Most people think of cell biologists as bench scientists who grow things in little dishes. As a university professor training future cell biologists, I wondered about my students’ perceptions of the need for an ethical framework. I asked my advanced students for their feedback on the pressing ethical issues in our field. Here are some of their ideas:

1. The origin of the cells we work on matters.  We would find it morally problematic to help destroy embryos for stem cell research. Similarly, we would be opposed to using tissue obtained from induced abortions for research.
2. The stewardship of creation matters.  Genetic modification of crops, as well as genetic therapies for disease, may have unintended consequences. While all of us see the potential good in producing more food or curing disease, our knowledge of outcomes is limited. We must be careful stewards of these techniques.
3. Living creatures matter. Therefore, we should be wise in our use of resources. How drugs are tested impacts human beings as well as animals, and our use of  medications may impact the environment. We should develop research strategies that protect the environment and our fellow living creatures.
4. The gift of human procreation matters. Not all birth control methods protect the unborn. We wish to use, study, and develop family planning technologies consistent with a high view of human persons. Genetic screening and other forms of testing may allow for informed decision making. However, we regret that some persons may use test results as a basis for abortion

Ethical standards mentioned by my students include defending human life in its earliest forms, stewardship of the world around us, valuing all of God’s creation, and thinking deeply about how we procreate. Apparently, ethics does apply in a Petri dish after all.  Aren’t you relieved?

1) Tia Zirkle’s piece, “The Tao and the Art of Feminine Beauty,” is a thoughtful reflection on Elizabeth Elliot, C.S. Lewis, natural law, and femininity.

2) Christina Kinch, in her essay, “Let Them be Heroes,” gives a theologically provocative defense of the use of frozen embryos for research. Now let’s make one thing clear: neither Christina nor her professor (me) agree with the conclusions of her inventive article, but she helps give a sympathetic face to “the other side” in these debates.

These articles, as well as earlier ones, can be found at: CedarEthics Online.

A recent update reminds us that applications of adult stem cells to treat human diseases continue to progress. Cellerix is a biotechnology company that has adult stem cells in various stages of human testing. This means we may see new therapies on the market within a few years. Some of these treatments may help patients with Crohn’s disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cells come from adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells, are found in the adipose (fat) tissue of adults.

This news comes on the heels of a development just last month, where scientists announced they had successfully isolated colon stem cells from biopsy samples. The inability to culture certain human stem cell types from adult cell lines is one of the main arguments for using embryonic stem cells (which requires the destruction of frozen embryos). These new  developments weaken the argument that embryonic stem cell research is essential to cure certain diseases that plague humanity.

The clinical trials cited above are by no means rare.  A Google search of adult stem cell therapy brings up many therapies already in clinical use. Search [adult stem cell clinical trial] and you will find even more therapies in various stages in development. Some of sources of adult stem cells in these therapies include cells derived from bone marrow, central nervous system, and fatty tissue of adults, as well as cells derived from umbilical cord blood or cells of placental origin, obtained after birth.

For those of us who morally object to embryonic stem cell research, the fact that new and successful clinical treatments use alternative sources of stem cells is a great encouragement. As more biotech companies develop such  treatments, there will be less pressure to terminate the lives of human embryos for the sake of scientific progress.

References:

1. Cellerix Secures 4.95M for Phase III Study of Allogeneic Adult Stem Cell Therapy: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/cellerix-secures-4-95m-for-phase-iii-study-of-allogeneic-adult-stem-cell-therapy/81245764/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells
2. Researchers Isolate and Expand Elusive Human Colon Stem Cells from Biopsy Samples: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/researchers-isolate-and-expand-elusive-human-colon-stem-cells-from-biopsy-samples/81245626/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells
3. Is the Progression of Adult Stem Cell Therapies into the Clinic a Good Sign for Technology? http://www.genengnews.com/analysis-and-insight/is-the-progression-of-adult-stem-cell-therapies-into-the-clinic-a-good-sign-for-technology/77899325/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells

That is a terribly hard thing. I hate Alzheimer’s . . . That person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone.  What he says basically is correct. I know it sounds cruel, but if he is going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again.

Predictably, the interviewer responded with a question about marriage vows. The Reverend Robertson replied:

If you respect that vow, ‘until death do us part,’ this is a kind of death . . . I can’t fault him for wanting to have some kind of companionship. If he says, in a sense she’s gone, he’s right. It’s like a walking death. But get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer because I recognize the dilemma . . .

To his credit, the televangelist is not guilty of complete abandonment, since he did remark that the husband should take care to provide proper custodial care. But otherwise his comments have drawn almost universal criticism from religious and secular commentators alike. Here are three reasons why Pat Robertson is just plain wrong:

• The traditional marriage vow “until death do us part” is not directly from Scripture, but it is consistent with the Bible’s covenant view of marriage. The “one flesh” of Genesis 2:24 connotes a deep, long-lasting bond. The Lord Jesus, in referring to this text in Matthew 19:4, said, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (NIV).
• Marriage is about more than two people sharing their lives together; it is a testimony to the relationship of Christ to His church. Ephesians 5: 23 says: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Verse 25 goes on: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Faithfulness within marriage is therefore a representation of Christ’s faithfulness to His church. And if we would stretch the metaphor, we His church were certainly dead in sin, yet He did not abandon us.
• Speaking of death, the wife is not dead yet! Of course such sloppy thinking is very much in line with the functional view of human personhood, where those who cannot think rationally or make decisions for themselves have less value than the rest of us. So we continue to marginalize the poor, the infirm, the elderly, and the voiceless in our midst, rather than seeing each human being as a valuable person, uniquely created in God’s image.

At the heart of all this is a soft-hearted but poorly thought out concept of compassion. Such “compassion” is a poor substitute for Christian justice, and for a true understanding of the poor in spirit, merciful, and pure in heart of Matthew 5:1-11. Real mercy, love, and biblical compassion begin with a genuine understanding of biblical truth. Unfortunately, this was sadly lacking in Reverend Pat Robertson’s remarks.

The newest papers cover a broad spectrum of topics, and are listed below:

The Nazi Research Data: Should We Use It? – Sarah Wilson

Safeguarding Genetic Privacy – Anna-Marie Struble, Emily Valji, and Jennifer Lilly

Altered Nuclear Transfer Violates Natural Law Ethics – Thomas Bertagnoli

Of Violinists and Fetuses – Dylan Black

Virtue Ethics for Christians – Benjamin R. Kilian

Third-Party Gametes and the Christian – Emily Valji

A man from the Columbus area recently pled guilty to attempted murder. His crime? He tried to force his girlfriend at gunpoint to have an abortion against her will. When they arrived at the abortion facility, she passed a note to the clinic personnel. They called the police, and the man was arrested. So according to Ohio law, if a woman wants to have an abortion, it’s a legal procedure; if she is forced to have the abortion, that makes it murder. The legal status of the unborn child completely depends on the attitude of the mother.

Now it turns out that the woman was never at risk to have an abortion, since clinic personnel would not perform the procedure without her consent. Her baby has been born, and is in good hands. Yet her boyfriend could spend up to 20 years in prison for wanting the baby dead.

This is another strange example of our schizophrenic legal system that fails to afford all unborn children equal protection under the law, as specified in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1) The obligation to perform the procedure “in case of emergency”
2) A prohibition for persons participating “indirectly” in the procedure to exercise their right of conscience
3) The establishment of an official list of conscientious objectors

Hmm, this means that pro-life doctors might be mandated to perform abortions in some circumstances, in spite of their moral scruples. Furthermore, nurses and allied health professionals will be obligated to assist in all such procedures — no right of conscience for them. And finally, there will be a list — a “black list” if you will, of “objectors,” exposing such individuals to discrimination and recrimination. If this doesn’t bother you, just think of the McCarthy era in America in the 1950′s to better picture how this might work.

Pay attention as this issue plays out, for as the Council of Europe goes, so will the United States go in the near future.

I have added my name to a petition to appose these draconian measures, that violate the Hippocratic tradition of medicine that has held sway for 2400 years (see petition link below). Please also consider signing, and join me in prayer.

Petition (in French, but click on the British flag to review in English)

Judge Lamberth’s decision should not be surprising, for it is based on clear and unambiguous law. The Dicky-Wicker Amendment, passed in 1996 as part of a federal appropriations bill, has been passed again every year since. This amendment specifically prohibits the use of federal funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human
embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death . . .

In March of last year, President Obama attempted to reverse long-standing policy from the Bush administration banning federal funding for embryo-destructive research through the National Institutes of Health.  That decision has paved the way for billions of dollars in proposed embryonic stem cell projects, in spite of the Dicky-Wicker Amendment cited above.

Two researchers, in collaboration with pro-life groups, brought suit in federal district court. Their research on so-called adult stem cells is promising and not ethically controversial. They fear that the Obama guidelines may de-fund their work. In his ruling Judge Lamberth acknowledged that the researchers had standing to bring their suit forward, and granted the injunction.

The Obama administration is appealing the ruling. Stay tuned.

New York Times Article

Obama Executive Order of 2009

Now you may recall that a drug called “Plan B” (levonorgestrel) is already on the market, and is in fact available without a prescription. Many in the pro-life community have expressed concerns that it may interfere with implantation, making it an abortion-causing agent (an abortifacient). This claim is controversial, and not proven either way scientifically.

Here’s the problem: the new drug, ella,  is not related to Plan B at all. It is actually chemically related to the abortion drug RU-486 (mifepristone), so it has a high likelihood of being an abortifacient itself. The FDA is likely to approve the drug for the U.S. market, despite an absence of studies on its possible abortifacient effect.

The Center for Bioethics, along with 19 other American organizations, has signed a letter to the FDA, opposing approval of ella. We have joined such groups as Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Life Issues Institute. You can read the letter here.

Achilles tending the wounds of Patroclus in the Trojan War

Followers of the Center for Bioethics and this blog know that I have endorsed and signed the Manhattan Declaration, a Christian statement of solidarity in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. In previous posts (1/10/2010 and 7/06/2010),  I have pointed out that speaking out for life, families, and conscience may come at a price, as these principles are under assault in our contemporary society. It appears that these religiously-informed ideas, foundational as they are, are becoming a minority viewpoint, certainly in the United States. And, increasingly, we are a persecuted minority.

So what does this mean for those of us who believe in and teach these foundational benchmarks? We must surely continue our advocacy, but what if we are not successful? At what point is it incumbent upon us to practice civil disobedience, as the apostles did (Acts 5:27-41)? For an insightful discussion of this idea, listen to Dr. Timothy George, one of the originators of the Manhattan Declaration, at this link.

This last idea has been under increasing attack in our public discourse. Last December, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University. In a subtle phrase that Chuck Colson refers to as an example of  Orwellian “newspeak,”she repeatedly referred to “freedom of worship” as a key democratic principle. But the Bill of Rights guarantees our “freedom of religion,” not the more narrowly defined right Mrs. Clinton spoke of. If we accept her terminology, we will lose the ability to define who may work in Christian organizations and churches. This would be an erosion of religious liberty similar to what is happening in Canada, with devastating results for faith-based organizations and charities.

To better understand this, check out Chuck Colson’s recent commentary (below, or go to his website):

Hmm, not so fast. Some claim that only physical and naturalistic forces are at work in the universe. What we perceive as free will is merely an illusion, since every effect has a purely natural cause. The mind, even our consciousness, is nothing more than chemicals, neurons, and electrical signals that obey physical rules. Nothing else matters, so it makes sense to deny the existence of free will.

The debate between free will and determinism is an ancient one, dating back to an era before Socrates and Plato, and has continued up to the present day. My engagement in this discussion will take place at a Debate Summit at Grace Community Church on March 13, 2010 (7:00 p.m.). I will have a lively conversation with Dr. William Provine of Cornell University. Although I have not previously met Dr. Provine, I am familiar with his work and his views.

The title of our debate is: “Free Will: Does it Exist? Does it Matter?” Dr. Provine is an atheist and hard determinist, who claims that free will is illusory and unintelligible.  For my part, I am a Christian theist, who holds that created beings are endowed with the ability to exercise an independent will. Not only is this possible, but it is essential for society’s good and for ultimate meaning in life.

So our debate will contrast two views. Dr. Provine’s hard determinism claims that everything in the universe is either random or caused by pre-existing conditions, leaving no room for any higher purpose, and no room for free will. Therefore, our views of law and ethics should change to accommodate the idea that our choices are constrained, and no one should be held morally accountable for his actions. He states, “Every biological organism is determined by heredity, environment, and their complex interaction. No organism has any trace of freedom . . . Moral responsibility is crucial for human social interaction, but this we must teach to humans.”

My view is that of free will libertarianism (not to be confused with any political theory). There is order, meaning, and purpose in the universe, that ultimately comes from a Creator-God. While determinism is true to the extent that many events follow law-like principles, this does not mean that human nature is necessarily constrained by physical or chemical forces. Our free will is a reflection of God’s volitional nature, who has given us the capacity and the responsibility to act for our own good and for that of those around us. Therefore, moral censure and moral praise make sense, and help to define our ethical lives.

Dr. Provine has countered,  “The myth of human free will, promulgated by all religions in the world, has caused more harm in this world than any gods . . . [This myth] is the true fangs of religion.”

This is going to be a lively exchange of views! For more information, go to the Debate Summit website.

In fact, it is the disconnect between public will and political pragmatism that causes many to be frustrated, for it appears that common citizens are being lost in the shuffle. In short, our government seems to no longer be listening. But listen it must, for our values are under attack as never before.

As Christians, it is time to make our voices heard. Professor Robert George (Princeton University), Professor Timothy George (Samford University), and Chuck Colson (founder, Prison Fellowship) have jointly authored a document entitled the Manhattan Declaration. I invite you to read the document in its entirety, but I will quote a few excerpts here.

The authors begin with a reminder of the historical role of the Christian church in promoting and defending social justice:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

Given our long standing commitment to these principles, it seems especially appropriate for the church to take a stand today, at a time when an increasingly secular government has become so insensitive to these human values:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

And so, quite simply, it is these three principles are are under assault: 1) the sanctity of human life; 2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and 3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. These are not subtle matters of worship preferences or fine points of doctrine; these are common traditions that are shared by Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox believers. We should join together in common cause on these matters.

But the situation is serious, and calls for a strong commitment to oppose the forces that would tear apart the moral foundations of our nation, even to the practice of civil disobedience:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

These are powerful words, and worthy of your consideration. Please go to the website listed below, and read the entire declaration. If you agree with it, there is a place for you to sign it.

I have done so.

The Manhattan Declaration

Researchers in London performed womb transplants in five rabbits, a procedure that was successful in two of them. Similar work has also been done recently in other mammals. The surgical technique involved careful connections of blood vessels to ensure that clots cannot develop.

In another lab, four sheep have become pregnant after an autologous transplant, (where the same uterus was removed, then reconnected).  However, in the rabbit study, the transplanted uteri were from a different animal in each case.

This has actually been attempted once in a human being. In the year 2000, surgeons in Saudi Arabia attempted a live donor transplant of a womb into an infertile woman. The transplanted organ failed after just three months. However, these most recent animal results have led U.K. physicians to predict a successful human womb transplant within the next two years.

BBC World News Article

When she first applied for her position at Mount Sinai, her supervisor asked if she would be willing to participate in abortions. Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo, a devout Catholic, said no, that such involvment would violate her deeply-held beliefs. Her conscientious refusal was put in writing, and is supposedly protected by federal conscience standards.

All that changed on May 24, 2009, 30 minutes after Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo came to work. She saw, to her utter dismay, that she was scheduled to assist in the abortion of a 22-week pregnancy. She immediately informed her supervisor that this was unacceptable. The supervisor claimed that the patient had preeclamsia (a hypertensive condition that can lead to serious complications if not treated), and that the procedure was an emergency. Nonetheless, the hospital had a six-hour window of opportunity to replace Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo, which they failed to do. The supervisor simply told the nurse that the patient would die if she refused to help. With great reluctance, and feeling that her job was threatened, the nurse assisted in the abortion.

After the procedure, Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo noted that the operation was not classified as an emergency, and in fact, early treatment (with intravenous magnesium sulfate) had not been administered. She filed a grievance the following day with her union. Several days later, she was told by two supervisors that she would have to sign a statement agreeing to do abortions, which she refused to do. She was punished by being denied overtime shifts.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo is still working at Mount Sinai, but she is suing the hospital. In her own words, the Phillipino nurse said, “I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred. Doctors and nurses shouldn’t be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs.” She wants the hospital to restore her status and respect her religious beliefs.

The is an especially egregious example of the strong movement in this country to make health care professionals abandon their conscience rights. Abortion is not a part of normal reproductive health care. At the very least, doctors and nurses should not be forced to participate.

NY Post article

Appointed in November, 2001 by the Bush Administration, the Council has provided valuable input on some of the most difficult ethical issues in our modern culture. New technologies, both at the beginning and end of life, have challenged our understandings of what it means to be human, and what are the limits of medical science.

The Council was first chaired by Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, followed by Edmund Pelligrino of Georgetown University in 2005. Daniel McConchie (VP for Govt. Affairs with AUL) recently said: “This was the most balanced bioethics council in history, with two leaders . . . who went out of their way to ensure the council was reflective of all the major perspectives on the issues.”

The Obama Administration claims that the President’s Council was “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that tended to focus on extended discussion rather than consensus. Others were even more critical, calling it “more like a public debating society” than an advisory agency.

I have found the President’s Council Web site to be an excellent source of balanced articles on a wide range of subjects (the site is being archived, for which I am thankful). The Council’s outgoing Chair has said this:

To advance human good and avoid harm, biotechnology must be used within ethical constraints. It is the task of bioethics to help society develop those constraints and bioethics, therefore, must be of concern to all of us. (Dr. Edmond Pelligrino)

Granted, each presidential administration has the right to set its own priorities. President Obama has said that he will soon name a new commission that will focus more on “practical policy options.” I suppose that means that this body will be less focused on theory and more on tangible steps. Hmmm.

It has sometimes been said, not without justification, that university and hospital ethics committees are in place to rubber-stamp (and defend to the public) decisions that have already been made, rather than give true, independent ethical guidance. Could this also be said of the new Council under the Obama White House?

Perhaps the former “public debating society” will be replaced by a society where there is no debate at all. Stay tuned.

NY Times Article

That is why I am troubled by her June 5th piece, “The Myth of the Lone Gunman.” Her commentary on the recent shooting of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller is mean-spirited, vitriolic, and unfair. Virtually all the pro-life groups in this country have disavowed and repudiated the use of violence to accomplish their aims. Most pro-choice advocates understand this, and have not attempted to use this terrible incident to discredit anti-abortion activism.

Not so with Ms. Goodman. In a subtle way, she casts about widely to find a wider circle of blame. Here are a few excerpts:

It is believed that the shooter acted alone. Surely, that’s true. No one else was standing beside suspect Scott Roeder when it is believed he murdered Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of his church.

But Michael Griffin also acted alone when he killed David Gunn in 1993. Paul Hill acted alone when he killed John Britton in 1994. John Salvi acted alone and so did Eric Rudolph and James Kopp. This suspect is hardly lonely in this murderous cast of lone actors . . .

The pro-life community reacted with shock. No doubt. But where was the shock at the fringe groups they forgot to disavow? . . . Were they also shocked by the everyday mainstream rhetoric that casually refers to abortion as murder? Did they worry about the movement strategy designed deliberately to target providers, the weak link of abortion rights, driving clinics out of 87 percent of our counties?

Pro-life leaders denounced the murder . . . [And] as a First Amendment absolutist, I don’t believe that words kill. But this week, I can’t help wondering whether rhetoric can justify a crime in the mind of a fanatic. Can’t words provide the sort of perverse moral platform that jihadists stand on and the alternate universe in which a “lone nut” can find a home?. . .

I don’t blame everyone who checks a pro-life box on the pollster’s chart. I know that ambivalence is the emotion often cast onto the sidelines of this debate. But it is well past time for the antiabortion movement to denounce those who are in the profession of inflaming passions: Those who call Obama the “most pro-abortion president ever.” Those who ratchet up the rhetoric on a Supreme Court nominee. Those who cull doctors from their honored profession by labeling them “abortionists” . . .

You see, this suspect was not such a lone gunman. And no, I am afraid, this was not an isolated incident.

Now, let’s be clear on a few things. The sudden loss of human life is always a terrible tragedy, whether that of a physician shot down by an unbalanced gunman, or that of an unborn child who dies as a result of abortion. Ms. Goodman is obviously more concerned about the former than the latter; that is her right.

I agree that our passions sometimes get carried away, and our rhetoric is sometimes “over-the-top.” That is surely true on both sides of the debate. Ms. Goodman specifically repudiates the use of inflammatory language, e.g., labeling those who perform abortion as “murderers.” She’s got a point.

But what would you have the pro-life movement do, Ms. Goodman? Should they tone down their rhetoric so much that they can no longer call abortion evil? Surely it is not extreme to say that abortion is “morally equivalent to murder,” if one believes that human personhood begins at conception.

The moral indignation of the pro-life movement is based on a passionate defense of the most vulnerable among us, those who cannot defend themselves. Trying to get pro-lifers to tone down their rhetoric will be difficult. Their emotions are understandable in the face of a society that wants to treat human life as a disposable commodity.

I sincerely regret that a few extremists have chosen to take matters into their own hands, rather than respecting the rule of law. Their actions diminish all of us. But Ms. Goodman, you should not blame us for our moral outrage against the evil of abortion.

Then came the news that the Commencement speaker would be President Barack Obama, and that he would receive an honorary law degree. Her reaction appeared in a letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of Notre Dame University. Some excerpts:

I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions” . . .

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice. . .

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

Professor Glendon’s letter is a bold rebuke to to Notre Dame University for setting aside its historic pro-life principles. She should be commended for her strong stand on behalf of human life.

Newsweek Article

Full Text of Professor Glendon’s Letter