Some have recently suggested that we compromise on the Udall
Bill, and accept a ban on fetal tissue research, in order to get
the bill passed. I remember discussing this with some of the
people from the Parkinson's Action Network, last year in
Washington. It was their opinion, that if Congress did pass such
a compromise bill, President Clinton would be likely to veto it.
Lifting the ban on fetal tissue research was so important to
Clinton, that he did so the day after his 1993 inauguration. Can
we really expect that he would sign a bill that reinstates such a
ban? What kind of precedent would this set for other research
involving fetal tissue?
Unfortunately, all of us have learned over the last year,
that passing the Udall Bill, in fact federal medical research
funding in general, is not only about alleviating suffering,
curing disease, or furthering medical knowledge - it is also
about politics, and in order for us to be effective, we need to
understand all the political realities. If we all do everything
we can, I think we will find enough votes to pass the bill, as it
is written.
The other point I think we have to remember, is that if
fetal tissue transplant does becomes an option for treatment -
there may be PWP for whom this will prove to be the best
treatment. Is it right to deny them this opportunity for an
improved life?
The Udall Bill is not about abortion; it does not promote
abortions; it does not force anyone to have an abortion. It is
about finding a cure for Parkinson's Disease.
Linda Herman
[log in to unmask]
