Yes, Planned Parenthood IS Awful, But Why Isn't Everyone Up In Arms About Dead Babies in Vaccines?
Flashback: U.S. Bishops admonished U.S. Government, G.W. Bush & Vaccine Makers for "use of tissue from induced abortions for vaccine development & research"
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
August 22, 2015


ABOUT THIS SITE MOST RECENT ARTICLESRADIO INTERVIEWSVIDEOS
ZIONISM FREEMASONRYFILMING COPSFIGHTING TRAFFIC TICKETS
9/11= Inside Job VACCINES= POISONRED-LIGHT CAMERASEUGENICS=MURDER
NEW SECTION: CATHOLICISM LibertyFight.com CLASSICSHISTORICAL QUOTESALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS!



The whole country, in particular the right wing, is obsessed this month with the scandal of Planned Parenthood brazenly selling aborted baby parts. And while that is indeed an evil and horrific scandal, it has been going on for years, and there's many equally evil things that the U.S. government and vaccine manufacturers are doing. Why hasn't this got the widespread attention and outrage it deserves? The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops even admonished George W Bush, the U.S. Government, and the vaccine makers, during Bush's presidency in an official statement which remains on their website to this day.

"Should a government agency or private company use tissue from induced abortions for vaccine development or other research? The Catholic bishops have answered in the negative," the bishops wrote.

The USCCB continued, "The federal government is choosing here and now to cooperate with researchers who have destroyed human embryos, and even in some cases to reward them with research grants (since these researchers have the most immediate access to the cell lines thereby created). Moreover, the link between the government's actions and the destruction of human embryos is even closer here than in the case of vaccine companies using fetal tissue from abortions, because in the present case the taking of human life was done precisely in order to provide cells for research (and in some cases precisely to qualify for federal research grants)."


The bishops condemned the U.S. government's collusion with abortion providors to use taxpayer funds for dead fetuses to make vaccines. The bishops have also presented on their website a Conscience Exemption for Vaccines based on Fetal Tissue from Abortions, which was updated as recently as April 2015.

Here are the two documents:


Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Vaccines using Fetal Tissue

To defend his recent decision on stem cell research, President Bush has compared it to the moral judgment that it may be acceptable to use a vaccine cultured in fetal tissue that ultimately came from induced abortions. The President's analogy is invalid because it blurs together two very different questions arising from the use of fetal tissue in medical research:

Should a government agency or private company use tissue from induced abortions for vaccine development or other research? The Catholic bishops have answered in the negative. Such use tends to legitimize abortion as a source of "life-affirming" treatments, and requires collaboration with the abortion industry, which should be avoided. This judgment is reflected in policies governing Catholic health care. See Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (4th edition, 2001): "Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers" (Directive 45), and "Catholic health care institutions should not make use of human tissue obtained by direct abortions even for research and therapeutic purposes" (Directive 66).

If such collaboration with abortion has already taken place, and the only vaccine made available for serious diseases contains material that was cultured in fetal tissue from an abortion, may Catholics -- out of concern for their own health or that of their children or the community � submit to this vaccine without committing serious sin? Most Catholic moralists have replied in the affirmative. The recipient of the vaccine took no part in decisions to base the vaccine on this morally unacceptable source, but is coping with the results of immoral decisions made by others.


It is invalid to cite moral opinions about question (2) to avoid the moral problem posed by question (1). The federal government is choosing here and now to cooperate with researchers who have destroyed human embryos, and even in some cases to reward them with research grants (since these researchers have the most immediate access to the cell lines thereby created).

Moreover, the link between the government's actions and the destruction of human embryos is even closer here than in the case of vaccine companies using fetal tissue from abortions, because in the present case the taking of human life was done precisely in order to provide cells for research (and in some cases precisely to qualify for federal research grants).

If treatments ultimately result from this decision, Catholics will face a new form of question (2): Whether in conscience they can accept such treatments that rely on the destruction of human life. Here the moral dilemma will be even more difficult, because in this case human life was destroyed specifically to obtain these cells for research and treatment. Use of embryonic stem cells in successful treatments will increase the demand for future destruction of embryos to provide an adequate supply of tissue for thousands or millions of patients. That will pose a new and serious moral dilemma for pro-life Americans who suffer from serious diseases.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/stem-cell-research/embryonic-stem-cell-research-and-vaccines-using-fetal-tissue.cfm


Conscience Exemption for Vaccines based on Fetal Tissue from Abortions

The only vaccines readily available in the United States for some contagious diseases (e.g., rubella and Hepatitis A) have been manufactured using fetal tissue from induced abortions. This creates a problem of conscience for some Catholic parents.

The Moral Reflections released by the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2005 have been welcomed by the Catholic Bishops of the United States. Our Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities agrees with the National Catholics Bioethics Center, the Catholic Medical Association, and others that manufacturers should be urged to make alternative vaccines more widely available so that Catholics and others will not face this moral dilemma.

In cases where no alternative is currently available, the Academy said that Catholics may licitly accept vaccination for themselves and their children using a vaccine based on tissue from abortion or may refuse the vaccine �if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.� The Academy specifically cited the potential threat to pregnant women and their unborn children from a failure to vaccinate for rubella (German measles).


Risk to the public health is a factual question. Risk may vary from place to place and from one time to another in the same location; even with the same set of facts, different medical experts may come to different conclusions about the severity of the risk (or about how to weigh that against the conscientious objection of a parent). Therefore, it is not surprising that different Catholic school districts, for example, have developed different policies regarding a �conscience exemption� in such cases.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities received inquiries from dioceses on how to respond to such cases. In March of 2007, the Committee discussed the issue and decided to recommend that diocesan institutions show a willingness to grant the exemption along the lines recommended by the Academy. In particular, in an area where public schools are granting a conscience exemption, based on the view of public health authorities that doing so does not pose a serious risk to the population, Catholic institutions should be willing to do so as well.

What Catholic schools may be required, or permitted, to do under civil law in responding to a parent�s wish to waive immunization may also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from one set of circumstances to another. For example, as of 2015, 48 of the 50 states allowed a religious exemption, and 20 allowed a broader philosophical or �conscience� exemption, but some of these laws were limited (for example, some may relate only to certain types of schools, or allow an exemption only if a parent objects to vaccination in general or belongs to a religious denomination that requires member to reject it.)1 Therefore, the responses of Catholic schools to requests for waivers may likewise vary. Even if a Catholic institution wished to defer to a parent�s request for an exemption, medical and legal realities may make it difficult to do so.


A long-term solution lies in working to ensure that future vaccines and other medicines are not based on cooperation with practices demeaning human life. This applies to products based on abortion, as well as to projected therapies from destruction of human embryos for their stem cells.

Released, April 2007
Updated, April 2015

1 The National Conference of State Legislatures periodically updates its list of such laws at http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx. Diocesan attorneys should be consulted on this issue to discuss the latest state laws and local policies.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catholic-education/upload/Vaccines-Conscience-Exemption-updated-April-2015.pdf


[Facebook does not allow links to my site. To post this article on Facebook, use this link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/flashback-us-bishops-condemned-us-government-gw-bush-vaccine-makers-use-tissue-induced-abort.]


Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, TargetLiberty.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, Strike-The-Root.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, Antiwar.com, From The Trenches World Report, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com and DontWakeMeUp.Org.



FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.
Tweets by @LibertyFight

NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.

comments powered by Disqus