I felt the the following message should be sent, and the message after that be repeated:
WHAT COULD BE MORE PRO-LIFE?
Senator Lott, et al.,
...Happily, parents, who would otherwise be childless, will receive the birth of a child through the science of in-vitro fertilization, and cells used for research may and can now, in some cases, mend and save lives. Deriving stem-cells from embryos remaining from in-vitro fertilization and using them for research, amounts to mending life from a source that can't be used to create another whole life, but could render a broken, dying life whole. It is a win-win situation: What could be better? ... What could be more Pro-Life?
Again, as in the following letter sent last September, please reconsider your continuous attempts to abolish vital stem-cell research. Don't allow the far right wing of the republican party dictate to the entire party, the entire Congress, and disrupt the election-year debate. Nothing could be more Pro-Life than stem cells derived from remaining embryos after a couple has been given the opportunity to have a child. To put it simply, in vitro fertilization and stem-cell research is a win-win situation. Would you abolish T-cell or stem-cell therapies currently used to extend the lives of leukemia patients by several years? Would you have banned organ transplantation when it was being developed? Would you refuse a life-saving bone-marrow transplant for your child? These therapies, too, were once unheard of and feared.
With organ donation, sadly, a life is saved from a tragic death in most cases. Happily, however, parents who would otherwise be childless, will receive the birth of a child through the science of in-vitro fertilization, and cells used for research may and can now, in some cases, mend and save lives. Deriving stem-cells from embryos remaining from in-vitro fertilization, and using them for research, amounts to mending life from a source that can't be used to create another whole life, but could render a broken, dying life whole. It is a win-win situation: What could be better?
Please allow the NIH and other research centers dependent on federal funding to advance vital stem-cell research.
Kindly give this your reconsideration.
Respectfully,
Charlotte A. Mancuso
Palo Alto, CA
...sent last September, lightly reedited by author 2/16/00.
Action Needed: Advocacy
Wed Sep 29 11:14:31 PDT 1999
HHS Appropriations being voted on today.
Please, call your Senators regarding my post:
Charlotte Mancuso wrote:
Dear Senator Lott:
With respect, the Senate leadership needs to hear our outrage regarding
the deletion of stem cell
language from the HHS appropriations bill being voted on today.
It should be stressed that stem-cell research is for the good of all
those seeking remedies
or cures, not just for neurological conditions of which PD is just
one; this research holds great promise
for diseases as diverse as cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
and more, AND it would save the nation, not
only $25 billion for PD costs, but several times that considering these
other disease groups.
Furthermore, as Senator Harkin pointed out, the NIH guidelines are approved; all the ethical considerations have been examined and accommodated; and the use of these stem cells derived from the remaining fertilized eggs after helping a couple have a child, is PRO-LIFE. These fertilized eggs, which can't be used to produce more offspring, are destined to be discarded.
Surely, you see the humane and religious reasons for not letting vital, life-giving cells go to waste when they can be saving so many lives. Would you ban organ donation too?
Kindly give this your reconsideration.
--Respectfully,
Charlotte A. Mancuso
Palo Alto, CA