30.  

Levine, R.J., "Fetal research: the underlying issue; Human fetal research," Scientific American 261(2):112 (August 1989).

31.  

"Note that this moratorium deals only with the use of tissues and cells of dead fetuses. The 1974 commission had considered such use to be relatively unproblematic; its central concerns were, rather, over the possibility that a living fetus might be harmed or wronged to serve research interests. Although the morality of abortion has always figured in the debate over the ethical permissibility of fetal research, it is notable that those who oppose the transplantation of fetal tissues seem to consider it the only issue."

32.  

That argument, i.e., that live-born persons matter more than fetuses, circled directly back to the underlying conflict on abortion. Those wishing to overturn the ban tried very hard to make arguments that were not based on rehashing the abortion debate directly.

33.  

Bleich, D.J., "Dissenting Statement, Fetal Tissue Research and Public Policy," pp. 39- 43, in vol. 1 of the Report of the Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (Bethesda, MD; DHHS 1988).

34.  

Richard Saltus, "Research, ethical issues stalled by abortion debate," The Boston Globe, November 10, 1989, Friday, City Edition, Pg. 1.

35.  

G. Croucher, "AMA issues fetal tissue, life support guidelines," U.P.I. June 21, 1989, Wednesday, BC cycle.

36.  

Phillip Hilts, "Groups Set Up Panel On Use of Fetal Tissue," New York Times, January 8, 1991, Tuesday, Section C; Pg. 3; Col. 1.

37.  

For example, the following is the text of an advertisement that ran in the May 12, 1992 edition of the congressional newspaper "Roll Call": Does fetal tissue research have anything to do with abortion?

Ask NARAL: The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) intends to score H.R. 2507, a bill to provide taxpayer funding of abortion-dependent fetal research, in their annual congressional roll call scorecard.

Ask Ted Kennedy: On April 5, 1992, Ted Kennedy told a cheering pro-abortion rally on Capitol Hill that Senate passage of H.R. 2507 proved "your message is getting through, in a very important and significant way. Make no doubt about it."

Ask Laurence Tribe: Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe testified that medical demand for fetal tissue gives Congress constitutional authority to pass the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" to ensure a nationwide policy of abortion on demand.

Abortion advocates agree: H.R. 2507 has everything to do with abortion.

- A congressional vote to fund abortion-dependent fetal tissue research would give the abortion industry something it's never been able to achieve on its own: respectability.

- Such a vote will make the abortion industry look good, but make Congress look awfully bad. Especially when Congress can use these funds for other, equally promising, research methods that do not require an unprecedented alliance with the abortion industry.

- 63 percent of Americans oppose spending tax dollars for transplant research that uses tissue from induced abortions January 1992 Wirthlin poll).

- Americans want limits to abortion on demand. So why does Congress think now is the time to begin collaborating with the very industry that performs and profits from it?

Why should Congress give the abortion industry a good name and taxpayer dollars? Vote No on H.R. 2507!

The Committee on Research Ethics; National Right to Life Committee; Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission; Christian Coalition; Doctors for Life; American Association of Pro-Life OB/Gyns; National Association of Pro-Life Nurses; United States Catholic Conference; American Association of Pro-Life Pediatricians; American Academy of Medical Ethics;



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement