Archive for the 'Featured' Category

Aug 20 2015

THE MYTH OF ABORTION AND WOMEN’S HEALTH

gavel

The legalization of abortion by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 (with a 7-2 vote in the court case of Roe vs. Wade) removed restrictions on the practice of abortions.  This law was based on the presumption that it was unconstitutional to restrict abortions because such modern advances in medicine provided a relatively “safe” procedure for women receiving an abortion.  They decided that regulating abortions would be unconstitutional, and the Justices declared that abortions were a “service” to women’s health.  This decision was reached 42 years ago.  Some 1.5 million women undergo abortions each year, so what do we know today with regard to abortion being a “safe procedure” for women?

Perhaps you are aware of some of the physical dangers to women undergoing an abortion.  Are you aware that there are over one hundred potential risks associated with abortion?  There is no dispute in the fact that there are greater risk increases to women during abortion with each passing week of gestation, but women at all stages of pregnancy and following the abortion procedure are subject to minor risks, i.e. minor infections, bleeding, fevers, chronic abdominal pain, gastrointestinal disturbances and vomiting.  Some of the more major concerns that are likely not to be discussed or checked post abortion are: blood clots, incomplete abortions, excessive bleeding or hemorrhaging, serious infection, injury to the cervix and other organs, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, renal failure, metabolic disorder, shock, missed ectopic pregnancy, ripping or perforation of the uterus and death.

The fifth leading cause of maternal death in the U.S. is a result of abortions, but in fact, most related deaths are not officially reported as being a result of abortion.  There is even more veiled information on problems that occur after abortion

PHYSICAL DANGERS OF ABORTION

Breast Cancer

As early as April of 1957, the first published report of the link between abortions and breast cancer was published.  (See the following links for more information)

Since the Justices legalized abortion 42 years ago based on relative safety for women, breast cancer among woman who have aborted has increased 50%.  Why do we not have more public awareness on this information?   Why is the U.S. National Cancer Institute down-playing this information on their website, as well as the American Cancer Society, despite the fact that there have been studies concluding the link between abortion and breast cancer?  Perhaps the answer is very simple, political pressures by pro-choice politicians do not want these findings to be spread by the media because of the likely affect it will have on the legality of abortion, which more importantly, will impact the donations made to U.S. politicians from the U.S. abortion industry.

Cervical, Ovarian and Liver Cancer

These cancers occur for the same reason as breast cancer.  The increase in cervical, ovarian and liver (and breast) cancer are due to the negative impact and disruptive changes in a woman’s normal hormone balance when pregnant.  Karen Malec, President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, articulates similar sentiments about organizations in the United States who attempt to sweep the link between abortion and breast cancer under the rug.  “The failure of the leaders of U.S. cancer ‘charities’ and leftist women’s groups to blow the whistle about the [abortion-breast cancer] link shows what frauds they are,” said Malec. She said, regardless of the fact that they present their agenda as a call for improving “women’s health” through “safe abortion,” activists promoting abortion around the world would “rather see millions die of breast cancer before they’d admit abortion raises risk.”  Malec also references a number of other studies conducted in India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka that come to the same conclusion.  Studies also indicate that there are other significant long-term physical impacts of abortion on women, including major issues in future pregnancies and greater risk of other cancers such as cervical, ovarian, and liver.

Sterility

Long-term complications can be due to immediate complications from abortion resulting in sterility.  Sterility is even more of a risk when women, at the time of abortion, are infected with a venereal disease.  (See http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/futurefertility/)

Placenta Previa

This refers to complications due to abnormal development of the placenta.  Possible uterine damage during abortion causes this abnormal development which is life threatening to mother and wanted child alike.  (See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000900.htm)

Premature Births

During an abortion, the cervix will be opened artificially.  When stretching the cervical muscle to abort a baby, the cervical muscle can be torn.  Following abortion, a woman’s wanted pregnancy, could be affected by the cervix opening prematurely because the cervix muscle remained weakened from the tear during the abortion, causing delivery of the baby before its full development.

Perforation of the Uterus

Most often this complication will not be diagnosed or treated after abortion.  Only laparoscopic visualization will detect a uterine perforation.  Difficulties may occur in later pregnancies, with the possibility of a hysterectomy, for women who have suffered a uterine perforation.

  1. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 161:406-408, August 1989; M. White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” Am. J. Obstetrics and Gynecology 129:623 (1977). D. Grimes, et al., “Prevention of uterine perforation During Curettage Abortion,” JAMA, 251:2108-2111 (1984); D. Grimes, et al.,”Local versus General Anesthesia: Which is Safer For Performing Suction Abortions?” Am. J. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135:1030 (1979).

Ectopic Pregnancy

It is known that abortion significantly increases the rate of ectopic future pregnancies and are life threatening, as well as resulting in reduction of fertility.

et.al., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion”, American Journal of Public Health (1982), vol.72,p253; C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115(6):879-887 (1982)

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID)

PID is life threatening and can increase risk of ectopic pregnancies.  It is important that prior to abortions screening is done for infections and treatment provided.

  1. Radberg, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatis in Relation to Infections Following First Trimester Abortions,” Acta Obstricia Gynoecological (Supp. 93), 54:478 (1980); L. Westergaard, “Significance of Cervical Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Post-abortal Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 60(3):322-325, (1982); M. Chacko, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatosis Infection in Sexually Active Adolescents: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” Pediatrics, 73(6), (1984); M. Barbacci, et al., “Post- Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668-690, (1986); S. Duthrie, et al., “Morbidity After Termination of Pregnancy in First-Trimester,” Genitourinary Medicine 63(3):182-187, (1987).

Handicapped Newborns in Later Pregnancies

We have looked at risks from abortion due to cervical and uterine damage, and that they may cause premature delivery in later pregnancies as well as complications during labor and abnormal development of the placenta.  These issues are the leading causes of a woman’s future babies being born with handicaps.

Hogue, Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review”, Family Planning Perspectives (May-June 1983),vol.15, no.3.. Jacobsson B, Hagberg G, Hagberg B, Ladfors L, Niklasson A, Hagberg A. Cerebral Palsy in preterm infants: a population-based case-control study of antenatal and intrapartal risk factors. Acta Paediatrica 2002;91:946-951. Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost consequences of induced abortion as an attributable risk for preterm birth and informed consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-939.

 

POST ABORTION SYNDROME

In addition to these physical complications with abortion, we need to be informed regarding Post Abortion Syndrome.  For decades there has been medical evidence that after abortion there are substantial psychological risks.  Again, these difficulties are not given the discussion and follow up necessary to make a woman prepared and aware of these possibilities prior to abortion.

The following are recognized Post Abortion Syndrome symptoms:

  • Guilt, according to the dictionary, is a feeling of having committed wrong or having failed in an obligation. Although women acknowledge that an abortion was their choice, this life changing decision can be made without thought or understanding of the feelings and emotions that will follow.  Most women are making decisions to abort too quickly due to their perceived “undesirable circumstances” and they feel pressured to find a quick solution to their pregnancy.  Women expect to feel relief after an abortion, but fail to realize the emotions of loss and failure that can follow, which are devastating and relentless.
  • Experiencing a psychotic disorder – This can occur within two weeks of an abortion and is characterized as a short break from reality for the post abortion woman, requiring psychiatric care.
  • Women may have disturbing and recurring thoughts reliving memories or having nightmares centered around thoughts of their damaged and lost aborted babies.
  • Anxiety and feelings of loss at the anniversary of the aborted babies due date and/or abortion date.
  • Women may be irrationally fixated on having another pregnancy to replace the aborted baby.
  • Possible bonding disruption may occur (over or under-bonding with current and/or future children).
  • Depression leading to possible suicide; increased risk of alcohol abuse which can lead to violent behavior, divorce or separation, auto accidents, job loss, and, abortion can be linked to higher drug abuse with the same negative outcomes as alcohol use. (Elliot Institute) Other self-destructive and abusive behaviors can include eating disorders, failure to maintain good health, increased promiscuity and involvement in abusive relationships.  “Abortion is Four Times Deadlier than Childbirth.” Elliot Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-7348. Healing After Abortion by Teri k. Reisser, M.S., M.F.T. and Paul C. Reisser, M.D., 2002

 

Please CLICK here for additional information from Focus on the Family on Post Abortion Syndrome.

 

The biggest misconception about legalizing abortions, and the most dangerous assumption made by the Justices 42 years ago in the ruling of Roe vs. Wade is that abortions are now safe.  Women believe that they will be in capable hands with the abortionist, in clean sterile environments and that after the abortion there will remain only relief.  However, we have tried to point out a few of the physical and psychological risks involved that can result in devastating complications both immediately after an abortion and/or in the future.  These are very real concerns surrounding damage that can occur to women who abort.    The Justices have made a serious error in judgment, thinking that abortion is “safe for women,” and now there is more than enough proof to the contrary.  What can we do?  We need to re-evaluate our abortion policy in light of these important facts.  If indeed 42 years ago abortion was believed to be safe for women due to medical advancements, we have obtained a good deal more data and research in our current day that proves otherwise.  It is time to re-word our national abortion policy to state that abortions are not safe to women’s health and, therefore, abortion regulations are constitutional and must be reinstated for the protection of women’s health “services!!!”

 

Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on THE MYTH OF ABORTION AND WOMEN’S HEALTH

Jun 23 2015

Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

gavel

BULLETIN

New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

June 23, 2015

The current United States Supreme Court session ends June 29th. Before that date they will be handing down their “opinion” regarding the right of the States to defend traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Our Supreme Court continues to “legislate” for the people – something they have no business doing. All power to legislate is vested in the people through their elected representatives in the Congress (Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

The Supreme Court continues to legislate as they wish to legislate (just as they did in Roe v. Wade) by leveraging this ill-gotten power that the court and the court alone claims it should have of “interpreting” the Constitution. Such power to interpret is nowhere found in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson predicted that if the Supreme Court were permitted to continue down this ill-gotten road, it would place us under the despotism of an OLIGARCHY! Jefferson’s words were prophetic.

In this government that Lincoln called the government of, by and for the people it’s time for the people to take back this ill-gotten power that the U.S. Supreme Court is using to lead the people around like a bull with a ring in its nose.

Kindly click here to find a revised copy of the Thomas Jefferson Amendment we posted in the past.  It occurred to us that it’s not enough to divest the Court of the power to “interpret” the Constitution. It’s important at the same time to transfer this power to the branch of government that should have it – the Congress. This proposed amendment does that in short, succinct language by saying that all power to “interpret” the Constitution will be reposed in the people through their elected representatives. This automatically would divest and divorce the Court from its ill-gotten power that they claim they should have of “interpreting” the Constitution.

Many of these earth shaking opinions are handed down by a bare majority vote of the nine.  If you have a decision that is decided by a 4 to 5 vote, one judge becomes the swing vote.  Look at the opportunity for abuse if someone out there is able to put pressure on that one judge.

Recently the news carried that the Chinese hacked into our government computers and stole the personal information on 4 million federal employees.  The news further carried that this could be used to blackmail federal employees in sensitive positions.  Presumptively, there are no skeletons in the closet of any of our Supreme Court Judges, at least we hope not.  This is all the more reason why any interpretation of the Constitution should be vested wholly and solely in the elected representatives of the people.  You might be able to blackmail one judge, but you can’t blackmail the entire Congress.

If we can get the need for such a constitutional amendment into the upcoming presidential debates, we will be accomplishing a wonderful thing, not only for preborn children, but for our living grandchildren and their children to be.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer
Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

Jun 22 2015

Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Thomas Jefferson Amendment”

 

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

All power to interpret the Constitution shall be vested in the Congress, which from time to time shall render by majority vote, answers to questions of Constitutional interpretation certified to it by the United States Supreme Court.

**********************************

As may be seen, the above proposed  amendment is simply one sentence long.  There follows a discussion of the reasoning behind the proposed amendment.

************************************

“WHOEVER HATH AN ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET ANY WRITTEN OR SPOKEN LAWS, IT IS HE WHO IS TRULY THE LAWGIVER, TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AND NOT THE PERSON WHO FIRST SPOKE OR WROTE THEM.”

— Bishop Hoadly’s sermon preached before the king, March 31, 1717

In 1803, Chief Judge John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court contrived for his court the power to “interpret” the Constitution in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Some may ask “How did John Marshall have a right to do this if what he did was nowhere provided for in the Constitution?” Others ask, “How did he get to be a judge in the first place if he was a high school dropout and never attended college?” (It may be said in Marshall’s favor that he did not quit school because of a poor intellect but because he was needed to help raise his 14 younger brothers and sisters on the family farm.) At the age of 25, he studied law briefly at the College of William & Mary, which in those days did not require a high school or college diploma in order to take a few law courses. He was admitted to the Virginia bar as a lawyer. Pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, he lobbied for and received the powerful position of a Supreme Court appointment. Some would say he embodies the admonition of Alexander Pope: “A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pyerian spring.”

Following the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, which John Marshall authored, THOMAS JEFFERSON, then President of the United States, stated: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an OLIGARCHY.”

PRESIDENT JEFFERSON saw where this unconstitutionally usurped power would lead when he stated: “The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN added his wisdom at the time of his first inaugural address: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court . . . the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers . . .” Lincoln knew the Constitution, and as a lawyer himself he knew the importance placed by the framers of the Constitution on SELF government; not ‘COURT government.’

The preeminent constitutional law scholar PROFESSOR JOHN W. BRABNER-SMITH (founder of the International School of Law in Washington, DC, now the George Mason University Law School) summed up the differences between the court’s own system of judicial interpretation versus the original system put in place by the framers of the Constitution as follows:

THE SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the Constitution as the basis for determining our individual rights has, among others, the following fatally flawed characteristics:

  • The debate among the Justices as to the approach to be used in interpreting the Constitution will continue – leaving our nation with the uncertainty, conflicting opinions and decisions based upon the personal values of the individual judges.
  • Since there is no provision for the recognition of any “truth” or of any “principle” there can be no recognition of such a thing as “inalienable rights” in individuals.
  • Since there are no “truths” or “principles” to be recognized then there is no basis for classifying anything as “right” or “wrong” – everything becomes relative.
  • If by the term “ethics” we mean the establishment of a principle that is permanent then this system will not permit the establishment of an “ethic” but everything will fall under the general category of “situational ethics” where there is no right and no wrong but everything depends upon the facts of the situation.

This system will ultimately lead to tyranny of one form or the other, that is, the tyranny of “majority rule” or the tyranny of certain person or persons – the ultimate elimination of individual rights. . . . Professor John W. Brabner-Smith

Professor Brabner-Smith then contrasted the court’s own system above with that intended by our forefathers as follows:

The SYSTEM ENVISIONED BY OUR FOREFATHERS has, among others, the following characteristics:

  • All power not expressly given to governmental representatives, and this includes the   judiciary as well as the elected representatives, is retained by the people.
  • The “truths” that man is created, that there is a Creator, and that all men are endowed by their Creator with individual inalienable rights are recognized as the foundation of our government and can be taught in the public school as such.
  • The existence of a Creator who possesses the power to endow individuals with inalienable rights is acknowledged as a “presupposition” or as “self-evident truth” and not as a religious belief or a religious matter.
  • Powers are retained by the people as distinguished from all powers being vested in the government.
  • The “rights” vested in the individual cannot be taken away by amendments to the Constitution or by statutes or by the court.
  • The government can recognize or establish certain moral principles – recognize that certain actions are “right” and others are “wrong” – without becoming involved, as a nation, with any religion or religious belief.
  • The approach of the government will be to determine the proper restriction, limitation or suspension of the exercise of a right rather than approach the questions by an interpretation of some provision in the Constitution to see if such right exits.” . . . Professor John W. Brabner-Smith (founder of the International School of Law in Washington, DC, now the George Mason University Law School)

 THE SYSTEM ENVISIONED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE “JUDICIAL LEGISLATION,” The Supreme Court and lesser courts are not intended to be legislative bodies. This proposed constitutional amendment embodies the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and would divest the judiciary of ‘interpretative power’ over the Constitution, ending its ill-gained power to LEGISLATE, thereby restoring the vision and original intent of our forefathers.

In plain language at the very beginning of the Constitution, Article I, Section 1, we find these words:

“ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” Article I, Section 1, United States Constitution

The Supreme Court’s own web page states in pertinent part: “Few other courts in the world have the same AUTHORITY of constitutional INTERPRETATION and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.” (They, of course, are referring to authority which Thomas Jefferson pointedly stated was never intended for the court. It was nowhere provided for in the Constitution.) The court, in speaking of its own self-assumed authority, not only declares  that few other courts in the world have this same authority but that “none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.” Yes, they are correct. They have exercised quite a bit of “influence” over the lives of preborn children, and  all of us as adults. If Thomas Jefferson were living, he would pronounce the court to be our modern-day “KING GEORGE III” from whom we need to declare our independence.

It is time to call a halt!

The only remedy is a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution provides for amendments thereto as follows:

Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,  or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

Jefferson was vociferous and adamant in castigating his distant cousin, John Marshall, for taking it upon himself to seize power to “interpret” the Constitution. Such authority was not to be found in the Constitution itself. Judge Marshall simply pulled it out of thin air. Successive generations of the Supreme Court have built upon this power that Marshall invented to the point where it has snowballed and we find ourselves ‘ruled by the Court’ – the “oligarchy” that Jefferson foresaw.

Lincoln’s words are worth repeating: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court… the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers….”

The PEOPLE, through their elected representatives, make the laws. It is the people, through their elected representatives, who should have the sole authority to interpret their laws if such an interpretation is indeed needed. Our Constitution presently has 27 Amendments. Were this proposed Amendment to be embraced by the people and passed, it would be the 28th Amendment. For purposes of circulating it for consideration, we’ve taken the liberty of temporarily naming it the “Thomas Jefferson Amendment” because it would accomplish what he wanted to accomplish back in 1803 when he was president. He wanted the Court itself to be without power to “interpret the Constitution,” an assumption he knew the framers of the Constitution shared.

Respectfully submitted for the

esteemed consideration of my countrymen

Rudolph Martin Palmer, Jr.

Attorney at Law Admitted to practice

before the U.S. Supreme Court since 1977.

Comments Off on Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Thomas Jefferson Amendment”

Jun 05 2015

Newsletter – June 2015

 gavel

 

Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

New generations of young people are ever maturing and coming on to the stage of life before our eyes. Among them are the leaders of tomorrow. The young are increasingly pro-life. As they seek to advocate for the ‘good cause of children yet to be,’ they will be confronted with the same questions and arguments that we have been confronted with through the years.

One of these questions has been answered, definitively and for all time, 26 years ago by the world’s leading geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, of Paris, France, in his eloquent testimony in the Tennessee frozen human embryo case. Based upon his testimony, Judge W. Dale Young ruled, for the first time in judicial history and for all time, that 7 frozen human embryos were “children in vitro.” The truth of our being never changes. People (even Supreme Court Judges) may deny the truth, but the truth never changes.

Dr. Lejeune’s eloquent testimony in that case can be read and downloaded at our website (naapc.org – click on the icon “Symphony of the Preborn Child”). Many college graduates, themselves 26 years of age, may not be aware of who Dr. Lejeune was and what his testimony in that case was about that caused Judge Young to reach the decision he did.

History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it rhymes. A wonderful helpmate to us here at the office, Karen Betts, has been following the case of movie star Sofia Vergara and her ex-fiancé, Nick Loeb, who are presently involved in a court case over which of the two should be entitled to 2 human embryos conceived in vitro while they were still engaged. She has met someone else and doesn’t want the embryos. He understands that they are ‘lives in being’ and wants to see them brought to term and live birth.

This is reminding us of the Tennessee frozen human embryo case, the trial of which took place in August 1989, which made the front page of the papers then, including USA Today. You, of course, recall that case. A young couple, Mary and Junior Davis of Maryville, Tennessee, were getting divorced. All issues had been decided in the divorce except what was to become of 7 frozen human embryos conceived during the marriage. Mary was an attractive young woman who was a model for the boat show in Knoxville, Tennessee. Junior Davis, her husband, was a handsome young man. Initially, they had conceived together 9 frozen human embryos. Mary implanted the first 2 and they failed to take. Before she could return to implant 2 more, he completely surprised her by filing for divorce. He asked for, and received, a temporary injunction preventing her from implanting anymore of their frozen human embryos. He said he did not want to be made to be a father against his will. Mary said, “He already is a father.” He said, “Nonsense, they are only ‘potential life’.” She responded, “They are lives with potential!” So the debate was joined and there was needed an expert witness.

The world’s leading geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France, flew in to testify in what he later called the “Judgment of Maryville.” He had received, from the hand of President Kennedy, our nation’s highest award in genetics for isolating the X-21 chromosome responsible for Downs Syndrome. Dr. Lejeune was to the world of genetics as Einstein was to the world of physics.

Dr. Lejeune’s flight landed at Dulles International Airport in Washington where I met his plane and continued with him on a local United Airlines flight to Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated on the plane, he asked me, “What is it that the Judge must decide?” I responded that, essentially, he had to decide whether these 7 human embryos were person or property, since if they were property, the Judge would divide them as he would the silverware or the furniture in a divorce. If persons, he would enter up a custody award as he would with any other children. I shall never forget Dr. Lejeune’s response. He thought for a moment, turned to me and said, “I would say the human embryo is a being, and being human, it is a human being. It is person and not property, because it is the only property which has the property of building itself!” In those few words he brilliantly summed up all that is to be said.

Junior Davis had told his wife, Mary, privately that if he got his hands on those embryos, he would destroy them. She told him publically by announcing to the Judge, that if she could not be allowed personally to implant them, she would like them to be donated anonymously to any couple who could not have children, so that their children might live. When I told Dr. Lejeune this, over transatlantic telephone, he said that this was incredible; that it was the judgment of Solomon. He told Judge Young at the conclusion of his testimony that this was the judgment of Solomon. It was a 3,000 years old judgment. He did not think it could reoccur in human history, but it was reoccurring, and if it reoccurred in your lifetime it was worth the trip. He added from the witness stand that he hoped the Judge would be on the side of Solomon. About a month later, Judge Young announced his decision. Based upon Dr. Lejeune’s testimony, for the first time in legal history, he held that Mary’s 7 frozen human embryos were “children in vitro” and he awarded custody to Mary for implantation.

This current case between Nick Loeb and his former fiancée, Sophia Vergara, is receiving wide publicity because of her movie star status. This time, the one recognizing the humanity of their “children in vitro” is the man, whereas in the Tennessee case, it was the woman. This time, the one who would just as soon see them destroyed or die a natural death in the deep freeze, is the woman. The one who wants to give life is the true parent. Courts are in a position of “parens patrie,” which in the law refers to the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability possessed by the court. As such, the court must side with the lives in being, shelter them, protect them, by giving custody to the one who wants to give life (the father), presumptively, by the use of a surrogate mother. Yes, the movie star may not want to see them born now that she’s dating another man not their father, but these are her children also.  Someday she may want to know them and have a relationship with them, children are love and she would be the first to thank not only the Judge, but the child’s father – that he saw to their birth.

For those of you who may not have followed this case of Sophia Vergara and her former fiancé and the dispute between them over their 2 frozen human embryos (I must confess I have not followed it myself until now), I’ve asked Karen Betts to do a memo giving us a thumbnail sketch of what the case is about which is enclosed. Let us pray that the court will grasp the issues and do true justice.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

Note: The world press was there to interview Dr. Lejeune on the courthouse lawn following his testimony in the Tennessee frozen human embryo case. In his comments to the press, he spoke of this new technology that allowed human embryos to be compacted in a small canister by the hundreds in a state of cryropreservation. He referred to it as a “concentration can.”

The French press mistakenly printed it as “concentration camp.” Dr. Lejeune was later to observe in the book he wrote about the case (The Concentration Can – Ignatius Press) that this was a curious mistake because a “concentration can” was something that had been invented to terribly slow down life, whereas, a “concentration camp” was something that had been invented to terribly speed up death. He added that in either case, the wall imprisons innocents.

Dr. Lejeune’s book, “The Concentration Can” by Ignatius Press, tells the whole story. The book itself is over 200 pages long. Should you wish to read the part where he speaks of the French press confusing “concentration can” with “concentration camp,” I’ve enclosed a copy of pages 7-10 for your perusal.  CLICK HERE to read pages 7-10 of Dr. Lejeune’s book “The Concentration Can” in PDF format

CLICK HERE to stay up-to-date on news and announcements from NAAPC.

 _______________________________________________________________

DATE: June 1, 2015

TO: Martin Palmer, Esq.

FROM: Karen Betts

RE: Dispute over Frozen Embryos

There is an ongoing debate in this country with regard to whether embryos (children in vitro) are property or persons. This is to be an important point in the Sofia Vergara vs. Nick Loeb case.

Nick Loeb, a business man, was the fiancé of actress Sofia Vergara for over three years. During that time, Ms. Vergara and Mr. Loeb conceived by IVF, two female in vitro children together. Their plan was to have a surrogate give birth to their children.

Ms. Vergara has broken her engagement to Mr. Loeb and is presently engaged to someone else. Mr. Loeb wants to be a father to their children. This is the road that he has chosen and he wants to continue on this same path. Ms. Vergara states she has worked very hard for the last 20 years to reach her fame and she would like to bask in the light of her achievement. This is the road she chose and wishes to follow. Meanwhile, their children in vitro are in a frozen state waiting for their intended birth.

So, what about the “children in the freezer?” Mr. Loeb is requesting the courts allow him custody of these children in vitro so that he might raise them independently since Ms. Vergara has no interest. Mr. Loeb’s concern is that they will be destroyed or left to perish in their frozen state. Mr. Loeb reports he should have a moral and legal right to raise his children, and further, that single fathers are as capable as single mothers to raise their offspring.

As for Ms. Vergara, she has very little to share on the subject. Her opinion is that Mr. Loeb is trying to catch a ride on her rising star, using her hard work to freely gain a bit of fame for himself. She wants to enjoy her successes and her wedding plans with her new fiancé.

Click here to see interviews with both Ms. Vergara and Mr. Loeb on this subject.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “…is to the world of genetics as Einstein was to the world of physics.” He has stated that a new life begins at conception. In his testimony in the Davis case (Blount County, Tennessee, August 10, 1989) [Prologue, by Martin Palmer, Esq. A Symphony of the Preborn Child] Dr. LeJeune explains:

“Each human has a unique beginning which occurs at the moment of conception. Embryo: ‘…that youngest form of a being…;’ Pre-embryo: there is no such word. There is no need for a subclass of the embryo to be called a pre-embryo, because there is nothing before the embryo—before an embryo there is only a sperm and an egg; and when the egg is fertilized by the sperm the entity becomes a zygote—and when the zygote divides it is an embryo. When the first cell exists, all the ‘tricks of the trade’ to build itself into an individual already exists. Shortly after fertilization at the three-cell stage, a ‘…tiny human being…’ exists. When the ovum is fertilized by the sperm, the result is ‘…the most specialized cell under the sun…,’ specialized from the point of view that no other cell will ever have the same instructions in the life of the individual being created. No scientist has ever offered the opinion that an embryo is property. As soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man. Findings…definitely prove differentiation and that from the beginning there exists an embryo.”

Dr. LeJeune has answered two very important questions for humanity in his statement: 1. Yes, human life begins at the moment of conception. 2. This human being, therefore, must be considered a person and not property.

Is Ms. Vergara an accurate example of a nation that places little or no value on human life as a miracle, but as a convenient item we can store on the freezer shelf in case we have a future need? Apparently, Mr. Loeb and Ms. Vergara see things very differently.

We would like to offer you the opportunity to read the Davis case, very similar the to Vergara vs. Loeb case, in the book entitled A Symphony of the Preborn Child, which contains the eloquent testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune. This book is an informative, poignant and a well-documented account of a divorced husband and wife who had divided beliefs in what should happen to their conceived children in vitro. The reality and twists in this case will afford you much to think about, and perhaps even give you a change of heart.  Click here to download this in PDF format free of charge.

 Click here to read more on Vergara vs. Loeb.

 Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – June 2015

May 06 2015

3 Parent Embryo

gavel

Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

The Obama Administration is on the fast track to approve “Three Parent In Vitro Fertilization” (TPIVF) for our nation. They are doing this NOT by having their liberal sympathizers propose legislation in the Congress. They are NOT even doing this by submitting the question to the National Institute of Health which back in 1994 was given the question of human embryo experimentation by the Clinton administration. NIH held public hearings as they are required to do. The hearings were open. The proceedings were transcribed and printed in the Federal Register as is required by law .

We brought suit to halt human embryo experimentation in 1994 and with an Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the suit effectively held it at bay for the balance of the Clinton administration until President Bush took off ice and issued an executive order prohibiting human embryo experimentation with a narrowly circumscribed exception that he outlined in his speech to the nation on August 9, 2001. As we know, when President Obama was elected, he immediately issued his own executive order; countermanding President Bush’s and giving the green light for human embryo experimentation to go forward.

In pressing to go forward with three parent human embryos and hence three parent children, the administration is cleverly bypassing both the Congress and NIH and has handed the question off instead to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . We think of the FDA as ordinarily approving the safety of a new antibiotic or drug. The FDA has itself turned to something called the “Institute of Medicine” (IOM) for an “ethics opinion” on 3 parent embryos. The IOM is an independent non-profit organization that works outside of the federal government and ” THE Goo WHO GAVE us LIFE GAVE us LIBERTY AT THE SAME TIME” … THOMAS JEFFERSON. Therefore is not required to publish its proceedings in the Federal Register . Congress reads the Federal Register, but none of this is showing up in the Federal Register. How many members of the Congress even know what’s going on? Most of the hearings held by the Institute of Medicine are closed sessions and when they are open, they choose ahead of time who will be allowed to speak.

Karen Betts in our office has been doing her best to ascertain what’s going on at these sessions held by the Institute of Medicine . Enclosed is a very informative memo she’s written me on this. Karen also ran across a blog by Chelsea Zimmerman, a very astute writer and editor for some Catholic publications , which is enclosed for your edification. One can view a video and agenda of the meetings of the Institute of Medicine at: http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Research/MitoEthics.aspx

For more information contact Michael Berrios, 202-334-3494, Keck Center, 500 Fifth St., NW, Washington DC 20001, Email: MitoEthics@nas.edu

The next meeting of the IOM is scheduled for May 19 at 10 am. One hour will be allowed for public comment. Anyone wishing to sign up may, but they will receive only 3 minutes apiece. And the two remaining meetings after that are closed to the public. In truth, they don’t want public input. In truth, they’ve made up their minds ahead of time. In truth, they are only pretending that there is a well thought out and balanced decision making process here. Transparency has had the drawstring of the blackout curtains pulled around it. Congress needs to be informed and this matter taken out of the hands of the FDA and taken up by the Congress itself as representatives of the people where it properly belongs.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

Please Click Here To Download Entire PDF

Comments Off on 3 Parent Embryo

Apr 01 2015

Newsletter – April 2015

 gavel

 

Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child:

The DVD we sent you last month was a video that plays in your DVD video player. Since I indicated it was of Father Stevens singing, “Prayer for the Preborn Child,” some of you mistakenly thought it was a CD like you can play in your car CD player. It is not. It’s a video. I sent a copy to Father Stevens and when I later spoke with him, he very humbly said, “I had forgotten about that.”  He, of course, had given his permission to send it around and his statement to me after viewing it himself was, “I hope it becomes the theme song of the pro-life movement.”

Click Here to watch Father Clifford Stevens sing the Anthem, Prayer for the Preborn Child

Click Here to download the words to the Anthem, Prayer for the Preborn Child

Winston Churchill spoke for all of England and the free world when he stood stalwartly and heroically against Hitler and the Nazi party and all that they stood for, including their desire to “perfect the race.” Ironically, England has now become the first country in the world to take a step down this same misguided and treacherous path of “perfecting the race.”  Britain has approved legislation allowing for the conception of in vitro children by combining the eggs of two mothers, then fertilized by the sperm of one father.  The baby born from this has no single mother genetically, but rather two mothers and, in truth, is divorced from each one.

The Commandment says, “Honor thy father and thy mother,  that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”  (Exodus 20:12)  The word “mother” is singular, not plural.  What is being proposed is against the natural order and in contravention of the Commandment.

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, put it well when he said:

“To put it simply, our children have the right to be procreated, not produced. They have the right to come into the world in the personal, love-giving embrace of their parents, not in the cold and impersonal glass world of test tube or Petri dish.  They have the right to be uniquely, exclusively and directly related to the mother and father who bring them into the world.  IVF ignores all of these rights of the child.”

Speaking of the IVF procedure that combines the eggs of two women, Father Pacholczyk continues:

“In the mitochondrial swapping scheme, it is significant that not just the mitochondria are “swapped” but actually all the other structures of the cell come from the second woman’s egg, including the mitochondria.  In summary then, we are not actually “repairing” a defective egg, but constructing a new, alternative and clearly different egg out of the contributions from two separate women.  The final egg produced really belongs to neither woman, so that the technological manipulations introduce a fissure between any child conceived from the engineered egg and both “mothers.”  The child becomes “distanced” or “orphaned” from both women involved in the process.”

Like so much of devilish mischief, it’s initially presented to us in a sugar-coated way. The “sugar-coating” here that sold it to the British legislature is that it can ostensibly be used to correct genetic diseases and maladies.  The wealthy will be able to afford it.  Next, they’ll want not just to correct things, but to add things. They will want their child to be beautiful or handsome; of a certain intelligence; of a certain athletic ability; of a certain color of hair and eyes, etc.  If this technology had been available to Hitler and the Nazi’s, who knows where it would have led?  Who knows where it could lead today in the hands of some dictatorial leader in some other nation of the world?  The civilized world must stand against this!

Dr. Jerome Lejeune put it well when he said,  “Technology is cumulative; wisdom is not.”  Dr. Lejeune continued, “So now we must choose, and we need something which would tell us in every case what to do; some touchstone that would tell us what is good and what is evil.  There is a phrase. You know it.  If the politicians remember it, they can always make honest laws.  If the technicians do not forget it, technology will remain an honest servant to humanity; but if both of them forget it, then you would have to deal with a very denatured biology and there would be A VERY DIM FUTURE FOR MANKIND!”

“This phrase – you know it – it judges everything forever.”  It simply says, “As you have done unto the least of these, you did it unto me.”

Yours Very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

P.S.  Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard.  He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA and serves as the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.  See www.ncbcenter.org

Click Here to download our Newsletter in PDF format

Click here to stay up-to-date on news and announcements from NAAPC.

Comments Off on Newsletter – April 2015

Jan 28 2015

The Death of Innocence

gavel

Following the President’s State of the Union speech, a bill was introduced in the Congress restricting abortion. The President said he would veto it.  The News carried a statement by Nancy Pelosi that it would be “against the best medical interests of women.”

We need to respond with the statistics proving that abortion itself is against the best medical interests of women.  The enclosed article by David Sterrett, which appeared in the January issue of Billy Graham’s Decision Magazine, indicates that “according to a 2011 study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, ‘Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems.’ Women who have had an abortion are 154 percent more likely to commit suicide than women who give birth.”

So there you have it. “THE TRUTH” backed by factual statistics. It is the culture of life community that has the best medical interest of the women at heart.  The culture of death community (They choose death and not life) promotes the LIE which results not only in “the death of innocence” of the mother, but the death of an innocent child coupled with profound psychological damage to the woman who is herself persuaded to kill her own child.

Comments Off on The Death of Innocence

May 17 2010

Emancipation Proclamation of Preborn Children

Published by under Featured

NOW THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Continue Reading »

No responses yet

May 17 2010

The Mary Scott Doe Lawsuit

The Mary Scott Doe Lawsuit is an action by the National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children to prevent federal funding for human embryo experimentation by the National Institutes of Health together with the current Administration. Click on the links below to view the lawsuit in depth.

Continue Reading »

No responses yet

May 17 2010

A Symphony of the Preborn Child

Published by under Featured,Uncategorized

Dr. Jerome Lejeune

An epoch-making trial took place in Maryville, Tennessee in August of 1989. Judge W. Dale Young of the Blount County Circuit Court was called upon to decide a case of first impression in the world. Continue Reading »

Play

No responses yet

« Prev


  • Suggested Videos

    Professor LeJeune speaks at the Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, DC.