Phillip,

I'mnot sure why you raised this issue today but I wanted to
share family's views with you in the event that you were not
on the list in 1997 when we spoke out insupport of fetal
tissue use.

Regards,
Bob Martone

Date: July 22, 1997

Subject: The Udall Parkinson's Research Bill

To: Senator William H. Frist  - Chairman Public Health and
Safety Subcommittee
      Senator  Daniel R. Coates
      Senator   James M. Jeffords
      Senator Paul Wellstone
      Senator John Mc Cain

Gentlemen,

I was just informed that S 535  "The Udall Bill" is being
held up in committee because of the concern over the
possible and likely use of fetal tissue in the search for a
cure for Parkinson's Disease. As a baptized and confirmed
Roman Catholic with 8 years in catholic schools I must speak
out against the injustice that would result to those who
suffer from Parkinson's Disease and many other neurological
and spinal disorders by depriving them of fetal tissue
remains.

My two page summary of the issues is attached together with
those of my son-in-law the Reverend Dr. William Bradley
Munroe, Minister at the Brenham  Presbyterian Church in
Brenham Texas. Brad earned his degree in Divinity at the
Princeton Theological Seminary and his doctoral work was
completed at  The San Francisco Theological Seminary.

We would both welcome the opportunity to speak before your
committee on this very complex issue.  In summary we both
believe that the remains of a fetus should be made available
to save a life just as the remains of a murder victim should
be made available for organ transplantation.

I apologize for the short notice on this information. I have
been fighting for my wife's life for a very long time,
longer than any of you have had to serve our country in your
current capacities. My wife has endured  three brain
surgeries and we are now looking at back surgery to fuse
together vertebrae that have been damaged by the
uncontrollable movements of Parkinsons.

I hoped and prayed that this issue would not be confused
with abortion which we are unequivocally opposed to.
Depriving  my wife of what could be the medical breakthrough
that we have waited so long for also has moral and ethical
consequences and I would ask you to open your hearts and
your minds to help the many that suffer from this terrible
disease.

Respectfully,

Robert A. Martone                   Phone  281-358-5168
3614 Forest Village Dr.           Fax      281-358-5314
Kingwood, TX  77339

-----------------------------------------

Use of Federal Funds to Support Fetal Tissue Research
Prepared by Robert A. Martone careperson for wife Nancy who
has suffered with Parkinsons Disease for 22 Years

June 24, 1997

The following text was prepared for congressman Tom Delay's
office in response to a question about fetal tissue
research.

1. My wife and I are pro-life supporters and we have spent a
great deal of time working through this issue. We believe
there are two parts to the question of fetal tissue
research.

The first deals with the abortion question. On moral grounds
we do not believe abortion is appropriate with a few
exceptions such as rape, incest and the mothers life being
placed at significant risk.  However, our views on this are
not relevant to the question on the use of fetal tissue.

 Fetal tissue use can and should be compared to organ
transplantation. Once the first life is terminated whether
it be accidental or on purpose, such as a shooting victim,
there is an opportunity for a second decision regarding the
use of the remains of the deceased. As we now know heart and
lung transplants can and do save lives and current research
clearly shows that fetal cells can be used to save a
Parkinsonian and possibly other's from a long life of misery
and a very unpleasant death.

2.  To the suggestion that fetal tissue use would create a
demand for abortion or would encourage abortion, we simply
ask does heart transplantation encourage murder? There is no
evidence to support such a conclusion and we certainly don't
believe this to be the case.

3. To the question are adequate safe guards in place to
prevent a market from forming in the use of fetal tissue.
Laws were passed a few years ago which prevent profiteering
in fetal tissue "sales" and also to prevent a woman from
being able to designate a recipient for the remains.

4. To the question of why not use ectopic or spontaneous
abortion tissue. President Bush spent one to two million
dollars in an attempt to determine whether this tissue could
be reused and the results did not support reuse.

5. To the question about current research projects that are
using fetal tissue. Approximately 4% of the Parkinson
research dollars are going into fetal tissue research. This
work has shown great promise and recipients are showing
significant improvement in their Parkinson's symptoms.  A
recent audit by the GAO of these projects indicated full
compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law.

6. Would the PD community support a ban on the use of fetal
tissue in the Udall bill? For the reasons already mentioned
above the answer is no. In addition my perspective as a
laymen is that research takes place at many levels. If you
think of these levels of work as levels in a pyramid, with
the highest level being the closest to success and the
lowest level being the necessary foundation for the upper
levels, my understanding is that the fetal tissue is
probably pretty low in the foundation but an essential
component along the way. Will fetal tissue wind up at the
top of the pyramid? It does not appear likely for a number
of reasons such as cost, difficulty in obtaining tissue,
testing for HIV and other potential problems, and the
complexity associated with getting up to seven fetus's for
each human transplant.

 Then why don't you just drop the idea? Because the pyramid
or a significant piece of it would likely collapse costing a
great deal of money and a tremendous amount of human
suffering. People like my wife who has suffered for 22 years
are just about out of time. Fetal tissue research is showing
such great promise especially from the considerable
knowledge that science is gaining regarding the transplant
site in the brain, tissue survivability issues and much
more.

7. In summary my wife and I as pro-lifers who do not see a
moral issue with fetal tissue use and now know that there is
much hope from the research that is underway, and that the
guidelines for this research are being followed, can not and
do not support the removal of federal funds from fetal
tissue research.

8. Finally, in a purely hypothetical case, lets assume that
abortion is illegal and it is determined that like murder it
is a capital offense punishable by death. Do we really think
that this will stop abortions anymore than capital
punishment has stopped murder?  Probably not, but it should
serve as quite a deterrent.

Now, with the deterrent in place an abortion takes place and
the fetal remains are ready for disposal. At this point is
there not an opportunity to make a humane decision and make
the remains available for use in life saving efforts for
others, just like the organ transplant programs that are now
common place.

We think in this purely hypothetical case even with
significant abortion deterrents in place, there will be and
should be an opportunity for a second decision and that is
to save a life!

Questions may be directed to:

Robert A. (Bob) Martone
3614 Forest Village Dr.
Kingwood TX. 77339

Phone:  281-358-5168
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]

July 16, 1997

To: Mr. Robert A. Martone
From: The Rev. Dr. Brad Munroe
Re: Fetal Tissue Research / The Udall Bill

Mr. Martone, thank you for this opportunity to offer a
Presbyterian perspective on the ethical issues of fetal
tissue research.  I have read your letter to Congressman
Delay and agree with your premise that fetal tissue research
is the moral equivalent of organ donor transplants.  I would
like to expand the scope of the ethical discussion to
include some other issues from both philosophical and
theological ethics.  Let me say here that I am pro-life
except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of
the mother.

Philosophical Ethics

There are two dominant approaches to philosophical ethics:
utilitarianism and the categorical imperative.

Utilitarianism asks, "What is the greatest good for the
greatest number of people?" Applied to the issue of fetal
tissue research, utilitarianism clearly states that the
greatest good is the physical health, social well-being and
economic benefit found in a cure for Parkinson's and other
neurological diseases.  This would not be true if the
fetuses were aborted for the purpose of harvesting tissue
since, I believe, that tissue constitutes a life; however,
because Congress has passed legislation banning abortions
for such purpose, and because similar legislation also bans
donors from designating a recipient of the tissue, the
question of the morality of abortion is here secondary.  If
the abortion has already occurred, the moral question asked
begins after the life has been terminated.  From that
moment, what is the greatest good for the greatest number of
people?  Clearly, it is to use the fetal remains for medical
research.

The Categorical Imperative asks, "What course of action
would apply universally to all people in all situations?"
Applied to the issue of fetal tissue research, the
categorical imperative clearly directs the use of fetal
tissue for research.  The principle at stake is one of
pragmatism.  Even if I do not believe abortion is moral,
what am I to do once it has occurred?  Am I to turn away
from the good?  Or am I to alleviate the bad by yet pursuing
the good?  I believe the latter is pragmatic and applies to
all people in all situations.  What cancer patient does not
seek treatment because such a bad thing as cancer has
befallen them?  The normal, ethical response of the cancer
patient is to attempt to turn a bad thing, cancer, around by
seeking treatment.  In fact, it can be asked of the
"purists" whether or not their response is ethical: how can
one not seek a possible good when the opportunity presents
itself?

Theological Ethics

The issues of theological ethics I would like to address
revolve around the concepts of grace, judgment and
conscience.

The ethics of grace were articulated most clearly in this
century by a German theologian named Helmut Thieleke who was
active during the rise, reign and aftermath of Nazi Germany.
As the German situation made clear, an ethical quandary
presented itself: it was immoral not  to seek the overthrow
of Hitler, yet the overthrow of Hitler required violent
means.  What to do?  The ethics of grace states that because
we live in a fallen world, most if not all of our choices
need grace--God's gift of forgiveness--because whichever
option that is chosen will be tainted by sin.  That is, very
few ethical decisions are black and white but rather shades
of gray.  The grace question asks, "Given that both options
are impure, which leads to the greater good?" Applied to the
issue of fetal tissue research, the ethics of grace
acknowledges that receiving tissue from abortions is not
morally pure, but, once received, using that tissue for good
purposes is a more ethical option than not using the tissue.
If other tissue could be used such as ectopic or spontaneous
abortion tissue, then researchers would be morally compelled
to use that tissue.  However, given that such tissue has
been proven through clinical study to be ineffective,
aborted fetal tissue is the most moral choice.  The ethics
of grace says, "Use the tissue and trust God's grace for
your decision."

The ethics of judgment recognizes that we will all one day
stand before our Creator to give an account of our actions.
Those who stand against fetal tissue research will one day
stand before their Creator to explain this: why, when they
had the opportunity to relieve the physical, social and
financial suffering of millions of people, did they not do
so?  My guess is that opponents of fetal tissue research
will answer that they were standing against abortion and the
slaughter of babies.  This would be morally justifiable if
it were true; unfortunately it is not.  Whether one likes it
or not, abortion is legal in this country and abortions will
occur.  Moreover, the use of fetal tissue in research does
not create the desire for abortion.  Rather, it is a woman's
physical, emotional, financial and/or social stress that
leads her to choose to terminate her pregnancy.  How many
women think to themselves, "I really should carry to term,
but if I abort, then my baby's tissue can be used for
research?" Please, the notion that fetal tissue is an issue
in any decision for abortion is both offensive and absurd.

The ethics of conscience require that a person's autonomy of
conscience be kept free.  In the Presbyterian tradition, one
of our most sacred principles says, "God alone is Lord of
the conscience." We accept that two Christians can be both
faithful and both intelligent, and yet disagree.  Therefore,
in matters of ethics where there is no clear word of
Scripture, (and sometimes even when there is), we do not
bind the conscience.  The ethics of conscience applies to
the issue of fetal tissue research in two ways.  First, it
is inappropriate for a particular segment of the Church or
the populace to bind the conscience of intelligent people of
good will, particularly when discussing the issue of how to
care for the remains of a fetus after the fact of an
abortion has already occurred.  Second, if fetal tissue is
to be used in research, somewhere in the legal mechanism the
woman whose fetus is aborted must be given the choice to
authorize use or disallow use of the remains for research
purposes.  Without such permission, it would be unethical to
use any tissue.  It is not uncommon for pastors, priests and
rabbis to be asked to conduct funerals for babies who are
miscarried; the sanctity of the woman's decision's must be
maintained in all such circumstances.  An analogy would be
using a murder or accident victim's organs for transplant
without either the victim's or family's prior permission.

Mr. Martone, I urge you to continue your efforts in support
of the Udall bill.  I hope members of Congress will rise
above politics to do the right thing for the millions of
people who suffer the ravages of Parkinson's Disease.
Please feel free to pass this note along to anyone you think
might benefit from it.  Also, if there is a need to contact
me directly, you or another interested party can reach me by
phone at (409) 836-7632 or by email at [log in to unmask]

May God bless your efforts.

Sincerely,


The Rev. Dr. Brad Munroe
Brenham, Texas
Phone 409-836-7632
Subject: Re: Study: Fetal cells ease life for
Parkinson's patients

Following is a portions of a letter which I
submitted to The Sheboygan
Press in the Letters To The Editor.  It  was
printed on December 11, 1992
  It was in response to an article entitled "Fetal
tissue research looks
promising " by a columnist by the name of Joan Beck.

It was my opinion in 1992 and  it is one which I
feel even stronger about
today. I quote the letter in part:

KILLING A FETUS NO SOLUTION FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE

....................In one of her paragraphs, Ms.
Beck states, "But such
successes do offer hope that fetal tissue
transplants can be an effective
treatment for Parkinson's Disease..........."

It would not and does not offer hope to me.  I
cannot even begin to
consider that an unborn life , one that  has not as
yet enjoyed the love
of family and the many joys of God's creation ,
should have to give up
its life so that I might be able to possibly extend
my 52 years with an
improved state of health.

..........In the fetal tissue transplant,  the
donor must give up its
life.

You say, there is no life in a fetus as it has not
as yet been  born.
Earlier in her column Ms. Beck states , "But fetal
tissue is necessary
for such transplants .  Fetal cells can survive
long enough for the
procedure to be done."  I think the key word in
this quote is "survive".
For something to survive, there had to be life as
indicated in The
American Collegiate Dictionary under the definition
of "survive".

...........One person has already given His life
for me that I might have
a fuller life.  It is His birth that we celebrate
this Christmas season
And that is the only life I need to have been given for me."

End of article.  I would be happy to mail a copy of
the entire to anyone
who would request it.

Philip J Lammers 58/15

[log in to unmask]