Chimps Are People Too 

US Amnesty Int'l Adopts Secret Abortion Policy 

MO Supreme Court upholds parental lawsuits for abortions

Columbia Abortion Business Could Close

HRT Increases Cancer Risk

KS Amendment Would Enforce Late-Term Abortion Ban...

CHIMPS ARE PEOPLE TOO, INSISTS SCIENTIST. Jane Goodall, expert on primates, is to tell a court that apes are people, in a groundbreaking case that will determine whether a chimp can have human rights. Goodall has agreed to testify that apes deserve the same treatment as humans. The case has been filed in an Austrian court by Paula Stibbe, 38, a Briton who wants to become the legal guardian of a chimp called (Hiasl) Matthew. The case was accepted by the court before officials realised Matthew was a primate, but their efforts to have it dismissed have failed. The case centres around money given to Matthew by a well-wisher to safeguard his future after the animal home where he lived went bust. Ms Stibbe and her lawyers say he should have the same rights as a child and have a guardian to help him spend it. Ms Stibbe said: "Matthew likes watching TV and videos and playing games like any child, and can use signs and gestures to say what he wants. Of course he has the right to be recognised as an individual." This is the second legal action in Europe to address whether primates should be guaranteed human rights; the Socialist government in Spain has proposed a law to allow moral guardianship of great apes, akin to the care for severely disabled or comatose people.  Matthew and another chimpanzee, called Rosie, both now 26, have lived at the sanctuary since then, but when it went bankrupt, an anonymous donor gave several thousand pounds to Matthew to safeguard his future. Dr Martin Balluch, an animal rights campaigner who instructed lawyers to file for guardianship for Ms Stibbe, said: "We argue that chimps are part of the same genus as humans and that they also incorporate all the characteristics to justify personhood, in that they recognise and anticipate the rights and needs of other individuals." The court will make a decision on how to proceed once documents on Matthew's background are provided. A move to have the case thrown out failed after expert testimony running to dozens of pages seemed to back Matthew's rights to human status. The experts pointed out that chimps differ from humans by only 1 per cent of their genetic material, can accept a blood transfusion and can learn and use human languages through signs or symbols - although they lack the vocal dexterity to master speech. Not all experts agree, however. Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at the University of London, said human rights did not apply to animals, adding: "If you start, where do you stop? Being human is unique and nothing to do with biology. Mice share 90 per cent of human DNA. Should they get 90 per cent of human rights? And plants have more DNA than humans. Chimps can't speak, but parrots can - should they have rights too?" [3May07, http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=688922007]

US AMNESTY INT’L ADOPTS SECRET PRO-ABORTION POLICY. Amnesty International US has adopted a new policy supporting a "right" to abortion, but "Not to be made public", according to reports this week carried by First Things and Consistent Life. First Things reported on a buried policy statement unearthed from the members-only, restricted-content page of AI's US website. The policy outlined AI's new position on Sexual and Reproductive Rights that "includes support for abortion." While the document claims AI would support abortion only in "particular circumstances," in effect the goals of the new position would support abortion on demand.

"The new policy has three basic goals: (1) provide access to abortion in what they claim will only be "particular circumstances," (2) ensure that women have access to medical care after botched-whether legal or illegal-abortions, and (3) eliminate all penalties against women seeking abortions and against abortion providers," Anderson writes. Although AI denies that they are now supporting abortion as a human right, Anderson states that is simply not true.

"The phrase: 'AI takes no position on whether abortion is right or wrong, nor on whether or not abortion should be legal' is repeated over and over throughout the AI documents. But it's not true." 'Though they try to make a strong distinction between "decriminalization" (what they're for) and "legalization" (what they take no position on), it's mere semantics…[T]hey specify: "'Decriminalization' means the removal of all criminal penalties (including imprisonment, fines, and other punishments) against those seeking, obtaining, providing information about, or carrying out abortions."

In other words, besides standard medical protocols, you can not regulate abortion at all.

Some medical protocols that carry fines and other punishments are apparently out, too.'

AI also says that their new policy is "to call on states to: Ensure access to abortion services to any woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape, sexual assault, or incest, or where a pregnancy poses a risk to a woman's life or a grave risk to her health."

"[W]hen you throw in the language of a risk to life and health, even if you include the obligatory word 'grave', all of a sudden every abortion becomes 'ensured,'" Anderson points out. "If you doubt this, just look at the way Roe's health exception and Doe's broad definition of the word have been used."

AI even states that they oppose the 18April07 U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the partial birth abortion ban. "AI therefore opposes the provision of the federal law upheld by the Court in Carhart that imposes fines and up to two years in prison for doctors who perform particular types of abortions."

Officials with the organization have made a significant attempt to keep the new policy secret from the public. In a letter posted by Karen Schneider, the chair of the Sexual and Reproductive Rights Working Group, on the members-only website section, she states:
"It is very important to be aware of the following: This policy will not be made public at this time. As the IEC [Amnesty International's International Executive Committee] has written to all sections, "There is to be no proactive external publication of the policy position or of the fact of its adoption issued. This means no section or structure is to issue a press release or public statement or external communication of any kind on the policy decision." (emphasis original)

As backup in case the news should get out, the site contained links to letters to be distributed to the public in response to criticism of the new policy, including a form letter "that should be used only to respond to critical editorials or letters to the editor in local newspapers." A two-page overview of the policy and a FAQ sheet were also included as damage control materials should the news leak out.

Rachel MacNair is vice president of Consistent Life and a long-time member of Amnesty International. In an account posted on the Consistent Life website, MacNair details how she was stopped from leafleting attendants at AI's national conference by an AI official, who admitted when asked that AIUSA was censoring people on the issue of the abortion policy.

MacNair had discussed the proposal with a member of the International Executive Committee, which is responsible for making the abortion decision, prior to the censoring incident. She found that he was uninformed about basic pro-life objections to the policy, showing a lack of sincerity in the Committee's "consultation process" on the issue.
During Consistent Life's efforts to educate AI members on the issue, MacNair reported, they were repeatedly prevented from distributing materials to conference attendees at various AI events.

"There are one, two issues here: one is the abortion policy itself, and one is how much it's being decided by members and supporters as opposed to being decided by an elite who knows what's good for us."

MacNair pointes out that polling of AI members in the UK suggested the majority wanted to see AI remain abortion-neutral--in the U.S., many members were not even aware there was a web-based vote "hidden on the web page members-only section with no publicity, and a deadline of December 1."

"So the decision is made - evidence suggests that it always was - and many of those of us AI supporters who are heartsick about it no longer have a voice inasmuch as it can be said that we ever did."

Consistent Life offers a list of alternative Human Rights organizations that do not have policy positions on abortion, suggesting AI supporters send their donations elsewhere.

See First Things report: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=719

See Consistent Life coverage: http://www.consistent-life.org/ai.html

Previous: Amnesty International Considers Pushing Enforcement of Abortion as Human Right
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042511.html

UK Amnesty Members Narrowly Reject Abortion Advocacy in Consultation Report
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032007.html
[3May07, Schultz, NYC, LifeSiteNews.com]  

MO Supreme Court upholds parental lawsuits for abortions. Today, the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously upheld a 2005 Missouri law (section 188.250, RSMo, http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1880000250.htm ), which allows parents to sue those who assist their minor daughter to obtain an abortion in violation of Missouri's parental consent law.  The court's per curium opinion - Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, Inc., et al., v. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, et al., SC87321 - can be read at http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/e02b04020a71413a862572ce004c8f70?OpenDocument. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a law 2May07 letting parents sue people who help their teenage daughters get abortions without their consent. 

The court's unanimous decision rejected claims by Planned Parenthood that the 2005 law could infringe on their free-speech rights to provide information and counseling about abortions. It also turned down various other constitutional challenges by the organization.

The law states that "no person shall intentionally cause, aid, or assist a minor to obtain an abortion without the consent" of a parent or court. Parents and guardians can sue those who violate the law, seeking compensation for emotional injury and punitive damages.

A Jackson County judge had expressed "substantial trepidation" while upholding the law in November 2005, and had issued an injunction against enforcing it pending an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, which defended the law, said it immediately took effect Tuesday as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Planned Parenthood affiliates had argued that the words "aid" and "assist" could be applied broadly to prohibit abortion counseling or the sharing of information.

The Supreme Court applied a more narrow interpretation, ruling that those specific things weren't prohibited and the law did not violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

A Planned Parenthood executive expressed satisfaction with that part of the ruling, even though the Supreme Court did not grant its request to strike down the law.

"We're pleased that the court has upheld our ability to provide information and counseling, because that is what patients of any and all ages expect from us," said Paula Gianino, president of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

Missouri Right to Life, which had helped write the law, said it was never intended to target mere speech but rather actions, such as providing money or transportation for a minor to get an abortion at an out-of-state clinic without permission from her parents. Missouri's original parental consent law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983.

"This law was written to really protect the rights of parents," said Patty Skain, executive director of Missouri Right to Life. Otherwise, "minors will go out of state - and, in a way, almost be lured out of state - and not have the benefits of having their parents there to help them in that decision."

The legislative impetus for the law came from the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Ill. - just across the border from St. Louis - which had advertised Illinois' lack of a parental consent law for abortions. After Missouri legislators adopted the civil liability law in a special session, the Hope Clinic quit performing abortions on Missouri minors who did not have parental consent.

The Supreme Court rejected a claim that the law violated the commerce clause to the U.S. Constitution by essentially requiring clinics in other states to comply with Missouri's parental consent requirements. Out-of-state abortion clinics that follow their own state laws cannot be held liable for damages under Missouri's new law.

The court also rejected Planned Parenthood's claims that the law imposed an undue burden on minors to obtain an abortion and violated their "right to travel."
Republican Gov. Matt Blunt praised the court's decision as a "victory in our efforts to establish a culture that values all human life...Parents must be informed of their children's decision to end an innocent life, and today's ruling upholds that belief". Case is Planned Parenthood v. Jay Nixon, SC87321. Supreme Court: http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id27
[2May07, http://www.belleville.com/336/story/23976.html, AP, D. A. LIEB, Jefferson City]

Columbia Abortion Center Could Close. The Missouri legislature is moving forward on a plan that could close down abortion sites in Columbia and Kansas City.

The bill passed a Senate Committee late last night and caused quite a stir at the Capitol today.

Only doctors at surgical centers with strict building guidelines will be allowed to perform abortions. The planned parenthood sites in Kansas City and Columbia do not fit the criteria.

Supporters of the proposed law say they are concerned about safety. Planned Parenthood says that is not an issue.

“Abortion is one of the safest procedures you can find it is 100% safe,” says Michelle Trupiano, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist.

It would cost more than a half million dollars just to renovate the Columbia site to fit into the new plan. The Columbia site would still provide some family planning services but with the abortion element removed, women's rights advocates are concerned about the lengths some women will go to.

“They might look for other measures for a self-induced abortion or they are going to be forced to carry a child to term that they don't want,” says Trupiano. 

Senators in support of the tougher restrictions are confident the bill will pass the Senate. Sen. Delbert Scott, (R)- Lowry City, is sponsor of an identical senate bill.

“It will pass. There are 28 pro-life senators and 6 pro-choice. We will do whatever we need to to get it passed.

We contacted the Governor's office today and a spokesperson told me he will sign the bill if it passes the legislature. [ 5/1/2007, http://www.kmiz.com/now/news.asp?StoryID=4990, Lapine] 

HRT INCREASES CANCER RISK, CLAIM SCIENTISTS. Women who take hormone replacement therapy are at a greater risk of developing ovarian cancer and dying from the disease, say scientists.

Researchers at Oxford University concluded that 1,000 British women may have died from ovarian cancer since 1991 because they took the drug to relieve the unpleasant symptoms of menopause and prevent brittle bone disease.

The new findings emerged from the Million Women Study, the largest examination of HRT and cancer, which questioned almost 950,000 women aged 50 to 64. Previous results from the same study showed that using combined HRT doubled a woman's risk of developing breast cancer compared with not taking HRT.

In the latest paper, published in The Lancet, scientists at Cancer Research UK's Epidemiology Unit in Oxford found that the rate of ovarian cancer among those who took HRT was 2.6 per 1,000 women over five years. For women who did not take the drug, the incidence dropped to 2.2 per 1,000 over the same period. This meant that over a five-year period there was likely to be one additional case of ovarian cancer among 2,500 women receiving HRT, the team said.

For every 3,300 women on HRT there was also likely to be one additional death from the disease.

It thus has, since 1991, been responsible for some 1,300 additional ovarian cancers and 1,000 additional deaths. [20Apr07, Telegraph] The researchers said that a woman's risk of developing ovarian cancer returned to a normal level within a few years of stopping HRT.
Ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women in the UK with almost 7,000 new cases every year. The five-year survival rate for the disease is less than 30 per cent.

Prof Valerie Beral, director of Cancer Research UK's epidemiology unit, said: "The results of this study are worrying because they show that not only does HRT increase the risk of getting ovarian cancer, it also increases a woman's risk of dying of ovarian cancer."

Prof John Toy, the charity's medical director, said: "Considering [the risk of ovarian cancer] alongside the increase in risk for breast and endometrial cancer, women should think very carefully about whether to take HRT. And women who choose to take HRT should aim to do so for clear medical need and for the shortest possible time."

However, critics accused the researchers of "replacing science with sensationalism" and urged women not to stop taking the treatment.
The number of women taking HRT dropped from two million in 2002 to one million in 2005 after a number of health scares. A proportion of women has since returned to the drug because they were desperate to find relief from menopausal symptoms.

"There is no doubting the results of this well-conducted research, though, which followed nearly a million women from 1991, when HRT was given for much longer periods and to far more women. In the past five years, the number taking the treatment has more than halved, and current recommendations are to use it for only two to three years. So although the dramatic report of 1,000 extra deaths may be correct (and it is the very top estimate), they occurred over 15 years: that's far fewer than 100 women a year.

"Much of medicine is about managing risk, and doctors are used to this. There's an upside and a downside to every intervention: just like in everyday life, driving a car, crossing the road or going skiing all have their risks. And while this study adds ovarian to breast and endometrial cancers as being firmly associated with HRT, the risk is still relatively small and, for most people, HRT is worth taking if the benefits are great.

 "There are alternatives, of course - non-oestrogen drugs, herbal remedies, special diets, psychological techniques - but when the symptoms are severe, none is as effective as HRT. So-called natural oestrogens from plants (phyto-oestrogens) are claimed to be safer and some women swear by them, but no large-scale research has been conducted." [HRT: kill or cure?, 20April, Telegraph.co.uk, Karol Sikora] The women in the study were invited to join when they received their invitation to attend breast screening. None had a previous record of cancer. They were monitored for up to seven years. During the follow-up period a total of 2,273 women developed ovarian cancer and 1,591 died from the disease. [19April2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/04/20/nosplit/fthrt20.xml, Telegraph.co.uk, By Nicole Martin]

KANSAS AMENDMENT WOULD ENFORCE LATE-TERM ABORTION BAN LAW. The Kansas state House has approved an amendment to a budget bill that would strengthen the enforcement of late-term abortion laws there. The legislation includes a provision that allows policy makers to know the exact diagnosis of women who get a late-term abortion.
That's important because the state law prohibits most late-term abortions and allows them only in very exceptional medical circumstances.

Wichita-based late-term abortionist [Tiller] was charged with doing numerous illegal late-term abortions for dubious mental health concerns, but Kansas courts threw out the charges in a politicized manner. Rep. Lance Kinzer [Olathe-R], was behind the amendments [LifeNews.com]. "I brought this legislation forward after becoming concerned the legislature was not getting sufficient information to understand the real cause of late-term abortions in Kansas," Rep. Kinzer said. "It is my hope that with clearer reporting, the legislature will be able to implement public policy to address those causes and reduce the need of late-term abortions."
The House voted for the amendment on a 77-47 vote and added it to the House Substitute for SB 357, which is a state spending bill.

Kinzer's amendment also directs the Kansas Board of Healing Arts to affirm that the referring physician required by state law for late-term abortions is not legally or financially affiliated with the person doing the abortion.
"Currently it is difficult to determine whether our existing laws are being followed because of the lack of information available to the legislature. We need to make sure all our laws are being adhered to," he said.

It also prohibits three state agencies from spending any funds unless they provide the legislature more information about abortion practitioners and late-term abortions.

Under the provision the state Department of Health and Environment would need to revise its forms to gather additional information about the late-term abortions, the medical condition of the women having them, and a second diagnosis from a doctor that the abortion is medically necessary.
Meanwhile, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services would be required to disclose information concerning crimes against minors. That's important because pro-life advocates are concerned that abortion businesses are not reporting cases of abortions done on minors who are victims of sexual abuse or statutory rape.
Related: Kansans for Life - http://www.kfl.org [27April2007, Ertelt, LifeNews.com, Topeka]