Tim Tebow’s Interview and Testimony with ESPN

Super Bowl Sunday is a seminal event for just about every television-watching American because it offers something for everyone.

…This year’s commercial lineup has created a stir unlike any other because CBS has green lighted an ad produced by Focus on the Family. The as-yet-unseen ad tells the story of Pam Tebow, who, despite pressure to abort her unborn son, chose to carry him to term. That baby boy grew up to be college football phenomenon Tim Tebow-the first college sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy and the first college quarterback to both rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in a single season.

The standard script of many pro-abortion and so-called feminist organizations regarding this ad is that it is an affront to women’s rights, and that such examples oversimplify the issue (this despite the fact that they have not seen the ad). Planned Parenthood-the nation’s largest abortion provider-has even released a video featuring former NFL player Sean James and Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner responding to the ad. Yes, they are “responding” to an ad they haven’t actually seen. At one point, James states, “We’re working for a day when every woman will be valued.” Apparently that does not include the thousands of little girls who will never get the chance to mature into women of value because their lives will be taken through abortion.

Putting aside the tired talking points of those who worship at the altar of abortion, what’s really stoking this controversy is the abortion industry’s desire to hide the truth behind their agenda: racism.

Tim Tebow is the perfect foil for such bigoted fodder. He is a white, home-schooled Christian boy poised for great success in life-the left’s stereotype of the pro-life movement.

…This is intended to perpetuate the myth that Planned Parenthood and their ilk are more in tune with the needs and desires of minority cultures than pro-lifers. This coming from an organization that was founded by one of the most virulent racists in history: Margaret Sanger. She being the one who wanted the organization’s motto to be, “To Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds;” she being the one who bragged in her autobiography about speaking to the Klu Klux Klan, and not understanding the group’s controversial nature because it understood the problem that “negroes” represented; and she being the one who thought that eugenics was the only logical way to perpetuate the human race.

To help demonstrate this premise, consider a very similar situation from just five years ago, when rapper Nick Cannon released his moving single, “Can I Live?” Like the Tebow ad, this song told the true and very personal story of Cannon’s mother, whose own pregnancy was a textbook argument for termination according to that industry’s “logic.” She was only 17 and a single, minority woman without the supposedly necessary means needed to raise a child. Cannon’s music video features him hugging his mother and saying, “I love life. I love my mother for giving me life…Thanks for listening, Mama thanks for listening.” Like the Tebows, her gift of love and sacrifice by choosing life was met with great reward. Not only did it give young Nick Cannon the chance at life, but he grew up to enjoy success as a rapper, actor and now TV and radio broadcaster.

But Cannon’s song/video goes much further than the Tebow ad, which Focus on the Family has said does not even contain the word “abortion.”

For more on the subject listen to Loving Life Radio next Monday (02/15/2010) at 1:30pm at KVSS.
To listen live, go to:
http://www.kvss.com/pages.asp?pageid=62078

As an ethicist and moral theologian, Dr. de Solenni has participated in many news talk shows and discussions on various topics, including debates with Kate Michelman, then President of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Dr. de Solenni has been quoted in various newspapers nationwide, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press and has testified on cloning before the Massachusetts State Legislature. She has appeared on MSNBC, The O’Reilly Show, CNN, ABC News Now, Scarborough Country, as well as other shows.

She is an adjunct professor at the Notre Dame Graduate School in Virginia. She serves on various advisory boards including the academic journal Nova et Vetera and the North American Youth Alliance.

Dr. de Solenni received her doctorate in sacred theology summa cum laude from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. Her dissertation was published in the university series Dissertationes.
On November 8, 2001, she received the 2001 Award of the Pontifical Academies for her doctoral work. The award was presented by John Paul II.

In addition to the doctorate, Dr. de Solenni holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Arts-Great Books from Thomas Aquinas College, California; a Sacred Theology Baccalaureate from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum), Rome; and a Sacred Theology Licentiate from Holy Cross, Rome. Biography provided by theFamily Research Council
Back to top

Read two of the most recent articles by Dr. Pia de Solenni:

# 07/19/05 : Egg Harvesting, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Threatens Women’s Health
# 07/27/05 : Dangerous Human Egg Harvesting Targeted at Poor Women Is Costing Lives

Both articles published by http://www.humaneventsonline.com/

Egg Harvesting, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Threatens Women’s Health

by Dr. Pia de Solenni Posted Jul 19, 2005

The U.S. Congress is poised to pour unlimited funds into embryonic stem cell research that not only destroys innocent human life, but it has shown no substantial promise as a curative and threatens the health of women worldwide. So much for “progress and advancement.”

After more than 20 years, embryonic stem cell research has not yielded a single cure. During this same time, adult stem cells have been used to treat people with heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and at least 50 other documented conditions.

The focus on therapeutic cloning has been aimed at our heartstrings, prophesying cures for our loved ones, friends, and even movie stars. But scientists, politicians, and academics have all turned a blind eye to the women who will be affected. After all, embryonic stem cell research depends upon millions of embryos. Whether created through in vitro fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), each embryo requires a woman’s egg in order to be created. Theoretically, embryonic stem cell research would allow each patient to receive specialized treatment to avoid rejection complications similar to those caused by organ transplants.

Let’s take the example of just one disease. In the U.S., there are 17 million diabetes patients. In a report on therapeutic cloning in mice published in the 2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, scientist Peter Membaerts found that, based on cloning experiment done in mice, if the same model could be developed for human cloning, each cure for each patient would require 10-100 human eggs. Membaerts puts the cost at $100,000-200,000 per patient. To treat the 17 million American diabetes patients, we would need 170 million-1.7 billion human eggs.

On average, a woman undergoing hyper ovarian stimulation releases 10-12 eggs per treatment. In other words, somewhere between 17 million and 170 million women would be required to donate their eggs. According to the 2000 census, there are about 60 million American women of reproductive age. We can hardly assume that all 60 million American women would be willing to donate their eggs; so, mathematically speaking, there would have to be donors from outside of the US to make up for the additional eggs required to treat the disease just among Americans.

The 2004 South Korean cloning of a human being required 242 eggs for one stem cell line. For 17 million patients, that means 4,114,000,000 human eggs, about 400 million women donors.

Dr. David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences, at Indiana State University, now at the Family Research Council, cites a 2005 South Korean report in which the average stem cell line required 17 eggs. For diabetes, that means 289 million eggs. If we follow Dr. Prentice’s model, we would need about 29 million women donors.

Regardless of which model we follow, the reality is that millions of women will be required to provide eggs. Women whose eggs are harvested undergo a long, uncomfortable, painful and potentially dangerous process called ovarian hyperstimulation. Some of the drugs used have never been approved for this use by the FDA. Complications from the procedure include a potential link to ovarian cysts and cancers, severe pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, stroke, possible negative effects on future fertility, and even death.

In clinical studies using Pergonal for ovarian hyperstimulation, 2.4-5.5 percent of women developed complications. If we’re talking about 29 million women, that means at least 696,000 of them would develop complications. Over 100,000 would be classified as severe cases.

Women have also died from egg harvesting. Knowing this, most women would not consent to egg harvesting unless they felt they had no choice. These women could be described as those needing money, typically poor women, students, and/or women from developing countries. Such women are not in a position to give informed consent because their financial need impairs their ability to adequately weigh the risks involved.

Endorsing any form of legislation supporting embryonic stem cell research means putting thousands of women at risk of serious illness, disability, or even death. One would hope that an advanced and progressive country would treat its women better than that. Dr. Pia de Solenni is the director of life and women’s issues at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

Article published by http://www.humaneventsonline.com/

Back to top

Dangerous Human Egg Harvesting Targeted at Poor Women Is Costing Lives

by Dr. Pia de Solenni Posted Jul 27, 2005

Sometimes conservatives too quickly resign women’s issues to the liberals without realizing that there can be real common ground.

Recently, I wrote about the effects on women of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. While scientists, ethicists, and activists have all been going back and forth, little attention has been brought to the facts surrounding the extremely painful and risky egg harvesting procedure called ovarian hyperstimulation [OHS] that millions of women will be required to undergo for embryonic stem cell research to be widely used.

As in most cases, it often helps to put a face on the people who will be involved. The process of ovarian hyperstimulation is not one that normally attracts women. OHS is an intense regimen of hormone shots followed by an extremely uncomfortable egg harvesting procedure and poses the risk of impaired future fertility, stroke and even death.

The question remains, how is it that women will be enticed to part with their eggs? Naturally, when you want someone to do something that’s not at all pleasant, you find someone who really doesn’t have a say in the matter, someone without a voice or an alternative option. Egg harvesting would be targeted at women with financial difficulties, typically ethnic minorities, students, and the like.

There’s no need to guess about how the procedure affects the women who choose it. The real life stories already exist.

Calla Papademus was 22 and a Stanford University student when she answered an ad in the fall of 2000 offering $50,000 for egg donation to be used in in vitro fertilization [IVF]. She ultimately agreed to $15,000. She needed the money for school. Her academic background made her a valued candidate for couples looking for a donor egg so that they might have a child through IVF. During the process of ovarian hyperstimulation, Calla developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome [OHSS] and suffered a stroke as a result. For eight weeks, she slipped in and out of a coma. Eventually, she recovered only to regret her decision.

Jacqueline Rushton, a 32-year old Irish woman died in February 2003 from ovarian hyper-stimulation. She had hoped to conceive a child through IVF because she and her husband could not have children and desperately wanted children. Instead, she developed OHSS and suffered a painful, drawn out death.

An unnamed British woman was awarded a settlement this past June after undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an IVF treatment in 2000. OHSS caused her to have a stroke, which in turn caused her to miscarry. She has since had several strokes which have left the 34 year old woman brain damaged, in need of constant care. Her marriage has also ended.

Little is known about Temilola Akinbolagne, a south London woman who died from OHSS in April of this year. She collapsed at a bus stop while undergoing OHS.

In May 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a ban on trade in human eggs and stricter regulation of egg donation procedures. The resolution was announced as stories broke about mail-order eggs that British couples were buying from a company in Romania.

Raluca Tatu, a single mother and a nearly illiterate employee at a mattress factory in Bucharest, agreed to have her eggs harvested three times since 2004 and apparently developed OHSS after each procedure. She received no help from the clinic where she donated, but she continued to harvest her eggs because she needed the money.

Eventually, she took her co-worker Alina Netedu to the same clinic. Alina, coming from a similar socio economic background as Raluca, agreed to OHS as a way to harvest and sell her eggs because she needed money for her upcoming wedding. In January 2005, 20 of her eggs were harvested for which she received $250. Soon after the extraction, she developed OHSS and was hospitalized for 14 days. The clinic where the original procedure took place offered no assistance. Her attending doctor in the hospital made it clear that she would have died had she not sought immediate treatment.

According to the World Health Organization, these deaths are rare and occur about one in 50,000 treatment cycles. But if we return to the lowest number of women required in order to use embryonic stem cell treatments for diabetes in the US, just one disease, 29 million women, that would translate into 580 deaths.

Some women might accept the risks of OHS as suitable if they are using it as a means to conceive a child through IVF and, even then, it could be argued that the risk outweighs the advantage. But women who only need money and will receive no such personal gain as a child are women who aren’t in a position to give informed consent. Their financial need impairs their ability to adequately judge the risks involved.

Women may undergo OHS for different reasons, but the dangers and results are the same. Endorsing any type of cloning or embryonic stem cell legislation means that we willingly endanger the lives of some of the world’s most desperate women. This hardly can be called progress or pro-woman.

Interestingly, the only people who seem to understand this are solid pro-lifers and some feminists like Judy Norsigian, Executive Director of the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Her organization has articulated its position in a statement supported by 100 signatories, most of whom are considered staunch abortion advocates. They oppose embryonic stem cell research and cloning because they understand that this so-called scientific advance will cost the lives of women. Is that so hard to figure out?

Do the math. Do the science. It will cost women’s lives.

Dr. Pia de Solenni is the director of life and women’s issues at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

Article published by http://www.humaneventsonline.com/