 |
 |
Back in October,we posted a question to this list regarding the possibility of removing the issue of research on fetal transplants from the Udall Bill since its use is controversial.We didn't get any responses. The letter below from one of our supporters indicates that this is a serious issue worth discussing.We would appreciate anyone's comments. With best wishes to all. Aliza and Gil Lieberman >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:58:30 -0500 >From: Irving Maron <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Udall Bill Lobbying Info >To: Gil Lieberman <[log in to unmask]> > >Hi Aliza & Gil, > >We contacted our senators and our representative, Saxton. Senator >Lautenberg responded that he will support the bill. Nothing yet from >Torricelli. Saxton responded that he can't support the original, 104th >Congress version because it "was too vague in its definition of the use of >fetal tissue in this research process." He went on to say that he tried to >get a clarification of the use of fetal tissue from the sponsors but was >not successful, and that "my colleague from New Jersey, Christopher Smith, >offered his own version...that clearly defined that no fetal tissue would >be used...however...failed to get the support needed to discharge the >legislation from committee... Representative Smith will offer a new version >of his bill in the 105th Congress as well." Saxton goes on to say that he's >the son of a Parkinson's patient so he's committed to funding Parkinson's >research and will continue to work with the authors of the Udall bill "in >the hope that passage of a Parkinson's bill will occur this year." > >Best regards, Lee & Irv > >