 |
 |
RTK.NET Mail 141561 Apr 19 14:39:34 1996 A number of people have recently brought up an increasingly common objection to the Udall bill: an opposition to any disease-specific legislation. Senator Robb and Congressman Steny Hoyer are the two in my area who make this objection. It's a particularly tricky question since the idea does have some merit, after all, if there had been less disease-specific funding at the direction of Congress, Parkinson's disease probably would have received more funding in previous years when it was an even more invisible disease. These are the two main questions I ask, and I think we'd all welcome other suggestions: 1) If there is to be less (or no) disease-specific legislation or appropriations, how are those of us in the Parkinson's community ever going to change the funding inequities that now exist? I often use Alzheimer's disease as an example of an effort that had the kind of results we need for Parkinson's disease. Earmarked funding has nearly always been a part of the kind of movement that produces real results. 2) If you won't cosponsor the Udall bill at this time but are concerned about Parkinson's research, what are you willing to do to demonstrate that commitment and work for increased research funding through other means? We can at least make it a lot more work for a rep. not to cosponsor than to cosponsor! Sherri [log in to unmask]