Gee, wonder WHY the ARINOLD-luvin' sheeple in California "approved" of this?
"Must...rubber stamp...massa Ahnuld's...agenda..."
Posted on 11/05/2004 4:10:08 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of Stanford University's medical school, on Friday became the first appointee to a board that will oversee a new stem cell research agency approved by California voters.
Proposition 71, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent Tuesday, will have the state borrow $3 billion to fund stem cell research. It establishes the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which will be managed by a 29-member board to be appointed over the next month.
The board, in turn, will appoint two committee to approve grants. One committee will approve money for research, while the other will be in charge of doling out funds to build new labs and other facilities.
Pizzo was appointed by state Controller Steve Westly, who gets to make five appointments to the 29-member board. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Treasurer Phil Angelides each get to appoint five members as well.
In addition, the five University of California medical schools in San Diego, Irvine, Los Angles, San Francisco and Davis each get one appointment.
"The Institute for Regenerative Medicine will bring new funds to a field of research that has shown the potential to change the way we understand and treat disease," Pizzo said. "Passage of the proposition is a clear affirmation that the citizens of California value this area of scientific investigation."
I hope all the RINOs in California are enjoying their "fiscally conservative" government in action. For yoru next "fiscally conservative" action, perhaps you can spend several zillion to replace Bustamente with a socialist that has an "R" next to his name. George Ryan is tanned, rested, and ready for the job.
Gee, wonder WHY the ARINOLD-luvin' sheeple in California "approved" of this?
I didn't vote for it. The only thing stem cell research has done is produce tumors.
Thanks for the ping!
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I realize the rending of children limb from limb in the womb is something to which most human beings can relate as "wrong" but I suppose we must thank the Birth Control mentality for the way Christians are able to rationalize the fact that ALL MEN are no longer CREATED equal.
Science proves unequivocably that a human life is COMPLETE at the moment of conception and requires -- as does any child -- only food and protection from his mother.
It amazes me that Christians -- for whom God is their favorite philosopher, even -- have managed to overcome this Scientific Fact which, by all rights, should suggest the only logical conclusion that the Soul a part of that Unique Body is also present from the moment of conception.
But Christians accustomed to Planning "God's blessings" and seeking to exclude their beloved Creator from the most intimate and profoundly creative relationship of their lives here on earth likely are ripe for rationalizing just about Big Lie these days ... particularly of the Self-Deluding variety.
I guess the part I liked best was the way anyone who championed Bush as "against" stem cells had to rely on the tried and true "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" argument in arguing against Prop. 71.
29 on the commission ... perfect. Elevenses is so appropriate to the work of the Diabolical. Not that these numbers -- like those used to Science death and torture camps worldwide such as Unit 731 -- aren't pulled out of thin air, natch.
=== The first sales recruit on the snake oil wagon.
Let's all remember who it was that FIRST pitched the process in Prime Time, complete with Scripture, in his inaugural televised address to the nation.
The real problem with this initiative was that there just wasn't anyone out there hawking the negative position. Laura Ingraham was the most vocal person I heard.
Laura brought on a scientist that does adult gene cell research. (At least I think that was his credentials)
After I heard this guy talk for ten minutes, I had a number of good points to give people to convince them not to vote for it. Sadly, California doesn't seem to have prominent conservatives who are well informed, highly visible, and willing to hawk the conservative position on these issues.
As a result, the uniformed populace votes for what sounded good, unopposed by truth.
This isn't entirely the ignorant populaces fault. It is the fault of conservatives in the state. The republican leadership should have been spending the big bucks to inform people. God knows they didn't spend a dime on the presidential election.
Conservatism is all but dead in the state for one reason. We do not have a viable leadership. What passes for leadership is just embarassing.
=== ALL they REALLY know about it is that Bush doesn't want it.
Except for himself.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
???
Explain.
This measure did not pass by a resounding majority vote. My sincere sympathies to those solid citizens who also live in the beautiful state of California, and treasure its rich heritage. Too many of us have watched our core values stripped away by the liberals who moved into our home states.
Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Q: How many dead babies does $3 billion buy?
A: ?
From where are they going to borrow this money?
Shouldn't whatever institution which lends it be up for boycott by atleast that 41% of Californians and the rest of us as well?
Who are you referring to?
The President, of course.
Particularly given the fact he lied through his teeth about his program's being restricted to the 60 stem cell lines, I see no reason that "government funding" or a killed-by date of August, 2001 should be the bright line of Circumstance which determines whether or not "humanitarian" use of embryos that would have been tossed in the garbage is legitimate or not.
When your "pro-life" President, even, can "pray" to his Favorite Philosopher that he's done the right thing by etching in stone with government funds the Fact that all men are no longer created equal ...
And when your "pro-life" President's decision obviates the need for the NIH to even proffer human experimentation protocols for review (the President's decision having nailed open a whole new door of human Non-Personhood, according to the Congressional Register) ...
It seems hypocritical in the extreme to balk at California's making good on its promise to become the world's prime supplier of Potential People suitable for all manner of human experimentation so long as -- so far as anyone knows -- they're destroyed by "implantation" age.
You all lost this fight when you rationalized the President's decision. Perhaps if you really cared, you'd understand that you lost the fight back in 1970 when -- among other extremely curious findings with regard to the environment, population control and depopulation -- the GOP discovered a "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children.
The truth is out there. Staring you in the face. If you care to look.
=== Q: How many dead babies does $3 billion buy?
Enough with the hyperbole.
Perhaps you failed to notice but, per the President's decision on ESCR and a concurring Blue Ribbon Congressional panel of "scientists", these are not Potential People at all.
They are strictly Non-Persons and perfectly suitably Material for "human" experimentation.
NYer, with all due respect, there is no longer any excuse for comments like this. The reason you'll never make any substantive headway on this issue is because you're targeting the WRONG side of the faux "left-right" model the Good and the Bad Cop of our Two-Party system use to control you at a strictly horizontal level.
If you will remember, back during Gore's Anti-Campaign, he was protested at one point by feminists who excoriated him for his once "pro-life" voting record. How could that be?
It's because Gore -- like the rest of the Democrats -- were "pro-life" back in the sixties. In fact, the only really substantive arguments you see against the state's INTERVENING to sanction birth control and abortion come from the Dems who at the time were charged with fomenting racial unrest with (the absolutely truthful) allegations that both birth control and abortion were forms of genocide ... particularly as targeted to the blacks and other dysgenics to whom they gave it out like candy.
(As a Catholic, I'm surprised you apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of the great Puerto Rico Experiment in which that Catholic island was used as a controlled experiment in "educating" folks to their "right" to exclude by force the creator from their Family Planning. Cardinal Spellman's complicity in that event (like that of so many bishops and cardinals since) is proof positive the hierarchy of the Church -- particularly those "getting out the vote" for alleged "pro-lifers" -- are not at all who or what they seem.)
Just like the "liberals" you think to castigate on the issue of human life.
Again, until the Republicans found the time was ripe for educating the masses into demanding those strictures that would have been forced on them anyway (in much the same way US-AIDs depopulates abroad by imposing pop-control measures), it was the DEMOCRATS who were pro-life.
Once the Republicans made the case for legal abortion (on grounds of "economic discrimination" no less ... their prime concern about abortion in 1970 being "availability") and even memorialized it in 1974 national defense memoranda as "vital" to the solution of population control at home, the ball was in play and the Dems -- overnight -- turned abortion and birth control into the Litmus Test of empowerment for their dysgenic constituents.
In all honesty, the utter Elegance of the operation -- not to mention the bold and unapologetic way ALL of this information is in the public domain -- takes my breath away.
I cannot suggest strongly enough that you educate yourself so as better to identify the real culprits here. It becomes FAR easier to understand why George W. Bush, on approving the UN's POP treaty on April 19, 2001, would say something to the effect of:
And now a Republican administration will finish the work of a Democratic administration ... this is the way environmental policy should work.
IF you understand -- as well you should -- that it's the GOP who gave the Dems their Talking Points on environmentalism back in 1970, along with some utterly chilling recommendations on population control.
Two posts you simply must read are Recommendations of the Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (July 8, 1970) (I have the full document here at home) AND "Abortion is vital to the Solution" -- A Key Point from Kissinger's NSSM-200 (the research contained therein on court appointment indicative of why this current hullaballoo over Spectre is a waste of time and the "spectre of court appointments" -- if you'll pardon the pun -- is just as genuine an issue as the Viet Nam scab they picked to bleed as they pleased this election so as to make it look like a horse race.)
Read the report. For now, here's two excerpts from the Congressional Record which really ought to give any man of conscience pause ... time enought to reflect, perhaps, that maybe he's been played for a Sucker his entire life. Not a pleasant realization by any means but sure beats remaining a Useful Idiot the rest of one's life.
|
HEARING HIGHLIGHTS HON. GEORGE BUSH OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, September 4, 1969 Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, the weeks before recess our Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population held three hearings. The subjects discussed at these hearings were: the hereditary aspects of human quality, that activities of the Earth Resources Survey Program Review Committee, and the environmental problems created by our rapid rate of population growth. So that all Members of the House can share the information we heard, I offer our hearing highlights for the RECORD:
Dr. Williams Shockley, Professor, Stanford University. Dr. Arthur Jensen, Professor, University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Shockley stated that he feels the National Academy of Sciences has an intellectual obligation to make a clear and relevant presentation of the facts about hereditary aspects of human quality. Furthermore, he claimed our well-intentioned social welfare programs may be unwittingly producing a down breeding of the quality of the U.S. population. Specifically, Dr. Shockley feels the National Academy of Sciences should answer the following question: "Is or is not your 1967 statement on Human Genetics and Urban Slums now clearly out of date and unsound as a result of the analysis published in the Winter, 1969 issue of the Harvard Educational Review by Dr. Jensen and its subsequent review by Dr. Crow?" Dr. Shockley believes that such a question is partially justified on the basis that one of 3 authors of that 1967 statement, Dr. James Crow, now seems to feel that the statements fails to adequately consider new theories of genetic quality. On the basis of studies completed by Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Shockley claimed: "I believe that the voting citizens of the United States can and should endeavor to make their government seek objectivity to formulate programs so that every baby born has high probability of leading a dignified, rewarding and satisfying life. Letters from government organizations show that hereditary factors are essentially excluded from present studies of our social problems. ... highlights from August 7, 1969, and highlights from August 12, 1969 (Paul Ehrlich). OVERPOPULATION HON. GEORGE BUSH OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 30, 1969 [pp. 17926-17927] Congressional Record, September 5, 1969 Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, I would like to comment on two newcomers to the Washington scene. They are Dr. Philip Handler, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Roger Olaf Egeberg, the Assistant HEW Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs subject to his confirmation by the Senate. I was extremely heartened by the sense of urgency expressed by both of these national leaders on the problems of overpopulation and dwindling resources. In a recent interview with This Week magazine, Dr. Handler stated: "The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger, pollution, crime, overlarge, dirty cities-even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war-all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology. Second to the problem of overproduction is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we do not provide more food, we face worldwide famine." Dr. Egeberg has displayed his keen awareness of the crisis our world is facing by emphasizing that at the top of his list of priorities will be intensified efforts in environmental and population control through technological innovations and family planning, the reclamation of waste products, and the development of a low pollution automobile. We look to these two men for dynamic and purposeful leadership as the new administration charts its course. I include at this point in the record the text of the interview with Dr. Handler:
"Man is on the threshold of a biological revolution," says biochemist Philip Handler. "It will influence the life of each of us Just as greatly as the industrial revolution affected every living person." On July 1, Dr. Handler will leave his position as chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at Duke University Medical Center to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. This organization of the country's 846 most esteemed scientists serves as official advisor to the government on matters of science and technology. This Week interviewed Dr. Handler about his views on what lies ahead in the biological sciences. TW. Will you define what you mean "biological revolution"? Dr. Handler. I mean that our understanding of living things is now so comprehensive that we should Soon be able to apply that information to human affairs, in order to improve the condition of man. TW. In what major areas will this knowledge be put to work? Dr. Handler. In population control, food production, health, control of the environment, and directing the evolution of our own species. TW. Any reason for the order of your list? Dr. Handler. The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger; pollution; crime; overlarge, dirty cities--even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war--all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology. TW. Don't we already know enough? Dr. Handler. We thought we were quite knowledgeable, until today's problems pinned us to the wall. Our knowledge turned out to be primitive. The oral contraceptive pill and lUDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) have been successful because they divorce the act of sex from the act of using contraception. What we now need is a cheap, safe mechanism in which failure to use contraceptives would result in failure to conceive, rather than the present situation, which is the other way around--failure results in conception. TW. What's the outlook for this? Dr. Handler. There are several approaches--by immunology, particularly--which offer some promise. TW. What's the next most serious challenge? Dr. Handler. Second to the problem of overpopulation is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we don't provide more food, we face world-wide famine. TW. What solution do you propose? Dr. Handler. There are hundreds of thousands of plants, and we must systematically investigate them to see whether some could be bred into new forms. No new basic foods have been developed since the start of history. TW. What about food from the sea? Dr. Handler. The seas could be exploited on a much larger scale. For example, oysters, clams, and other shellfish could be grown in bays. We surely can grow more than we presently take from the sea. But I really think this type of activity--"aquiculture"--won't happen in the sea at all. When we become serious about growing fish, we'll grow them in "factories." Thats how chickens are raised today. TW. Are there any other new approaches to feeding the world? Dr. Handler. Today, we can take a fertilized frog egg, insert the nucleus from a cell of another frog, and the egg will develop into a frog that is a perfect twin of the one that provided the transplanted nucleus It's merely a matter of time before we can switch from frogs to mammals. When we do that, we should be able to make perfect copies of the best bull or cow in the world. We can make any number we desire, and thus markedly upgrade food production. TW. What is the outlook in medicine? Dr. Handler. We all know that the major killers and incapacitating disorders--heart disease, cancer, rheumatoid ailments -- are still with us. We've managed to contain infectious diseases only. I'm sure that with time we'll have much-improved preventive and therapeutic techniques for many of the remaining diseases. Atherosclerosis, for example, is the underlying process of much cardiovascular disease, in which the arterial walls are plugged with calcium and fatty materials. I don't believe that's necessary. There should be some way prevent it. There are small cracks in the problem of cancer. I have reason to believe that in the near future, we'll learn, if not how to prevent it, how to cure early cancer. TW. About death Itself? Dr. Handler. Well, about aging, I would like to see life like Shangri-la, where you stay physically young until you're 100, and then you die. Whether we can do this depends upon our understanding of the biological clock for man. If we knew what it is, it's conceivable we could intervene. TW. You mentioned man's environment as a major problem. Dr. Handler. It hasn't been really very long-10,000 years-since human beings belonged to tribes of wanderers that foraged and hunted. Each species radiates Into a niche, finds a place to which it's suited, and becomes dominant there. Our species migrated that way when it was small, wandering in tribes and clans. Genetically, we can't be very different from our early forebears. The question is whether species that achieved dominance under primitive conditions can accommodate Itself adequately to living in cities. Biologically, the odds are against man doing equally well under such an utterly different set of circumstances than his beginnings. I don't know the extent to which mankind can survive successfully in large urban concentrations. TW. Your last point was evolution. Dr. Handler. There are something over 300 known hereditary diseases of man. We have learned to circumvent a number of them by keeping young people alive who suffer from those diseases. They grow up and reproduce, and spread their genes in the population. Instead of improving, the genetic pool of mankind is deteriorating. I think the total good of humanity demands that we minimize the incidence of these defective genes. We have no historical ethnic to guide us in this matter, but perhaps such people hould not be allowed to procreate. The other side of the coin is to prevent the problem In the first place. There are some who hope to make DNA--containing only "good" genes--and insert it into the germ plasm of prospective parents. Maybe that will be possible In the distant future. Or you could improve inheritance by breeding. As its farthest extreme, using the processs I described for cattle, one could, conceivably, deliberately make more Einsteins, Mozarts, or whomever you choose. Another, more practical way is to pick distinguished men and preserve their sperm by freezing it in "sperm banks." Then married couples might enjoy their own sex relationship, but when they want to have a child, use sperm from the sperm bank. TW. Dr. Handler, you have described a possible world that Includes brand-new kinds of food, freedom from dread diseases, the possibility of greatly extended life span, even the control of man's own evolution. Are we ready to operate this civilization? Do we know how to perform and accept the new values it will impose? Dr. Handler. No, we don't know enough yet. But that doesn't mean that we should producing new technology. Compared with the natural sciences and engineering, social sciences are relatively primitive. The degree of understanding of man as a social creature is not yet adequate to our task, as is evident in our domestic and international problems. But, in part, these problems arise because technology has been so successful. It's the comfort enjoyed by 80 per cent of our population, brought about by technology, that makes possible the dream of a society In which the other 20 per cent can live equally well. Technology also gives us responsibilities. It gave us the ability to destroy humanity on just the same scale, and we haven't really learned to manage that capability yet. That's where our lack of social understanding limits us badly. A sophisticated blend of social and behavioral understanding with modern technological capability could truly usher in a new era for mankind, If we can avoid a holocaust in the interim. |
I suspect they know full well that they can rely on their trained monkey jarhead feminists and other Useful Idiots and committed radicals to take care of the nasty business such that they can retain their Clean Hands.
|
The belief that Family Planning constitutes population control must be rejected. Over 97% of American married couples utilize maternal and child healthcare services and an estimated 90% [2] practice birth control in some form and still the United States experience a population growth of 1%, a doubling every 70 years.
Family Planning constitutes the knowledge base for regulating births and reducing infant mortality. Population control is to limit birth, not to regulate births. It is necessary to understand the difference.
The practice of birth control is an accepted norm for American married couples. There is, however, concern among many demographers over the widespread desire on the part of Americans to produce three and four children in the belief that such family sizes constitute the practice of birth control. Without failsafe contraceptive devices, available to both men and women, that are medically safe and easily administered, it is not realistic to believe that an honest, free choice decision is available to those who prefer to limit their families to two children.
Population control is not a function for federal, state or local governments. However, Family Planning services, within the context of maternal and child healthcare services, must be made more accessible to the poor in providing these services as a proper function of all governments at a sensible level of costs.
As part of Family Planning Services, birth control information as well as devices and techniques to regulate fertility should be available to all those who want them and cannot afford them through private sources. The major problem in providing these specific birth control services has been the availability of trained personnel. Medical doctors and nurses are hard-pressed for services in more specialized areas of medicine. Also, providing family services to the poor has not been considered an appealing avocation of the medical profession.
Ideally, our entire healthcare system should be overhauled to create less reliance on specialized medicine and overburdened hospitals and more dependence on para-medical professionals in providing healthcare services and more reliance on providing proper nutrition for all Americans.
The legality of abortion and of sterilization does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but they are properly within the purview of state governments where medical laws are widely divergent. The most disturbing aspect of the abortion issue that was brought before the Task Force, is the disparity between the availability of professional abortion services to those women who can afford the $500-$700 to obtain a therapeutic abortion and the estimated one million illegitimate abortions performed by the unlicensed practitioners for those women who cannot afford professional service. It is apparent that many women who desire abortions take extreme measures, and subject themselves to dangerous methods in order to obtain an abortion.
It therefore seems that the main objective of abortion law revision should be to eradicate the increasing number of unlicensed and unqualified practitioners who jeopardize the health and safety of these women and to establish a system that eliminates discrimination resulting from present pricing structures. |
From the 1970 Report of the GOP's task force on "Earth Resources and Population", linked above.
N.B. The use of "therepeutic" does not bode well for those who believe the "pro-lifers" are going to save them from human cloning the same way they failed to same them from abortion, failed to save them from artificial reproduction, failed to same them from state-funded human experimentation on Excess Manufacture humans, and now have failed to save them from gross Human Farming on the state's dime and by enriching some Private Contractor Interested Party banker.
Tighten your seatbelts, kids ... doesn't bode well.
And if there is a "right" to predetermine the sex of one's children, that right surely is "universal" and holds regardless the Means others may choose to invoke that right for themselves.
You see the thinking at work here?
This is your GOP Brain at work. PROVE TO ME THAT ANYTHING HAS CHANGED.
And resist the urge to quote me campaign literature or your favorite bumper sticker. I've provided facts available to any American who wishes to read the Congressional Register or declassified National Defense Memoranda. I expect something with the same weight.
(And don't bother with cites of "Parental Consent" legislation or other circus-circus bits of sounds and fury SIGNIFYING NOTHING save for in the state of Utah, perhaps.)
Rotsa ruck.
Death tolls have been reduced in every country to negligible rates from epidemics and diseases such as malaria, measles, smallpox, cholera, polio and tuberculosis; major advances have been made against heart disease and cancer, artificial organs can now prolong life.
Since we accept these intrusions into nature's control of population as morally justified, are we not unwise to consider birth control with equal moral justificiation?
If we continue to support government activities to reduce disease and improve health in order to prolong life under the auspices of what is good for society, then should we not consider birth control as a government activity for similar reasons?
In the Task Force report on "Federal Government Family Planning Program" it was recommended that Congress increase appropriations for contraceptive research in the amount of $380,000,000.00 over the next five years.
In conjunction with this research, the Task Force now feels research in the methodologies of pre-determining sex before insemination must be considered and pursued.
For birth limitation and regulation to be an honest free choice goal of Americans to undertake, pre-determination of the sex of children and failsafe contraception must be available to everyone.
The Task Force believes that much more knowledge is needed by the public in general about fertility control, contraception techniques and sex determination, as well as the social and material consequences resulting from increase population, in order that the broadest number of options are available to everyone in making personal decisions that affect the use of natural resources, family size and ultimately our environment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.