The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | All Articles

LIFE DIGEST: Appeals court upholds Virginia ban

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:33:28 CST

A federal appeals court has upheld Virginia’s ban on partial birth abortion after panels from the same court twice invalidated the law.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted in a 6-5 decision June 24 to uphold the 2003 prohibition on a procedure that involves the killing of a nearly totally delivered baby usually in at least the fifth month of pregnancy, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

Also in this edition: At U.N., Obama team endorses abortion access, British doctors support current law on aid for suicides, Abortion doctor fined $10,000 in woman’s death and Music star gets 4 years for attempted abortion.

A Fourth Circuit panel had ruled most recently in a 2-1 opinion in May 2008 the ban on “partial birth infanticide” went beyond a federal prohibition and unconstitutionally restricted the right to abortion. The panel’s decision came after the U.S. Supreme Court directed the lower court to reconsider its original ruling in light of the justices’ support for the similar, federal law.

Then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell asked the full Fourth Circuit to rehear the panel’s ruling in the case, which is Richmond Medical Center v. Herring.

“Partial birth abortion is a deadly act that the people of Virginia have rightly rejected through the General Assembly and the Court was correct to uphold this important law,” said Olivia Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

A partial-birth abortion, as typically performed, involves the feet-first delivery of an intact baby until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors before inserting a catheter into the opening and suctioning out the brain, killing the baby. The technique provides for easier removal of the baby’s head.

The Fourth Circuit consists of federal courts in the states of Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

At U.N., Obama team endorses abortion access

The Obama administration continues to promote abortion rights for women overseas.

The administration introduced language at the United Nations the week of June 29 to July 3 that calls for “universal access” to “sexual and reproductive health services, including universal access to family planning,” according to Friday Fax, a publication of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

“Reproductive health services” has been widely interpreted by U.N. members to include abortion, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told members of Congress in April the administration regards abortion as “reproductive health.”

The U.S.-recommended language has produced division in the U.N. Great Britain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are among countries supporting the American position on the issue. Ireland, Malta, Poland and the Vatican are opposing the language.

Since Obama’s inauguration in January, he has initiated the reversal of pro-life, foreign policies in effect during the Bush administration. He repealed the Mexico City Policy, which barred federal funds from organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas. Obama also restored money through the State Department to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which had its congressional funding withdrawn by the Bush administration for seven years for its support of China’s coercive population control program.

British doctors support current law on aid for suicides

The British Medical Association voted July 1 to oppose legislation to protect from prosecution people who help relatives or friends travel overseas to die by assisted suicide.

The association’s members voted 52 to 44 percent against a motion in support of overturning the threat of prosecuting Brits who aid in such assisted suicides. The association decided by a larger margin to oppose a proposal calling for a bill to permit patients who are “terminally ill and have mental capacity” to choose assisted suicide, according to the Guardian.

There is an attempt in the House of Lords to end the threat of prosecution of Brits who help people travel overseas to die by assisted suicide.

Nearly 800 British residents have expressed a desire to travel to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide, another British newspaper, the Daily Mail, reported in June. Dignitas, a Zurich assisted-suicide clinic, says it has aided in the suicides of more than 100 people from Britain, where the practice is illegal. Assisted suicide is permitted in Switzerland.

Abortion doctor fined $10,000 in woman’s death

Pro-lifers are disturbed Michigan abortion doctor Albert Hodari’s only punishment in the death of a 32-year-old woman was a $10,000 fine.

Regina Johnson died in September 2003 after receiving an abortion at Hodari’s Womencare clinic in Lathrup Village, Mich. Milton Nathanson performed the abortion, but the conduct of Hodari, his employer, was found to be negligent, incompetent and lacking in “good moral character,” resulting in the fine by the state.

Monica Migliorino Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, said $10,000 “seems such a small penalty to pay for the death of a human being. To Hodari this is pocket money. Let’s not forget that Regina Johnson is not the first woman to die as a consequence of an abortion performed at Hodari’s clinics, and yet this is all the penalty he receives. Let’s also not forget that in addition to Regina ‘s death — we must also mark the death of her innocent baby. Two human beings were killed — not just one.”

At least three other women have died at Hodari’s clinics since 2004, according to Operation Rescue.

The state issued Hodari’s fine in March, but it only recently was reported.

Music star gets 4 years for attempted abortion

Cheb Mami, an internationally known singer, was sentenced July 3 to five years in jail for attempting to force an abortion upon a former girlfriend.

The Algerian-born Mami, 42, participated in a plot by his former manager, Michael Lecorre, to abort the singer’s baby carried by the unnamed woman, 43, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). The victim was drugged and restrained at a house owned by Mami in Algiers in 2005. Though an abortion was attempted, Mami’s former girlfriend learned when she returned to France her baby had survived. She gave birth to a girl, who is now 3 years old, AFP reported.

Mami’s sentence was issued by a French court outside Paris. Lecorre was sentenced to a four-year term.

Mami, known as the Prince of Rai, had several hit records in France during the 1990s, according to AFP. He became internationally known in 2001 when he sang with British star Sting on the hit single “Desert Rose.”

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on the sanctity of human life, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

The Public Health Plan: A Pro-Life Non-Starter

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:38:20 CST

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee has posted on its Web site the health care reform bill they have been working on. It’s called the “Affordable Health Choices Act.” As promised, it contains a public health care option. The impact on other health insurance providers is reason enough to oppose a public health plan, but an even greater reason is the way it is going to undermine pro-life values.

The public plan’s immediate and long-term threat to pro-life values is what makes it a non-starter. The plan’s immediate threat to pro-life values is evident from its failure to provide any pro-life protections. There is no protection for health care providers who, due to their faith convictions, cannot provide abortion or abortion referrals. There is no protection for pharmacy owners or workers who cannot in good conscience dispense abortion drugs. There is no restriction on abortion, either. There is no language in the bill that would prevent the public plan from paying for any abortion under any circumstance. The bill does not even prevent the eventual inclusion of assisted suicide as a benefit.

Some will argue that the bill doesn’t have anything to say about these things one way or another, but that is precisely the point. The bill’s failure to explicitly protect these pro-life values will be interpreted as a requirement to ignore them. It is instructive to remember the struggle to stop abortion funding through Medicaid on this point. In Medicaid law what isn’t explicitly prohibited is therefore required. This is why Medicaid began paying for abortion as a covered benefit when abortion was legalized in 1973. It took the Hyde Amendment in 1976 to change that by explicitly restricting the use of taxpayer funds for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.

The argument today is that the Hyde Amendment continues to protect taxpayers from paying for elective abortions. However, the Hyde Amendment is itself on a death watch these days. The amendment must be approved annually. It is clear that many in Congress would happily drop the Hyde Amendment language if they could. Many of us thought Congress would try to omit the amendment last year. Furthermore, the Hyde Amendment doesn’t protect other pro-life values, like conscience protections and banning assisted suicide.

Of further concern is that the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create the public health plan. The person currently sitting in that seat is Kathleen Sebelius, a longtime abortion rights protector. The fact that the benefits provided under the public plan will be decided by political appointees and entrenched bureaucrats out of public view should be enough reason to fear for pro-life values.

Given Congress’ history of excess, the long-term prospects for pro-life values are bleak as well. An insurmountable problem with the public option is that the government will be deciding what the plan will cover. Can you imagine what a health plan built by the government will look like after a few years? It will be loaded down with every imaginable benefit and coverage. In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Public Option: Son of Medicaid,” Daniel Henninger comments, “Medicaid is a morass. Since the program’s inception, Congress has loaded it up every few years with more notions of what to cover, shifting about 43% of the ever-upward cost onto someone else’s tab, mainly the states.” There is no reason to think that Congress will exercise any restraint with a new health plan.

As Congress loads more benefits onto the plan, the costs will skyrocket in the same way they have for Medicaid. While the government will certainly raise taxes and/or premiums to pay for the higher costs, it will eventually have to resort to the same rationing scheme under which people in England and Canada are suffering. In England, it is illegal for doctors to even tell patients about drugs that the country’s health care rationing body has determined to be too costly. It doesn’t even matter if the drug has proven helpful to some people. If it costs too much per person, it can be disallowed for coverage, and doctors cannot even tell their patients the drug exists. In Canada, a person can literally die while waiting for rationed treatment.

While the American health care system has its flaws, especially when it comes to abortion, it still places a much higher value on life than either the English or Canadian plans. I suppose rationing is one way to keep health care “affordable,” but I’m sure it’s not what most Americans want. If England and Canada can’t figure out how to make a public plan work without rationing, there is no reason at all to think our government will do any better. We must continue to move pro-life values forward, not backward.

Making it possible for every person to get and keep health insurance is a pro-life value worthy of everyone’s support. But I do not believe it is necessary to throw our other pro-life values under the bus in order to achieve that worthy goal.

Barrett Duke is Vice President for Public Policy and Research with the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to protect the sanctity of human life. If you would like to learn more about this issue, additional resources are available here. Our free, downloadable Impact resource on the sanctity of human life is now available at iLiveValues.com. Additional resources are available for purchase on our online bookstore and erlc.com.

Another View of Cap-and-Trade

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:32:35 CST

In a recent narrow 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives approved what many called the largest potential tax increase in American history in an attempt to control the world’s thermostat. The Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill, which runs to more than 1,300 pages, restricts industries to specified amounts of greenhouse gases and other carbon emissions they can discharge. The bill, which some say gives little promise of impacting the climate as promised, passed with support from 211 Democrats and eight Republicans.

In a recent interview, the ERLC’s Richard Land and Cal Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, looked into the philosophy behind the current legislation, as well as the dangerous implications of its passage. Citing President Obama’s desire to follow Spain’s example in the creation of “green jobs,” Dr. Beisner points out the negative consequences of similar measures to that nation’s employment rate. He also expects dramatically increased costs for families in households energy bills and taxes.

Listen to part of that informative interview now:

Dr. Land speaks with Cal Beisner

India blocks religious watchdog group

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:02:40 CST

WASHINGTON—India has rebuffed a U.S. government watchdog group tasked with monitoring religious liberty abroad by denying entry visas for the group’s planned visit.

A delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom intended to discuss conditions with officials in India, which has seen recent outbreaks of violence against religious minorities, especially Christians. The Indian embassy in Washington did not deliver the visas necessary for the delegation’s June 12 departure, however, and has not offered any official explanation for the decision.

“We are particularly disappointed by the new Indian government’s refusal to facilitate an official U.S. delegation to discuss religious freedom issues and government measures to counter communal violence, which has a religious component,” USCIRF chair Felice D. Gaer said in a news release.

The commission’s responsibility is to advise the administration and Congress regarding the conditions for religious liberty overseas. The president selects three members of the panel, while congressional leaders name the other six. The State Department’s ambassador at large for international religious freedom serves as a non-voting member of the commission.

India is the only democracy to have blocked a visit by USCIRF, which had been requesting entry since 2001. More than 20 other countries, including Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, have allowed the commission to enter.

Suspicion quickly fell on Hindu nationalist groups for pressuring the Indian government into denying the USCIRF’s visas.

The Times of India reported June 17 that prominent Hindu leader Shankaracharya Jayendra Sarawati had demanded that USCIRF not be allowed into the country, labeling the organization an “intrusive mechanism of a foreign government which is interfering with the internal affairs of India.”

The American branch of the Hindu World Council also had bristled at the idea of a USCIRF visit to India, calling it “incomprehensible” and accusing the United States of lumping India, whose constitution guarantees freedom of religion, with countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Cuba.

Sources within the Indian government, quoted by the Times of India, did not confirm that the visas were intentionally withheld, but they did infer that a visit would have caused problems.

“We don’t really care about what they report,” an official said. “But a high-profile visit seen as having government sanctions would have raised hackles in India.”

Religion has often been a contentious matter in India, especially in recent years.

In December 2007, Hindus in the state of Orissa alleged that Christians were behind an attack on Hindu leader Laxmanananda Saraswati and launched a wave of revenge attacks that left four Christians dead, thousands homeless and 95 churches in ashes.

The violence intensified when gunmen assassinated Saraswati at a Hindu school in August 2008. Although police suspected the culprits were Maoist rebels, Hindu extremists quickly blamed Christians and embarked on a furious rampage.

According to Compass Direct News, which reports on Christian persecution worldwide, the Hindu riots left more than 100 people slain, nearly 5,000 houses incinerated, 252 churches burnt to the ground and 13 educational institutions demolished. Thousands of Christians fled into the jungle and government-run relief camps.

Hindus in Orissa are continuing a nearly five-year campaign to pressure Christian converts to adopt Hinduism, and the BBC reported that in 2004 six women and two men were beaten for refusing to abandon Christianity.

Today, Christian leaders in Orissa say things are not much better.

Ajaya Singh of the Cuttack-Bhubaneswar Catholic Archdiocese told Compass Direct that around 3,000 people are still living in government refugee camps. Despite promises of police protection, they are afraid to return home due to threats from extremists in their villages.

USCIRF has been active in monitoring abuses of religious freedom in India, designating it as a “country of particular concern” following anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat that left more than 2,000 dead. Though the USCIRF removed India from the list in 2005, it has since criticized the violence in Orissa and claims the Indian justice system has moved slowly to prosecute those responsible.

“We understand India’s sensitivities about being criticized for religious discrimination, given its democratic and secular credentials,” the Times of India quoted a commission associate as saying. “But we are concerned that some of the judicial processes with regards to the incidents in Gujarat and Orissa are not functioning properly and we only wanted to get them going.”

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is a USCIRF commissioner. He was not scheduled to visit India with the group.

The ‘Cap-and-Tax’ Fiasco

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:33:22 CST

Basic economic principles teach that achieving sound economic policy requires careful consideration of two expected outcomes: costs and benefits. A majority in Congress has just opted to disregard both.

In a narrow 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives has approved what many call the largest tax increase in American history—all in what many experts view as a futile attempt to control the world’s thermostat. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which restricts industries to specified amounts of greenhouse gases and other carbon emissions they can discharge, garnered support from 211 Democrats and eight Republicans. The damage was done Friday night, just before the House broke for a weeklong July 4 recess.

At its core, the nearly 1,500-page bill is a monstrosity, threatening to make every American who turns on a light switch a loser. First, there is the exorbitant cost. Such a plan amounts to a national energy tax, something cap-and-tax proponent President Obama has admitted will cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” According to the Heritage Foundation, a family of four can expect to see their inflation-adjusted energy prices soar an additional $1,870 per year by 2020 and $6,800 per year by 2035 under Waxman-Markey.

Put another way, by 2035 electricity rates are projected to rise 90 percent, with gasoline prices jumping 58 percent and residential natural gas prices similarly climbing 55 percent. That amounts to a loss of $9.4 trillion in GDP. Hit hardest would be the poor, who expend a larger percentage of their income for energy, and people who live in the Midwest, South, and Rocky Mountain regions, where coal is the main fuel for industry and electricity.

The bill is also projected by some to be a job-killer. During the House floor debate, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) called for a moment of silence for the anticipated 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs lost each year. His request was denied. Meanwhile, rising nations like India and China, with no intention of scaling back greenhouse gas emissions, are prepared to absorb lost American jobs, possibly leaving the United States behind as an economic featherweight.

The bureaucratic web of Waxman-Markey, controlled by some 20 government agencies, is so complex and far-reaching that no industry will be able to avoid entanglement. [See chart (PDF, 28KB) displayed by Republican Leader John Boehner.] Even home ownership will be targeted. Existing homes for sale will face stringent energy audits, and homes under construction will be subject to a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency—that is until it is ratcheted up an additional 50 percent in 2014. And this is only a sampling of the indirect costs to be passed on to Americans.

Then there is the expected benefit—little if anything. Economics aside, the rationale for imposing this massive tax increase—man-made global warming—is itself being viewed with increasing skepticism among scientists. For this reason, global warming, long the catch phrase of the debate, is being replaced with the term climate change. The repackaging is a brilliant move on the part of the proponents. The climate is always in a state of flux, so whether the earth is warming or cooling—as it has done for the last decade—politicians can still pin the blame on humans and cast a doomsday imperative that we must enact sweeping legislative mandates to reduce our carbon footprint.

In spite of the unfortunate House passage of the cap-and-trade bill, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission appreciates the calls you made last week to Capitol Hill. Now the focus turns to the Senate, where the bill must be stopped.

If you share our concerns, please tell your senators to vote “no” on the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454) or any other bill that would place a straightjacket on American industry and saddle generations of Americans with unnecessary tax burdens. You might also want to see how your representative voted on the bill and express either your appreciation or displeasure to him or her.

“Hate” crimes bill a threat to liberty

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:30:06 CST

The U.S. House of Representatives easily approved “hate” crimes protections for homosexuals and transgendered individuals April 29. The Senate is expected to take up the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act prior to leaving for their August recess.

The House bill would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the current categories–such as race, religion and national origin–protected from hate crimes. “Sexual orientation” includes homosexuality, while “gender identity,” or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers.

If adopted by Congress and signed by the president, the “hate” crimes legislation would establish a terrible precedent, making sexual preference in any way, shape or form a protected right.

It is not unthinkable, under the scenario presented by the “hate” crimes bill, that if a person commits a violent act based on a victim’s “sexual orientation” after hearing the Bible’s teaching, for instance, that homosexual behavior is a sin, the teacher or preacher might be charged with inducing that person to commit the crime.

This is a major issue for the cause of religious freedom and freedom of speech. In the face of a vote in the U.S. Senate, it is imperative that evangelicals contact their senators and urge them to resist the pressure of political correctness and to stand up for the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

People should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when they commit crimes against persons or property. Yet it is a dangerous mistake to try to elevate some crimes of violence as being more heinous than other crimes of violence because of the purported motives of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim. Murder is murder and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the possible motives of the murderer or the racial, ethnic or sexual identity of the victim.

I encourage you to read this letter from U.S. Senator Jim DeMint on this most critical issue. Senator DeMint rightly warns that this legislation may well impact your “freedom to speak and preach biblical truth.”

This is no time to be silent. As people of God, we must let our voices be heard. Justice should be meted out based on actions, not upon the particular identities or lifestyles of perpetrators or victims.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve religious liberty in America and across the world. If you would like to help us continue our fight to protect this freedom, please click here.

House Votes for Cap and Trade June 26

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:16:51 CST

Dear Friends:

The House will vote today on H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill. In addition to its many efforts to radically change energy policy in our nation, the bill will create a system for trading and selling credits to emit so-called greenhouse gases. The Administration and House leadership are declaring that the Congressional Budget Office says the bill will only cost the average person the price of a postage stamp a day.

There are two problems with their analysis. First, they are only estimating the direct costs added to the system by the emissions credit trading program. In other words, this is the money that it will cost simply to run a program to buy and sell the emissions credits. It does not include the actual increased costs of energy, products, and services. It also only looks at the year 2020, before the bill’s tighter restrictions kick in. The Heritage Foundation calculated the full costs passed onto consumers and concluded that the Waxman-Markey bill will cost the average family of four $1,870 in 2020 and $6,800 by 2035.

If you agree that the House should not pass H.R. 2454, please contact your congressman today.

Here are some quick facts on this dangerous bill:

H.R. 2454 will cost the average family of four $1,870/year by 2020 and then become even more expensive.
The bill will not significantly reduce greenhouse gases worldwide or significantly impact the climate.
The United States will be put at a competitive disadvantage with other nations that do not mandate greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The bill favors some businesses over others in the distribution of credits.

If you agree that the House should not pass H.R. 2454, please contact your congressman today. There is no time to spare on this. Below is a list of House Republicans and Democrats who appear to still be undecided. If you live in their district, please call their offices and express your opposition to H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill. Even if your congressman is not on this list, please consider making a call anyway. Every member of Congress is under incredible pressure to pass this bill. We must counter that pressure. Also, please consider forwarding this to the folks on your email list and asking them to make their voices heard.

These are the undecided House members on H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation. You can reach them, and any other congressman, by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asking for your congressman.

Democrats, District

Bright AL-02
Griffith AL-05
Berry AR-01
Ross AR-04
Mitchell AZ-05
Giffords AZ-08
Cardoza CA-18
Costa CA-20
Schiff CA-29
Harman CA-36
Baca CA-43
Sanchez CA-47
Salazar CO-03
Boyd FL-02
Bishop GA-02
Marshall GA-08
Barrow GA-12
Scott GA-13
Boswell IA-03
Minnick ID-01
Donnelly IN-02
Ellsworth IN-08
Hill IN-09
Moore KS-03
Chandler KY-06
Melancon LA-03
Kravotil MD-01
Michaud ME-02
Childers MS-01
Taylor MS-04
Shuler NC-11
Pomeroy ND
Arcuri NY-24
Wilson OH–06
Space OH-18
Altmire PA-04
Thompson PA-05
Murphy PA-08
Carney PA-10
Holden PA-17
Herseth-Sandlin SD
Davis TN-04
Cooper TN-05
Gordon TN-06
Tanner TN-08
Cuellar TX-28
Matheson UT-02
Nye VA-02
Perriello VA-05

Republicans, District

Buchanan FL-13
Cao LA-02
Ehlers MI-03
Frelinghuysen NJ-11
Gerlach PA-06
Johnson IL-15
Kirk IL-10
Smith NJ-04

We appreciate your partnership.

In His Service,

Richard Land

ERLC Celebrates Signing of Bill to Regulate Tobacco

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:01:52 CST

After years of support by a diverse group of religious bodies and public health organizations, a bill authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products became the law of the land June 22.

In a Rose Garden ceremony, President Barack Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which recently received approval in Congress. Barrett Duke, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s (ERLC) vice president for public policy and research, was one of several religious leaders who attended the White House signing ceremony. The ERLC, alongside numerous health, education, and religious organizations, had been a leading proponent of the legislation for years.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is expected to help curb tobacco use, especially among children, and further restrict the marketing and makeup of tobacco products. The law will restrict tobacco advertising and require more prominent health warnings on tobacco products and advertisements. It also will eliminate candy-flavored cigarettes and mandate that tobacco companies reveal the contents of their products to consumers.

Southern Baptists have supported FDA regulation of tobacco products for decades. In the 1930s, the Southern Baptist Convention passed its first resolution calling for the regulation of tobacco. In recent years, the FDA regulation has been a legislative priority for the ERLC, particularly in its work with the group, Faith United Against Tobacco.

The ERLC is appreciative of those who encouraged their congressmen to support this landmark legislation. The impact will be a lasting and far-reaching one. As ERLC President Richard Land has said, the passage of the bill will literally save hundreds of thousands of American lives over time.

Obama signs tobacco regulation bill

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:02:57 CST

President Obama signed into law June 22 legislation giving authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

The new law — supported for years by health, education and religious organizations while being opposed by many groups affiliated with the tobacco industry -– enables the Food and Drug Administration to control the manufacture, promotion and sale of such products as cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other advocates for the new law applauded the bill’s enactment.

ERLC Vice President Barrett Duke described the signing of the bill as “an historic event that we’ve been working toward for years.”

“We’re delighted that we’ve finally been able to come to this point where the FDA is going to be regulating tobacco and tobacco products in the same way that they regulate what is in macaroni and cheese and just about everything else people consume today…. [W]e’re very encouraged by this development,” said Duke, who attended the Rose Garden signing ceremony.

In remarks before he signed the bill, Obama cited the devastating effects of tobacco use in the United States: 400,00 deaths a year from related illnesses; at least one serious, smoking-caused illness for more than 8 million people; an annual health-care cost of about $100 billion; 1,000 new, regular smokers under the age of 18 each day.

The president spoke of his own struggle to stop smoking.

“I was one of those teenagers, and so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it’s been with you for a long time,” Obama said.

Smoking is “something that he continues to struggle with,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of Obama at a press briefing the same day. Gibbs did not say whether the president still smokes.

Obama called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act “a law that will save American lives and make Americans healthier.”

“[T]he decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of tobacco has emerged victorious,” he said. “Today, change has come to Washington.”

Among its provisions, the new law will:

limit the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, especially to children.

crack down on tobacco sales to minors.

prohibit candy-, fruit- and spice-flavored cigarettes.

ban the use of such terms as “light” and “low tar” with tobacco products.

require larger health warnings on tobacco packaging and in advertising.

mandate tobacco companies reveal the contents of their products.

empower the FDA to require such changes as the reduction of nicotine and the removal or reduction of other harmful products.

Congress gave final approval to the legislation June 12. The House approved the bill in a 307-97 vote, a day after the Senate voted 79-17 for it.

The new law’s advocates contended there would continue to be a lack of regulation of tobacco unless the FDA received such authority. Opponents of the measure argued it would give the FDA responsibility outside its normal purview and would overly burden the agency.

Duke told Baptist Press the FDA is “eager to receive this charge, and so we feel confident that they will resist the efforts of some … of the tobacco industry to weaken the regulations. We’ll continue, however, to work with the administration to do all that we can to see to it that the law that was passed protects young people especially from an aggressive marketing campaign by the tobacco industry and we begin to take the next step in reducing the death and harm caused by tobacco in the United States.”

ERLC President Richard Land served as one of the leaders of the religious coalition that backed the legislation for several years. Other organizations in the 25-member Faith United Against Tobacco included the United Methodist Church, American Baptist Churches USA, National Council of Churches, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterian Church (USA), Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Islamic Society of North America.

The Southern Baptist Convention has passed tobacco-related resolutions dating to 1932. A 1984 resolution urged churches and other SBC entities to encourage Southern Baptists not to use tobacco. It also called on Southern Baptist farmers not to raise tobacco but to grow another crop when feasible. In 2005, the SBC adopted a resolution urging an increased effort to reduce smoking by teenagers.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to fight substance abuse across the country. If you would like to learn more about this important issue, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on substance abuse, please visit our online bookstore and erlc.com.

LIFE DIGEST: ‘Fix is in’ on new Obama bioethics panel, expert says

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:16:54 CST

The President’s Council on Bioethics established under the Bush administration has been disbanded, and President Obama will name a new commission to take its place.

A bioethics specialist warned the new panel would be a “political hammer.”

The New York Times reported June 18 that members of the Bush panel were asked the previous week to cancel a meeting and were told they would no longer meet as a body, a council staff member said.

Also in this edition: New York first state to OK egg-donation payments and Woman aborts other mother’s wrongly implanted embryo.

A White House spokesman, Reid Cherlin, said the Bush council was dissolved because it was intended to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group,” according to The Times. Obama’s new panel will have a new mandate and will provide “practical policy options,” Cherlin said.

That is code for “the fix is in,” said bioethics commentator Wesley Smith on his weblog.

While the council appointed by Bush sought a “true discourse” and was equally divided on its report on the ethics of cloning for research purposes, Obama’s new commission “will not be collegial or about true discourse,” Smith said.

“The ‘recommendations’ we will see are entirely predictable – yes to federal funding of therapeutic cloning; yes to health care rationing; yes to everything radical in bioethics,” Smith wrote. “And then the President, Congress and the press can say – unlike they did during Bush’s term – ‘They’re the experts! We should listen to them.’”

Bush named his bioethics council in 2001 after he issued an order barring federal funding of stem cell research that destroys human embryos. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago was chairman until 2005, when Edmund Pellegrino of Georgetown University replaced him.

The Bush-era council issued reports on such bioethics issues as cloning, regulating biotechnology, sex selection and stem cells.

Among pro-life members of Bush’s council were Robert George of Princeton University and Gilbert Meilaender of Valparaiso University.

New York first state to OK egg-donation payments

New York is the first state to approve payments for women who donate eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

The Empire State Stem Cell Board (ESSCB) made the decision June 11, saying in a statement its members “agreed it is ethical and appropriate for women donating oocytes for research purposes to be compensated in the same manner as women who donate oocytes” for reproduction.

Pro-life bioethcists decried the decision, however.

New York has a $600 million stem cell research program, and the ESSCB said other states that have government-backed stem cell programs but do not pay for egg donation have experienced difficulty in recruiting donors. This has been the experience in California and Massachusetts, The Scientist reported.

Health problems, most typically from ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, have resulted in a small percentage of women who have gone through the egg donation process, which involves repeated injections of hormones. Infertility and death have even occurred in some cases, and there has been concern expressed about the potential development of cancer.

“It is a twisted sort of logic that seeks cures for some [through embryonic stem cell research] while ignoring the risks to healthy young women,” said Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, in a written release. “The egg donation process ahs well documented risks associated with the dangerous drugs taken to produce abnormally large numbers of eggs along with the risks of anesthesia and surgery to remove the eggs.”

The ESSCB’s Ethics Committee voted 10-1 in support of the recommendation. The sole dissenter was Thomas Berg, a Roman Catholic priest who is executive director of the Westchester Institute.

“I can assure you, it won’t be the upper-class set who responds to state inducement and risks potentially life-threatening side-effects of human egg harvesting,” Berg said in a written statement. “It will be the vulnerable classes of cash-strapped and college-aged women who will be exploited by the state in this scheme.”

Woman aborts other mother’s wrongly implanted embryo

A British couple has experienced one of the nightmares of in vitro fertilization – a woman aborted their last embryo when she discovered it had been implanted in her womb by mistake.

The tragically lethal mix-up, which occurred in 2007, was reported June 15 in The Guardian, a British newspaper.

Deborah, 40, and Paul, 38, whose last name was not reported, received undisclosed damages, though the amount was believed to be in six figures, from the National Health Service trust, The Guardian reported.

“That embryo was my baby and it was taken away from me,” Deborah said, according to The Guardian.

“I was in total shock when the hospital said it had been transplanted into another woman – not only that, she had made the decision to terminate it. It was killing my baby and possibly our last chance of becoming parents again. . . . to lose our baby this way is unbearable and unforgivable.”

The couple already had a 6-year-old son, Jamie, by means of in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to the newspaper.

The mix-up occurred in the IVF clinic at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. The couple said they may try IVF again but would not return to the Cardiff clinic, The Guardian reported.