File: /files/New-Files/200103/clinton_rule_attempted_to_alter_definitions_of_fetus_and

/files/New-Files/200103/clinton_rule_attempted_to_alter_definitions_of_fetus_and_child.txt

          From: Arthur Hickman 
Subject: SNET: Fw: [CCNN] Clinton Rule Attempted to Alter Definitions of 'Fetus' and 'Chi
Date: 21 Mar 2001 20:35:39 -0500
To: WND , snetnews ,
        PIML ,
        Maryland Christian Coalition ,
        Fox News ,
        Conspiracy Theory Research List ,
        Bible Prophecy 

->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louise Ficklin" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:48 AM
Subject: [CCNN] Clinton Rule Attempted to Alter Definitions of 'Fetus' and 'Child'


> 
> 
> Clinton Rule Attempted to Alter Definitions of 'Fetus' and 'Child'
> By Jason Pierce
> CNS Editorial Assistant
> March 21, 2001
> 
> (CNSNews.com) - Pro-life organizations are fired up over a pending
> federal regulation, devised during the last days of the Clinton
> administration, that could, according to critics, redefine the terms
> "fetus" and "child" and result in the legal use of newborns for
> scientific research.
> 
> The regulation, which was cleared by the Clinton administration on
> January 17, but then postponed by the Bush administration, states
> that a newborn is still considered a "fetus" until it is determined
> the baby will live by "independently maintaining a heartbeat and
> respiration." Only when this determination is made is the baby
> considered a "child," according to the rule.
> 
> When the Bush Administration took office, it immediately placed a
> 60-day moratorium on the implementation of Clinton's fetus rule as
> well as many others. The moratorium expired March 19, but last week,
> a group of pro-life congressmen managed to convince Health and Human
> Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to extend the moratorium on the
> fetus rule by another 60 days.
> 
> Reps. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), James Barcia
> (R-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) now find themselves at the center
> of the controversy, following their letter to Thompson.
> 
> "If this rule is allowed to proceed, the position of the federal
> Department of Health and Human Services with regard to 'human research
> subjects' will be that babies born alive are not necessarily children,"
> the congressmen wrote. "This cannot and should not be the position of
> an agency tasked with defending children and protecting life."
> 
> Although the regulation has not yet taken effect, some pro-life
> organizations believe the four congressmen could have done more
> to block it permanently.
> 
> "It shouldn't take 60 days to see how bad this is, it only took me
> forty-five minutes," said American Life League Spokesman Patrick
> Delaney. "And the curious lack of fundamental ethical standards is
> directly reminiscent of the Nazi doctors."
> 
> Delaney said the regulation degrades humans to the point of treating
> them like specimens for research.
> 
> "I personally can't help but to be reminded of the Nazi doctors who
> determined human persons as experimental guinea pigs," Delaney said.
> "These regulations seem to be no different and these so-called
> regulations are a semantic rationalization for murdering innocent
> human beings."
> 
> Delaney said pro-life voters elected President Bush in hopes that his
> administration would revoke such regulations left over from the Clinton
> administration. However, President Bush has been disappointing in this
> area, Delaney said.
> 
> "It seems to us that repeal of these regulations is a no-brainer and
> the hesitation of the Bush administration in only issuing a sixty-day
> extension is outrage in itself," he said. "We believe in order for
> politicians like Tommy Thompson and George W. Bush to claim that title
> of pro-life, they need to respect personhood of a child beginning from
> conception.
> 
> "If they don't, it is our opinion they would have no claim to say they
> are pro-life," Delaney said.
> 
> Other groups are equally determined to get the Bush administration to
> rid the federal books of similar regulations.
> 
> Michael Schwartz, Vice President of Concerned Women for America zeroed
> in on the regulation's attempt to redefine the terms, fetus and child.
> 
> "What really is of concern here are definitions. You don't pass laws
> embodying definitions. A law is supposed to be a directive," Schwartz
> said. "To try to find a legislative fix to a definitional problem is
> the wrong thing to do unless we can connect it to some comprehensive,
> ... protective law for human research."
> 
> Schwartz added that the fetus regulation was actually proposed in 1997,
> "but like so many things, it slipped people's attention until right
> before it was supposed to be enacted."
> 
> According to a summary, the proposed HHS rule is intended to "provide
> additional protections for pregnant women and human fetuses involved
> in research.[and] enhance the opportunity for participation of pregnant
> women in research."
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
> in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
> high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/n4HqaC/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/AHJWlB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
> 
>  
> 
>  But if the watchman sees the sword coming and
>  does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and
>  the sword comes and takes the life of one of
>  them, that man will be taken away because of 
>  his sin, but I will hold the watchman 
>  accountable for his blood."  Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV)
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 
> 107, any copyrighted work in this message 
> is distributed under fair use without profit 
> or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> 
> Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by 
> the 105th U.S. Congress this letter 
> cannot be considered "spam" as long 
> as it  includes: 
> 1) contact information and, 
> 2) the way to be removed from future mailings 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send an e-mail to 
> ccnn-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 


-> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe@topica.com

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01


         

Disclaimer: The file contained in the box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the box above is NOT owned nor implied to be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.

However, there have been occasions when copyright protected material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the situation.

There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our attention.