Creating Synthetic Humans: Secret Harvard Meeting

On Tuesday, well over a hundred elite scientists were invited to discuss synthesizing the human genome — creating life from basic chemicals without biological parents, thus advancing beyond designer babies to creatures such as a synthetic Einstein (or Frankenstein).  Although the ethics of such advancement is controversial, what upset the greater scientific community and the media was their exclusion from the meeting.

“. . . would it be OK to sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome? If so how many Einstein genomes would it be OK to make and install in cells, and who could get to make and control these cells?”
-- Drew Endy, Stanford scientist & Laurie Zoloth, Northwestern University bioethicist

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Human 'Lab Rats' Tortured for Weeks, Then Killed

Embryo-killing Essential for Life, Scientists Say

3-Parent Babies are Ethical: Experts to Obama FDA

-- From "Secret Harvard meeting on synthetic human genomes incites ethics debate" by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post 5/13/16

Drew Endy, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, and Laurie Zoloth, a professor of medical ethics and humanities at Northwestern University, published an essay this week raising questions about whether the gathering at Harvard had gone too far. After citing the beneficial possibilities of such research, they raised the thornier ethical questions . . .

Meanwhile, Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.-based Center for Genetics and Society, a politically progressive organization that has had a skeptical view of biotechnology, issued a statement Friday criticizing the Harvard gathering: "If these reports are accurate, the meeting looks like a move to privatize the current conversation about heritable genetic modification."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Critics attack Harvard’s secret meeting on human genome synthesis" by Lisa M. Krieger, Santa Cruz Sentinel 5/14/16

The goal of the project — discussed Tuesday by an invitation-only group of about 130 scientists, lawyers, entrepreneurs and government officials from five continents — “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years,” according to the invitation.

Organizers included Harvard Medical School genetics Professor George Church and San Francisco-based Andrew Hessel of Autodesk’s Bio/Nano Research Group.

It portends a future with sci-fi implications, when a human genome — the complete set of genetic instructions for a human being — could be assembled like a Tinkertoy.

“Genomics is in the middle of four revolutions: sequencing, editing, synthesizing and understanding,” said Hank Greely, director of Stanford’s Center for Law and the Biosciences. “The first is well-advanced, the second coming on strong, the third just starting and the fourth — and most important — still scratching the surface.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome" by Andrew Pollack, New York Times 5/13/16

Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.

But such an attempt would raise numerous ethical issues. Could scientists create humans with certain kinds of traits, perhaps people born and bred to be soldiers? Or might it be possible to make copies of specific people?

The project does not yet have funding, Dr. Church said, though various companies and foundations would be invited to contribute, and some have indicated interest. The federal government will also be asked. A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment, saying the project was in too early a stage.

Right now, synthesizing DNA is difficult and error-prone. . . . But the cost and capabilities are rapidly improving. Dr. Endy of Stanford, who is a co-founder of a DNA synthesis company called Gen9, said the cost of synthesizing genes has plummeted from $4 per base pair in 2003 to 3 cents now. But even at that rate, the cost for three billion letters would be $90 million. He said if costs continued to decline at the same pace, that figure could reach $100,000 in 20 years.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Top scientists hold closed meeting to discuss building a human genome from scratch" by Ike Swetlitz, STAT 5/13/16

Synthesizing genomes involves building them from the ground up — chemically combining molecules to create DNA. Similar work by Craig Venter in 2010 created what was hailed as the first synthetic cell, a bacterium with a comparatively small genome.

In recent months, Church has been vocal in saying that the much-hyped genome-editing technology called CRISPR, which is only a few years old and which he helped develop, would soon be obsolete. Instead of changing existing genomes through CRISPR, Church has said, scientists could build exactly the genomes they want from scratch, by stringing together off-the-shelf DNA letters.

The topic is a heavy one, touching on fundamental philosophical questions of meaning and being. If we can build a synthetic genome — and eventually, a creature — from the ground up, then what does it mean to be human?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "How Close Are We To An Entirely Synthetic Human?" by James Maynard, Tech Times 5/15/16

Human genomes are normally passed on from parent to child, transferring inheritable traits. Creating such a genome may be possible in as little as a decade, organizers of the meeting contend. However, even if the creation of such a genetic code transpired in the coming years, these sequences could only be placed within a cell to test the genome. This would still be a far cry from the creation of an entire synthetically-formed human being.

Once the technology is available to easily and inexpensively synthesize human genomes, a bevy of ethical dilemmas will present themselves. First, if it is possible to sequence and produce genomes of the best and brightest people in the world, how many copies of the same sequence should be produced, and who would be able to obtain them? Will parents who wish to raise a scientist be allowed to utilize genes patterned after famed physicist Albert Einstein? What about sports-minded parents who want a child with the baseball-related skills of Red Sox slugger David Ortiz?

Researchers are still a long way from the development of an entire synthetic human genome, however. The first man-made species, JCVI-syn1.0, was created in 2010.

Those people who worry about the development of this technology have a long time to wait before their fears may be realized, but that day is coming.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Virgin Births: IVF Eliminating Fatherhood

And read Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Indiana Outlaws Killing Disabled, Abortionists Sue

Yesterday, Gov. Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337, which makes it illegal to perform abortions on babies based on fetal genetic abnormalities or the fetus's race, sex or ancestry, and mandates that otherwise aborted babies must be buried or cremated.  Planned Parenthood has announced it will seek a court injunction to continue its butchery status quo.

"I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable — the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn."
-- Gov. Mike Pence, Indiana

For background, read Arizona Bans Race- or Sex-Selection Abortion and hampers Abortion of Disabled

Also read Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Planned Parenthood Illegally Dumps Babies in Landfills in Ohio, Kentucky and South Carolina

Aborted Babies Incinerated to Produce Waste Heat

Abortions Outlawed at 20 Weeks in South Dakota

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Abortionist Says: God Called Me to Kill Black Babies

Most Abortions are Black and Hispanic Babies

Also read Feminists Decry Super Bowl Ad for 'Humanizing Fetuses'

-- From "New Indiana law bans abortions based on fetal genetic abnormalities like Down syndrome" by The Associated Press 3/24/16

Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the measure just hours ahead of his deadline to take action on the proposal approved by the Republican-dominated Legislature two weeks ago, the governor's office said. It is due to take effect in July, but Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it will ask a court to block the measure before that can happen.

Pence called the bill "a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life."

Pence was a prominent abortion rights opponent while serving in Congress before being elected governor in 2012 and received perfect scores from Indiana Right to Life for his record of opposing abortion.

Pence is also facing a tough re-election campaign in a rematch against Democrat John Gregg and will be counting on a strong turnout from his evangelical base in November. Gregg said Thursday he would have vetoed the measure.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Governor Signs Abortion Bill With Added Restrictions" by Mitch Smith, New York Times 3/24/16

The law, which passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled General Assembly with large majorities, builds on Indiana’s already restrictive abortion rules, and was cheered by anti-abortion groups that had encouraged Gov. Mike Pence to sign it.

In addition to holding doctors liable if a woman has an abortion solely because of objections to the fetus’s race, sex or a disability, like Down syndrome, the law restricts fetal tissue donation and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital or to have an agreement with a doctor who does.

The measure drew a sharp rebuke from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights groups, and the law returned Indiana to the center of a national debate about social issues.

The law could also put some doctors who perform abortions in jeopardy if it is learned that a woman told them that she chose to end her pregnancy because of gender, disabilities or other reasons limited by the law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer" by Chelsea Schneider and Tony Cook, Indianapolis Star 3/25/16

It's a divisive issue that's once again placed the state at the center of a national debate. And a legal challenge to the law, which takes effect in July, is already in the works. Less than half an hour after Pence signed the measure, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it plans to request a preliminary injunction to block the new restrictions . . . [by] working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in its plans to file a legal challenge.

“By enacting this legislation, we take an important step in protecting the unborn, while still providing an exception for the life of the mother. I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families,” Pence said in a statement.

The controversial and potentially unconstitutional measure further restricts abortion in Indiana — already one of the most restrictive states in the nation. . . .

Social conservative groups, including Indiana Right to Life and the American Family Association of Indiana, had advocated for the new restrictions. Micah Clark, the leader of the family association, has said the measure “protects these special needs children from an intentional abortion based upon their genetics” in an email to supporters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Bans Abortions Based On Gender, Race And Prenatal Diagnosis Of Disabilities" by Reuters 3/25/16

Republicans ushered the bill through the state legislature over the last three months despite opposition from some conservative lawmakers, including Representative Cindy Kirchhofer, who felt the measure was too restrictive.

North Dakota is the only U.S. state that prohibits abortions based on fetal anomalies. Seven states ban those based on gender, and Arizona prohibits those based on race, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that tracks abortion laws.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Becomes Second State to Ban Abortions Based on Down Syndrome" by Steven Ertelt, Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews.com 3/24/16

. . . The bill also has several other abortion-related measures, including a requirement that aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried and another requirement that abortionists who have hospital admitting privileges renew them annually. The burial/cremation requirement backs up a law passed in 2015 by Gov. Pence requiring that aborted babies’ bodies be disposed of in a humane way.

Indiana state Sen. Liz Brown, who worked with [Sen. Travis] Holdman on the measure, said previously that many families face pressure to abort from doctors or other health care professionals when their babies are diagnosed with an illness or disability in the womb. LifeNews has documented numerous cases of families saying the same thing.

“What we hear from doctors is — it would really be better off if you were not born,” Brown said. “If you are born, we will love you, and we think you have equal rights and should be a member of society. In fact, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act and have to make accommodations. But we don’t want to make the accommodation before you’re born, and in fact, it would really be easier if you were not born.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law" by Chelsea Schneider, Tony Cook and Shari Rudavsky, Indianapolis Star 3/24/16

. . . questions remain about whether the bill will have much of a practical impact on the decisions women make or on Indiana's abortion rate, which has declined 20 percent in the past five years and is below the national average.

. . . it's unclear how the law would play out in real life. The proposed ban on abortions would apply only when the sole reason for seeking the procedure is because the fetus may have a disability or is of a certain gender, race, color, national origin or ancestry.

Beth Cate, a public policy professor at Indiana University, questioned whether doctors would be left to infer a woman’s reasons for seeking an abortion based on her medical questions.

How do you know the reason a woman is seeking an abortion unless she explicitly states it — or does the doctor try to read her mind?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

And read 'Free' Abortions Promised by Hillary Clinton for Planned Parenthood Endorsement

Gov't Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Due to a shortage of human organs, the UK National Health Service (NHS) is reportedly pressuring expectant mothers suspected of carrying offspring with serious abnormalities to fully gestate while offering their babies as non-consenting organ donors upon delivery in return for remuneration.  Responding to media uproar, the NHS admitted to the financial support and said that such donation is solely a parental decision.

For background, read Implanting Harvested Aborted Organs in Animals for Human Transplant

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Boy 'Created' Artificially to Cure Sister's Disease

Harvesting Blood of Children for Fountain of Youth

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video

Also read 'Humanized Mice' Created from Organs Harvested via Abortion

-- From "Babies’ organs ‘could save 100 lives a year’" by Elizabeth Beynon, UK Sunday Times 3/6/16

Some defects or disorders, which mean a child cannot survive after birth, can be detected early in pregnancy. One defect, anencephaly, in which the child’s brain fails to develop, can be spotted by a scan as early as 12 weeks.

Under the proposals, pregnant women discovered to be carrying such babies would be supported through the remainder of their pregnancy, allowing the child’s organs to develop fully. They would give birth as normal and key organs would be removed from the baby once it had been certified dead.

About 230 babies with anencephaly are aborted every year in Britain. Only a dozen are born alive.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Organ Harvesting: Are UK Women Going To Be Pressurized To Have Babies?" posted at HealthAim 3/7/16

A shortage of donated organs poses a problem for health authorities across the world who fail to save the lives of the patients who need them. Organ harvesting has always been surrounded by an ethical debate, however, it has largely become an accepted medical practice in the recent times.

The issue became highlighted following the annual meeting of the British Transplantation Society in Glasgow. Participating parties discussed and suggested ways to increase organ donations, wherein the NHS considered “proposals that would see mothers ‘supported’ to go ahead with the birth of children with non-survivable conditions,” reports The Independent.

However, the claim has been completely ridiculed by the NHS authorities. According to an NHS spokesperson, the organization has no way to figure out who is pregnant with a baby affected by non-survivable conditions. They can only get to know about such babies if the pregnant mother expresses her wish to donate the organs of the baby.

The spokesperson further said that organ donation of the baby under non-survivable conditions will only be considered if the potential parents express their own wish to explore the option of organ donation. The organization further claims that while supporting such families, it makes sure to explain to them that the procedure is complex and it is not always possible to go ahead with organ harvesting.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NHS denies reports women will be pressurised to have babies so their organs can be harvested" by Adam Withnall, UK Independent 3/6/16

Until recently, transplants were banned in children under the age of two months, but the rules were changed after it was proven that the organs of new-borns can make the difference between life and death – even for adults.

Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, transplant surgeon Niaz Ahmad said the NHS was looking at options for “rolling out [new-born transplants] as a viable source of organ transplantation nationally”.

And raising the prospect of discussing the option with pregnant women directly, he was quoted as saying: “There is a real potential for using these organs [and] we are going to discuss whether it is an option, somehow, to tell women in this situation, that organ donation is an option.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Obama Administration OKs Aborted Baby Brain Experiments

3-Parent Babies are Ethical: Experts to Obama FDA

Experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are advising President Obama's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve mitochondrial DNA replacement techniques (MRTs) to help about a hundred Americans give birth to creatures fabricated in a laboratory using genetic material from three unrelated people.  The experts promise that no scientists in the future will misuse the techniques to "play god" and create any Frankenstein babies.

For background, read President Obama's FDA Pushes 3-parent Babies

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

UK Government OKs Frankenstein Designer Babies

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

Also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

-- From "Three-parent babies are ok, experts say" by NBC News 2/4/16

Such "three-parent" babies could be a way for people with a high risk of rare, devastating genetic diseases to have healthy children that are genetically their own, the National Academy of Medicine panel said.

And at first, the panel advised, only male embryos should be made this way until it's clear that dangerous mutations would not be passed down to future generations.

The FDA asked the academy, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, to look at the three-person embryo processes, called mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT). These are variations of in vitro fertilization, or IVF — the method that creates so-called "test-tube babies."

MRT adds a step [to IVF]: The mother's nuclear DNA would be removed and placed into the egg cell of another woman. The father's sperm would then be used to fertilize that hybrid egg.

The new techniques would be used to prevent the transmission of certain types of diseases that occur at the mitochondrial DNA level, the experts said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says" by Rob Stein, WBEZ-FM91.5 NPR (Chicago, IL) 2/3/16

Critics of the research, meanwhile, say the number of women who could benefit from the experiments is so small that it's not worth crossing a line that's long been considered off-limits — making genetic changes that could be passed down for generations.

"The possibility of what you could call 'mission creep' is very real," says Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, a watchdog group based in Berkeley, Calif. "People are talking about going forward not just with this but with the kind of genetic engineering that will produce outright genetically modified human beings."

Once that happens, Darnovsky says, "I think you get into a situation of where some people are genetically enhanced and other people are the regular old variety of human being. And I don't think that's a world we want to live in."

. . . The FDA email praised the "thoughtful work" of the panel and said the agency would be "reviewing" the recommendations. But it noted that the latest federal budget "prevents the FDA from using funds to review applications in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include" changes that could be passed down to future generations. As a result, the email says, any such research "cannot be performed in the United States" at this time.

"I think it's a great step in the right direction," Mark Sauer, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University who is a member of one of the teams . . . "Politics as usual often gets in way of progress," Sauer said in a subsequent email. While the FDA statement would cause "undue delays" in his research, he added that he hoped it wouldn't permanently "necessarily halt the efforts."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Should scientists be allowed to change DNA to prevent genetic disease?" by Daphne Chen, Deseret News 2/3/16

"I think the field has come together to say, 'Let’s think about this together and go forward carefully,'" said Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, a professor of pediatrics and chief of medical ethics and humanities at the University of Utah.

Botkin sat on the 12-person committee that included top bioethics experts from Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard.

"There's not a bright line between where this kicks over into unethical," [University of Utah, Department of Biochemistry Dr. Jared] Rutter said. "The technology that we have is expanding … more rapidly than our sophistication with thinking about how to use it."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ethicists approve ‘3 parent’ embryos to stop diseases, but congressional ban remains" by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post 2/3/16

The committee, which was convened last year at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, concluded that it is ethically permissible to “go forward, but with caution” with mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT), said the chairman, Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.

But the advisory panel’s conclusions have slammed into a congressional ban: The omnibus fiscal 2016 budget bill passed by Congress late last year contained language prohibiting the government from using any funds to handle applications for experiments that genetically alter human embryos.

Thus the green light from the scientists and ethicists won't translate anytime soon into clinical applications that could potentially help families that want healthy babies, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a pioneer of the new technique at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore.

“It seems like the FDA is disabled in this case by Congress," Mitalipov said. “At this point we’re still not clear how to proceed."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Report: It's ethical to test embryos from DNA of 3 people" by Lauran Neergaard, Medical Xpress 2/3/16

The genes that give us our hair and eye color, our height and other family traits—and some common diseases such as cancer—come from DNA in the nucleus of cells, the kind we inherit from both mom and dad.

But only mothers pass on mitochondrial DNA, to both daughters and sons. It encodes a mere 37 genes, but defects can leave cells without enough energy and can lead to blindness, seizures, muscle degeneration, developmental disorders, even death. Severity varies widely, and researchers estimate 1 in 5,000 children may inherit some degree of mitochondrial disease.

Critics have argued that the first such births would have to be tracked for decades to be sure they're really healthy, and that families could try adoption or standard IVF with a donated egg instead. And they say it crosses a fundamental scientific boundary by altering what's called the germline—eggs, sperm or embryos—in a way that could affect future generations.

"It is reckless to proceed with this form of germline modification," said Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society, an advocacy group.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UK's Frankenstein: Designer Babies OK'd by Gov't

Today, the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) announced it authorized a private research firm to use abandoned babies, a.k.a. "leftover" embryos, to perform human genetic code editing.  Bioethicists have warned for years that such research will certainly lead to so-called "designer babies."

"This is the first step on a path that scientists have carefully mapped out towards the legalization of (genetically modified) babies."
-- David King, Human Genetics Alert

For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science and also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

UPDATE 2/4/16: 3-Parent Babies ARE Ethical, Experts Tell President Obama's FDA

Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

And read Genetic Scientists Worshiped as Creators of Life

-- From "Britain Okays Gene Editing Experiment on Human Embryos" by The Associated Press 2/1/16

Scientists say gene-editing techniques could one day lead to treatments for conditions like HIV, which causes AIDS, and inherited diseases like muscular dystrophy and sickle cell disease.

Peter Braude, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, said the mechanisms being investigated by [Dr. Kathy] Niakan and colleagues "are crucial in ensuring healthy, normal development and implantation" and could help doctors understand how to improve in vitro fertilization rates and prevent miscarriages.

The gene-editing technique was developed partly in the U.S. and scientists there have experimented with the method in animals and in human cells in the laboratory. Gene editing has not been used for any kinds of patient therapies yet.

Around the world, laws and guidelines vary widely about what kind of research is allowed on embryos, since it could change the genes of future generations. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health cannot fund research on human embryos but private funding is allowed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Britain gives scientists permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Rachel Feltman, Washington Post 2/1/16

The news comes less than a year after the first reports of human-gene editing — published by Chinese scientists in the journal Protein and Cell — using the fantastic and at times troubling technology known as CRISPR. By harnessing an ancient defense mechanism built into bacteria, CRISPR allows scientists to target, delete and replace specific genes. It has been used extensively in other organisms, but research in humans has been slow.

The Chinese experiments reported last year were largely unsuccessful. Few of the embryos in the experiment were successfully modified, and even fewer had the changes that scientists intended to make. None of the embryos were gestated, and the authors of the study readily admitted that their error rate was too high for use on viable embryos.

. . . Britain now has become the first country to approve the use of public funding for such research. In the United States, labs have to find private funding for any research that creates or destroys human embryos, and some lawmakers seek to ban it altogether. Even in China, where the first "successful" editing occurred, the guidelines are murky.

The University of Kent's Darren Griffin called the [HFEA] ruling "a triumph for common sense" in a statement, and Sarah Norcross, director of Progress Educational Trust, lauded the decision as "a victory for level-headed regulation over moral panic."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "UK scientists given go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos" by Sheena McKenzie, for CNN 2/1/16

Scientists will be focusing on the first seven days of a fertilized egg's growth. In these early days, a fertilized egg evolves from a single cell to around 250 cells.

The research, which will be led by Dr. Kathy Niakan, will take place at the Francis Crick Institute in London and has been hailed as a "triumph for common sense" by leading figures of the British science community.

However, the research has also raised concerns that it could pave the way for "designer babies" -- going beyond health improvements and modifying everything from a child's eye color to intelligence.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos" by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor, UK Telegraph 2/1/16

Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.

If scientists knew which genes were crucial for healthy cell division, then they could screen out embryos where their DNA was not working properly, potentially preventing miscarriages and aiding fertility.

The team at Francis Crick are already in talks with fertility clinics across the country to use their spare embryos.

Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said: “Allowing the gene editing of embryos opens the road to genetically modifying all the descendants of a person as well as full blown eugenics which was condemned by all civilised societies after the Second World War.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Britain grants first licence for genetic modification of embryos" posted at Medical Xpress 2/1/16

[Dr. Kathy] Niakan has said she is planning to modify the embryos using a technique known as CRISPR-Cas9, which allows scientists to insert, remove and correct DNA within a cell.

The embryos will not become children as they must be destroyed within 14 days and can only be used for basic research.

She plans to find the genes at play in the first few days of fertilisation when an embryo develops a coating of cells that later become the placenta.

The embryos to be used in the research are ones that would have been destroyed, donated by couples receiving In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment who do not need them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "British researchers get green light to genetically modify human embryos" by Haroon Siddique, UK Guardian 2/1/16

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at the Francis Crick Institute . . . said it would also provide invaluable information about the accuracy and efficiency of the technique, helping to inform the debate about whether genome editing could be used in future to correct faulty genes that cause devastating diseases.

That prospect remains a long way off but is already a subject of concern. There are also fears that changes to an embryo’s DNA could have unknown harmful consequences throughout a person’s body and be passed on down the generations.

Last year, leading UK funders called for a national debate on whether editing human embryos could ever be justified in the clinic. Some fear that a public backlash could derail less controversial uses of genome editing, which could lead to radical new treatments for disease.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-life charity criticises decision to allow UK scientists to genetically modify human embryos" by Staff Reporter, Catholic Herald 2/1/16

After the announcement Anne Scanlan, the education director of Life, said . . . “[HFEA] has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure, which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings. We do not know what long term side effects the tampering with some strands of DNA could have on other strands. However once genetic changes have been made they will be irreversible and handed down to future generations.”

Miss Scanlan added: “We are also concerned that such controversial intervention in the human germline opens up the very real possibility of eugenics where the existence of human beings becomes conditional on the possession of certain physical characteristics.

“Whilst we note the HFEA restriction on the implantation of genetically modified embryos, it is sending the wrong signals by allowing scientists the ability to develop and possibly perfect the technology here in the UK. To mitigate any advancement on the potentially dangerous work being undertaken by these British scientists, we believe that an international ban on human DNA editing is urgently needed to protect the future of the human species.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama's Food and Drug Administration considers lab science that 'Creates' Designer Baby with 3 Biological Parents

And read IVF Eliminating Fatherhood via Virgin Births

Creators of Life Worshiped — Prizes to Scientists

Disappointed after decades of searching in vain for life beyond Earth, science journalists have turned their focus to proven success in creating life here on Earth through genetic manipulation known as CRISPR-Cas9.  Not only are Nobel prizes in the offing, but funding sources have opened up, including from billionaire Bill Gates.  Although scientists envision endless possibilities for the potential good, they equally fear the inevitable devastating evil uses of such breakthroughs.

"The gene drive immediately makes the organisms that carry it have the characteristic, and then secondly it causes them to have all their children have the same characteristic."
-- Ethan Bier, Biologist, University of California, San Diego

"If any group or country wanted to develop germ warfare agents, they could use techniques like this.  It would be quite straightforward to make new pathogens this way."
-- Stuart Newman, Biologist, New York Medical College

For background, read Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science and also read Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say



-- From "Gene editing: Research spurs debate over promise vs. ethics" Lauran Neergaard, Medical Writer, Associated Press 10/11/15

Should we change people’s genes in a way that passes traits to future generations? Beyond medicine, what about the environmental effects if, say, altered mosquitoes escape before we know how to use them?

“We need to try to get the balance right,” said University of California, Berkeley, biochemist Jennifer Doudna. She helped develop new gene-editing technology and hears from desperate families, but urges caution in how it’s eventually used in people.

Laboratories worldwide are embracing a technology to precisely edit genes inside living cells — turning them off or on, repairing or modifying them — like a biological version of cut-and-paste software. . . .

“It’s transforming almost every aspect of biology right now,” said National Institutes of Health genomics specialist Shawn Burgess.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Powerful 'Gene Drive' Can Quickly Change An Entire Species" by Rob Stein, WBEZ-NPR (National Public Radio) 11/5/15

[Biologist Ethan] Bier was stunned by what he saw. . . . His student, Valentino Gantz, had found a way to get brown fruit flies to produce blond-looking offspring most of the time.

Turning fruit flies from brown to yellow might not sound like a major achievement. But it was. It showed that scientists had a very fast and easy way to permanently change an entire species.

The drive is a sequence of DNA that can cause a mutation to be inherited by the offspring of an organism with nearly 100 percent efficiency, regardless of whether it's beneficial for that organism's survival.

By combining it with new genetic editing techniques, scientists are able to drive changes they make quickly through an entire species.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bill Gates on Revolutionary Tech: CRISPR" by Carlos Watson, Yahoo News 11/9/15

The technology Bill Gates is most excited about: Say hello to gene editing!

. . . CRISPR technology, which is changing how we think about genetics and health. CRISPR technology basically allows for gene editing — it’s like a scapel that can cut out harmful mutations and turn genes on and off. The potential applications range from fighting hereditary disease in people to boosting crop yields to engineering cows without horns, so as to obviate a painful dehorning procedure. The ethical implications have barely been sussed out.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Nobel speculation kicks into high gear" by Chris Cesare, Nature 9/24/15

Nobel prize season is approaching, and scientists and other pundits have begun the annual ritual of speculating — with varying degrees of seriousness — about who will win this year’s awards.

The annual predictions by Thomson Reuters, released this year on 24 September, name more women than ever before: four in total. Among the potential laureates for the chemistry prize are Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Braunschweig, Germany, and Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, who would share the prize for helping to create the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technique.

If Doudna and Charpentier won, it would be just three years after they published their seminal paper.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Gene Hackers" by Michael Specter, The New Yorker 11/9/15 (November 16, 2015 Issue)

CRISPR has two components. The first is essentially a cellular scalpel that cuts DNA. The other consists of RNA, the molecule most often used to transmit biological information throughout the genome. It serves as a guide, leading the scalpel on a search past thousands of genes until it finds and fixes itself to the precise string of nucleotides it needs to cut. . . .

With CRISPR, scientists can change, delete, and replace genes in any animal, including us. . . .

Inevitably, the technology will also permit scientists to correct genetic flaws in human embryos. Any such change, though, would infiltrate the entire genome and eventually be passed down to children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and every subsequent generation. That raises the possibility, more realistically than ever before, that scientists will be able to rewrite the fundamental code of life, with consequences for future generations that we may never be able to anticipate. Vague fears of a dystopian world, full of manufactured humans, long ago became a standard part of any debate about scientific progress. . . .

Developing any technology as complex and widely used as CRISPR invariably involves contributions from many scientists. Patent fights over claims of discovery and licensing rights are common. [Feng] Zhang, the Broad Institute, and M.I.T. are now embroiled in such a dispute with Jennifer Doudna and the University of California; she is a professor of chemistry and of molecular biology at Berkeley. By 2012, Doudna, along with Emmanuelle Charpentier, a medical microbiologist who studies pathogens at the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, in Germany, and their lab teams, demonstrated, for the first time, that CRISPR could edit purified DNA. Their paper was published that June. In January of 2013, though, Zhang and George Church, a professor of genetics at both Harvard Medical School and M.I.T., published the first studies demonstrating that CRISPR could be used to edit human cells. Today, patents are generally awarded to the first people to file—in this case, Doudna and Charpentier. But Zhang and the Broad argued that the earlier success with CRISPR had no bearing on whether the technique would work in the complex organisms that matter most to scientists looking for ways to treat and prevent diseases. . . .

CRISPR research is becoming big business: venture-capital firms are competing with one another to invest millions, and any patent holder would have the right to impose licensing fees. Whoever wins stands to make a fortune. Other achievements are also at stake, possibly including a Nobel Prize. . . .

From the moment that manipulating genes became possible, many people, including some of those involved in the experiments, were horrified by the idea of scientists in lab coats rearranging the basic elements of life. . . .

Normally, it takes years for genetic changes to spread through a population. That is because, during sexual reproduction, each of the two versions of any gene has only a fifty per cent chance of being inherited. But a “gene drive”—which is named for its ability to propel genes through populations over many generations—manages to override the traditional rules of genetics. A mutation made by CRISPR on one chromosome can copy itself in every generation, so that nearly all descendants would inherit the change. . . .

While CRISPR will clearly make it possible to alter our DNA, serious risks remain. Jennifer Doudna has been among the most vocal of those calling for caution on what she sees as the inevitable march toward editing human genes. “It’s going to happen,” she told me the first time we met, in her office at Berkeley. “As a research tool, CRISPR could hardly be more valuable—but we are far from the day when it should be used in a clinical setting.” . . .

Until April, the ethical debate over the uses of CRISPR technology in humans was largely theoretical. Then a group at Sun Yat-sen University, in southern China, attempted to repair, in eighty-six human embryos, the gene responsible for betathalassemia, a rare but often fatal blood disorder. If those disease genes, and genes that cause conditions like cystic fibrosis, could be modified successfully in a fertilized egg, the alteration could not only protect a single individual but eventually eliminate the malady from that person’s hereditary lineage. Given enough time, the changes would affect all of humanity. The response to the experiment was largely one of fear and outrage. The Times carried the story under the headline “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns.” . . .

[Doudna] told me that she was constantly amazed by [CRISPR] potential, but when I asked if she had ever wondered whether the powerful new tool might do more harm than good she looked uncomfortable. “I lie in bed almost every night and ask myself that question,” she said. “When I’m ninety, will I look back and be glad about what we have accomplished with this technology? Or will I wish I’d never discovered how it works?”

Her eyes narrowed, and she lowered her voice almost to a whisper. “I have never said this in public, but it will show you where my psyche is,” she said. “I had a dream recently, and in my dream”—she mentioned the name of a leading scientific researcher—“had come to see me and said, ‘I have somebody very powerful with me who I want you to meet, and I want you to explain to him how this technology functions.’ So I said, Sure, who is it? It was Adolf Hitler. I was really horrified, but I went into a room and there was Hitler. He had a pig face and I could only see him from behind and he was taking notes and he said, ‘I want to understand the uses and implications of this amazing technology.’ I woke up in a cold sweat. And that dream has haunted me from that day. Because suppose somebody like Hitler had access to this—we can only imagine the kind of horrible uses he could put it to.”

To read all of the extremely long article above, CLICK HERE.

Smithsonian Favors Racist Eugenicist vs. Blacks

Curators at the Smithsonian Institution art and history museum are rejecting calls for the removal of a bust of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.  Rather, the national historians say that the famous early 20th Century American eugenicist, who referred to the negro race as "human weeds" and "human waste," belongs in the museum's civil rights “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

"We are paying for, even submitting to, the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all. . . . We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the [colored] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-- Margaret Sanger (writing to birth control advocate Dr. Clarence Gamble in 1939)

"The last thing we need is a white supremacist sitting between the bust of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. That is a slap in the face of black folks and I hope the curator can understand that."
-- Rev. Johnny Hunter, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation

For background, read Sanger's 'Extermination of Negros' Goal Censored by Media and also read Black Abortion Key to Reducing Poverty, Says Mayor as well as Minorities (mostly black) Targeted by Planned Parenthood for Abortion: Study

And read Illegal Abortion Clinic in Selma — Black Lives Matter



-- From "Conservatives Want Bust of Planned Parenthood Founder Removed From National Portrait Gallery" by Daniel White, Time Magazine 8/27/15

Conservative groups are calling on the National Portrait Gallery to remove of a bust of Margaret Sanger from the Washington, D.C. museum, the Associated Press reports. Sanger, who died in 1966, founded two groups that eventually became Planned Parenthood.

. . . a group of ministers lead by former Republican politician E.W. Jackson and the conservative non-profit ForAmerica say their opposition to the bust is based on Sanger’s support of eugenics, a social movement that sought to remove undesirable traits from the gene pool through sterilization and selective breeding.

. . . Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas have written a letter to lawmakers that calls the sculpture’s display by the museum “an affront both to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.”

In a statement to TIME, Planned Parenthood acknowledged Sanger’s flaws, but dismissed the attacks as motivated by anti-abortion sentiment.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Conservatives target bust of Planned Parenthood founder" by The Associated Press - CBS News 8/27/15

[Birth control advocate Margaret] Sanger, who died in 1966, also supported eugenics, a now-condemned effort to discourage reproduction by criminals and others with undesirable traits. Brent Bozell, chairman of the conservative group ForAmerica, and a group of black pastors say Sanger favored using eugenics to limit the population of blacks, a claim that some Republican lawmakers have echoed but for which the evidence is contested.

"She will not be removed," museum spokeswoman Bethany Bentley said Wednesday. She said the gallery displays "significant people who represent the full spectrum of the American experience," including some with "less than admirable characteristics."

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the group's website describes Sanger as "one of the movement's great heroes." It says women's progress in education, jobs and politics "can be directly linked to Sanger's crusade and women's ability to control their own fertility."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Black Pastors Protest Smithsonian Bust of Planned Parenthood's Nazi-Like Founder Margaret Sanger in Civil Rights Exhibit" by Samuel Smith, Christian Post Reporter 8/27/15

Prominent black pastors and pro-life activists gathered in front of the National Portrait Gallery on Thursday to demand that the taxpayer-funded museum remove a bust of Planned Parenthood's white supremacist founder, Margaret Sanger, from the institution's "Struggle for Justice" exhibit.

Nearly 20 African-American pastors and pro-life advocates spoke at the rally and explained that Sanger, who established abortion organizations that eventually became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not advocate for abortion and birth control because she wanted to help "disadvantaged women," but because it was her goal to use eugenics to eliminate what she considered people of "inferior races."

In response to the letter sent by the coalition Ministers Taking a Stand earlier this month, National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet replied with a letter stating that the gallery will keep the bust because Sanger brought "medical advice and affordable birth control to disadvantaged women."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Black Pastors, Pro-Life Leaders Rally to Demand Smithsonian Remove Bust of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger" by Penny Starr and Lauretta Brown, CNSNews.com 8/27/15

“The woman was a racist. She was a genocidal figure in America and in human history, and to honor her is to be complicit in her evil and her racism,” [Bishop E.W.] Jackson said. “That’s right. If you are honoring Margaret Sanger, you are joining together with her in her racist ideology.”

Rev. Johnny Hunter of the Global Life and Family Mission in North Carolina, said it was a “slap in the face to black folks” to have Sanger as part of the “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

“Her association with the eugenics movement shadowed her achievements in sex education and contraception, making her a figure of controversy, one whose complexities and contradictions mirror her times,” Director Kim Sajet told the pastors in an Aug. 19 letter.

“There is no ‘moral test’ for people to be accepted into the National Portrait Gallery,” said Sajet.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "#BlackLivesMatter: Pastors Take on Controversial Legacy of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, Black Genocide in Scathing Letter" posted by Manny Otiko at Atlanta Black Star 8/10/15

Sanger worked to bring birth control to Black families in the south, but recognized her ideas would be met with suspicion. According to Factcheck.org, an organization that verifies media statements made by elected officials, Sanger wrote about the importance of gaining support from a black clergyman.

Considering its origins, the Black community has long viewed the birth control movement with suspicion. Many Black people felt that early experiments with birth control pills used Black communities as test subjects. And up until recently, some states still practiced elements of eugenics with mentally challenged people and other undesirables being forcibly sterilized. An Atlanta Blackstar story reported several cases of Black female inmates in California being sterilized without their consent.

Today, anti-abortion activists say the high rate of abortion in the Black community carries elements of eugenics. According to figures from the Center for Disease Control, while Black people make up about 14 percent of the population, 40 percent of abortions are carried out by Black women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

America Protests Planned Parenthood, Media Ignore

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video

Planned Parenthood Reports its Abortions & Profits Increased Last Year

President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood

Also read and view a vintage interview with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

Taxpayers' $Billions to Abortionists: Gov't Report

This week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigatory arm of Congress, released a report documenting the unprecedented funding by the Obama administration of Planned Parenthood and five other organizations that promote abortion and population control to the tune of more than $1.5 billion over a three-year period (2010-2012).

“It is unconscionable that the federal government would fund Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups which prefer profit over life.”
-- Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri)

UPDATE 9/5/15: ObamaCare Funnels $1 Million to Planned Parenthood

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

ObamaCare Lies: Taxpayers Now Fund Abortions, Says Government Study

Planned Parenthood Reports its Abortions & Profits Increased Last Year

Taxpayers Provide Almost Half of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$

Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers

Planned Parenthood Faces $5.5 Billion (with a "B") Fine for Fraud

Also read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

In addition, read how Planned Parenthood teams up with schools by providing "kinky sex trainers" for kids across America.

-- From "GAO reports on federal aid to groups that perform, advocate or study abortions" by Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune 3/25/15

Six groups that perform abortions, advocate for the right to the procedure, or study family planning issues received over $441 million in federal funding in the three years between 2010 and 2012, according to a congressional report requested by anti-abortion lawmakers.

There's no indication from the report that the money went for abortions, but the lawmakers, including Sen. David Vitter, R-La, said it affirms their view that Congress should pass legislation that bars any federal funding for groups that perform abortion.

"Taxpayer funding should in no way support abortions," Vitter said. "But when we hand out funding to groups like Planned Parenthood, we know exactly where it's going -- they proudly admit that the majority of their pregnancy-related resources go toward abortions. We can't let this federal support come at the expense of millions of unborn children."

To read the entire article above, CLIC HERKE.

From "Olson, Black, Smith and Vitter respond to GAO report revealing federal funding of abortion advocates" posted at The Journal (Friendswood, TX) 3/25/15

The report found that the six organizations spent $481 million in federal funding from Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012, as well as about $1.2 billion in combined federal and state funds under federal health programs that require shared funding. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) spent the greatest share of this public funding – approximately $1.5 billion in combined state and federal dollars, or an average of about $500 million each year. Olson, Black, Smith, and Vitter led more than 60 House and Senate Members in calling for this study in February 2013. They released the following statements:

“It shouldn't take a GAO request from Congress for the American public to know where their tax dollars are being spent. Yet, since I've been in Congress, this is the only way we can get answers. That's why I continue to demand transparency and fight to stop organizations like Planned Parenthood from receiving a single tax dollar. I will continue to do all I can to prevent taxpayers from being forced to support organizations that promote or perform abortions. Greater transparency is critically important and precisely what these groups seek to avoid,” said Congressman Pete Olson.

To read the entire press release above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hartzler Responds to GAO Report Revealing Federal Funds Going to Abortion Advocacy Groups" by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), posted at KOLR-TV10 (Springfield, MO) 3/25/15

The GAO report, which was released on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, stemmed from a request in 2013 from a group of pro-life members of Congress for up-to-date information regarding federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

According to its 2013-2014 annual report, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing 327,653 abortions in 2013 (last reported year). That is an average of 898 abortions every day, 37 abortions every hour, 3 abortions every 5 minutes and more than 1 abortion every two minutes.

During this same year, according to its own statistics, Planned Parenthood only provided 1,880 adoption referrals and 18,684 prenatal services.  This means that in 2013, abortions made up 94.1% of these three pregnancy services, while prenatal care and adoption referrals accounted for only 5.4% (18,684) and .5% (1,800), respectively.

To read the entire press release above, CLICK HERE.

From "U.S. taxpayers gave Planned Parenthood, other abortion advocates $1.5 billion over three years: GAO report" by Dustin Siggins, LifeSiteNews.com 3/27/15

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided an update to a 2010 report on funding provided to Advocates for Youth, Guttmacher Institute, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Council, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

The report examined federal funding for the organizations -- including those dollars furnished through state offices, such as Medicaid funding -- as well as how the groups spent the money.

The GAO examined a total of $19 billion sent to, and $10 billion spent by, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).

Approximately $107 million of the direct federal funding for the six groups came from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). Another $128 million for Population Council and Planned Parenthood came from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Received $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over Three Years, Gov't Report Finds" by Samuel Smith, Christian Post Reporter 3/26/15

The report, which was compiled after a group of over 60 pro-life Congress members led by U.S. Reps. Diane Black, R-Tenn., Chris Smith, R-N.J. and Pete Olson, R-Texas, sent a letter to GAO in February of 2013 asking for data on the how much federal funding was expended by six major organizations who advocate and or perform elective abortion-on-demand from 2010-2012.

Although the Hyde Amendment, which was made law in 1976, prohibits the federal government from using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, elective abortion providers and supporters are able to secure federal funding because of the other services they offer, senior policy advisor for the Christian pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue, Cheryl Sullenger, previously told The Christian Post.

"The Obama Administration is committed to advancing a pro-abortion agenda and continually has placed the demands of abortion advocates and providers at the top of its public health agenda for six years [and] all the expenses [are] the taxpayers," said the director of Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, Arina Grossu, in a press release.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Government cash keeps Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in business" by Genevieve C. Plaster, Charlotte Lozier Institute, posted at National Review 3/27/15

GAO found that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates alone received $344.5 million in federal funding, and a whopping $1.5 billion in taxpayer money overall when state funds received through Medicaid are included. With a majority of Americans opposing taxpayer funding of abortion, the GAO report highlights the pressing need to defund Big Abortion — if not out of respect for the unborn, then at the very least out of respect for the wishes of the taxpayer.

According to the study,

The six organizations reported expending over $482 million in federal funding from fiscal year 2010 though fiscal year 2012. The six organizations reported expending funding they received directly and indirectly from federal agencies, including HHS and USAID, as well as the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Most Americans Oppose Abortion, According to Polls

And read Gallup Poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

Secret Designer Babies via Gene-editing Science

Despite worldwide near-unanimity of its illegality, scientists have covertly, for the first time, genetically modified the DNA of human egg cells such that human embryos could be created of a specific pre-determined design, such as superhumans, by governments or wealthy individuals.

“Genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable.”
-- Geneticist Fyodor Urnov (Sangamo BioSciences, Richmond, CA), et. al.

UPDATE 2/1/16 - UK's Frankenstein: Designer Babies OK'd by Government

For background, read President Obama's Food and Drug Administration considers lab science that 'Creates' Designer Baby with 3 Biological Parents

Also read Toddler to 'Own' 11 Future Children: An IVF Wonder

In addition, read how science is creating and destroying human life to advance "health care."

UPDATE 9/10/15: Unborn Must Die so Others Can Live, Scientists Say

-- From "American scientists are trying to genetically modify human eggs" by Steve Connor, Science editor, UK Independent 3/13/15

The research was carried out on ovary cells taken from a woman with inherited ovarian cancer to investigate the possibility of eventually using gene-editing to produce IVF embryos free of the familial disease. The results are yet to be published.

Editing the chromosomes of human eggs or sperm to create genetically modified IVF embryos is illegal in Britain and many other countries because of concerns about safety and the possibility of the technique being used to create genetically enhanced “designer babies”.

Several teams of researchers around the world are believed to be working on ways of modifying the chromosomes of human egg cells with a view to moving towards “germ-line” gene therapy, as the process is called. Germ-line refers to the “germ” cells – sperm and eggs – that pass on genes to future generations.

The work was carried out last year by Luhan Yang, a researcher working in the lab of the veteran Harvard geneticist George Church. But the study has not been published in a scientific journal and Dr Yang was unavailable for comment.

Professor Church emphasised that the work was purely experimental. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alarm over genetic editing of human embryos that opens door to designer babies and superhumans" by Jayalakshmi K, International Business Times  3/13/15

Amidst rumours that precise gene-editing techniques have been used to create designer human embryos, researchers have called for a moratorium on the use of the technology.

Geneticist Xingxu Huang of ShanghaiTech University in China has sought permission from his institution's ethics committee to genetically modify discarded human embryos.

Precise gene-editing techniques in recent years use enzymes called nucleases to snip DNA at specific points and then delete or rewrite the genetic information at those locations. Methods like the CRISPR are simple enough to be done in a fertility clinic.

Geneticist Dana Carroll of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City says, "Germline genome alterations are permanent and heritable, so very, very careful consideration needs to be taken in advance of such applications."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists want experiments of DNA editing in human embryos to stop" by Ravi Mandalia, Techie News 3/14/15

Rumours about such experiments have been circulating the web for quite some time now and critics of the work say that such experiments could be used to try to alter the genetic quality of humans, a practice and belief known as eugenics.

Edward Lanphier, president and chief executive officer of California-based Sangamo BioSciences Inc, and senior author of the commentary published in the science journal Nature call for a self-imposed research moratorium as the work crosses an ethical line. “Humans are not rats or other (experimental) organisms, and this is not something we want to do,” Lanphier said in an interview with Reuters quotes Zee News. “The research should stop.”

According to Lanphier, who is also the chairman of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington DC, “Such research could be exploited for non-therapeutic modifications” and a “public outcry about such an ethical breach could hinder a promising area of therapeutic development.”

Lanphier added that genome-editing can itself introduce DNA errors and “the precise effects of genetic modification to an embryo may be impossible to know until after birth. Even then, potential problems may not surface for years.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scientists sound alarm over DNA editing of human embryos" by David Cyranoski, Nature 3/12/15

Known as germline modification, edits to embryos, eggs or sperm are of particular concern because a person created using such cells would have had their genetic make-up changed without consent, and would permanently pass down that change to future generations.

Germline gene editing is already banned by law in many countries — a 2014 review by Tetsuya Ishii, a bioethicist at Hokkaido University in Sapporo, Japan, found that of 39 countries, 29 have laws or guidelines that ban the practice. But the development of precise gene-editing techniques in recent years has brought fresh urgency to the issue. These techniques use enzymes called nucleases to snip DNA at specific points and then delete or rewrite the genetic information at those locations. The methods are simple enough to be used in a fertility clinic, raising fears that they might be applied in humans before safety concerns have been addressed.

Ishii worries about countries such as the United States: there, germline editing is not banned but requires government approval, but such restrictions have a history of being circumvented, as in the case of unproven stem-cell treatments. He is also concerned about China, which prohibits gene-editing of embryos but does not strictly enforce similar rules, as shown by failed attempts to curb the use of ultrasound for sex selection and to stamp out unauthorized stem-cell clinics. China is also where gene-editing techniques in primates have developed fastest. “There are already a lot of dodgy fertility clinics around the world,” he says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Scientists Create Artificial Human Eggs and Sperm

And read Gay Skin Cells Can Create Babies, Scientists Say

Abortion Access Would Reduce Poverty Rate: Study

In an analysis of "unintended childbearing," Richard Reeves and Joanna Ventor of the Brookings Institution conclude that low income women would yield fewer live births if they properly used contraceptives and if abortion were made more freely available to them. They reported that while one-third of the unborn children of wealthy single women do not survive pregnancy, over 90% of poor single women's children survive to birth.

The Planned Parenthood-associated Guttmacher Institute reports that "unintended childbearing" costs taxpayers $21 billion annually.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Lower Birth Rate Saves Taxpayers, Says Obama White House

Over-the-Counter Abortion Paid by ObamaCare: Study

Abortion Rates Plunge: Liberals Fume, Call for More Access

Liberalism Causes Poverty in America: Study

Black Abortion Key to Reducing Poverty, Says Mayor

Also read Women Shun Kids More Effectively, Liberals Cheer

And read U.S. Teenage Birth Rate Lowest on Record

In addition, read Kansas Governor Promotes Marriage to Reduce Poverty

-- From "The sex lives of rich and poor women are remarkably similar — until it comes to birth control" by Danielle Paquette, Washington Post 3/9/15

Poor women are five times as likely as affluent women to have an unintended birth, new research from the Brookings Institution shows — and that drives inequality.

The Brookings study examined fertility outcomes of 3,885 single women, none of whom were trying to get pregnant. Those with incomes below the poverty line were twice as likely to have sex without protection as those with incomes four times the poverty line, data from the National Survey of Family Growth showed.

Wealthier women who face unplanned pregnancies were also far more likely to have abortions.

Researchers reported a financial barrier to safe procedures is the primary deterrent. Equalizing abortion rates, they calculate, could reduce the unintended birth ratio by a third.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why Do Poor Women Have More Abortions?" by Amanda Marcotte, Slate 3/2/15

Using economic modeling, [Brookings] found that if poorer women had the same access to contraception as more well-off women, it would cut the birth rate for single women living in poverty in half. Doing the same for abortion would also have a dramatic impact, reducing the birth rate from 72 births per 1,000 women to 49. Of course, the real solution would be to make both contraception and abortion accessible to lower-income women, which would probably result in their unintended birth rate coming very close to what it is for higher-income women.

One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies. That may seem hard to square with data from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that the majority of abortions are obtained by women living in or near poverty: Nearly 70 percent of abortions are for women who make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty line.

How can it be true that middle-class single women abort nearly one-third of their pregnancies, but lower-income women, who abort a smaller percentage of their pregnancies, still make up most of patients sitting in abortion clinic waiting rooms on any given day? The answer is simple: Lower-income single women get pregnant way more often. Way more often.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study Claims Rich Women Have More Abortions Than Poor Women, But is That True?" by Sarah Zagorski, LifeNews.com 3/5/15

[Brookings] continued, “Control of fertility varies widely between income groups. Most unmarried women are sexually active, regardless of income. But women with higher incomes are much more successful at ensuring that sex does not lead to an accidental baby. This almost certainly reflects their brighter economic and labor market prospects: simply put, they have more to lose from an unintended birth.”

Bradley Mattes, the executive director of Life Issues Institute, commented on the data and said, “These census results clearly show that Planned Parenthood continues to pursue the eugenics philosophy of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who believed that Blacks and the poor were “unfit” to reproduce. She dedicated her life to controlling the population of these “undesirables” by advancing birth control and sterilization in their neighborhoods. Later, the legalization of abortion gave Planned Parenthood an effective and lucrative means for furthering this eugenics agenda. Although Planned Parenthood denies it, these maps [of abortion clinic locations] show conclusively that they continue to target minorities for abortion.”

Additionally, Margaret Sanger once said that women in poor areas of the world should have “no more babies.” And in September 2014, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sounded just like Sanger when she said, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.” She also admitted that she backed Roe to eliminate “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Minorities Targeted by Planned Parenthood for Abortion: Study as well as Black Genocide in New York City (nearly 2 of 3 killed in womb)

From "Why Poor Women with Unintended Pregnancies Are Less Likely to Get Abortions" by Amber Lapp, Family Studies 3/10/15

I was surprised to see that one additional explanation was missing from the study: women’s beliefs and attitudes about abortion. Is it possible that poor women are more pro-life than their affluent peers, and that these beliefs also contribute to the differences in abortion rates?

There is some national survey data that suggests this might be the case. For example, one RAND report found that “The higher the education and income levels of a respondent, the more likely he or she is to support the liberal end of the abortion spectrum, and vice versa,” and a 2012 Gallup poll revealed the same trend applies to identifying as pro-choice. When asked if the government should fund abortion services for poor women, those in the lowest income bracket were no more supportive than other respondents, RAND found.

It’s possible that there is a greater stigma against unintentional childbearing for more affluent women, who are expected by their friends and family to finish college and find a stable job before having children. (A related stat is that 76 percent of adolescents with highly educated mothers indicate that they would be embarrassed by a teenage pregnancy, compared to 61 percent of adolescents with moderately educated mothers and 48 percent of adolescents with mothers who did not graduate from high school.)

Interestingly enough, the poor and working-class women I interviewed were less likely than their more privileged peers to bring up financial instability as a reason for abortion. This may be because it is the norm for them to see other women with few resources raising children and somehow getting by. . . .

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion: Gallup Poll

And read Abortion Advocate Extinction: They Don't Procreate as well as Where Liberalism Flourishes, Population Diminishes