspect.)

So, will Chinese Communist ethics rule in Congress this week as legislators debate H.R. 3, or will our lawmakers reject this war against human embryos and focus on adult stem cell research and the promise that regenerative medicine holds? We’ll know soon.


By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

A Tsunami of a Problem

Try to remember that time not so long ago when celebrities were flooding the airwaves, begging for help for victims of the tsunami. Only the most heartless of Americans could have possibly turned down those impassioned appeals.

Now comes word from the BBC that half of the billions of dollars pledged by individuals, businesses, and governments around the globe for tsunami aid has not yet been spent—two years after the disaster.

It should come as no surprise, however, that a number of foreign governments have completely reneged on their promise to send aid. Others have only given a small percentage of what they promised.

All told, some 6.7 billion dollars was pledged, but only 3.4 billion has been spent, according to the BBC report. Among the biggest deadbeats—China, which pledged 301 million dollars to Sri Lanka, but has actually given only a paltry million…France, which promised 79 million, but has forked over just a little more than a million…and Spain, which pledged 60 million, but has actually donated less than a million.

With friends like these, the tsunami victims need no enemies.

The BBC reports that the European Commission owes 70 million; Britain, 12 million. Meanwhile, the United States has donated about 38 percent of the dollars it promised. The Red Cross, one of the most trusted relief agencies in existence, promised to build 50,000 homes, but has finished only about 8,000.

The British Red Cross is defending its post-disaster performance, with spokesman Matthias Schmale telling the BBC: “It is incredibly difficult…we said from the beginning, this is happening in very difficult circumstances. We raised the money knowing it was difficult. It will take time to spend this money in a responsible manner.”

Schmale admitted that the speed at which houses are being built sounds like “slow progress.” However, he noted that the tsunami also swept away identity papers and legal documents, creating a bureaucratic storm.

However, an official with the United Nations, Miloon Kothari, sees the excuse-making as uncalled for: “It should really not take this long to build permanent housing,” Kothari told the BBC.

Kothari added, “I do not accept the explanation that it is going to take four to five years, in some cases, seven. I’m an architect, I know how long it takes to build a house.”

It was the day after Christmas in 2004 that an earthquake measuring 9.3 in magnitude sparked a tsunami that resulted in the loss of more than 200,000 lives.

Obviously, it can take a long period of time for those who survive such a disaster to recover. But when promised money is inexcusably slow in coming…when pledges made are not kept…and when snail-paced bureaucracy is involved…recovery is not only hindered—it can actually grind to a halt.

If ever there was an effective argument against nationalized health care, the tsunami relief fiasco is it. If it takes more than two years for a centralized authority to build a house, imagine how long it could take for you to find a surgeon to remove your gall bladder—if the federal government were in charge of the entire health care system.

There are some things that the private sector is simply better equipped to handle. Home building, food service, economy-building, and health care are just a few of them.