Embryo Jewelry: How Sick Have We Become?

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

In California, pro-choice license plates are now available and have been officially sanctioned by Sacramento's leftist majority.  This is the same legislature who passed a law to force pro-life facilities to advertise abortion clinics or be punished by law, and is working on A.B. 569 which will ensure pro-life facilities can be sued if they refuse to hire pro-abortion employees, or other people who are obviously against their pro-life platform.

On the national scale, executives of Planned Parenthood were caught acting as federally subsidized meat markets, when caught on film admitting a part of what they do is harvest the organs from the babies they kill to sell on a black market (mostly regarding scientific research on the body parts).  The people who exposed the crime were the ones that wound up attacked and convicted of a crime.  Planned Parenthood continues without a worry.

According to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 13,000 fully developed babies who could survive outside the womb are aborted annually.

And when we believe the sickness of killing babies, destroying human life, and mothers turning against their own children in an orgy of blood and Baal style sacrifices of innocent kids cannot get any sicker, Australia, turns out, is the home of a business that makes freeze-dried embryo jewelry.

The embryos in question are the leftovers from fertilization clinic procedures, but are no less flesh and blood babies than those brutally murdered by the sickening procedures associated with abortion, or any babies killed after taking their first breath in the outside world.

What's worse, I found the article on a website that is about parenting, and they wrote the article in a manner as if it is a wonderful and loving thing to make embryo jewelry.

The article focuses on a couple who used in vitro fertilization as a means of getting pregnant.  In the in vitro fertilization industry, the eggs are fertilized outside the womb and then the embryos are inserted into the mother after initially forming in a laboratory setting.  But, what to do with the embryos not used once a pregnancy sticks?

"Donation wasn’t an option, the annual storage fee was an added financial strain, and disposing of them unimaginable."

So, the couple went to Baby Bee Hummingbirds, an Australian company turning embryos into keepsake jewelry.

In the case of the mother in the story, she wears seven embryos in her heart-shaped pendant.

At what point does this slippery slope gain even more momentum into the depths of madness?  Will eventually the body parts business of Planned Parenthood expand into marketable products featuring the dismembered bodies of tossed babies aborted in their clinics?

While I understand the emotional part of the article, a woman desiring her "babies" to be close to her heart in the form of jewelry, at what point do we say, "Okay, that's just sick."

The company uses breastmilk, placenta, hair, ashes, umbilical cord stumps, or embryos to make their designs.  They have crafted over 4000 pieces, including 50 made with embryos.

God weeps.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Amazing Tale of Embryo Mix-Up tonight on The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution

A feature article in PEOPLE magazine shared a touching tale of In Vitro Fertilization gone wrong. The story then exploded, and the couple, Paul and Shannon Morell, has had their story told multiple times throughout the media. Their book, Misconception: One Couple’s Journey From Embryo Mix-Up to Miracle Baby (Howard Books/Simon & Schuster, May 4, 2010), is now available, and it tells the true story of how the Morell’s embryo was implanted into another woman’s womb, their relationship with the unintended surrogate mother and the journey that would reunite them with their baby boy.

The incredible story began in 2009 when an inexplicable lab error at an In vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic in Michigan accidentally thawed and transferred the Morell's frozen embryo into another woman. To complicate matters, the woman who had become pregnant with the Morell’s child was someone they had never met, living in another state.

Like many families, Paul and Shannon had struggled to have children. IVF was an answer to their dream of having another child. However, that dream soon turned into a nightmare.

Join us tonight at 7:00 pm Pacific as the Morell's join Political Pistachio to tell their story. Listen live, or catch the archive later, at BlogTalkRadio.com/PoliticalPistachio.

S. 91 Life at Conception Act Remains in Committee

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Last March I wrote about Senator Roger Wicker's "Life at Conception Act" (S.91). The bill approaches the abortion debate at a whole new angle, by not attacking Roe v. Wade directly, but by using an end around that draws the 14th Amendment into the equation.

The abortion issue is a State issue. Conservatives and Constitutionalists alike share that view. The federal government has no authority to pass legislation on the issue. Therefore, Roe v. Wade, the court case that is said to have made abortion legal, is unconstitutional. It was an example of the courts legislating, and overturning a State law - both of which the courts have no authority to do.

Liberals will tell you that the constitutionality of something like abortion is decided by case law. Judges, the Left will tell you, has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and take cases regardless of powers granted by the Constitution.

The argument by the Left regarding Judicial Review is wrong.

The battle over abortion has raged on, and Roe v. Wade has been at the center of that debate. The argument by the liberal left is that outlawing abortion takes away the right of a woman to have an abortion. But what about the right of the child to live?

Overturning Roe v. Wade has not worked, and the liberal left refuses to accept that abortion is a State issue. So how can those that support life approach the issue, outlaw abortion without overturning Roe v. Wade, and do it in a constitutional manner?

Justice Blackmun, in his opinion of the Roe v. Wade case, wrote that if ever it was determined when life begins, Roe v. Wade would be history.

Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker's "Life at Conception Act" (S. 91) aims to define human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. By defining life as beginning at conception, the legislation would prohibit abortion across the country. By determining that life begins in the womb. However, this is not unconstitutional, for it tackles the issue of abortion in a manner that allows the federal government to take it on. If unborn babies of America would be considered to be alive, this would give them full constitutional protections, which would include equal protection under the law as per the 14th Amendment - which would protect them from being treated differently from all other Americans, and all other Americans are protected against being murdered.

Abortion is a State issue because the federal government does not have the power to authorize the killing of the unborn. However, the federal government does have the authority to ensure that all people considered alive are equally treated under the law. Wicker's S. 91 would prohibit abortion, and his bill would accomplish that feat constitutionally.

A reader asked for an update on this bill, and currently it is in committee, and has been sitting there since January. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has done nothing with the bill, and it is very possible the bill will die in committee.

It is time to contact our Senators and demand that S. 91 be taken seriously, and receive the kind of attention it deserves.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Organs from Living People, Eggs for Aborted Babies - The sick world of liberal medicine

Beware: Killing for Organs, Taking Organs From Living People

I have been warning for several years that many in bioethics and the organ transplant community hope to legalize killing for organs, that is, taking organs from the living. The latest example comes in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics by Canadian philosophy professor (of course!) Walter Glannon.

It’s a long article and I don’t have space here to deal with every aspect. But a few points: First, he claims that all decisions about organ donation and the treatment of patients are kept strictly segregated. From, “The Moral Insignificance of Death in Organ Donation:”

All transplant policies and protocols require that decisions about withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be separated from decisions about organ donation,procurement, and transplantation. This prevents a conflict of duty for critical care teams, whose primary duty is to provide appropriate care to critically ill patients,as well as for transplant teams, whose primary duty is to patients with organ failure who need a transplant. Separating these decisions and duties minimizes the risk of compromising the care of critically ill patients and prevents treating them instrumentally as nothing more than a source of transplantable organs.

I thought that was true, too. But as I posted about yesterday, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network permits discussion of organ donation to occur before the decision to withdraw life support.

Glannon claims that death is morally insignificant in procuring organs.

-----

Scientists Want to Scavenge Aborted Fetal Eggs for IVF Treatment

Scientists are keeping aborted fetal ovaries alive in order to scavenge their eggs.

From the Daily News story:

Scientists are ready to plunder the ovaries of aborted babies for eggs to use in IVF treatment. Experiments have taken the process almost to completion, it emerged yesterday. They raise the nightmare prospect of a child whose biological mother has never been born. The news, from a scientific conference in Madrid, was greeted with widespread revulsion at how far science is testing ethical frontiers. Experts warned of appalling emotional and biological problems.

But fertility doctors say the development could ease a worldwide shortage of donated eggs for women who cannot produce their own…Scientists have known for some time that female foetuses develop ovaries after as little as 16 weeks in the womb. Now researchers from Israel and the Netherlands have kept ovarian tissue from aborted foetuses alive in the laboratory for several weeks. They stopped the experiment at the point where they believed eggs were about to be produced. Chief researcher Dr Tal Biron-Shental said it was ‘theoretically possible’ that with extra hormone treatment they could have produced mature eggs suitable for IVF use.

-----

Making Orphans: Harvesting Eggs From Abortion

Scientists often believe that if something can be done it should be done. But that's not always true.

The subtitle of Mary Shelley's famous novel "Frankenstein," was "The Modern Prometheus." The reference is to the Greek legend about the tragic consequences of endowing humanity with god-like power. Shelley's Frankenstein is about a scientist operating without regard for moral and ethical constraints.

All of this comes to mind after reading about a proposal coming out of a scientific conference in Madrid. There, researchers from Israel and the Netherlands announced a potential new source for human eggs to be used in in-vitro-fertilization treatments: aborted female fetuses.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Another "Homophobic" Child Of Homosexual "Parents"

by JASmius



Is that not one of the saddest, and creepiest, pictures you've ever seen?  It evokes the same emotions as do those "adopt a starving child in Africa" PSAs.

Well, remember Heather Barwick, the daughter of lesbians who not only "tragically" went "straight," married a <gasp> man, and <horrors!> had children by him - in wedlock! - and "came out of the closet" as a foe of sodomarriage?  And remember how the Lavender Lobby immediately fell upon her like a swarm of killer bees for her "heresy"?

Looks like Mrs. Barwick is getting some reinforcements:

A woman who was raised by a gay father has penned an op-ed about why she opposes same-sex marriage, claiming that her dad’s “preference” and the actions he took during her childhood created in her “an inner sense of inequality.”

“From infancy, I was unwittingly identified under the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) umbrella,” author and activist Dawn Stefanowicz wrote for the Daily Signal. “During the first thirty years of my life, I garnered many personal, social and professional experiences with my father, whom I always loved, and his partners. My father, a successful executive recruiter, taught me a strong business ethic.”

But when it came to relationships and gender, she said she did not see her father valuing or affirming women, which she said impacted her.

Stefanowicz, who has said in the past that her father became a Christian before he died from AIDS at age 51 back in 1991....

Praise the LORD!

....wrote that it took her a long time to formulate her views on same-sex marriage, and that she believes that her father wouldn't have supported same-sex nuptials.

“I did not have all the words to express my thoughts and feelings until my late twenties and early thirties, so it took a while before I went public, but I knew that my father never would have supported same-sex ‘marriage,’” she wrote. “Naturally, he knew that every child is created from both a father and a mother.”

And that that biological necessity doesn't end with fertilization, but extends to the psychological aspects of child rearing as well.

Stefanowicz went on to say that the media, gay [extremist]s and others have created a dynamic in which it is hard to tell her story, though she said she knows she is not alone, as some other children of gay parents share her views.

Of course.  It goes against homosexual supremacy dogma.  It's "heteros" who are supposed to be seen as aberrant and "same-sex" relationships as being "normal".  And woe be unto the serpent's tooth who breaches that fudgepacking orthodoxy.  It's like I've said and written many times: There's no "courage" to "coming out of the closet"; what requires courage is to point out the truth about homosexuality, which speaks to how brave Mrs. Barwick and Miss Stefanowicz really are.

The latter nailed it with this passage:

“For many of us adult children of gay parents, we have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is more about promoting adults’ ‘desires’ than about safeguarding children’s rights to know and be raised by their biological parents,” she wrote. [emphasis added]

Precisely.  It's not about tolerance, and it's not about equality, it's about conquest and supremacy:

As for her home country of Canada, Stefanowicz went on to describe how she believes that free speech and parental rights have been curtailed since gay marriage was adopted in July 2005, saying that the “biological origins” of parenting have been removed and re-framed by the government, with the term “legal parents” replacing “natural parents.”

Morality and free rights, too, she said are hanging in the balance.

“Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the state when your beliefs, opinions and or faith practices are in opposition to what is taught and promoted at school,” Stefanowicz wrote....

She concluded her op-ed by writing that she doesn't want to see the United States follow the same path as Canada.

“Marriage must remain between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,” Stefanowicz said.

It's a little late for that, Dawn.  But it does get back to that central question: Whose kids are they, anyway?  The fact that more and more "children of the gay community" are coming forward to state the obvious - that debauched "alternative" familial arrangements do not work and are harmful to children - is an encouraging sign that Western culture, as much as it has decayed, still has a values "autoimmune system" after all.

Constitution Speaker Radio: Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?

Today's guest on the Constitution Speaker radio program on KCAA 1050 AM is Tricia Erickson. Ms. Erickson is the author of "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? - The Mormon Church Versus The Office of the Presidency of the United States."

Dubbed by Barbara Walters on 20/20 as the first Damage Control/Crisis Management Specialist in the country, Tricia Erickson is a Christian Conservative that feels a responsibility to educate the public about what a Mormon President could truly mean for America. She is an expert on the well-masked cult of Mormonism and a former Mormon Bishop's daughter who left the church in her mid 20s.

Is Mormonism America's equivalent of Islamism? What about the history of Mormonism? What about Romneycare, and Romney's history of flip-flops? Is Mormonism racist? Did Mitt and Ann Romney frequent Mormon Secret Temple Ceremonies? Is Romney trying to buy the election through a loophole that enables him to game the system through a redistribution of contributions? What is Romney's connection to Wall Street and crony capitalism? Is Romney working to fulfill the political goals of the same people who were behind the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

Also, today in our 5 Big Stories of the Week. . .

Andy Rooney, Jessie Ventura, Obama continues to act without Congress, Former New Jersey Governor Corzine, Beacon Power Corporation goes the way of Solyndra, Federal Government sues South Carolina over the State's Immigration Law, and Herman Cain is accused of Sexual Harassment.

In the Nuts and Nuggets segment. . .

Kent State Professor: "Death To Israel!"

Mississippi Personhood Ballot Measure: "Personhood begins at the moment of fertilization."

-- Constitution Speaker Radio Brought to you by the Political Pistachio Radio Network, and the fine sponsors listed on the sidebar of PoliticalPistachio.com.

Catch today's show live at 2:00 pm Pacific in Southern California at 1050 AM on the radio dial, or tune in by Internet at KCAAradio.com.

Abortion, the Constitution, and S. 91

By Douglas V. Gibbs

If you were to ask someone the significance of Roe v. Wade, most people will respond that Roe v. Wade is the court case that made abortion legal (essentially giving the courts the power to legislate). A portion of these people would go on to tell you how abortion is a woman's right, and nobody has the authority to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. Someone like California Senator Feinstein may even go so far as to call abortion a "reproductive right," though the concept of terminating a pregnancy would seem to be the opposite of what one may consider to be "reproduction." In fact, in an Email a friend of mine received recently, Feinstein went so far as to proclaim that abortion is a court protected constitutional right. The funny thing is, I find no place in the Constitution that provides for the allowance of anyone killing another person, born or unborn.

An astute Constitutionalist, at this point, may bring to my attention that the Constitution does not necessarily work that way. In fact, the ninth amendment is careful to remind us that just because a right is not listed in the founding document's text, nor is anywhere in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean the federal government has free reign to trample on that right. Therefore, for some, the argument about abortion can be resolved once it is determined if abortion is a woman's personal right, or not.

Beyond whether or not abortion is a right, and whether or not that alleged right needs to be protected, we must ask ourselves if the federal government has any authority over the issue. As far as I can tell, the U.S. Constitution has no provision in it authorizing the federal government any power over that issue, be it legislatively, judicially, or in any other manner. Feinstein, however, claims the issue of a "woman's right to abortion" is constitutionally protected, citing that the "Supreme Court has ruled access to both abortion services and emergency contraception are guaranteed by the Constitution."

The liberal left believes that the Constitutionality of anything is decided by case law. Judges, the Left contends, have the authority to interpret the Constitution. However, this is a false belief. Judicial Review is a power seized by the courts, without permission from the States. Marbury v. Madison contained John Marshall's opinion that the federal courts have the authority to determine if a law is constitutional or not, rather than the States, as originally intended. But when one keeps in mind that the whole purpose of the Constitution was to create a federal government that would protect, preserve, and promote the union, and then be limited in all other authorities, leaving the remaining powers to the States, it does not seem reasonable for the federal courts, which are a part of the federal government, to determine for the itself what its authorities are through Judicial Review. That is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

So, if the federal government, which includes the federal courts, does not have the authority over the issue of abortion, that would leave the powers over this issue to the States, per the Tenth Amendment.

If abortion is a State issue, that would mean that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional (illegal ruling). But if the federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize abortion, then the federal government can't ban abortion, either, right?

Not necessarily.

Enter, stage right, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker's "Life at Conception Act" (S. 91). The legislation, should it pass, would define human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. By defining life as beginning at conception, the legislation would prohibit abortion across the country. By determining that life begins in the womb, the unborn babies of America would be considered to be alive, giving them full constitutional protections, which would include equal protection as per the 14th Amendment - which would protect them from being treated differently from all other Americans, and all other Americans are protected against being murdered.

Justice Blackmun, in his opinion regarding Roe v. Wade, gave us that out. He indicated that once the beginning of life was defined, abortion may end up banned.

In short, the federal government does not have the power to authorize the killing of the unborn, but they do have the authority to ensure that all people considered alive are equally treated under the law. Therefore, Feinstein is right, Senator Wicker's S. 91 would prohibit abortion, and his bill would accomplish that feat constitutionally.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 410 U.S. 113,
Roe v. Wade

Romney's Mormonism - A danger to America?

Constitutional Speaker on KCAA Sat, Nov 5, 2011

Today's guest on the Constitution Speaker radio program on KCAA 1050 AM was Tricia Erickson. Ms. Erickson is the author of "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? - The Mormon Church Versus The Office of the Presidency of the United States."

Dubbed by Barbara Walters on 20/20 as the first Damage Control/Crisis Management Specialist in the country, Tricia Erickson is a Christian Conservative that feels a responsibility to educate the public about what a Mormon President could truly mean for America. She is an expert on the well-masked cult of Mormonism and a former Mormon Bishop's daughter who left the church in her mid 20s.

Is Mormonism America's equivalent of Islamism? What about the history of Mormonism? What about Romneycare, and Romney's history of flip-flops? Is Mormonism racist? Did Mitt and Ann Romney frequent Mormon Secret Temple Ceremonies? Is Romney trying to buy the election through a loophole that enables him to game the system through a redistribution of contributions? What is Romney's connection to Wall Street and crony capitalism? Is Romney working to fulfill the political goals of the same people who were behind the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

These questions answered, and more, during this controversial interview.

Also, JASmius joined me for the 5 Big Stories of the Week. . .

5 big stories of the week - November 5, 2011

Honorable Mention: Andy Rooney Dead at 92

Honorable Mention: Jessie Ventura Throws His Hands Up, Says He’s Off To Mexico After Airport Security Lawsuit Dismissed

5. Obama Continues to Act Without Congress

Carney: Obama Will Continue To Act Independently Without Congress

Obama Orders FDA to Allay Drug Shortages

Obama Wonders if Congress is Dumb

Obama Jobs Push Switches to More Mortgage Meddling

Obama Taps Taxpayers for Student Stimulus

Americans For Limited Government Blasts Obama Administration's Decision to Impose its Will over the Economy

Congress Isn't Doing Its Job

Obama Not Gonna Wait For Congress

Obama Sends 100 US Troops To Uganda - Sends Note to Let Congress Know

Obama's Impeachable Offenses

Obama: I'd Work My Way Around Congress

Obama Administration Halts Deportations of Non-Criminal Immigrants

Obama Tempted to go it Alone if Only He Could

Obama Executive Order Designed to Bypass Congress

FCC Moves To Dismiss Net Neutrality Lawsuits

GOP Plans To Take Down Obama's Czars

Government Intrusion Into Internet

EPA's Backdoor Cap and Trade Policy's Obvious Impact

4. Former Democrat New Jersey Corzine, and MF Global Investigated For Missing Money

3. Beacon Power Corporation Files For Bankruptcy

2. Immigration Law: Federal Government Sues South Carolina

1. Herman Cain Accused of Sexual Harassment - Same Tactics Used Against Clarence Thomas

Cain: High Tech Lynching

------------------------------------------------

Nuts and Nuggets:

Nut: Kent State University history professor Julio Pino shouted "Death to Israel" at a presentation by Israeli consulate official Ismael Khaldi

Nugget: Mississippi Personhood Ballot Measure: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

"Global Warming" Greening The Planet

by JASmius



One of my favorite synonyms for the "climate change' hoax is "the war on plants".  Plants, after all, do respire carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, so if the CO2 content of the atmosphere is reduced, that would be detrimental to Earth's flora, would it not?

Consequently, if CO2 levels are higher around the globe, one would expect to see a corresponding increase in plant growth.

And, sure enough....:

A new climate change study seems to suggest that a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has helped plants propagate around the planet. The findings see contrarians (aka climate change skeptics) reasserting their claim that additional CO2 is beneficial for the planet, since foliage harness these emissions for growth. But the researchers behind the study, Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, insist the extra emissions and subsequent “fertilization effect” are more likely signs of a troubled system struggling to adjust.

Desperate spin to deny the unmistakable, commonsensical "settled science" underlying these results they wish they hadn't produced.  Although credit where credit is due, at least they weren't buried, like the University of Cincinnati did their embarrassingly pro-fracking numbers.

A tremendous amount of vegetated land has experienced greening, according to satellite data collected and analyzed by thirty-two authors from twenty-four institutions in eight countries. The new greenery is equivalent to more than four billion giant sequoias. If all the extra leaves were laid flat, they’d cover the continental United States – twice! Added CO2 accounts for 70% of that growth, with climate change, increased nitrogen, and changes in land management accounting for fractions each. Despite global temperatures reaching a record high last year, only four percent of the world’s vegetated land has experienced depletion.

Taking that "record high temperatures" bogusity with a pillar of salt, what do these results actually tell us?  The answer is precisely the lesson the greenstremists do not want us to learn: That Earth's climate is not fragile, apart from outside influences like the sun.  Modern human civilization could not "destroy the planet" (apart from an all-out nuclear holocaust) if tried by simply existing.  And the biosphere reacts and adjusts to and, yes, counteracts such minor influences.  The atmospheric CO2 levels increase?  More vegetation sprouts to absorb it.  And what does more plants mean?  Cooling to offset the "warming".  You know the greenies' paganistic belief that the planet is itself "alive"?  Well, here is ironic evidence for that Gaiastic assertion.

Remember the 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?  Remember how the enviros shrieked that it was going to turn the Gulf and the "sun coast" into a graveyard?  Remember how natural bacteria broke down and consumed the slick by the end of that summer?  Do you see why I'm asking all these rhetorical questions?

Nature, it seems, is becoming the greenstremists' worst enemy.  Or, rather, was all along.

Exit question: Should all these additional flora be clear-cut and destroyed so that global temperatures can resume their "catastrophic rise"?