Oklahoma state Sen. Ralph Shortey has introduced a bill to the Oklahoma Legislature that has caused quite a stir. S.B. 1418 says it would ban any product for human “consumption” that contains aborted human fetal tissue or where the research or development of any of the ingredients required the use of aborted fetal tissue.
Now, currently, there are no aborted fetuses in any food products. But some pundits interpret “consumption” in this bill to mean not just food products, but any product humans “consume,” like drugs, vaccines, treatments or even beauty products.
In the national response to S.B. 1418, the jokes about Soylent Green abound, and those from all political persuasions mocked Shortey as an idiot with nothing better to do than invent problems and waste taxpayer money.
When Shortey suggested that his bill was not simply about aborted fetuses in the food supply, but about companies using cells and tissues from aborted human beings to test or develop various chemicals, drugs or therapies, one angry commenter on the Huffington Post retorted, “What companies? Name them. If you can’t, then this is the rantings of a paranoid delusional.”
Well ...
There is Neuralstem, a Maryland company, which, according to a Bloomberg press release, has a stem-cell line that came from “fetal tissue donated by a woman who underwent an elective abortion at 8 weeks.” In 2010, Neuralstem announced that it injected these stem cells from an aborted fetus directly into the spinal cord of a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosi (ALS), which is better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.
A few weeks ago, Neuralstem announced it discovered a possible new drug to treat depression. It tested several compounds using its stem-cell line to see which chemical showed promise in increasing the size of the hippocampus, a part of the brain that is shrunken in those who suffer from depression. Neuralstem did not disclose if the stem-cell line it used to develop this new drug came from an electively aborted fetus. But in academic publications listed on its website, the stem cells are described as “fetal.” The Food and Drug Administration has given Neuralstem the go-ahead to test the new drug in depressed patients.
There is also ReNeuron, an English company that has applied for clinical trials in the United States. ReNeuron wants to use stem cells from aborted fetuses to treat stroke victims. In an interview with Innovaro Pharmalicensing, the managing director of ReNeuron explained where the company gets its stem cells. He said, “We access human fetal-brain material from terminated pregnancies. They’re typically about 8-to-10-week fetuses.”
There is also Neocutis, a San Francisco company, which is selling cosmetic and dermatological products that have come from aborted fetal tissue. Neocutis openly admits that its PSP (Processed Skin Cell Proteins) products are derived from the cells of an electively aborted fetus. These PSP products are being marketed to treat “around-the-eye wrinkles and puffiness, to reduce fine lines and wrinkles, and provide long-lasting hydration for luminous skin.”
Then there are the vaccine makers like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline. Cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38 are common cell lines used by these companies to produce vaccines for rubella, polio, hepatitis A and chicken pox. MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus that was electively aborted in 1966. The WI-38 line was derived from a female fetus that was aborted in 1964.
And there is Senomyx, the San Diego company that likely set Sen. Shortey in motion. Senomyx uses the cell line HEK 293 to test chemicals as possible flavor enhancers. Cell line HEK 293 was derived from the kidney tissue of a boy aborted in the 1970s. HEK stands for “Human Embryonic Kidney.” The HEK 293 line was subsequently genetically engineered with viral DNA and is now available for sale from a common chemical-supply company called SigmaAldrich. Senomyx is reported to have contracts with giants like PepsiCo, Kraft and Nestle to test flavor enhancers for their products.
It seems Shortey may not be as delusional or paranoid as some believe.
Now, many would argue that is it morally acceptable to use these cells originally procured from elective abortion because the embryo or fetus was going to die anyway. Why not use their cells to advance technology and make our lives better?
Catholics reject this argument. If an organism must be intentionally killed to harvest cells, then the cells are morally tainted. If these cells had come from a natural miscarriage, then it would be morally permissible for parents to donate them to research.
The morality of fetal-cell use is analogous to that of organ donation. If the patient died of natural causes or a traumatic event, then it is morally permissible to use his organs for the benefit of others. It is not morally permissible to intentionally and prematurely end a person’s life and then take his organs for donation. Using cells or tissue from aborted fetuses is analogous to using organs from death-row inmates or victims of euthanasia.
All of these companies had the choice to use tissue donated from a miscarriage or other cells not derived from an elective abortion. Instead, they chose to morally taint their products and discoveries by using cells from the intentional ending of an innocent human life.
Yet, some of these products, like drugs or vaccines, can be life-saving. The question then becomes: Can Catholics use these life-saving products that were developed using aborted fetal tissue in good conscience?
Many of them, like the vaccines for rubella and polio, are developed or produced in cell lines that came from abortions that occurred decades ago, and no new abortions or destruction of life are required to produce those vaccines.
The guidance given by the Church on the use of vaccines may be the best guide for other life-saving products as well. In the case of vaccines produced in aborted fetal-stem cell lines like MRC-5 and WI-38, where the abortion occurred decades ago, parents must ask their health-care provider for an alternative vaccine that was grown in cells not procured by illicit means. If there are no alternatives, then they must voice their objection. Bishop Robert Vasa wrote the following on the use of vaccines to prevent disease:
“Thus my reading of [Dignitas Personae] inclines me to conclude that parents may use these vaccines derived from cell lines of illicit origin, but they should inquire about the availability of a more ethical alternative; and they must make their objections known to the physician, to the health-care system and to the FDA. Clearly, the use of these vaccines, while morally permissible, is not entirely morally neutral.”
In reality, if everyone did this, then one of two things would happen: The pharmaceutical companies would stop making the vaccine, or they would begin to look seriously for alternatives that are not tied to abortion. Without our protest, however, these companies have no incentive to change their ways. They will continue to do evil that good may come from it; we will continue to receive the “good” they produce, and we will thus give moral and financial support to their heinous practices.
But for Catholics to object to any product, life-saving or otherwise, developed using aborted fetal tissue, first we must know about it. Unlike Neocutis, many companies that use these cell lines are not so upfront about where they get their “raw materials.”
This is the future: well-meaning pro-lifers using drugs and other medical breakthroughs or food and beauty products with no knowledge of the unethical practices that brought them to market.
This is another disastrous legacy of Roe v. Wade. A fetus is now considered no more than just tissue, and, therefore, companies do not feel obligated to let consumers know that their product was made possible by ripping a fetus from a mother’s womb — a fact that would matter greatly to a great many people. If only we knew about it.
Full disclosure is needed. The health conscious are crying for labels identifying genetically modified food. Animal-rights activists successfully lobbied companies for labels and disclaimers that products are not tested on animals.
It is time Catholics and pro-lifers demand disclosure for any drug, treatment, vaccine, food or any other product that has used cells from an elective abortion in its development or production. And then we need to object and demand companies use alternatives.
Without our loud and continuous pressure, the use of aborted fetal tissue to bring products to market will not only continue, it will expand.
We live in a culture of death — a reality that means we truly do need labels that warn consumers: “This product was made possible by the killing of innocent human life.”
Rebecca Taylor is a clinical
laboratory specialist
in molecular biology.
She writes about bioethics on her blog Mary Meets Dolly
(MaryMeetsDolly.com/blog/).
Comments
Post a Comment
1) website to go to http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/BabyPartsForSale.htm
2) website to go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiyxFCASdIg - Cached
.Play Video
this is beyond wrong…what is wrong with our species…even animals are better than this…
this issue of vaccines is one I’ve been struggling with a lot lately- I printed out several materials, charts, and the Vatican study from http://www.cogforlife.org/ and took them to our pediatrician. He was pretty shocked and said he had no idea. He was very supportive of my declining the vaccines until I could make sure they were using the alternative vaccines (not every shot has an alternative). I know the Vatican study permits parents to give their kids the tainted vaccines, and I don’t want to put my children at risk for some diseases (esp. Rubella, as we travel to the border often), but I hate that I am put in this position in the first place!
When my sn was little, we wrote to the drug company voicing our objections. They wrote back, saying that the Church was ok with the vaccine, which is rather disingenuous.
We are military family and see many 1st year residence for medical care on base. None of them are told how the vaccines are derived. They are all shocked. Medical schools apparently give thier students selective information to continue their agendas.
On a related note, here’s a post about the companies and charities that support Planned Parenthood.
http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2012/02/boycotting-companies-and-charities-that.html
i don’t want to sound stupid…i guess i am, they obviously don’t send out a release notifying us that there are baby dna in the vaccine. what would it be identified as. does the catholic church, in fact regulate this and disseminate infomation on it. i have 11 children who are just beginning to get their 12 year old shots…I don’t even know where to start.
holly murphy, check out the link I posted, it has charts, info, vaccine labels, the Vatican study (which is very in-depth) http://www.cogforlife.org
thanks, Sandra…
We need a morally conscious Merck…we need new R&D companies that are sensitive to the unique ecological value of a single human life. Most the research that is done for vaccines can easily be accomplished via an adult line. Human embryonic stem cells have become more of a fad in R&D and totally unnecessary for the procurement of successful human vaccines. This is not a question of health. It’s a question of “how” (protocol) we do our science. This can be changed and changed to the great benefit of human ecology, human welfare, and global health.
maureen, i agree. i am a mom, not a scientist. and i am a mom of 11 children. this last year has had me spinning because i cannot keep up with the information i need to even learn what i need to know. does that make sense. do you have a blog. helpful website. i have been checking out cogforlife that was recommended, but that is not answering the basic questions i need to know. fetal research for dummies if you will…this is just too much…
That’s a great concept Holly. The basic science can be understood by the general public. It seems someone should translate the science in layman’s terms. Though science is full of the unknown, even for the experts, there are concrete facts we do know about the initation of a unique human organism at fertilization. Various scientific processes need to analyze proteins, and mammalian cells are the greenhouse, if you will, to grow them. It’s just a matter of pharmaceutical companies choosing the most ethical “greenhouses,” and as we know cells derived from human embryos are not morally legitimate to use because they are derived from a unique human organism.
also consider the stock portfolios, 401K group plans etc, where our money is unknowingly invested in these types of products…
Thanks for putting attention on this issue. I did the same as Sandra and our doctor laughed me right out of his office. He refused to even look at the information (said he didn’t have time to see if the vaccinations I would prefer were available in his offfice) and implied that I was letting myself become unnecesarily scared by what I read. He’d never heard of such a thing….therefore it was all some sort of overzealous, right wing,non-scientific myth. All I can hope is that my questioning put the concept on his radar screen.
Tonia, I just took my 16 year old son to the doctor since reading this post. not having the chance to go to med school b4 the appt. I allowed myself to be talked into the vaccine by my son, who knows mom doesn’t know better, by the doctor, who handed me a slip from the box, and by a quick phone call to my husband who said start taking care of your kids and don’t get all crazy about this. i said give him the shot and cried in frustration. in two hours after the kids went to bed, i had a much better working knowledge of how vaccines are made. i believe the dr. just doesn’t understand…how ironic. I do not like the fact that i have to find out things while trying to take care of my 11 kids that should just be shared freely with us. That is one reason why i like catholicism. they rarely change things and it studied well before making a statement. Go Santorum…how could anyone NOT want a good catholic president.
If you have not heard about Dr. Theresa Deisher from Seattle, WA, pleae take the time to look her up. She has founded Ave Maria Biotechnology and Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (http://www.soundchoice.org) and is doing wonderful research and development with regards to safe and moral medications, adult stem cell therapy, and vaccinations. As a mother of four young children, I wish I could donate millions to her cause so that my children could be vaccinated with 100% completely moral vaccines. She has some very interesting research about the effects of the human DNA from the aborted fetal cell lines used in vaccines and how this might possibly have an effect on the climbing rates of autism.
No wonder that popcorn shrimp tasted so good!
Is paranoid schizophrenia a qualification for government office?
I am doing my PhD in biochemistry, and this kind of dilemma really comes up in lab. For example, some collaborators did a few crucial, difficult experiments for a paper I’m working on. It turns out that they did them in HEK cells. It would cost thousands of dollars to repeat the experiments in another cell line, and I’m sure that they would refuse. What is one to do?
Regarding vaccines (and I’m sure this applies to other medicines derived from murdered babies): No good can ever come from evil. That is a natural law. From the research I have done, I have concluded that the vaccines are either a waste of time because our children’s immune systems are designed to be stimulated by coping with childhood diseases such as chickenpox and rubella. More dangerous diseases such as polio have been almost eradicated from most developed countries, and this was a natural self limiting or possibly a result of previous more ethical vaccines. Measles can be treated naturally with vitamin A containing food supplements and a dark room, something our grandparents can tell us all about. Rubella can be risky for the unborn child of a pregnant mother, but if she and her neighbours were not vaccinated at 18 months with a vaccine derived from aborted baby tissue, they would have caught the disease during early childhood and have natural life-long immunity. Interesting that the drug company pretends to care about the health of the unborn child of a mother unvaccinated against rubella, but at the same time are offering a vaccine tainted with the blood of an innocent unborn child. Most of my children are teenagers now and have not suffered any ill effects from not being exposed to these immoral cocktails, and I have faith that God will take care of my younger children in the same way.
First I have ever heard of this, it is gastly. I have read that adult stem cell treatments are far more suitable and there is no “need” for foetal stem cell research and use. It should all be done with adult stem cells. I am guessing that procuring adult stem cells is just more expensive so the cheaper alternative is used.
Remmber we are not supposed to trust in anyone but God! This is biblical!
There is already an organization that does WONDERFUL work and has for years regarding the use of aborted fetal products used in the manufacture of vaccines and consumer products. I don’t understand how the writer of this article did not give credit where credit is due as all of this material in the article is nothing new and was already reported in National press releases and in the MSM.
If you want direct updates and accurate information please go over to the Children of God for Life website
http://www.cogforlife.org
It’s unreal how the world is evolving. I keep hoping for kindness, peace and understanding but it seems we are in the midst of turmoil instead with money hungry people at the helm of large companies and governments. We can only hope for God’s compassion and love, as most people seem to be too busy to be concerned about the soul, our true essence.
The religious objections are all well and good. What about the health implications? Consuming part of another person’s body must have long-term effects. Nature always bites back. Or have we forgotten the “mad cow” disease where cattle were fed the remains of other cattle?
I wonder if this has anything to do with the link some were on to between vaccines and autism. Like somebody said, nature does seem to bite back, if you mess with it. Does anybody have anything on that?
Reynaldo, check out these links from Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute(SCPI):
http://soundchoice.org/Images/June_2009__Autism-Vaccines-Contaminating_Aborted_Fetal_DNA.pdf
http://soundchoice.org/Images/SCPINewsletter_April_2010.pdf
There are clear change points in the rates of autism that correlate with the introduction of vaccines that are tainted with human DNA. I think it defintely warrants more research. It’s too bad that Dr. Deisher at SCPI has been denied grant money due to the “controversial” nature of her work.
Hi,
Just ran across yout article and I love it. I currently boycott pepsi products and any restaurants that serve it due to there association with research involving embryonic stem cells, even though Mountain Dew is my favorite. As a current PhD student in Biomedical Engineering I can confirm what some people are saying about the complete lack of necessity in using cell lines derived from an aborted fetus. It is necessary for a number of reasons that these vaccines are made in human cells, but they do not have to be cells from an aborted fetus. The association between vaccines and autism is highly debatable with a large number of studies showing the link is minimal at best. This means the risks of getting a life threatening disease because you didnt get the vaccine far outweigh the risk of getting autism, so you should get the vaccine. However I am noy a medical doctor just a PhD student.
For those of you who want a better explanation of the science I invite you to email me. My work is in repairing the spinal cord and brain, so I am familiar with the companies that make these embryonic stem cell therapies. My expertise is not in creating vaccines, but my work with cells gives me sufficient knowledge of how cellular machinery works. I have often thought about starting a blog for the very purpose of describing science in laymens terms, and if there is enough interest I may do it. My email is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I’m not a Catholic - but I love the same Jesus :) I am so horribly sickened by this and have sent it out to my various social network contacts. Our country is in rapid moral decline - thank you for posting this along with other valuable information
@Holly Murphy:
this is beyond wrong…what is wrong with our species…even animals are better than this…
I remember when I was 9yrs old I had a hamster that gave birth to 4 babies. With in a days time the mother proceeded to eat every last one of them. Your arguement is invalid.
Most animals will eat their young to survive, at best your arguement would be that humans have resorted to their more primative survival instincts. That notion itself is still filled with flaws aswell.
@Jeannie: Measles can be treated as you said, with one of the treatments being kept in a dark room. But what happens if you contract brain fever, which can be a complication of that virus? Chicken pox: ever had shingles? They can be extremely painful and if contracted around the eyes lead to the loss of the corneas. Vaccinate your children, for heaven’s sake!
the practice of human fetal usage is abhorent,but how dare the church dictate to people what they can or cant do ...what happened to independant and free thought
Roy, The church is only guiding us to follow the life Jesus planned for our eternal salvation. Not what some snake who want’s to make money wants us to do. We have free and independent thought, but it should be morally right otherwise we are all at risk. Who are humans to decide who is to live and who is to die. Funny how every one who complains about abortion is living.
I am a student nurse and was advised that I needed to have the MMR vaccine, I made a moral objection but they are not taking no for an answer! There is no alternative vaccine for the Rubella part of the vaccine available in Britain so I cannot opt for a different vaccine which was not cultured on foetal cells. I have read the Vatican statement ‘Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses’ but I am still confused - is it morally permissible for me to have the vaccine because there is no vaccine and also if I don’t I’ll be putting my patients at risk?
Your answer is at the end of the article saying voice your objection to the souce of this injection in as many relevant places. Until people complain companies will continue. Wth many objections they will haveto change and seek another line.
Thanks Rosemary, I have voiced my concern to my local health board and will contact the manufacturers as well BUT should I accept the vaccine?
That is a decision for you. We all have to make some moral decision - and now they seem to be complex and far away from the source. I cannot say yes or no for you I too would agonise over this position. If you refuse it may force the organisers of your course to think again. You may decide to take it as the lesser of two evils (the greater evil a mum with rubella from you then having abortion). It all becomes very grey with so many ifs and buts and possibilities. We need to make a decison trust God and be happy with it.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.