Watch Tower, Can Christians Protect their Babies from placenta blood harvesting? by Donna Young

Revised, September 23, 2003

The ethics and legal accountability of Stem Cells Collection by umbilical cord clamping imposed on unprotected babies.  In 1997, Doris Haire, President of American Foundation for Maternal and Child Health, New York, tried to protect vulnerable nations' babies from harm being caused North American babies.  Unless we return to the traditional natural birth education and practice our babies are being harvested of their natural supply of placenta blood.

Can anyone protect their babies, and go back to the Pioneer-Method-of Natural Child Birth, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses? Jw's, have long been known to dissent from receiving or donating blood and tissues for human consumption,  But can even this large group, represented in some 200 countries, really, protect even their babies from being harvested in the current hospitals and practices of today? See the JW's concern as of 1997, below, in Red, The Watch Tower .  

Duty, would require, of our societies, to have an Official Commissioned Inquiry, on the care of the mother in child birth and the care and treatment to the fetus and neonate.  This may be a needed issue to be done by the United Nations as to Canada and the United States and other countries in violations of informed choice and best practice possible, least risk of harm on maternity matters.

The concern is that both professional persons, male and female, are internationally exploiting the woman's body to produce a child and to then harvest the unprotected baby for his/her placenta blood used in science research.  While the babies live, they are violated and compromised, internally.  The degree of injury will be different for each child, and that will be subtle to serious. There is not likely an internal disease that cannot be reviewed and traced back to unnecessary intervention during birth.

It is apparent, that premature to full term babies are being illegally harvested, and not protected as human beings with full legal equal security protection or of the law, for equal protection.  Nor, is there any apparent duty implied to give the public, at large, the necessary truthful information so parents can protect their babies from harmful medical trends, dating from today, to known documented research of harm, back to 1801.   See 1801, Dr. Erasmus Darwing, green title,  at the very end of this article.

The law can protect the babies from being harvested; or mothers being exploited to produce raw materials (blood of their babies) for the benefit of the medical societies, and drug companies and stem cell blood banks.  We must question if there are on-going violations to Criminal Codes, Supremacy of God, Rule of Law, Constitutional Violations where enforcement of the Criminal Codes is not given to all persons, equally, and security of person(s).  

(Please, see facts of drugs and early clamping causing learning impaired children, report of Doris Haire, 1997, Birth Without Borders Conference, see Doris Haire, the green title, below).

The JW's reply on the position of any Christian, written by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, go directly to Red Title, Watch Tower below.  

    Note, the author, Donna Young is not a member of this JW faith. I personally believe that any person, for the reason of belief of health issues, can refuse to donate organs and/or blood or receive the same, as their Constitutional right of informed choice. No persons have to belong to any church to dissent from violence or participation of wars and do not have to have a religious conviction to be protected to that choice and/or right.

    My concerns were shared to Marie, a member of the JW faith.  She, as another Grandmother, like myself, was upset as to her daughter's and her grandchild's treatment.  Marie witnessed early umbilical cord clamping and for no good reason, the cord did not tear or for reason of placenta previa, but a frivolous reason, fear of the mother bleeding.  We all know mothers normally bleed after birth.  All professional persons ought to know early clamping would endanger "both" the mother and the child, and was not a logical cure.  Conflict of interest as to the use of the deprived placenta blood is an issue of concern.

    I am sharing my concerns with Marie, and all may share this as an open letter. Sharing, one to another, is so they can know how far our society has been straying from informed choice, and right to refuse care and treatment with waivers to the medical person or institute, on medical issues in maternity matters, and the care and treatment of the newborn neonate, the citizen. All persons, regardless of age, sex, race, color, marital status, or mental or physical condition, (we are not living in Nazi times), have the Rule of Law, Statutory Laws, and Supremacy of God to have and must have equal protection and security of person.

The criminal codes, in most countries, are sufficient to have Coroner's Inquest enforced, for babies that died in the care of a medical person. This includes even on doctors and nurses and midwives, by Rule of Law. This means also at any time where a child has died soon after clamping off their lifeline, and in some cases, have died, in intensive care units.

Many medical persons are quickly destroying evidence and failing to keep accurate records, so they do not self-incriminate. Those that are a witness, of what the medical person did, may, if the Court approves, be considered conspirators, or accessories before and after the fact, and/or accomplices. They may have participated in the failure to investigate if the placenta had more blood in it then the child.  This is a common cover-up, in the deaths of many babies. Involved in this cover-up, to my experience, are Chief Coroners, or high officials of the Provincial government.  At least, this is true, in British Columbia, Canada. There can be found the common cause and factor to be unnecessary for any good medical reason, (unless the cord tore or for placenta previa) to be early umbilical clamping.  Endangering can result in death.  Endangering is assault even if death does not result, nor visual injury.

Death can result, if there is not immediate topping up of oxygenated blood.  If only oxygen is given without sufficient blood, the child, eventually dies of shock of low blood volume and pressure. This is logical in the death of a child, with such care, who died in my home town, October 8, 2000, Dawson Creek, BC.  While I attempted for the child to have the respect of an Inquiry, there was no proper Coroner's investigation.  This was encouraged and when I requested it, but both the RCMP and the Coroners refused this child due respect by the duty to investigate to prevent disrespect of any living child, to have had all necessities and care and treatment properly given it. Oxygen, alone, could not keep this child from shock and death. The baby, perfectly formed of sufficient weight and gestation to have lived, died 14 minutes later after early cord clamping.

The mother did not do that clamping the umbilical cord to her child. That is not natural for a mother to clamp and cut the umbilical cord, while the placenta is yet within her and the cord is functioning, providing a benefit to the child, or will, if the child's heart was not beating, and was revived.  A medical person, trained to do early clamping the ambulance medic or the doctor did this intervention.

I was not told who did this deed.  But it was all covered up. Civil compensation if sought and settled out of court, do not protect the public at large. This is  when there was failure to have a public Coroner's Inquest.  The public was not protected if this false training of the current trend of hasty clamping and harvesting of the baby's blood, and in this case, likely the baby's organs was the objective of the smaller babies. That means the unethical practices or inadequately training of the  medical persons,  will not stop. It means the public, at large, and future mothers to be, are not fully aware of what is going on in rural towns and in large cities.  

This secret of putting a child down and using the placenta and placenta blood, now the child's internal organs, has been, apparently, going on in secret, for a long time.  This is contrary to overwhelming evidence that hasty clamping is harmful to all babies this is done to. The first written documentation with factual evidence has been since 1801, and almost every generation of doctors have confirmed the truth, in published medical journals and research.

The truth of threat to any creature early clamped can be witnessed in any mammals birth, and on humans, if we wanted to video the child early clamped, followed with draining of the placenta on any educational medical film.  But what properly educated and ethical mother would give informed consent to endanger her offspring, multi-birth, or per baby?  All babies can be left on their umbilical cords, never having them amputated, tied or cut at all, c-section, to premature babies, or full term, or twins.

I received a reply from the Watch Tower, Hospital Information Services, no name of accountability, though, dated September 3, 2003.

This information by the Watch Tower, as of 1997....is not a current review of the times. All hospitals, have ethics Board. Most are being governed, controlled, or influenced by at least one legal law representative, or such appointed representatives to protect the public, at all Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and Colleges of Midwives.

And, most of the hospitals I have contacted and confirmed even by the Health and Wellness Minister, the Hon. Gary Mar of Alberta, Canada, alleged no informed consent of discarding/disposing of the placenta or the placenta blood need to be discussed with any patient, regardless of their faith or belief. This is because the placenta, once cosmetically removed and without informed consent, is regarded as salvage and owned by the State, Province, Territory or Nation, for any value it has to medicine, or implied, and freely taken using private information in that placenta and placenta blood as they choose.

This issue is a violation of the Constitutional Rights to be be able to protect one's privacy. Once the placenta is in the possession of any private lab, genetic codes of that particular family, race, color, ethnic background is in control of the ethics, and bias, and morals of the lab that has access to that information.

In a natural home birth, which I now advocate as to my research, the mothers birthing today, must be encouraged to get back to, for their own safety and to have a healthy birth experience and a healthy child.  If they have a signed Birth Contract, they can prevent that no government licensed medical person, if they come into their home, inserts no needle in "their" baby's umbilical vein.  Medical training or policies cannot impose on the mother or her baby without informed consent.  This means the mothers must be informed that there is a risk to a virus being inserted into the blood stream of the child, and can reject that risk to her child. All air has viruses and the virus can be slow or fast acting.  So why risk a needle put into a new born baby's skin?  That is not natural.  That is unnatural. It is your legal right to refuse injections or blood or fluids taken from your healthy baby, at birth. Or to have results of any tests you consent to, told you. It has been reported by parents, that PKU tests were not reported on the child's medical charts that blood samples were taken and billed for.

We are having babies with staph infections, as even their mothers. The mothers were cut, and needles inserted in them, and the virus crosses the placenta into the baby's blood supply, too. Even of the "cleanest" of hospitals or homes, the viruses are possible to enter into the child's blood supply if his/her skin is broken.

NATURAL BIRTH RIGHTS:

In many natural births, prior to the 1920's, the placenta was not cosmetically removed, nor tied, or cut. The baby was wrapped, immediately, in a warm towel, and kept on the  umbilical cord, which was not tied. The baby remained close to the mother. The umbilical cord is commonly 22 inches or longer, sometimes it is shorter.  A short cord requires holding the baby in a warm towel, until the placenta is expelled.  A long cord allows for the mother to hold her baby while it is yet left on the untied and pulsating cord.

In natural home births, the mother birthed in the warmest room possible, or even in warm water tubs. The mother had freedom to eat for nourishment as she wished, and to have hot teas.  One was the natural red raspberry tea, if taken strong enough, made labor faster. Teas following birth, were Shepherd's purse, alleged to lessen bleeding.  

A mother  being nourished, were known to birth sooner, not later, then mothers who  in institutionalized births were being routinely deprived nourishment.  This denial of nourishment, was, no doubt, creating problems for those who were diabetic and would distress a child too.

The birthing mother, in uncontrolled natural home births, had the freedom to move, and position her body as she pleased and was not controlled into positions of birth that were harmful.  Harmful births are being controlled by some "professional person" causing the mother to birth flat on her back or in semi-sitting positions. The safest birth positions were logically known to be gravity or if tired, the mother birthed side-ways.

HARMFUL BIRTH POSITIONS, ARE SUPINE:  It was known since 1913, of the facts the pelvic birth canal is open the widest, as much as 30 percent more, in gravity or "forward sitting positions" any position is safer then supine, as long as the position is a "forward" not backward position.

Drugs and Yeast Infections go together:  Also, drugs were not easily available, particularly, for rural births, so it was logical wise not to tie or cut the cord, so no infections got into the child, like tetanus, by leaving the cord untied and not cut.  Any drug is going to cause an upset in the digestive tract to healthy enzymes, so yeast infections are more prevalent to drugged mothers, thus, drugged babies.

Stronger Babies if the Cords are Not Tied/Clamped:  In natural births, the umbilical cord was not tied.  That was logical.  This allowed the babies to have full transfusion of the placenta blood into the expanding lungs and all nutrients of the blood and immunities. These babies, born in natural births, if their parents were both healthy at conception (free of toxins and drugs), were blue ribbon babies. These babies had strong immunity systems, and have lived a long time.  They had stronger coping abilities, dealing with their distress of their times, for example, my parents celebrating their 65th Anniversary, ages 89 and 90, having minimal care in their home.

CHRISTIANS NOT INFORMED OF THE CURRENT TIMES OF INFORMATION DENIED THEM:

The WT B & T. Society, by their letter below, indicates they are not up-to-date of the changes of our times -- hospitals today are acting in secret what they are doing with the placenta and the placenta blood trapped in them.  When you ask questions you are either lied to or the information is not shared, truthfully.

Christians are not aware that the forms that are signed today for discarding/disposal do not clearly state what that means, if burning or used in research or human consumption in cosmetics, or whatever, such as stem cells. This fact is concealed.  

Most hospitals do not have their own incinerators.  The maternity staff, if asked, do not know specifically what happens to any human organs when picked up at their hospitals. They simply say it is disposed. Who, where, how or facts are missing with private companies involved. The Administrators, if dealing with private contractors, will not reveal factual information how the public hospitals monies are being spent, or how the incomes are derived from selling the organs for research or to cosmetic companies, or private research corporations dealing with stem cells.  

Nor, on the personal matter of a child's early clamped cord, will they record how much blood was drained from the placenta and sent to their labs.

Nor, on the personal matter of a child's clamped cord, will they state or put down on the child's medical records the results of tests they alleged they were doing with the samples of blood for the benefit of that baby, if the tests were done and billed for.  

Too much taken for Granted and Not Inquired About in each Community:

The truth can be confirmed in any rural or city community that the medical system is very secret and conceals the fact of the placenta not being burned, locally.  And that head nurse of the maternity will not release who, where, or the fact of the blood taken at the hospital, and that in fact, the mother was never told, no need of any cosmetic removal of the placenta, and that no one should be syringing out the baby's blood from the vein or the placenta, that should be allowed the baby to have inside his/her own body.  

At one time, small hospitals and rural did have their own incinerators where a parent of the Christian faith who rejected the use of blood or tissue from organs being taken for other human consumption or tissues used.  They might have then witnessed the burning of their baby's placenta, as a fact, and not on blind trust, and might have known how much blood was drained by the lab for so called tests, if early clamping had been imposed on their baby, and without informed consent or the allowance of no clamping of the cord until the placenta had been expelled.

There is no law to prevent the parents for asking and to expect to be allowed for the return by informed consent to the older pioneer-method-of childbirth.  This is natural birth, requesting no clamping or cutting off the umbilical cord.  This is their legal right to allow the baby to go home, of what I call a sealed unit. There in the privacy of the home (after purchasing a clamping and cutting tool, which is packaged in a sanitary container, new, not used), the placenta could be removed, or simply kept in a diaper, to fall off in a day or two's time.  Later, the placenta can be buried or burned.

 Parents do not need to leave their baby's placenta for research or risk of genetic tests being done on their race, color, or ethnic background and I would discourage early placenta clamping and the best way to protect no invasion of privacy is not to allow clamping of the cord, at all.  The parents, if they want, can remove the placenta and cord at home and with information that a cut cord takes from 5 to 15 days to heal, with threat of infection.  But a unclamped cord is off in two day's time and no risk of cord infections.  

FACT OF DANGERS TO A CUT UMBILICAL CORD:  Over 400,000 to 500,000 babies die of infected "cut" cords.  This has been reported by the World Health Organizations, 1998. Their report was confirmed by a policy statement of very specific care needed for a cut cord by the British Columbia Reproductive Care Program and that the Vancouver Children's Hospital had fears of a Super Bug Viruses getting into the baby's blood system, who were born in that hospital.  If no clamping or cutting of the cords were done, and no syringe put in the baby's vein to take the baby's placenta blood, there would be no cause of fear of super bugs getting into the baby's blood stream.

The benefits of legally returning to the pioneer method of third stage labor care of the placenta is that there are no navel hernias or infections.  There is  perfect healing, and the baby has his/her full blood transfusion into their expanding lungs. This can only be assured if the baby is never taken away from a hired witness of a family member, if a hospital birth, sees that the baby is never removed for examination without a guardian being with the child.

What has been happening is when mothers have requested for the Lotus Birth, the medical persons, intent on getting blood yet for the untied and unclamped placenta and cord, intend to take a syringe needle and drain the precious blood valued in stem cells, and of course, send the baby home a sealed unit, smirking, as to knowledge they had pulled a fast one on the parents, for their blind trust, when the baby was rushed away for tests. The parents do not have to allow tests that insert needles into their baby. All pH tests, if consented to, can be done with urine tests. The medical persons take the blood, by needle insertions because it is easier.  They do not need to do instant blood typing on healthy babies.  

No parents have to consent to genetic testing of PKU.  This is being imposed on, and the test, commonly is done by needle insertion of the child's heel, at birth.  The facts are this test is not needed to be done at birth.  It is a test that can be done at any time, even on adults...and by urine tests, not by blood tests.  This test cannot be imposed on all babies, or any baby, and that was set in a precedent in Dublin, Ireland, when the medical professionals were seeking this test be required, as it is done in many institutionalized births in the States, perhaps, in Canada, and we must fear any professional person and their training such as the newly trained midwives, trained to be government agents, even when they work in the privacy of a home, they are clever at concealing their intents, particularly, on sneaking in hasty clamping for frivolous reasons, they make up at the time of child's birth, confusing the mother, not given means to have informed research, what she is being told is factual need to interrupt "their" baby's lifeline and support.  The midwives are not taking the legal accountability, or hope to avoid accountability, by endangering the mother and the child when they said they were following a policy.

Duty to the Child by all Adults:

No one was holding a gun to their medical person's head not to question policy.  The medical persons intended to impose on another, without informed right to reject that intention of policy, imposed, and they intended a surprise, a created crises, to justify any interference of the cord, other then the cord tore or for placenta previa.  This is to avoid criminal prosecution to attempt to say it was necessary.  It is a lie, not substantiated in medical facts of observable science, when done.

This is unnecessary, and likely premeditated clamping of the cord.  In most cases the myths, fears, trends, traditions, habits will not be proven of fact of need. Such crises setting, and women are doing this too, there is no difference in their training of militancy control, but doing such is unethical.  It must be regarded as a constitutional violation and likely criminal medical battery.

No parent ought to be asking a doctor to harvest their baby, either. No doctor needs to participate in endangering a child, as no one can waive a right of duty owed to the child.  So who would  give consent to endanger their baby of security of rights? Would a judge, knowing the risk taking to the child, order a child to give up to 50 percent of total blood volume?  I think not, no matter how good the need to help another. The child did not make another sick and has no duty implied to sacrifice from his/her own needs.

Therefore, unnecessary early clamping must be regarded as assault, battery, and charged as such, dealt with in the Court, as per each case brought to the court's attention.  This might be by an informant or by the guardian of the child, or Next Friend.  

Often, the State, too, for protection to children who are minors, including the babies, can act in the protection of the child.

If the legal guardians do not file a Writ, or inform the proper authorities their baby was assaulted by a medical person, some social workers can investigate if the child was being exploited to be harvested for their placenta blood, and that should be the case for every child early clamped in any environment, a home birth or a hospital birth, and the policies of the hospitals why this was being encouraged investigated, and those involved in this allowance taken to court for Common Nuisance, and the doctors and nurses that allowed this to happen taken to court too.

Most commonly are by this sneak attack of early clamping.  Even if the child lived,  violation has happened, if that was not a medical need for if the cord tore or for placenta previa, the only visual reasons to protect the child, but correction of any deprived blood are immediate, too.

A Living Baby does NOT Mean No Violence and Offense has Taken Place: The facts are most babies do live after assault of early clamping.  But  those babies, the smaller ones, that died, were never properly investigated by the duty of the Coroner's Office for wrongful death, not natural.  The Police have an implied duty to investigate medical malpractice by the questionable interruption of the child's security lifeline, the umbilical cord, even if the child lived.  Assault is any threat to a person who cannot defend themselves.

When any medical policy or doctor's or nurse's policy is imposed on the child, without the legal informed consent, or right of rejection with a signed waiver, by the parents, the true legal guardians of the child, Supremacy of God and their religion and faith guiding that position of being in charge....it is and can be charged as a criminal offense, of assault, battery, even attempted murder, if the doctor interrupted the umbilical cord, then intended with the cooperation of the nursing staff and the Administration staff, to conceal evidence. That concealing of evidence, is also a criminal offense.

By Rule of Law, doctors, and nurses cannot, in any agreement of policy, conspire to take away Supremacy of God guardianship of the natural parents; nor can they take away common civil rights of the guardians of the child, without due process of the Law....that means Rule of Law, requires accountability of any false medical policy, local or Provincial or Federal.

Those doing this violation to an infant, can be taken to Court by what is called a Constitutional Question. These can be taken by an individual or by an organization. They do not need a lawyer to take this issue to Court, of any violation to any "one" person. The fee is reasonable, ranging from $2.00 and up.

I trust, that whatever happened to Marie's grandchild, as did happen to mine, in Canada, one month later, June 2003, will in some way encourage this Grandmother, to also, to speak up, however, the Spirit leads.  Recommended is a letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for the false reason, not based in science, that the female doctor "feared" a condition which was normal following birth, "bleeding" of the mother, to have caused the doctor to impose, and without consent, early umbilical cord clamping. As to the fear of the placenta leakage, in this case, Marie's daughter was given an anti RH factor prevention shot.  This is not necessary in Natural births, where drugs, like oxytocin and harsh uterus contractions do not break the placenta, causing the blood to mix.

In Marie's case, as a nurse she was aware that "Bleeding of the mother, is normal to up to 4 cups of blood (960 ml)."  The danger of early cord clamping, was of common sense, that the mother and the child were both endangered by the early clamping. Early clamping had to be done for intent to take the child's placenta blood, which would by early clamping have been 20 to 50 percent total blood volume. That can represent, 4 to 6 ounces of a 9-pound baby, of normal 9-month gestation, and from the total amount of blood created, 10 ounces (300 ml).

We know the facts of blood production that it takes one red cell a full week to maturity and it takes a white cell twelve days to maturity, before either of them are released in the blood stream. Therefore, Policy #89, May 2000, of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), indicate correctly, a violated child early clamped with or without parent agreement to weaken "their" baby, will take 6 weeks to 6 months to remake the blood wrongfully deprived at birth.

Jaundice is a condition caused by too many red cells dying at one time, such as oxygen deprivation, or chemicals of drugs or virus invading the blood stream, and it often follows immediate and early umbilical cord clamping. It is so common of early clamped babies, the medical authorities have tried  to pass it off as normal.

The condition of jaundice, in most cases, will take some two weeks before the baby has recreated that volume of blood deprived the child, at birth.  This blood was actually stolen from the child, at birth, by unnecessary interruption of the umbilical cord transfusion, into the baby, by his/her own heart circulation.

Anemia also follows early clamping to the degree and length of time, often the rest of the child's life, by a condition of enzymes, hormones, white cells, red cells, stem cells, platelets, plasma, (proteins), vitamins, mineral, being in short supply by the volume of blood deprived any child, at birth.

Internal weakness to the child, will be like a roll of the dice, all different, and to the pre-disposition of any family, to be enhanced, that condition will be likely dominate after weakening of the child.  There was not informed consent to allow any unnecessary medical policies and procedures.  These medical policies (not approved or tested to be okay by other civil and criminal laws) were imposed and without informed consent to stop that care and treatment. That is not informed consent.

That care and treatment of tests, not for any specific substantiated reason, but curiosity and gaining means to blood samples, were imposed. Imposing on the mother and the child is not legal medical procedure because, in most cases, it was not informed consent, or having right to wave that care or treatment to the mother or the child.

When such cases are evident, witnesses and/or likely "informants" disturbed by injustices going on and not being stopped, can do Laying of Information.  This for enforcement that criminal prosecution, as is necessary, prevents any form of threat or medical violation caused the child.

Therefore, Marie, as the grandmother of the child, is entitled to use the Courts, by giving a Sworn Declaration to a Justice of the Peace, naming the criminal code of endangering to any one person, in this case to your daughter and to your grandson, that is your legal right to do so.

If the police do not investigate under the Evidence Act, as has happened in Ontario, Canada, the next right, if your faith does not discourage the using the Courts, can address this for little costs, under the Constitutional Question, or such provisions, in your State. Marie could possibly request an Order of Mandamus that the Government in your State do Criminal and Constitutional Enforcement by Rule of Law that medical persons are not making their own policies to be deemed exempt of investigation and bringing to trial any and all doctors and/or heads of associations, or governments that allowed this trend of threat to any new born child to continue.

In Marie's case, we have to allow for health factors and guidance of conscience or abilities to handle this.  Hopefully with Prayers and encouragement from others, Marie can make the most appropriate decision and action.

After criminal or Constitutional ruling, then a Civil Writ, which can be put to the court, it is believed that Marie, who can apply to be the Next Friend of your Grandchild, (if permitted in your State), can be filed.  Then the outcome of the Criminal Trial or the Constitutional Question ruling, can have financial compensation for any threat of endangering to the child.  Actions are brought, in the Child's name, as an Informant being the Next Friend.  Civil Writs can give the child's legal rights to be kept until the child can pursue at his choice as to any violations done to his/her person as a baby.  Good faith is proper and accurate information kept of the amount of blood deprived the baby, and other experts opinions "fear" of the mother bleeding is justification to endanger the child by early clamping as a cure, to threat to the mother, if not to the child.

The duty is to protect the right of the child, for any violations that were done as a bias as to his age and mental and physical disadvantage. The child was not age 17, could not give informed consent to give a donation of blood to research, which is being sold by conflict of interest by doctors and Hospital Administration.  Such compensation of collection of organs may be paid for by State Medical Insurance Plans or by Grants in Science. Or, the compensation paid by private placenta cord stem cell blood banks.  Private cord stem blood banks, may be acting on behalf of the rich clients wanting a specific blood type.  Therefore, the child's blood was known to benefit someone, and intentions of early clamping, was intentional and preplanned.

 * Note:  See current probability of a premature baby's birth in New York, that the mother planned, intentionally, to take a premature's baby's placenta blood and it is known that the premature's baby has higher quantity of stem cells, the story is at end of this article).

The medical facts of harm to the child, or risk taking:  The child's health was not able to be known in a split second when the early clamping was done.  There were no tests done to prove a need early clamping was a cure for any fears of any supposed problems. Any fears can wait for the proper completion of birth, the placenta expelled, before clamping and the cosmetic removal of the placenta and the cord.

Tests will confirm, if treatment for too thick of blood, too many red cells (caused by drugs), that early clamping was, in deed, a cure.  And that an already compromised child, should then have continued blood-letting imposed, automatically, without tests first done, that this is a cure to the newborn baby, struggling to recreate the deprived blood.

The child, when violated by early clamping, was not over 110 pounds....and the other statements mean the duty of care of all medical persons, wanting blood samples from babies, cannot excuse the policies of normal procedure from whom, good health practices must also be give consideration, that the weak of our society are not exploited.

FAILURE IN DUTY TO PROTECT THE CHILD BY THE POLITICIANS AND MEDICAL SOCIETIES:

So far, no one, not one politician and this is world wide and they can have shares in private research corporations and private stem cell blood banks and a clear conflict of interest of implied duty to protect the publican at large, has been protecting the living baby from being harvested. This of course is criminal as well as being unethical. It cannot be excused by not training any medical person not to be competently trained nurses, doctors, surgeons, midwives, and ambulance medics.

MEDICAL TOOL OR WEAPON, DEPENDS WHEN AND HOW AND WHY IT IS USED:

All medical persons, particularly the ambulance medics, today, are likely carrying an immediate cord clamping and cutting tool. Such a clamping tool is made by Dupont.  Dupont brought out the tool after they read the World Health Organization's directives of 1998, that any baby, whose mother was given the common drug, oxytocin, pitocin, and other names used in other Nations, had to have immediate cord clamping.  To my knowledge, Dupont gives no warning of the endangering of the baby to be anemic or jaundiced by early clamping of the cord, and informed consent that using the oxytocin drug may bring a consequences of weakness to the child by hasty clamping imposed.

Dupont then made this tool, ideally to be sold to all medical persons, including ambulance medics.Their tool (or weapon as to its use)  clamps and cuts the cord, instantly. It has a blood shield to protect the person endangering the child, from blood splattering.  

No Warning Oxytocin Drugs Must Have Immediate Cord Clamping of the Umbilical Cord to the Public, at Large:

If there is truth the oxytocin drugs, artificially made with questionable trace elements and preservatives, one being Chlorobutanol, prevents the child's brain from continuing to develop brain cells, the mothers are not so informed by the Food and Drug Administrators of each Country, they apply to.  (Note, The brain cells continue to develop in a young child, some say to 8 months, some say to two years of age, World Book Encyclopedia, 1979.  The most recent Internet statements on brain development, allege teenagers may develop new brain cells and allege that is the cause of their rebellion to instructions ??? !!!).

In most cases, of unnecessary medical imposing on the birthing mother, the mother is busy with nursing the child back to health, after state of the art technology of "active management" was imposed and not education for natural birth, warm water births, and no drugs was not encouraged or allowed by the older medical persons, or those being even trained to day.  it is understandable that Marie's daughter, at this time, is weak and may be in yet shock of her treatment during birth.  

This is how the medical system has taken advantage of the new mother, and has rejected third party concerns of the treatment of any women, at the level of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and the College of Midwives, and the Associations of the Registered Nurses. Their systems have been intentionally set up to block third part concerns of informants and of third parties to speak up. That investigation is not stopped to Social Workers though, nor the police to allegations criminal medical policies and practices of them, were being done, and not needed medical services or policies or practices.  We can then understand why your daughter being busy with her child, that she is not able to act with letters to the College of Physicians or Surgeons. Nor, to find out the policies of the Administration of the Hospital. However, the longer delays are taken and no one is writing a letter of complaint may allow or mean the destroying of evidence.  This too is a criminal offense.   Often Justice Delayed is Justice Dismayed.

                                    Watch Tower Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

"Please excuse our delay in providing a reply.........

"The issue of saving the placenta and umbilical cord to extract things from

their blood was specifically considered under "Questions from Readers" in

our February 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower magazine. A photocopy of page

29 of this issue has been enclosed for your information.

"Please note the statement: "If there is very good reason to believe that

such a practice is followed in the hospital where a Christian will give

birth, it would be proper simply to direct the physician that the placenta

and the umbilical cord should be disposed of, not used in any way."

" Our position as stated in this published information has not changed . We

believe that this material adequately answers your query."

Sincerely, Watch Tower B. & T. Society of Pennsylvania, Hospital Information

Services

Enclosure:

Address: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

Hospital Information Services, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201-2483,

U.S.A.

Phone: (718) 560-4300 Fax: (718) 560-4479 E-Mail: "his@wtbts.org"

    _________________________________________________

Informed Choice: There is clever deception that many medical persons think if they only share what they were taught, not what information from 1801 to the current date, is available on the subject, and even in hospital libraries (while the older books of research showing harm of early clamping are disappearing), they have served their client.  Not so.  

There is duty of research as to the abilities of every professional person, licensed, in the State/Province/Territory.  Male of female have no good excuse not to do extra research to confirm they are not being deceived by the system, that may be geared to exploit the birthing mother or their newborn child. Or, allow or encourage even the mother to exploit her baby. The criminal code in Canada, about the woman not getting assistance for the birth of baby was intended to the women who intended to harm her child, not the mother who intends to protect her baby from harm from others, such as the inadequately trained medical persons, doing a current trend of harvesting the baby, by doing early clamping and taking the placenta and the placenta blood, and many are doing this for extra income and hope of the jack pot.

The facts are Australia paid $30,000 for an adults size of cord stem cells, taken from babies.  They now are allowing exploiting of their own babies, as this hasty clamping is growing around the world.  And over 2000 experts, the obstetricians and the gynecologists and the registered nurse midwives and direct entry midwives were registered at stem cell blood banks, ready and willing for a fee to take any where from 20 to 50 percent total blood volume from anyone's baby, not educated on the risk taking of weakening the baby to internal injuries.  These internal injuries are latent, often, in the discover of holes in the heart, lung problems, cancers, tumors, brain lesions, diabetic conditions in children, eating, sleeping disorders, nervous conditions, failure to thrive, muscle problems, and behavior problems, are all internal organs associated with low blood volume and pressure, anemia, jaundice, and missing enzymes and hormones and natural immunities.  Why risk it.  Is not the health of the child, worth more then money?

DUTY OF ALL LICENSED PROFESSIONAL PERSONS, DO NO HARM:

The duty of all medical professionals are to question even their instructors or their selection of bias towards women and the child by what and whose text books were selected. I have seen an attempt of best information available, least risk of harm in one particular Biology textbook, Inquiry Into Life, whereas, the Colleges selection of care to the mother and child, had inferior information as to directing early clamping on the child's umbilical cord.  Such medical directives of not the best information or the least risk of harm, is questionable as to motives and the association of drug companies and research companies wanting what they call salvage blood drained from the placenta, cord blood.

If the medical professional's training was inadequate it believed it is intentionally so, on this issue, the public is not being protected, and this is a violation of trust by the Provincial and Territory governments and the duty of correction by the Federal Levels of government.  The politicians have an implied duty to protect all, equally, and as to security of person, including the newborn baby.  To do otherwise, is for the Provincial and the Federal government to be in breach of the Constitution, the enforcement of duty by the Criminal Codes, and by Rule of Law and duty by Supremacy of God.  All have an implied duty of what is logical and would be considered reasonable to any reasoning jury and judge.

APPROPRIATE CARE FORMS ARE NOT INFORMED CONSENT:

Many medical institutions have "appropriate care" forms which are forcing women, in a pregnant condition to sign, if they want any help at all...on the premises of these private or public birth centers at the hospitals providing licensed persons privileges at their hospital, regardless of their training or biases.  Appropriate care, by any recently trained medical person, in child birth, apparently is active management, which deceives the women, that by taking "drugs" during labor, they will have a painless birth, or cutting of their body to give birth, is appropriate, or depriving the baby of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume was a benefit, some how to their baby ??? !!!!  All of this is known deceptions -- but the naive and trusting mother to the medical professionals is not giving informed consent, for she has not been adequately educated from the hospital's own controlled prenatal classes.

This was recently acknowledged in a Surrey British Columbia prenatal classes, where two ladies asked the unskilled registered nurse about not cutting a pulsating cord.   They, on the phrasing of their question were focused on the cutting of the cord........the focus must be on the clamping of the cord, that stops the cord, eventually from pulsating...the cutting making no difference.  The clamping is what interrupts the infant's circulation system and flow of the blood from the placenta into the baby.  

Letters to the University of British Columbia as to Nurses Training and those nurses going into special training of obstetrics at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, (BCIT), have at this date, no confirmation they will cease the directives of the current trend, allowed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and College of Midwives, 30-second and immediate cord clamping. In 1999, the CPS-BC, stated the correct procedure for "all" doctors was to wait until all pulsation of the cord ceased, before clamping, if that procedure was consented to be done at all, by informed choice of the parents -- implied a duty of all doctors to get permission for a mere cosmetic removal of the umbilical cord and placenta.....and confirm how and to whom it goes for burning, and confirmation the organ is burned, not taken for private research or for cosmetic uses, the income paid to the doctor for the detaching the organ, or the hospital for handling organs.

DECEPTION OF ACTIVE MANAGEMENT METHODS OF LABOR DISCOMFORT:

The mother has been told if she breathes quickly, pain will not be there, during labor. This is a lie.  Women will tolerate labor discomfort as it is described and why it is happening and the hormones in her body and the baby's that will help her tolerate it and movement is one way and support of someone who loves her is there. Often mothers are deceived to believe that if she accepts drugs, there is no pain.  In fact she is asked by nurses, do you want a quick painless birth. They do not explain the dangers of the drugs, as that would lower profits that come with higher costs.  The prenatal classes withhold the truth of the side effects of the drugs.

There is pain even in c-sections and this is a serious operation, not adequately described long before child birth, and the women are being prepared, mentally, that 25 percent in a prenatal class can expect to need a c-section.  It is almost like some of them are being set aside for 25 percent to all surgeons as their fair share of the baby business. But would that be honestly told the community of our higher medical costs, manipulating women. It would not be the first time, women are exploited for business profits of the medical persons.  What the medical persons intend is morphines to numb the brain, and slow down the labor. The add morphine with oxytocin to increase labor at the convenience of all staff. The morphine is expected to numb the woman's brain so she is not fully aware of the titanic contractions caused by the pitocin/oxytocin. Sometimes the babies just die of the combination of the drugs used and gels and creams applied to her membranes, the water bag, often stripped for the drugs to assimilate right into the baby's amniotic fluids.  All evidence is destroyed in many cases when complications set in.

Drugged babies umbilical cords will taken longer to cease to pulsate, so drugged babies are endangered by early umbilical cord clamping, this was proven back in 1957, by Dr. Mavies Gunther, UK.  The medical persons intend to combine the drugs to the uneducated mother, this is breach of duty of informed consent and risk to both the mother and the child.  The intentions of the hospital are to allow the nurses and the doctor to drug with morphines that are combined with oxytocins (with questionable trace elements and preservatives in the latter, Chlorobutanol.  That preservatives is known to cause thyroid problems, that are latent in developing in the mothers, so what do they do to the child?   

The medics then watch the birthing mother's body go into intensive hard labor of close together, long indurations of contractions of her uterus, and sometimes the mother has so much morphine to her brain, she is not aware in a first time birth of the titanic contractions on her womb....this may interfere with her having children in the future, or carrying them, ever again, full term.  This is because her uterus has been bruised and damaged and harsher bleeding caused by the oxytocin.  Yet, oxytocins are alleged to stop bleeding.  It is the platelets and their releasing Serotonin that seals broken blood vessels, not the hormone oxytocin.  

The medical persons will watch the baby and the mother. When they think the baby is under distress, sufficiently, to cause a c-section, they will take the baby out.  This will be followed by immediate cord clamping.  What the medical persons ought to have have known is that the intensive long and harsh labor, produce a fear in the child, that the child fears suffocation.  It is being suffocated by lack of oxygen. The child's body goes into survival mode and creates more red stem cells.  Red cells carry oxygen. But it is likely premature cells are forced to leave before they are ready.  It is the premature cells the scientists want at the stem cell blood banks. When you ask the persons working there if they know this they pretend to not know that they are endangering the babies. They say the experts, whoever they are, assured them the baby feels no pain.  Well a shark biting your arm ... may not result in pain instantly, but shock of deprived blood can lead to death.  Injury of deprived nutrients can lead to other disorders of the shock and oxygenated blood deprivation.  So the stem cells are misrepresenting the safety of collection of the baby's blood to the general public as to calling for donated blood from the babies.  The public, at large is being deceived.  

    The Common nuisance of what a doctor at a stem cell blood bank, private or public or at any University or Student Training Hospital, need to know how the babies are being exploited.  Again, it is the distress of hard long labor, close together, does not provide sufficient oxygen in the mother's body. Thus, the fetus is also deprived, again, directing the body to release more red blood cells, and likely stem cells.  It may or may not show distress, too, and just die of the oxytocin drug and the placenta premature pulling away from the womb, the baby still born by suffocation in the womb.  The medical persons stating a natural death, they did everything to save the baby...it was all the woman's own fault for accepting drugs, etc, etc, etc. There is no inquires on still borns born in hospitals. They are not persons, so it seems.  

The distress to the child, creates in its body the need to release, prematurely, many blood cells. These are the red cells, needed to carry oxygen......only the red cells with the iron, carry the oxygen and carry away wastes and carbon dioxide.  

The drugs may have killed the mature blood cells prematurely. These are the tiny cells.  An immature red cell has a nucleus in it and it is bigger.  It is believed the immature red cell is what is desired by the cord stem cell blood banks.   What the cleverness of medical societies and the blood lab experts know, is that premature babies have more stem cells; and that they are seeking from all babies, whenever, or however born, and whatever condition the stem cells, and the quantity of blood produced for the baby's needs, is not given the baby, but early clamped off.  We call that not planning, or knowledge that could not be discovered or surmised by those dealing in a baby's birth?  

This is not given to the benefit of the child, that produced it for its needs, by the fear of it dying.  This is highly unethical medical practice, and it is, criminal.  It just has not been taken to criminal court because the lawyers, are so ashamed of another professional organization doing this, they have not assisted any one person, or group of persons, to have the matter correctly addressed before the Courts.  It may be, they prefer only civil actions, where they prosper by the negligence of others, whereas, by taking the matter also to criminal court, the lawyers do not prosper, as much, for criminal court is only for discipline, and the fees to be paid them are from individuals, so charged with criminal common nuisance when any one person is being endangered, to even quality of life and the enjoyments of life, given to others not so treated with such disrespect.

A POSSIBLE NEW YORK PREMEDITATED HARVESTING OF A PREMATURE BABY'S BLOOD:

    Recently, I had correspondence by a person doing research if it was safe to do early umbilical cord clamping.  The research was on behalf of her personal friend, a career person, too busy, to do self-research on the topic.  It proved her friend was unyielding to do early clamping and was too delicate to be approached with serious factual studies her intent to do early clamping was misguided and harmful and a threat to the well being of her baby, while it may live.

    There was a good month to allow for informed choice against early clamping, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa.  

    In this case, the mother-to-be, planned a mountain holiday, with her spouse.  This was near New York.  She had vigorous sex. Higher altitudes, even likely those in New York are likely to cause the need for the more red cells blood to increase to adapt to the thinner air..and for more oxygen to be carried to the mother's cells, and the baby's system, too, would have needed more oxygen and more blood cells.

    Often athletes train in the high mountains to give them advantage of more red cells.  Her water broke, after vigorous sex.  She went to a hospital with all preparations to do early cord clamping.  

    The baby was premature, and it is common knowledge that premature babies have more stem cells, as they are still developing.  

    In this case, the baby would have likely even more volume of red blood and more stem cells.  

    Who is to say, and we would never know, if this mother, was bribed by a wealthy person, even a relative, requesting stem cells from her child, on the pretense, the child is not harmed and feels no pain.  This is the misleading advertising of most cord stem cell blood banks, even those in New York misrepresent.  Also, the various stem cell blood banks, do not state they likely sell the other components of blood, after they take only the stem cells.  They cell, the other components, most likely, not burn them.

    This is to the extent that if medical doctors and midwives, can conceal they are bribed to collect stem cells from the placenta and then sell the placenta, as a discarded organ.  This is for extra income. The cost to society is that the babies born in Canada, and the United States, will be lessened in abilities and weakened in immunities.They will require greater assistance in learning and add to the higher medical bills.  

    Will the victimized babies, exploited as second class citizens, harvested for their placenta blood -- forgive us?  !!!!  Will the women, who know this happened to them come forward for Class Actions for their reproduction uniqueness come forward with their facts of stories, and all medical reports, of being manipulated to produce, what I call raw materials that the government allowed in the taking of their baby's blood, assuring all, no pain to anyone.  Tell that to the child in pain to learn when others not so violated zip through school.  Pain and loss enjoyment of means and abilities is to the individual, to share what they went through to learn to read, write, and spell, and many never could handle maths and the sciences or languages or enjoyment of English.  

Many on remedial courses their entire lives.  And, many never completing school or getting a proper trade. And the labor jobs diminishing while these persons were reduced to labor only, if they could even handle that.  Some turning to drugs and addiction as to their birth injuries. No long-term research was done as to the harmful birth practices and all were unnecessary but imposed on inadequate trained women, who should have been taught natural birth from their mother's knee, normal and natural and to respect all creatures umbilical cord, the lifeline, the hopeline that allows for quality of life for all creatures, human or animal.

If we all are educated we will not have corrupted medical persons, who are business profit business persons harvesting babies in the medical profession. No matter how important science and research is, it was never intended to exploit people, ever. Informed consent means all information that is available, not the bias or restricted lessons that some medical persons were taught and if checked found wanting in that person's motives of instruction, concealing the risk taking.

All leaving out informed choice of natural birth and no clamping, ever, of the cord, as a choice over cosmetic removal of the placenta. That too is a choice to be made by the mother instructed too of the risk of cord infections if cut and she must sign that she did was not harvesting her baby, when the baby needed the placenta blood for his/her optimal health.  The duty is equally on the women not to, also be exploiting and endangering her baby or babies.

That means for multiple births, she is not allowing the first twin to be clamped before his/her own umbilical cord ceased to pulsate without clamping.  The twins made the blood jointly, they know how much their body needs, sharing it jointly in the womb. Doctors are playing God to determine a time of clamping, they are in most cases getting rid of the first twin because it is inconvenient to him or her. That was brought out in the intentions of a doctor intending to weaken a persons first born baby.

The c-section doctors are taking most babies placenta blood, too, by clamping the baby, then cutting the cord, then taking the baby out, then getting the baby breathing.  What must be done, by a signed contract, the baby or the babies taken out with the placenta and cord unclamped. If Dr. T. Peltonen set safety and no lung disorders and did this 87 times, all doctors can do this.

    And what of the politician that protected only, the non-living person, the embryo, under 14 days, not to be exploited, for stem cell use.  This was debated, at least in Canada, but the Prime Minister of Canada and his Federal Ministers of Health and Justice, Health Canada, SOGC, all would not protect the living babies; nor would the Tri-Council Policy Statement, protect the living babies from being harvested of stem cells.  Why not?  

    They knew this was going on and I informed them.  They just did not care of legally protecting the baby as to duty and to our existing Statutory Laws, Rule of Law and the criminal codes of causing even the threat of bodily harm, and failed to investigate deaths of premature babies, across Canada, or to have the RCMP do a special investigation on this issue in all hospitals across Canada.  Why not?

    And why not those contacted in other Provinces, on this issue, the Ministers of Health and the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, that upheld, and questionably so, policies on early clamping, contrary to logic, but in most cases done deceptively and not with informed choice or consent, or right to know no harm done of no clamping or removal of the umbilical cord, at all.

      The fetus, in the birth canal, about to be born, and will be a living person, is not, today, protected around the world.  The Canadian Criminal Code states in Canada the about to be born baby is to be protected. That is supported with that the women must protect the baby from harm that she has adequate care when she births her baby, meaning a witness she intends the child no harm.  I see that now the need to include security not to birth with the inadequately trained medical doctors, nurses, ambulance medics, doulas and midwives, at this time.  They have been inadequately trained on the fetus to neonate circulation system.

    I do not see that accidental as to the overwhelming research available to them, and on the most modern of technology.  What I see also is that some research is highly questionable, of randomized trials that are not true informed consent of all options and the research had a conflict of interest, and withheld important information for the medical persons to see clearly true results and summary.  See the Criminal Codes at this Web Site, in the List of Contents.

DO I WRITE IN PASSION OR IN SHOCK?

    When persons read my web sites, all the correspondence sent to the highest of officials, they say, What passion?   Well, perhaps it is.  But then, if you study the research and the personal experience as a Mother and as a Grandmother, it may be more of shock.  We women, if we have no career titles, identified by society are often not listened too.  Perhaps it is because of our passion or our shock.  Perhaps, we are regarded as the pregnant women, sick, therefore the mentally disabled are not regarded as persons with right of protection or defense by the courts or by professional persons.   Frivolous causes are put into the Oath of the British Columbia Law Society's code of ethics of the lawyers, and they have regarded that if the baby lives and the mother from child birth, any complaints of their unconsented treatment are to be regarded as frivolous.  That is not my understanding of the Criminal code.  

    A person does not even have to be touched for assault to have taken place, so a threat of assault of the threat of internal injury by drugs and early clamping and inserting of a needle into the person's body and injection of drugs or vaccinations without informed consent, it not a right to be imposed or has to imposed, is, in my opinion, the right to be heard in criminal court for assault and battery of evidence of harm.  Jaundice and Anemia are indications of internal injury and natural birth do not have those conditions, as natural birth has no drugs or early clamping.

      I will probably die of shock of what I have learned, in my own Inquiry Into Life.  I am shocked to the lack of attention, at all professional groups, involved in secrecy of drugging the mothers and in following early umbilical cord clamping, and being secretive of what they actually meant by discarding and disposal of the organ and the blood trapped in the placenta.  The doctor was negligent if he/she did not know the hospitals labs were using the samples of blood and not necessary to be taken for the alleged reasons or tests done, if done at all.

    This includes, the educators, particularly, the biology teachers, for putting in their textbooks misleading medical teaching and practices, outside of visual science, you could see of natural birth in any barn yard, or in the domestic animals births, even of cats and dogs.  Wisely, cats and dogs do not eat the pulsating cord, or the placenta until all pulsating has ceased. Otherwise, they eat the placenta and pup or kit, so they lick the animal clean, allow the creature to nurse, before the mother eats the placenta, of natural intuition.  Most human mothers would not naturally tie or cut the cord with yet the placenta inside her, she would be warming the baby in a towel, and wait, naturally, for the completion of the child's birth.  It has been doctors, as business persons, who rushed the third stage of labor, not being patient, nor paid any more for patience of the third stage of labor.

    The BC Medical Insurance plan simply pays a standard fee for the child's delivery, and they would not correct paying for early clamping, involved in that care...that endangered both the mother and the child. Why not?  They could have given directions to the Medical Colleges when they heard the CPS-BC was allowing the continuation of early clamping as a current trend, contrary to what they told me back in 1999, all doctors wait patiently for all pulsation of the cord to cease...before detaching the cord.  Seems that was very questionable if all doctors were following correct procedures, and I know, if the mother was not drugged, in most cases, the doctors did not clamp the cord when it was still pulsating.  But neither did they warn if the mother accepted drugs, it was followed by hasty clamping, and she would have a living baby, yes, but it would have some kind of latent internal disorder...evident of fact of jaundice that would last two weeks, and there would be anemia, too.  This was withheld information, and that must be dealt with by the Courts, criminal or civil.

REGISTERED NURSES INADEQUATELY TRAINED ON THE FETUS TO NEONATE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, OR THIS IS ALLEGED BY SOME NURSES, ACROSS CANADA, AND IN THE UNITED STATES:

    Then comes the registered nurses, by common sense, did not question the different time periods of clamping the umbilical cord, and never recorded the condition of the cord, when clamped or the time when it was clamped.   They did not question why, today, we have research that one in sixteen babies of a vaginal birth or c-section having to be revived.  Or, that premature babies, are being blood-let, or other babies in intensive care, every 2nd and 3rd day.  The amount of blood taken, revealed in the Canadian research paper was that of 10 to 15 percent total blood supply (the newly created blood with stem cells).  Surely, common sense required the nurses of an implied duty of conscience to go to the police.  It is illegal to conceal and to be willfully blind, not to be considered accomplices and accessories to endangering, and common nuisance.

CAN WE PARDON IN ADVANCE?

    I wish, in my research, I could give Exemptions or Pardons in Advance...but the duty of the law is enforcement, by Rule of Law and is according to the already sufficient criminal codes, in most countries. The research, overwhelming research has been done on this issue, and what research that was done, was not with informed choice of the safer options to natural birth.

    The Rule of Law upholds the Declarations of the Human Rights, signed back in 1948.  The criminal codes are the way each Nation protects the individual.  There were to be no exemptions by Rule of Law, to exempt any level of government or professional group to be exempt from accountability or responsibility.  

    This is to Constitutional rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that no person is excused from their perceived legal duty and for another's security of person. This is regardless of age, or mental or physical disadvantages, nor to prejudice as to ones color, race, or sex, or marital status.  All adults, parents, or other legal guardian can exploit a child. Therefore, I believe all those that were a party, or took part to established false medical policies, and allowed babies not to be equally protected, and as to their legal advisors, who sat on their Boards, representing the public at large, no harm done as to policies, must be questioned.  This is when the duty was clear to our society, we must have legal accountability and responsibility to account for falsehoods in teachings, and by those who did the actual deed, and did not report false teachings by their instructors, and unethical practices of drugging the women without her right to know of the risks and to refuse the drugs.  Then false reasons given for early clamping of the baby's lifeline, like, we fear the mother bleeding, after the use of oxytocin.

    Only in such nations of corruption of evil times, have such blindness and failure of duties being allowed.  Shockingly, those were the times of the rule of Nazi.  Has this philosophy become part of the civil service agents of our Democratic policies, in health care policies, they have allowed others to take away informed rights of the individual.  This is scary.  I have seen issues of family working with the alleged dying. But the family is enhancing their death by drug overdose.  This is when the person was fighting against death trying to life. The head of the nurses following the direction of the doctor, were making the medical persons in charge of increasing the medication against the control of the person with the disease.  They were doing fine, and on schedule prescribed the nurses and doctors assumed they could take over the medication, when some persons did not want increased drugs.

    The person was held down and drugged, continuously, until his death. The medical experts were being covered up and the involvement of siblings assisting against the persons wishes who blocked concerns of his friends, who wanted to help and remove the person from the entrapment of the hospital. They deprived the person of the privacy with his friends.  Even of his own minister was denied entry to his room.  This I witnessed. And the system allowed no immediate investigation on its own policies. They medical nursing staff and government official involved in long-term care and treatment had policies that allowed them to collaborate with their own people. There was not means to go to the Court, before they drugged the person to his death.  There was no outside investigation on their care and treatment to others was intentionally not permitted. It was clear the medical persons decided it was this 46-year's old duty to die.  I thought this was not Canada, as to the direction British Columbia is going with the control of Administration blocked to accountability and responsibility, and allowed form of euthanasia but not with informed consent of the person put down.

    In one case, in a BC Pouce Coupe care home, a 73 year old women, by an ethical doctor, had her killing drugs reversed, slowly.  She did not have the alleged fatal disease after all. The ethical doctor directed slow withdrawal of the drugs that would have killed her.  She was released and is well and living in Fort St. John.  This report came from a reliable source and witness.

    There can be arrangements to put down the old, the weak the sick, if Provincial Care Policies do not allow immediate and no cost to save and spare the life of another, whether this is be Next Friend application.  But in BC, they took away Next Friend Application, only allowed immediate family to consent or dissent of drugging of an unconsented death to their family member, and the member of the family to help in the drugging, often property can be an issue or the estate.  

    We, can, therefore, have controlled killings of babies to the sick adult.  These all are being allowed in hospitals. There was no true enforcement of the RCMP.  They allege they check with the government officials and if they do not think he/she will prosecute they do not do an investigation, period.  Those having a duty to enforce the Constitution and the Statutory laws, are allowing these things to happen, as long as they are taking place in a controlled environment.  A medical institute controlled environment that is taking away rights to the individual of informed choice, involving the nurses, doctors, practical nurses, ambulance medics having powers they believe of self-proclaimed powers over another's life, or quality of life.

     Are individuals signing a death contract as to their allowance of death by drugs?  If one was signed by the human being being put down, that is one thing, but no signed death by drugs, it is murder.  What we have is the family and the doctor taking control of a person and putting the person down without previous agreed consent of death by over dozing of drugs.  

    This is now obvious in British Columbia, Canada, to what I have seen in the Provincial governments long-term care services and those civil servants controlling of it. The plan was astutely put in place to block the constitutional rights of the individual once in an institution - like a prisoner, their rights denied, like they were taken away by another power...a doctor(s) and their appointed executioners, often the nurses. The method is dehydration so the drugs work faster, no food, no water, no visitors of privacy of the controlled patient. The control of family members working with the medical staff, but working against the agreement of the person that went in blind trust of care, not death, and was seen protesting imposed drugging. Harvesting at birth...Duty to die all controlled by the medical persons.

    This is similar to babies, being harvested for their blood.  They are being allowed to live, but as second class citizen, the babies harvested for another's benefit.  

    In one case, it was likely deemed by the medical persons making the decision that the premature baby was deemed too small to live. The child was under 5-pounds, and about just shy of 3-pounds. It appeared to have been put down by the method of early clamping.  The pretense of oxygen revival, when no blood expanders are given...is the means to kill by opinion who is fit to live and who is not.  The matter is been done by the directives of the doctor, if the doctor is not doing the killing by practice, themselves.  So practical nurses and the nurses can be the executioner of a doctor's directions to increase drugs, until death.

    Why did our fathers go to war if we by policy of any medical group can kill by opinion who is fit to live and no access to the Courts are being allowed.  The blockages were by the lawyers.  They put on high fees, of $20,000 to $40,000 and allowed by Courts delay in such issues of 3-months, when the hospital killings by drugs were done in weeks, by relative and nurse and doctor participation, but against the persons will to want to live.

    We know those of high society picked on those deemed weaker, or not fit, to be considered persons.  Think about it.  What can you do?  What will you do? On any issue of medical violence to another, yet deemed painless.  If you see the sedating and increased morphine to a person struggling not to have that happen, pulling out the needless for IV drugging, refusing the pills...and forced to take them by his sibling group, while the parents were controlled that they could not be contacted; and then to know that doctors are clamping the umbilical cord of the child that could not even fight from death, it makes you wonder why we had the First World War, at all or the Second, or why people are fighting, at all.  

They must only be fighting for the profits of corporations that really rule the governments.  So we do not have any power of who is elected, since, the individual's rights are being blocked of informed consent and control of what is or not done to them, even in our alleged Democratic societies.

Facts of impaired children by needless medical interventions "Active Management" is revealed by the research of Doris Haire:

The Quotes of Doris Haire, President, American Foundation for Maternal and Child Health, New York Presented to the Birth Without Borders Conference, Sponsored by UNICEF in Chiang Mai, Thailand, March 1, 1997, to quote:

"There is growing concern in the U.S. that obstetric related drugs, which you may refer to as medications, contribute significantly to our
embarrassingly high rate of learning disabled children. American children, in general continue to lag behind most industrialized countries in academic achievement, especially in those aspects of education, such as math and science, that require comprehension and deduction."

 "A statement made back in 1977, by the Director of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke, Dr. Donald Towers, cautioned in a speech before the National Committee for Research in Neurologic Disorders:

"It is the biochemical circuitry--the biochemical messengers and relevant nerve cells in the brain - that form the basis for mankind's behavior."

Doris Haire mentions, about the dangers of:  Epidural Anesthesia, Meperidine/Pethidine, Nubin, Stadol, Nisentil, Dilaudid, Sublimaze, Hydroxyzine, Naloxone, Phenergan, Oxytocin, Pitocin, Syntocincon, Methergine, Pudendal Block same risks as epidural injection, lactation suppressants (Bromocriptine mesylate (Parlodel);  

Haire questioned that a normal PH doesn't means optimal PH, or that the baby has come from being drugged, unscathed.

Haire warns about routine sonograms and electronic fetal monitoring, and no justification for routine use of ultrasonic scanning during pregnancy.

     Note:  I, Donna Young,  have found these State of the Art Technology, encouraged to very vulnerable older women, those over 30, who delayed child birth. They are fearing they are not well to have proper genetic health to have a perfect baby.  So, they scan, and one in sixteen babies are showing defects.  

    This can range from minor like ear defects, not properly developed and so forth, to major limb miss sing or thumbs missing and hearts not properly developed, and other organs; and blood disorders of chronic anemia.  All are considered genetic disorders.  And the birth defects not recording all care of the child, to the scan, how many, training of the person doing the scan, equipment used, and so forth.  This full history of the child's care are seldom required by law, to be researched to indicate how many birth defects and impairments to our babies, are actually from a common cause of unnecessary interventions and State of Art Technology, not necessary, in most cases for natural child birth.

Haire warned of elective induction and augmentation of labor, and this is not FDA approved use of oxytocin or prostaglandins for wanted babies.

    Note, I, Donna Young, have found that these hormone drugs, that are now synthetically made with unknown trace elements and preservatives not discussed with the pregnant mother, and known problems with them.  Inductions by using these drugs  were known to be  abortion drugs. They allow the baby to be aborted whole.  Therefore, the aborted unwanted baby can be exploited, at death for complete cells of the brain, liver, kidneys, whatever, to be cultivated in stem cell cultivation.  

    The mothers believe the discarding is burning, but like the placenta and the placenta blood, this is not necessarily so.  So even in planned abortions, mothers are contributing raw materials, blood, tissue, and organs, to be further cultivated.  There are lots of women, in need of money and doing this is just another form of prostitution....taking money, however, it comes for a person, and these women are in financial need, they may be students, and they may have an attitude what is an abortion, here and there, where private abortion clinics may compensate their student fees.  Who would know for sure. Some of these women may, when they really want a baby, find their wombs sufficiently incompetent by harsher labor contractions unable to carry a baby full term, and this is so, perhaps, of other natural miscarriages.

Haire warned of Enforced Fasting, this was hospital policies a women could not eat or drink once she entered a hospital's domain. Haire reported shorter labors for women who were nourished during labor.

    I, Donna Young, have found that such refusing of food and water was the doctor's and hospital's policies.  The feared during the delivery of the child, the mother's expulsion of her waste materials.   When mothers go without food and nourishment, they can have diabetic distress symptoms, and if them, likely their babies, too.

Haire warns of Amniotomy.  There was no evidence to support routine early amniotomy reduced the risk of c-sections, but the contrary, and actual cord compression was a concern.  

    Note by Donna Young:  Amniotomy is the willful breaking the amniotic water bag that protects the baby.  The facts are that often not breaking the  until after the baby is out of the birth canal, is best. Many doctors create anxiety in the mother to birth at their prescribed date.  Natural birth can go over into 10 months so doctors causing women to seek unnatural termination of their pregnancy is a good reason to birth unassisted in the home, at the mothers convenience with the schedule of the baby. Just don't follow the doctors directives, if you feel they may be biased to suit his/her own schedule and this can often be to c-section births, often the baby is taken 3 weeks early, a premature birth...the doctor, again, is getting higher quantity of stem cells, as they clamp, then cut, then revive the baby...the placenta drained of the deprived babies blood.

     The baby will be given a cheaper product, plasma, or Ringer's Lactate..You got to talk to lots of people to know the tricks of the trade and the businessman's concealed motives...blood and the cell of it and the placenta, too.  The Hospital Administration is in on all of this and sets no best practice possible, least risk of harm on maternity matters, or so it seems. Check out the mothers birthing recently in our own town. Call them, discuss how soon their babies were off their umbilical cord.  They will say they don't know, or instantly, and how surprised they were, and their baby removed from their vision into another area of the hospital, alleged for a fear of something, likely meconium, but it is not a good excuse, for early clamping. More blood not less deals with toxins in the body, and meconium is caused by oxytocin and drug distress.

Haire warns of Episiotomy.  The facts of evidence indicated doing routine episiotomy increased the incidence of major perineal, sphincter and rectal tears, and there were not benefits as to medical directives for episiotomy.

    I, Donna Young, found that episiotomy often follows forced placement of the women to birth on her back and in semi-sitting positions.  It can be a power-play over the women, feeling helpless, and this is done by both males and females in control of the birthing mother.  And, most helpless women are uneducated to their rights of natural birth education and a right of signed birth contracts that their body cannot be cut, for them to birth their babies. Their informed choice.

    They can give a signed waiver to the hospital, they accept, even at the risk of death to themselves, or their child. And, only the mother, can change her mind to no cutting, at all, during birth.

    Precedents of law.  BMJ, they revealed that it was ruled in England, that not even the court can order a women to accept a c-section to give birth to her child, even if she dies.  They agreed a pregnant women is not sick in pregnancy.  Therefore, a pregnant women cannot be deemed so, or unable to make an informed decision or to allow her body to be cut for an episiotomy or a c-section.    

Doris Haire, also reported her concerns of early umbilical cord clamping.

    Haire stated correctly the overwhelming past research by randomized (not informed choices) controlled trials, hasty clamping increased the incidence of anemia, expecially to vulnerable populations.  In 1996, Experimental Biology Meeting in Washington Raloff and Perez-Escarmilla, reported that early clamping has been shown to predispose infants to iron deficiency anemia, a condition that contributes to slower growth and learning."  

    I, Donna Young, have found the overwhelming and continued studies of controlled randomized trials, are absent of informed choice of not clamping or cutting of the cord, as a right for the mother to be told as an option.  Over and over again, without learning and proper and best practice possible, have medical persons been continually ignoring, in all trials informed consent to rights of natural birth, no drugs, freedom of birth positions, allowed warm water births, and no clamping of the umbilical cord ever.  

    This is causing me to believe, the motive for early clamping was to take, all along, the deprived blood in the placenta, as a salvage product, given to the hospital's labs.  This had to be done by the cooperation of the doctors and the nurses, or willful blindness this was going on when they put the placenta in a plastic bag and did not want to know where it actually went.

    All hospitals control who can practice on their premises, and they implied a duty of care of best practice possible, least risk of harm.

    The Evidence Act, requires the Hospital Boards and their Ethics Board, alleged to be volunteers, (still accountable) to be investigated, if they allowed, knowingly, any one baby to be sacrificed for early clamping.  And, that someone was making a profit or did receive income for the collection of the organ, the placenta, or the placenta blood in it, and this was done secretly, and without informed choices.  We have even some parents going on the internet stating they are birthing soon and would like to donate the baby's placenta blood.  Private arrangements are always a possibility.  So if medical persons are harvesting the babies, why not the parents in need of money, too.  Seem we have a fair market to exploit the babies, and they live.......not well, but they do survive harvesting.  It could go on forever.

    It no longer sufficient to suggest a birth plan.  Birth plans are suggestions.  Many are too long, not focusing what must not be done to the mother or her baby.  The doctors, can switch care givers at the last minute, nurses change shifts.  Birth plans can get lost.  The doctors and nurses do not have time to read them and if they do, they put them aside and do what they want as a professional controlling this birth and the care of the child, how they deem fit or to their own convenience, and this does not include informed choice.  They are using any persons policy written by one or more persons, approved by any one committee somewhere, anywhere in the world, as their authority to do as to what is convenient -- not consent given or sought, in the care of the woman and her child.

    But, the mother should have a signed birth contract.  A contract stands up in a court of law, much better then a signed birth plan.  If the doctor will not sign a Birth Contract, it is an clear message, to birth unassisted, in my opinion.  The mother is not having assurance of her protection or the child's, neither will be exploited.  If this birth contract of what the mother will not allow to be done to her baby, or her person, is not respected, she should find this out, early in her pregnancy, or even before she plans a family.

    If the birth contract is not signed by the Hospital Administration Head, and the Maternity Nurse in Charge, or the doctors, it time for the mother to prepare for an unassisted home birth, she is assured no interventions for a healthy pregnancy, deemed normal, and not expected complications.  93 to 95 percent of all births are such normal occurrences, if interventions of drugs and inductions are not imposed on the mother.   

    I have found that the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Colleges of Midwives, in Canada will not give out the person's names of training and the curriculum on the above issue of the timing of the clamping of the cord.  The most recent was a letter from the College of Midwives in Ontario, Canada, September 2003.  This College said to release policy and training and what is standard training did not come under the public's right to Access to Information on Policies.  They were concealing what a midwife might do in a homebirth, or in a hospital.      This implied secrecy of intent to interrupt the pulsating umbilical cord, making this midwife, the sole authority what is done or not.  It is a power play on women on women, considering a birthing mother inferior to the women with the tools.  The mother has not a chance...and is not prepared for subtle any reason to weaken her baby or endanger her own well being of the two blood mixing.

    What they have done is allowed the medical persons to conceal, their training when they will imposed early clamping and to conceal what they think is appropriate early clamping outside of the cord tore or for placenta previa.   

    I have found that the medical persons, making any excuse at all, have attempted to avoid criminal prosecution for that decision by thinking if they used a professional opinion, there was a concern of some kind to the mother or the child, that the police would not use the Evidence Act, to check if facts to substantiate that opinion were there.  And to see the notes of the midwives, why she would do an intervention of the umbilical cord, and did not record the amount of blood trapped in the placenta.  

ATTITUDE OF LAWYERS TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN IS CONSIDERED FRIVOLOUS & NOT IMPORTANT AS TO THEIR OATH:

    While the duty of lawyers is to the Statutory Law and Rule of Law, those ideals or the spirit of the law of no injustice going unopposed, we have found in our research, when even doctors take this issue to a law firm, they pretend they are in shock and will not help. They pretend they do not know or were not taught Universal Declarations, no discrimination to women or children, but they seem to protect the professional person.

    The need of proof to endanger a child by physical evidence, is thought always to be the most serious to be presented to a Judge.  However, any medical practices imposed without consent, was ruled by the Ireland Judge, to be battery.  The protection came to parents seeking that a genetic test for PKU cannot be imposed on all children.  The test need not have done by blood sampling, but only of urine, if the parents wish to consent to this test.

    The courts, civil and criminal, must allow for the evidence of research and logic to consider the child was endangered for no good medical reason, absent of fact of evidence when early clamping was imposed on the baby.  We need all mothers who have internally damaged children to seek criminal and civil charges.  This is because in the birth of their child, they did not give informed consent, for active management.  Appropriate care, again, is not informed consent nor did they know of the dangers that were imposed on them, or their babies.

    Now, many children, have a common problem, with a common root, drugs and early clamping, plus early vaccinations when early clamped and anemic.  For civil action, any one factor brings a successful compensation package to needles medical meddling in birth matters.  

    (See the Chow-Case-Law, Ontario, Canada, handled by Sommers and Roth).  

    Criminal codes to have assault and battery do not need a serious disability, for a matter to be heard in court.  Therefore, any endangering to any child, should not be disregarded for lack of outward damages.  Internal damages and threat are logically caused by drugs and early clamping and a virus set inside a weakened baby's system.  

    This is assault, battery, and attempted murder, in my books and not a frivolous situation to be ignored, as this situation has been ignored by most professionals and the politicians.  That is showing disrespect to the individual's right to equal protection and security of person, regardless of age, color, race, sex, or mental or physical disadvantage. Most early clamping has not been followed up with how much blood was left in the placenta, an organ not adequately investigated other than nurses checked if it had one vein and two arteries, they were unaware to weight it and drain the blood in it, for how much blood the doctor deprived the baby, weakening it.

    The doctors, of course, wanted to abandoned that duty of investigation after early clamping, alleging following unquestioned directives by his Chief of Staff, or trainer as a student, and failed to research this issue independently. The research overwhelming to a person caring enough to find out, before endangering anothers child on something as important as a child's birth. So many persons impaired and compromised. What might have they been without adding to the distress of their means to acquire skills and improve talents.

    Discarding and Disposal of the placenta and the placenta blood, whether or not it is burned, or not, has still deprived the child of benefits of full blood volume and transfusion and oxygenated blood, at that.

    The facts are, if we are to allow the baby to be the best that nature intended the child to be, with fullest genius potential not disturbed, the child is known to be on a dual system, after birth.  He or she is receiving oxygenated blood if the placenta is yet attached inside the mother's womb.  If the placenta is detached, the pulsating cord is still bringing through the placenta vein blood volume and pressure.  The blood contains the nutrients necessary for this baby, special hormones and enzymes that must not be deprived and given to others.

    If the placenta is still attached, the arteries are dropping off carbon dioxide gas, and other wastes.  The vein of the umbilical cord is yet supplying oxygen from the mother's system. The baby's brain will be getting the most oxygen from the placenta and from now the air, if now breathing.  

    The two arteries, close sooner, inside the baby.  The baby controls this.  But, the vein remains open, until the baby decides how much blood it wants to have, as long as it remains warm in a nice warmed blanket.   Visual observation of the baby getting volume of blood after the baby was removed intact with the placenta in a c-section was done by Dr. T. Peltonen, 1981. They observed the vein empties the placenta, almost completely and the babies do not have lung problems if they get the transfusion into their lungs, which the placenta blood is for, logically.

    Again, this is true, if the baby and the mother are always kept warm.  Cold air, as is true of hypothermia, stops the circulation of the placenta and umbilical cord, on a wet baby.  Cold air,as though it were a cold steel clamp, stops the pulsation and transfusion of blood.

    All history of past medical books emphasize warmest room possible, warmed towels, for the child to be wrapped in, and the placenta too, when born, and that is common sense, if we are to have the healthiest offspring, of both human babies, and all other placenta birthing mammals.  

    We would regard hasty clamping of helpless mammals who must be strong and stand to nurse.  Simply because the baby does not stand or immediately crawl to nurse, and lies and sleeps for 22 of the 24 hours of the day, is no good excuse to conceal the baby is weakened by early clamping, requiring the facts of tests for anemia, and blood pressure and volume tests done, to indicate the medical persons, interrupted unfairly, the placenta blood and oxygen, going into the baby.

    That so many have concealed of what is considered an organized conspiracy, involving high officials of the government, who had a duty to protect the public, through their appointed representatives at all Colleges of Medical Faculties and Physicians and Surgeons and Midwives, does not excuse the Rule of Law.  Or, the means to have an Official Commissioned Inquiry, which an Constitutional Question may ask for such an Order.  Such an Inquiry is needed to bring those most responsible before the law courts.  This is for proper disciplining for even one child, weakened unnecessarily as to the evidence of harm done, and so well given by Doris Haire.  

    Doris Haire warned vulnerable Nations of the harm caused to Canadian and American Babies, and this is true, in other Democratic Societies, as well.  Why is that being allowed?  

    We must wonder if the corporations and shares in drug companies, cosmetic companies, private stem cell companies, have not bribed our politicians, even doctors,  that no one, in Canada, so far, has stood up to false medical practices, going on for so long, dating back to 1801.  This is true to even the current research and common visual witnessing of any mammals birth, or child birth of natural care and treatment...producing blue ribbon babies. This is so, blue ribbon babies, if the birthing mammals were not damaged by pollution of harmful drugs, water, food, or air contaminations.

INTENTIONAL BAD SERVICES TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM OR DROP A SERVICES OR THOSE PROVIDING IT:

    I wish to share, that when the Canadian Pacific Railway wanted to discourage the passenger services, as an good excuse not to carry this service, they allowed bad services to the passengers to start. They apparently did not honour their public using that service to have best policies of service done, they showed a loss in business, so the services were eventually dropped.  

    In the baby business, trillions of dollars to the private enterprises is being made around the world.  This is from sicknesses and on giving pregnant ladies drugs.  The care of higher education for compromised children and higher medical costs are imposed to the public at large.  This is not to their best interest if prevention can eliminate these high costs.  That is the reason civil actions do not stop bad medical science and/or practice.  Prevention is not what those that work the system necessarily want...it is not practical to their means of earning income.

    But, by the continued allowance of harmful training and winking at improper medical service, and no films of good faith that drugging and early clamping it is a benefit to the mother or the child, those involved have continued to allow the harvesting of babies, and done in secret.

    This was by treating the women with disrespect.  It is a form of discrimination to her and her child.  The mother, in a sense, is having her body used as a source of raw material -- blood and its components taken and used by drug companies and in research.  The research is in the billions of dollars provided by the Federal Governments, in experiments with blood as to its stem cells.

    This was to be allowed by their government agents and the Colleges to be imposed without informed consent and it has been a breach of the governments duty to protect all, equal and to security of person.

    The women will wake up, eventually.  Many now have put up complaints on Petitions, one site, Birthlove, has such a Petition of women in the past harmed.  Leilah wrote the Rape of the Twentieth Century.  It is good except she is confused that the placenta is the baby's organ, not the mothers. The placenta can be beautifully formed and be healthy in the womb of the mother if she maintains her health before conception to the birth of her baby.

    Mothers must be informed, that today, they cannot blindly trust the medical services.  They must have a short signed Birth Contract, that sets out clearly what the medical person can NOT do to her body. Or, if they cannot provide for warm water births, and gravity positions, and not inject her or baby, she must seek safer options.  Such options is the security of no harm done in her own home, with or without a professional licensed person there, if none can be found to sign a birth contract.  But, she has family who respects her right of no harm done, and no threat of any imposed touching on her or the baby.  

    Most nurses, doctors and midwives are training in invasive touching of the