Making A Difference In My Town

While volunteering at the Vermont Right to Life office last winter, I found myself involved in a conversation that led to an idea – an idea that led to a remarkable personal experience as well as one of the biggest challenges I have ever faced. In February Mary H. Beerworth, VRLC’s executive director, was asked by pro-life Senator Mark Shepard (R-Bennington) to place the question of parental notification before a minor girl has an abortion on town meeting day ballots across the state. What an awesome and challenging idea! With the 2005-2006 legislature firmly in the control of pro-abortion zealots who oppose parental involvement, what better way to let Vermonters know that teen girls in our State can get abortions without involving a parent. Unfortunately, the idea came too late to meet the deadline to gather signatures before the customary date for March Town Meeting Day. But I knew that it wasn't too late for my town of South Burlington because we hold our town meeting in May! I shared that information with Mary and then got excited about testing the idea of a ballot initiative in my own town in order to let South Burlington residents weigh in on the issue and to use the effort as a learning experience for volunteers from other towns. The South Burlington city clerk informed me that South Burlington doesn’t normally have ballot items but that I could submit a petition with signatures from 5% of registered city voters and put the petitions before the members of the city council. I checked state law on the matter, consulted the experts and was reassured that Vermont law protected open government and was inclusive of the voice of the people. I wrote up an advisory article using recommendations taken from the Secretary of State’s web-site. The idea received a great deal of support in Montpelier. Senator Jim Leddy, D-South Burlington, agreed that a ballot initiative was a good way to measure public sentiment In order to get the signatures of 5% of South Burlington voters I set a safe goal of 750 names. First, I identified 80 people from South Burlington including my friends, parents of my children’s classmates, supporters of VRLC and others who might help get signatures. I mailed each one a letter asking for help and included a petition, information sheets and a self addressed stamped envelope. I asked them to find ten other signatures. Some people were excited and helped significantly. Some signed the petition along with family members and sent it back. Some never responded. Still, over 200 valued signatures were collected. But that left me a long way from the needed 750 names. It was time to start knocking on doors. Going door to door was challenging during the long cold winter of 2005. After the weather broke, a few friends along with a youth group lent a hand and we had the opportunity to meet and speak with many people and get the pulse of the community. It was heartening that over 7 in 10 people signed the petition. Since there are always a few signatures that will not be valid, I increased the goal to 850 signatures to make certain that we would more than meet the required 720 signatures needed 40 days before the date of the election. We often felt discouraged but never gave up. Presenting nearly 900 signatures to the city clerk 4 days ahead of the deadline was thrilling!! More than a dozen supporters attended the City Council meeting that was called to hear our request that the Council include the parental notification language on the ballot. Despite the turnout, the law, our efforts and the number of signatures, the city council voted to reject our petition. The city council argued that citizens do not have the right to petition articles not directly pertaining to city business. I presented a letter explaining how parental notification was of local concern but it was scoffed at. City Council Chair Jim Condos defended his vote by stating that it was “a matter of who controls the ballot box.” (Burlington Free Press) Encouraged by friends in Montpelier, our disappointment soon gave way to resolve to challenge the city council's decision. Attorney Paul Gillies has taken the case and feels confident that this is an important case that could have serious implications for protection of open government and freedom of speech. A complaint has been filed and a positive outcome from the lawsuit is anticipated. I have been delighted with the valuable media attention that our local effort has generated and I know that there is increased attention in South Burlington to the need for a parental notification law in Vermont. Though discouraging at times this effort has been exciting and extremely worthwhile. I encourage everyone to support the statewide town meeting initiative that is being organized right now as a direct result of the South Burlington project. For more information and for practical help, contact Caring Vermont Parents, Inc., and ask about PNI, the Parental Notification Initiative! You can reach Caring Vermont Parent’s Executive director, Guy Page at 644-5066 or newsclips@msn.com. I encourage you to get involved in your town and make a difference for young girls and their families!

Supporting Vermont Families Through Grassroots Democracy:

The 2006 Town Meeting Parental Notification Initiative

By Guy Page,

Director, Caring Vermont Parents

Sometimes Vermonters can't just leave it to the legislators. When lawmakers' failure to act threatens the safety and well-being of children, it's time for citizen action. Such an action is the Caring Vermont Parents 2006 Town Meeting Parental Notification Initiative (PNI).

The Problem - Legislative Inaction Leaves Children Unprotected

At present, any Vermont girl may obtain an abortion. There are no legal restrictions.

With every surgical procedure except abortion, health care providers must notify parents. Failure to do so is grounds for professional discipline, prosecution, and/or lawsuit. Only abortion is exempt. This deplorable situation must change. Minors must not continue to be put at risk by being left alone to make crucial decisions about surgery and post-operative care. Leaving parents out of the loop also protects sex offenders.

The Solution: Legislation Prompted By Town Meeting Referenda

Vermonters often express their will at the grassroots level of the Town Meeting. Town Meeting resolutions to promote peace and environmental protection have been championed in the Legislature and enacted into law. Lawmakers who fail to comply with the wishes of their voters are legitimately challenged at the next election.

Most Vermonters favor parental notification. PNI will mobilize this majority through non-binding referenda in every county on Town Meeting Day 2006. Gandhi said, “when the people lead, the leaders are sure to follow.” Once Vermonters have led at Town Meeting, it's up to the Legislature to follow. Representatives who fail to represent their voters may hear from voters, once again, on Election Day.

Drawing on the lessons learned during the PNI campaign this year in South Burlington, here's how a PNI works. One or two residents decide they've had it waiting passively for the Legislature to act. They decide they will do “whatever it takes” to get Parental Notification on the 2006 Town Meeting ballot.

A meeting is called. Caring Vermont Parents staff and volunteers will explain what worked in South Burlington and what didn't. Everyone discusses possible strategies. CVP staff provides sample petitions, press releases, scripts for going door to door, handouts, voter registration info, door hangers - everything a local group needs, free of charge.

CVP staff and volunteers are already planning and fund raising. Would you like to know more about organizing a PNI in your community, or about supporting the work statewide? Please contact Guy Page, CVP Executive Director, at 644-5066 or newsclips@msn.com.

The Family of Terri Schindler-Schiavo

Offended by Tombstone

According to the autopsy report, Terri Schaivo died of dehydration on March 31, 2005 thirteen days after the Florida courts ordered the removal of her feeding tube. The brother of Terri Schaivo's estranged husband Michael says a quote he placed on Terri's burial marker wasn't meant to offend Terri's family. The quote reads, “I Kept My Promise.” Terri's family says the quote is offensive because Michael abdicated his responsibility to Terri during the decade long legal battle they fought. Terri died after her estranged husband Michael Schiavo ordered her feeding tube removed despite pleas from her family to let her live.

"This (the quote) clearly illustrates the spiteful lengths to which Michael Schiavo will go in order to purposely hurt those that loved Terri unconditionally -- her family," Terri's brother Bobby told LifeNews.com.

The quote, the Schindler family says, also goes against Michael's betrayal of his responsibility to Terri. He did not use much of the $1.5 million medical malpractice money he received for Terri's medical care or rehabilitation, for which it was intended.

"Maybe even more tragic is that, in doing so, Michael Schiavo shows nothing but a lack of respect for Terri," Schindler added.

The burial service is also a bone of contention because Michael did not tell the Schindler family when or where it would be held. Because of the close proximity to where the Schindler family lives, they would have been able to attend the service had Michael notified them.

Also upsetting to the Schindler family, Michael listed the date Terri died as February 25, 1990 -- the day Terri collapsed from unknown circumstances. Terri actually passed away on March 31, 2005, after suffering a painful 13-day starvation and dehydration death.

The grave marker lists the 1990 date as the day Terri "Departed the Earth" and lists the 2005 date as the day Terri was "at peace."

VT Congressman Bernie Sanders Votes Against

Parental Notification Law - AGAIN

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives gave strong approval to legislation requiring that abortion clinics notify the parents of minors who have crossed state lines for an abortion. The House passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA, H.R. 748) by a bipartisan margin of 270-157.

However, Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders voted in opposition to the Bill despite heart wrenching testimony from parents whose young daughters have been taken across state lines for abortions. (See testimony below).

“Rep. Sanders has a long history of blind support for unregulated, unrestricted abortion and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt, including young girls,” stated Mary Hahn Beerworth, Executive director of Vermont Right to Life. “While his vote comes as no surprise, Sanders has publicly demonstrated how out of touch he is – even some of the most ardent abortion supporters voted to protect children, but not Bernie Sanders.”

“Congressman Sanders has had at least 10 opportunities in his career to cast his vote in favor of protecting minor girls but each time he voted to protect the interest of big abortion,” Beerworth continued.

In a national poll of 1,000 adults conducted April 21-24 by The Polling Company, Inc., released today, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that a person should be able to take a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge? And would you say you strongly agree/disagree or somewhat agree/disagree?" 82% disagreed (including 75% who strongly disagreed and 7% who somewhat disagreed), while only 15% agreed (including 7% strongly agreed and 8% who somewhat agreed).

A survey conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide in 2000 found 72% of Vermonters favor parental notification laws. According to the survey, support for enacting a parental notification law was strong among those who identified themselves as either “pro-choice” or “pro-life” and had majority support across party lines (Republicans – 87%, Democrats – 59%, Independents – 69%).

In Vermont abortion is legal throughout pregnancy without restriction, and there is not one single regulation placed on the practice of abortion. The Vermont House passed parental notification legislation in 2001 by a vote of 78-55, but the Senate did not take up the Bill and H. 218 was never enacted. The legislation would have required abortion providers to notify a parent 48 hours before performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor with special provisions for girls in abusive situations.

About half of the states currently have parental notification or consent laws in effect. However, these laws are often circumvented by minors traveling or being transported to other states that do not have parental notification requirements who are sometimes under pressure from older boyfriends or at the urging of agents of abortion providers. The CIANA would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if this is done to evade a state parental involvement law, unless a state court has issued a waiver.

In addition, the CIANA requires any abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state, unless the minor has already received authorization from a court in her home state, or unless the abortionist is already required to provide such parental notification by a current law in the state in which he practices. If the minor asserts that she is the victim of abuse, the abortionist would notify the appropriate state child abuse agency instead of a parent.

The US House rejected amendments that would have allowed certian classes of non-parents, including members of the clergy, to take girls out of state for an abortion.

Below is the testimony of Marcia Carroll, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in support of HR 748, The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. House of Representatives, March 3, 2005.

Good afternoon, my name is Marcia Carroll. I am from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me here to speak and share my family's story. The following is a horrifying series of events centered around my fourteen year old daughter.

On Christmas Eve 2004, my daughter informed me she was pregnant. I assured her I would seek out all resources and help that was available. As her parents, her father and I would stand beside her and support any decision she made.

We scheduled appointments with her pediatrician, her private counselor, and her school nurse. I followed all of their advice and recommendations. They referred us to Healthy Beginnings Plus, Lancaster Family Services, and the WIC program. They discussed all her options with her. I purposefully allowed my daughter to speak alone with professionals so that she would speak her mind and not just say what she thought I wanted to hear.

My daughter chose to have the baby and raise it. My family fully supported my daughter’s decision to keep her baby and offered her our love and support.

Subsequently, her boyfriend’s family began to harass my daughter and my family. They started showing up at our house to express their desire for my daughter to have an abortion. When that did not work, his grandmother started calling my daughter without my knowledge. They would tell her that if she kept the baby, she couldn't see her boyfriend again. They threatened to move out of state.

I told his family that my daughter had our full support in her decision to keep the baby. She also had the best doctors, counselors, and professionals to help her through the pregnancy. We all had her best interests in mind.

The behavior of the boy’s family began to concern me to the point where I called my local police department for advice. Additionally, I called the number for an abortion center to see how old you have to be to have an abortion in our state.

I felt safe when they told me my minor daughter had to be 16 years of age in the state of Pennsylvania to have an abortion without parental consent. I found out later that the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act actually says that parental consent is needed for a minor under 18 years of age. It never occurred to me that I would need to check the laws of other states around me. I thought as a resident of the state of Pennsylvania that she was protected by Pennsylvania state laws. Boy, was I ever wrong.

On Feb. 16th, I sent my daughter to her bus stop with $2.00 of lunch money. I thought she was safe at school. She and her boyfriend even had a prenatal class scheduled after school.

However, what really happened was that her boyfriend and his family met with her down the road from her bus stop and called a taxi. The adults put the children in the taxi to take them to the train station. His stepfather met the children at the train station, where he had to purchase my daughter’s ticket since she was only fourteen. They put the children on the train from Lancaster to Philadelphia. From there, they took two subways to New Jersey. That is where his family met the children and took them to the abortion clinic, where one of the adults had made the appointment.

When my daughter started to cry and have second thoughts, they told her they would leave her in New Jersey. They planned, paid for, coerced, harassed, and threatened her into having the abortion. They left her alone during the abortion and went to eat lunch.

After the abortion, his stepfather and grandmother drove my daughter home from New Jersey and dropped her off down the road from our house. My daughter told me that on the way home she started to cry, they got angry at her and told her there was nothing to cry about.

Anything could have happened to my daughter at the abortion facility or on the ride back home. These people did not know my daughter’s medical history, yet they took her across state lines to have a medical procedure without my knowledge or consent. Our family will be responsible for the medical and psychological consequences for my daughter as a result of this procedure that was completed unbeknownst to me.

I was so devastated that this could have been done that I called the local police department to see what could be done. They were just as shocked and surprised as I was that there was nothing that could be done in this horrible situation.

The state of Pennsylvania does have a parental consent law. Something has to be done to prevent this from happening to other families. This is just not acceptable to me and should not happen to families in this country. If your child goes to her school clinic for a headache, a registered nurse can't give her a Tylenol or aspirin without a parent's written permission.

As a consequence of my daughter being taken out of our state for an abortion without parental knowledge, she is suffering intense grief. My daughter cries herself to sleep at night and lives with this everyday.

I think about what I could or should have done to keep her safe. Everybody tells me I did everything I could have and should have done. It doesn't make me feel any better, knowing everything I did was not enough to protect my daughter.

It does ease my mind to know with your help that we can make a difference and change the law to protect other girls and their families. I urge your support for The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It is critical that this law passes in Congress. The right of parents to protect the health and welfare of their minor daughters needs to be protected. No one should be able to circumvent state laws by performing an abortion in another state on a minor daughter without parental consent.

Thank you for your time.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act now moves to the US Senate and it is important that pro-life Vermonters expressed their support for the Bill to Senators Leahy and Jeffords.

Lieut. Gov. Brian Dubie and

Vermont Center for Independent Living

Voice Concerns About Assisted Suicide

(MONTPELIER) - Flanked by leading advocates for Vermonters with disabilities, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie hosted a news conference in the office of the Lt Governor to discuss the implications of currently-proposed assisted suicide legislation for people living with disabilities in Vermont.

Vermont Center for Independent Living (VCIL), a non-profit organization directed and staffed by individuals with disabilities, works to promote the dignity, independence and civil rights of Vermonters with disabilities. Executive Director Deborah Lisi-Baker, Deputy Director Janet Dermody and Advocacy Specialist Maureen Kelly joined Dubie in his State House office to spotlight what they believe would be dangerous consequences of legalizing assisted suicide.

Lt. Governor Dubie opened the conference by quoting former Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s words. “In 1976,” Dubie said, “Hubert Humphrey once said ‘The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.’ We are here today to talk about Vermonters who live in the twilight and in the shadow, and about how we measure up in that moral test.”

Lieut. Governor Dubie said, “Representatives of VCIL have expressed their grave concerns about H.168,” a bill that would allow a physician to provide a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of medication. “I have invited them to share my office, for the purpose of voicing those concerns.”

As Chair of Governor Jim Douglas’ Commission on Healthy Aging, Dubie said, he has already taken on the challenge to help address Vermonters’ need for better pain management and hospice care. He held up a copy of the report issued by Attorney General William Sorrell’s office in January 2005 on end of life care in Vermont. According to the report, he said, “Vermont scores way too many Cs and Ds in pain management, hospice care and public policy. We need to improve performance in those areas. Legalizing assisted suicide would take us in the wrong direction.”

With regard to the proposal presently under consideration by Vermont’s House of Representatives, Deborah Lisi-Baker said, “VCIL, like many national and state experts, believes that passing this bill at this time in our society is the wrong direction for Vermont and the nation. As we have said over and over again, we are demanding what we have so often been denied: social approaches to illness, disability, pain management that support life with dignity even in end of life care.”

It is estimated that one in five Vermonters lives with a significant disability; the Vermont Center for Independent Living (VCIL) serves 1,900 of those Vermonters yearly.

Dubie emphasized the broad concern that the proposed legislation has raised across the state. “Vermonters who live with disabilities are our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers, our neighbors, friends and co-workers,” said Dubie. “They deserve a strong voice in the current debate.”

Lisi-Baker continued, “Legalizing physician assisted suicide before creating the resources and capacity to offer all Vermonters equal access to pain management, hospice supports and other resources seems to me to be giving up on what our society and our medical system is perfectly capable of doing -- what we are perfectly capable of doing today -- if we have the will to make access to quality services a priority. Vermont can and should do better, and must not let shortcoming in medical practices define our approach to end of life care.”

Vermont Legislature: 2005-2006

Bills of Interest

S.27 Baby safe haven

Purpose: It is the intent of the General Assembly that this act provide a procedure which ensures the safety and well-being of newborns and infants. The General Assembly recognizes that it is preferable for a wide array of services to be available to all expectant mothers, and to newborn infants and their mothers. The procedure established in this act should be considered a safeguard that will be followed only in extraordinary circumstances.

Vermont Right to Life provided testimony in favor of the Bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. S.27 passed the Senate with a few changes on a voice vote, and now waits in the House Judiciary Committee until the Legislature resumes in January, 2006.

H.115 Advance Directives

Purpose: The state of Vermont recognizes the fundamental right of an adult to determine the extent of health care the individual will receive, including treatment provided during periods of incapacity and at the end of life. This chapter enables adults to retain control over their own health care through the use of advance directives, including appointment of an agent and directions regarding health care and disposition of remains. During periods of incapacity, the decisions by the agent shall be based on the express instructions, wishes, or beliefs of the individual, to the extent those can be determined.

Lobbyist for VRLC and the Catholic Diocese testified in the House Human Services, House Judiciary, and Senate Health & Welfare Committees, recommending several important changes to this bill. The testimony led to some improvements – conscience and employment protection for health care employees, statutory acknowledgement that decisions may be different for a patient who has lost capacity to make decisions if that patient is a pregnant woman, and clarification that spoon- and straw-feeding are not medical means of administering nutrition and hydration. The bill passed the House by an overwhelming margin of 133-3. There was little to no debate. It passed the Senate on a voice vote, again with little or no debate. The Governor has signed the Bill into law.

H.168 Death With Dignity (Physician Assisted Suicide)

Purpose: This bill proposes to allow a mentally competent patient who is expected to die within six months to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner by prescription medication.

The House Human Services Committee took up the bill, taking three days of testimony, including an evening public hearing. A large majority of the committee is in favor of the bill despite overwhelming opposition from prominent medical organizations, VRLC, the disability rights organizations, the Ecumenical Council, the Catholic Diocese, the American Cancer Society, the VT State Nurses Association and others. A unofficial summer study committee has been formed within the Human Services Committee for the specific purpose of working on H 168 and it is likely to be voted out to the full House for debate and a vote when the Legislature returns to Montpelier in January, 2006.

H.183 Health Care Rights of Conscience,

Purpose: This bill proposes to respect and protect the fundamental rights of conscience of all individuals who provide health care services.

This bill remains “on the wall” in the House Human Services Committee, but issues of conscience protection have been raised in discussion and testimony on the Death With Dignity, Morning-After Pill, and Advance Directives bills (some real protections were included in the Advance Directives bill that pertain to health care providers who have moral objections to complying with a living will or the directives of an agent). As awareness of the need for comprehensive conscience protection grows, we become more hopeful that H.183 will eventually be addressed.

H.328, S.163 Parental Notification

The language of both the House and Senate version of Parental Notification is similar to the language contained in the Bill that passed the House in 2001 except that the Senate version includes important “findings” regarding the alarming rate of sexual assault on minor girls. Local and national attention is being given to the issue of parental involvement.

H.345 Physician/parental presence required for abortion to minor

This bill would require either that a parent accompany a minor who is seeking an abortion or that the care of the minor be directly overseen by a physician. It has been assigned to the House Human Services Committee.

H.346 Crimes against an unborn child

This bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. This is an “Unborn Victims of Violence” proposal that would apply to state crimes (as opposed to federal crimes which are covered by “Laci & Connor’s Law”). Vermont does not currently recognize the killing or injuring of a pre-born baby as a crime.

HR.7 Resolution on Roe v. Wade

A resolution commemorating the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision was passed by a vote of 97-37. Prior to this vote, an alternate version that called for conscience protection and parental notification was defeated by a vote of 47-87. The resolution was NOT sent over to the Senate, nor was a senate version introduced.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON BIOETHICS AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

May 24, 2005

The East Room

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. I have just met with 21 remarkable families. Each of them has answered the call to ensure that our society's most vulnerable members are protected and defended at every stage of life.

The families here today have either adopted or given up for adoption frozen embryos that remained after fertility treatments. Rather than discard these embryos created during in vitro fertilization, or turn them over for research that destroys them, these families have chosen a life-affirming alternative. Twenty-one children here today found a chance for life with loving parents. (Applause.)

I believe America must pursue the tremendous possibilities of science, and I believe we can do so while still fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages. (Applause.) In the complex debate over embryonic stem cell research, we must remember that real human lives are involved --both the lives of those with diseases that might find cures from this research, and the lives of the embryos that will be destroyed in the process. The children here today are reminders that every human life is a precious gift of matchless value. (Applause.)

I appreciate Mike Leavitt, Department of Health and Human Services, for being here. He's the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I picked a really good man to take on this assignment. He's doing a fine job. (Applause.)

I want to thank the Executive Director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, Ron Stoddart, for joining us today. Welcome. (Applause.) I want to thank Lori Maze, the Director of Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption program. Welcome, Lori. Thank you for coming. And thank you all for being here.

The rapid advance of science presents us with the hope of eventual cures for terrible diseases, and with profound moral and ethical dilemmas. The decisions we make today will have far-reaching consequences. So we must aggressively move forward with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards.

Research on stem cells derived from human embryos may offer great promise, but the way those cells are derived today destroys the embryo. I share the hope of millions of Americans who desperately want to find treatments and cures for terrible diseases such as juvenile diabetes and Parkinson's disease. That is why my administration completed the doubling of the NIH budget to $29 billion a year, to encourage research. I also made available for the first time federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in order to explore the potential of these cells.

But I also recognize the grave moral issues at stake. So, in August 2001, I set forward a policy to advance stem cell research in a responsible way by funding research on stem cell lines derived only from embryos that had already been destroyed. This policy set a clear standard: We should not use public money to support the further destruction of human life. (Applause.)

Under this policy we have supported a great deal of ethical research. About 600 shipments of eligible stem cell lines are already being used by researchers across the country, and over 3,000 more shipments are still available. We've increased funding for all forms of stem cell research by more than 80 percent since I took office. A tremendous amount of both public and private research is underway in America on embryonic, as well as adult stem cells, and stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

Today the House of Representatives is considering a bill (HR 810) that violates the clear standard I set four years ago. This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line would be a great mistake.

Even now researchers are exploring alternative sources of stem cells, such as adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, as well as different ethical ways of getting the same kind of cells now taken from embryos without violating human life or dignity. With the right policies and the right techniques, we can pursue scientific progress while still fulfilling our moral duties.

I want to thank Nightlight Christian Adoptions for their good work. Nightlight's embryo adoption program has now matched over 200 biological parents with about 140 adoptive families, resulting in the birth of 81 children so far, with more on the way. (Applause.)

The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts. And I commend each of the families here today for accepting the gift of these children and offering them the gift of your love. (Applause.)

Thank you for coming today. By the way, we're having a little birthday gathering just in a second for Tanner and Noelle. You all are invited to partake in a little birthday cake. (Laughter.) In the meantime, may God bless you and your families, and may God continue to bless our country. Thank you. (Applause.)

VT Congressman Bernie Sanders Favors Destructive Research on Human Embryos

On Tuesday May 24, 2005, VT Congressman Bernie Sanders supported H.R. 810, a Bill that would allow the destruction of human embryos for research. Ignoring both the threat of a veto by President Bush as well as the growing evidence that adult stem cells taken from ethical sources such as umbilical cord blood and fat are more effective in treating diseases, Sanders cast his vote in support of the destruction of human embryos. See related article in this issue (Scientists Admit Failures on Embryonic Stem Cell Research) along with a press statement by President Bush. HR 810 passed the US House (238 – 194) and will be taken up in the US Senate despite the fact that President Bush has threatened to veto the Bill.

Scientists Admit Failures On Embryonic Stem Cell Research

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor

Hundreds of scientists who back embryonic stem cell research have meet in California to discuss the current state of the controversial research. They have admitted that they have not made much progress and are losing millions trying to perfect the use of embryonic stem cells.

"Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet,'' Celgene President Alan Lewis said, according to an AP story.

James Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells, also admits they have been oversold. He told MSBNC that he understands the technology still has a long way to go and that embryonic stem cells are not being used in any human clinical trials yet.

"I'm very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this technology, but they're going to be very challenging," he told MSNBC. "And it's been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow."

Thomson conceded that embryonic stem cell cures may not be available until "ten to twenty years from now." Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious'' about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects.

That's true for William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, a leading advocate of embryonic stem cell research. He says results are decades away and his company is not spending money on the unproven embryonic cells.

“The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence," Haseltine admits. "The timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest," Haseltine added.

As a result, leading embryonic stem cell research firms are losing money. Geron, the California-based biotech firm has put over $100 million into embryonic stem cell research and, because it has little to show for the investment, lost $80 million last year.

Advanced Cell Technology, a Massachusetts company that was one of the first to claim to have cloned a human embryo, is running into significant financial troubles and, according to AP, is having problems finding enough eggs from women for research.

"There have been companies that have gone into stem cells, but nobody's made any money," researcher Thomson admitted

(We need fair clip art here)

Volunteer Openings!

We Are Looking For Enthusiastic, Outgoing Individuals

Volunteer to Staff the Pro-Life Booths at the County Fairs

Benefit Package:

· Flexible Working Hours

· Free entrance fee

· Great co-workers

Check Out The Fair Nearest You and Volunteer

Call VRLC Today!

RETIREMENT OF JUSTICE O'CONNOR

WASHINGTON -- On the day of Justice O'Connor's retirement the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

“Millions of Americans will be watching to see whether the Senate Democratic leadership bows to the demands of certain pressure groups that a nominee must pledge to rule for the pro-abortion side in future cases,” stated NRLC political director Carol Tobias. “Already, some Democratic senators, such as Ted Kennedy, are clearly demanding a litmus test.”

Many commentators in the news media have made observations about the possible impact of an appointment on legal issues pertaining to abortion. Some of these commentaries are well informed, but others contain misinformation and distortions. For example, one oft-heard myth is that the current Supreme Court is divided 5-4 on Roe v. Wade. This is demonstrably wrong. In reality, six of the current justices, including Justice O'Connor, have voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade's holding that abortion must be allowed, for any reason, up until "viability" (and for "health" reasons, which has been broadly defined, even after viability). Thus, even if the President were to appoint a successor justice who some day decides that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional ruling, there would still be a pro-Roe majority on the Supreme Court.

The misconception that the Supreme Court is divided 5-4 on Roe was refuted by the Annenberg's Center's Factcheck.org.

“The Supreme Court is clearly divided 5-4 on one critical abortion issue -- partial-birth abortion,” Tobias said.

In the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, O'Connor voted with the five-justice majority that struck down state laws that banned the brutal partial-birth abortion method, in which a living premature infant is mostly delivered alive before being killed by puncturing her skull and removing her brain. (Justice Kennedy, a vote in favor of Roe's doctrine of legal abortion for any reason, nevertheless felt it was constitutionally permissible for a state to ban the particular METHOD of partial-birth abortion.) In 2003, President Bush signed into law a federal ban on partial-birth abortion (except to save the life of the mother), but its enforcement has been blocked by the lower federal courts in litigation that is headed back up to the Supreme Court. The President's nominee may very well cast the deciding vote to determine whether the brutal partial-birth abortion method will remain legal.

Much of the public has also been misled into believing that "overturning Roe v. Wade" means "banning all abortions." In reality, the effect of even a complete overturning of Roe would be to place questions relating to protection of unborn children and abortion into the hands of elected lawmakers and the American people, rather than a small group of unelected judges. As the leading pro-abortion litigation group expressed it last year: "A Supreme Court decision overturning Roe would not by itself make abortion illegal in the United States. Instead, a reversal of Roe would remove federal constitutional protection for a woman’s right to choose and give the states the power to set abortion policy." ("What if Roe Fell?," Center for Reproductive Rights, September 2004)

For information on other related issues, including refutation of the assertion that Roe applies in some special way "in the first trimester," see http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/roevwademyths.html

National Right to Life is the nation's largest pro-life organization, with 50 state affiliates and approximately 3,000 local affiliates nationwide. NRLC works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. The Vermont Right to Life Committee is the VT State affiliate of NRLC.

Summer is Really Heating Up

A classic, old movie contained this unforgettable line, “Fasten your seatbelt, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.” That’s exactly what’s ahead for Washington, DC in the coming months and perhaps years. Many Americans have been waiting, on the edge of their seats, for an inevitable vacancy on the US Supreme Court. The filibuster skirmish between Republicans and Democrats was simply a rehearsal for the even larger battle over who controls the nation’s highest court. And the central issue is abortion.

Roe versus Wade is the biggest obstacle standing between the lives of millions of unborn babies and those who promote abortion as a sacred right. If we are to take the first big step toward ending abortion-on-demand, Roe must be corrected. The only way to do that is to have President Bush appoint, and the Senate confirm, pro-life justices to the US Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue that will take central stage in confirming Supreme Court justices is whether or not the nominees support correcting Roe v. Wade.

When Supreme Court appointments are made, the biased secular media, radical liberal organizations and the abortion industry will go into a full court press to persuade Americans that if Roe is corrected, it will cause the sky to fall, women will die and civilization as we know it will end.

Expect common sense and reason to be jettisoned and replaced by a philosophy of winning at all costs. The first casualty will be the truth. It will be reminiscent of another classic movie when Dorothy was transported from the stable environment of Kansas to the Land of Oz where some of the players involved were searching for a brain.

That’s why it’s very important that pro-life individuals, leaders and spokespersons be ready with an effective response to the many distortions we can expect from the other side regarding how correcting Roe will affect our society.

Here are some arguments you will hear from pro-abortion activists, politicians and the media. Further, I’ve provided some effective pro-life responses. Remember, our battle to protect innocent human life will be victorious only when we win the hearts and minds of Americans. Prayer is our most effective tool. Second to that is speaking out with the truth. You can do that by sharing this information with your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers. You can expand your influence even more by incorporating these responses into a letter to the editor of your paper, or calling into a local talk radio program.

What we can expect from pro-abortion activists:

1. A nominee who would vote to reverse Roe is an extremist and out of the mainstream of American thought. False. Americans don’t agree that abortion should be allowed for any reason throughout nine months of pregnancy. This is what Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, have done. Americans also don’t agree with the current majority of the Supreme Court that supports partial-birth abortion, the killing of an infant during delivery. Liberal judicial activists who support what Roe has done to our society are the extremists.

2. If a pro-life nominee is confirmed, it’s just a matter of time before Roe is overturned. Not so fast. A pro-life nominee would likely replace a justice who has consistently ruled against Roe. This nomination simply maintains the current balance on the Court.

3. If Roe falls, women will die from dangerous, back-alley abortions. Not true. Dr. Bernard Nathanson was instrumental in legalizing abortion in America. He readily admits they grossly inflated the number of women who died from illegal abortions. During 1972, the year before Roe, only 39 women died from illegal abortion. In contrast, many women today are maimed and even killed by so-called safe, legal abortions.

4. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion will be outlawed. False. Roe struck down laws against abortion in all fifty states. The correction of Roe simply allows the states to enact laws protecting unborn babies from abortion. Currently, only a handful of states still have laws on their books protecting unborn babies if Roe is corrected. Roe took away the right of states to pass protective legislation and forced abortion-on-demand upon an entire nation.

The battle to protect unborn babies and their parents from abortion is not an easy one. Our most viable avenue of correcting Roe means getting pro-life justices on the Court. But don’t expect the abortion industry to go silently into the night. It won’t be as easy as clicking our heels and saying, “There’s no place like home.” We’ve got to roll up our sleeves and put our backs into this crucial life-saving battle. The coming months and years are absolutely critical to reaching our goal of protecting millions of unborn babies.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to change history and protect future generations. That victory will require true grit. We’re going to have to exhibit the fortitude and tenacity of John Wayne to make sure the good guys win. Are you with us?

(This article has been reprinted with permission from Life Issues.)

Have You Filled Out a WILL TO LIVE Document?

Millions of horrified Americans watched as Terri Schiavo was intentionally and cruelly killed by dehydration and starvation. During the weeks our nation was captivated by this unfolding tragedy, one particularly dangerous message was being stressed over and over again.

A huge percentage of the media, as well as good-intentioned individuals and organizations, was telling the public to get a living will. This, they said, would prevent future emotional turmoil for families involved in similar situations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. No living will in existence could begin to cover the myriad of possible future medical problems you or a loved one may face. Quite the contrary, many forms are written from a “quality of life” ethic, meaning your value as a human being diminishes as your inability to contribute to society increases. Many living wills assume a desire by the patient to withdraw nutrition and hydration under a wide array of circumstances. This means you would be at a greater risk of dying in the same painful way that Terri did. Ironically, in Florida, you couldn’t do that to a dog and get away with it, but the courts consider it acceptable “medical treatment” for certain patients.

A preferable alternative to living wills is a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and the one VRLC recommends is the “Will to Live.” By signing this document, you place possible future decisions for your medical treatment in the hands of someone you trust in the event you are incapacitated. It will help safeguard against the “Michael Schiavos” who may have conflicts of interest when determining your care. A Durable Power of Attorney will also protect you and your family from doctors or other medical professionals who hold a “quality of life” ethic.

Go to the Vermont Right to Life Committee’s website to download your free copy: www.vrlc.net. Please encourage others to do the same. The life you protect may be your own.