 |
 |
Once again, this is Sherri Cave writing from Nicki's house: The fastest way to learn who you should call or write first is to call the Parkinson's Action Network at 1-800-850-4726 One of our primary goals right now is to get a majority cosponsoring the bill in both the House and the Senate. Calling, writing, or FAXing your own non-cosponsoring rep's is primary. If you have arguments ready to meet certain objections, go to it, but don't let that slow you down too much. Some legislative assistants met with last week said that without some calls from constituents, their bosses will only want to get a memo reporting on our meeting rather than having a real discussion about the Udall bill. Be clear that you want cosponsorship of S. 684/H.R. 1462 as soon as possible because we need that to get the bill on the floor. Get your first request out fast because if we've recently met with supportive staff, they will need to hear from constituents in order to act most effectively. Call or write each week and ask friends and co-workers to do the same. I've finally started wearing my "no PD" button everywhere I go, so I'm telling people about the Udall bill every day. Most who ask what it means don't ask for materials or offer to make calls, but some do. Then contact friends and relatives and ask them to call, especially if they live in the district of a legislator mentioned on the list. I know there are many receptive rep's in Montana and the Dakotas who have had little or no recent contact from constituents. At this point, your next step will depend upon the responses you've received. Then it's time to call PAN (or email at [log in to unmask]) or email Jim Cordy or write to the list and ask for the next step. Help is available, and there are good answers to the objections and excuses we are receiving. Re: Bob's wonderful fetal tissue research letter and recent discussion. The protective standards in U.S. funded research do not allow any discussion of donation until after the abortion decision has been made, and no one can profit from donating fetal tissue or designate a recipient. I think this effectively precludes any of the scare scenarios. I think if you really look at how bizarre any of the hypothetical scenarios would be (six or so females close enough to the patient to want to do this but not related or close enough that the researchers would be able to pick up on the connection all manage to conceive at about the same time, which happens to coincide with the time the few surgeons doing this procedure are available and when the intended patient would almost certainly be next in line???), you'll see that anyone close enough to the subject to know the facts would also know it just isn't feasible. Also, becoming part of a research program is not the same as getting on a list for an approved, commercially available organ transplant. While some type of implantation procedure will very likely become the widely available breakthrough we hope for, it almost certainly won't use human fetal tissue. We do, however, need human fetal tissue research to continue in order to get there! An important point to make to Smith and other cosponsors of this bill: not all research using human fetal tissue is being done for Parkinson's disease. Therefore, if someone insists on bringing the fetal tissue issue up again, it is entirely unfair and inappropriate to tack it onto a Parkinson's specific piece of legislation. Thanks to Bob Martone and other pro-life Parkinson's advocates who are getting the facts out and saying, as Bob Dole did years ago, that funding human fetal tissue research is the pro-life thing to do. Sherri (usually [log in to unmask])