 |
 |
From: "Jim Cordy" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Non-issue of fetal tissue" and Senator Helms Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:12:08 -0400 First let me say that there are many pro life supporters of the Udall Bill. For those who do not consider this: Parkinson's Research Held Hostage Sadly we find some pro-life proponents are the major obstacles to passage of increased Parkinson's disease research funding (the Udall Bill). Last session some pro-life supporters successfully prevented this Bill from going to the House floor, this in spite of the 240 cosponsors in the House and the unanimous passage of this legislation in the Senate. A year of increased Parkinson's research and its promise was lost. An alternative Bill intended to address pro-life concerns was introduced last year by Chris Smith. This Bill prohibits research using fetal tissue from induced abortions. Many of those who signed on to that alternative Bill are strong supporters of Parkinson's research. They ask, if fetal tissue research is such a small component of Parkinson's research (less than 4%), why not prohibit it and pass the Bill. The problem with that approach is it immediately throws the Udall Bill into the middle of the abortion debate. The Udall Bill does not mention fetal tissue anywhere. It is a Parkinson's research Bill. This alternative Bill singles out Parkinson's research and holds it hostage in the abortion debate. This in effect has put at odds proponents of two of Americans most cherished population segments, the very young and the very old. More specifically it involves the most vulnerable of each of those segments the unborn and the sick elderly. Ironically, we therefor find some of those who defend the lives of the unborn adversely impacting the lives of the elderly. Many, sick, elderly Americans will lose their quality of life and some their very lives because of that lost year of research. Parkinson's related deaths are found weekly in the obituaries. Where is the documentation of even one instance of an abortion performed to provide material for fetal transplants. Fortunately, we do not have to choose between the life of the unborn and the life of the elderly. A year ago, then Representative Flannigan, told my wife and me, that Representative Chris Smith was about to propose separate legislation that would ban fetal tissue research from induced abortions across the board. Flannigan stated that he would then immediately sign on as cosponsor of both that bill and the Udall Bill. Why wasn't that done? Why has Parkinson's been singled out? Decouple this legislation. Debate the fetal tissue issue as a stand alone issue or as part of some broad NIH legislation. Free Parkinson's research from its hostage position. ---------- > From: Bruce and Helen McCallum <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: "Non-issue of fetal tissue" and Senaator Helms > Date: Friday, June 06, 1997 12:41 PM > > Dolores Gross's entry yesterday prompted me to tell of the well written > response by Senator Jesse Helms to my letter to him urging him to be a > co-sponsor of the Udall Bill. He basically said he would like to support it > but can't because it doesn't specifically forbid funds for fetal tissue > research. I personally suspect that most Republicans dislike giving money to > anything that doesn't directly help themselves, and his caveat is just a > convenient way of politically being for the bill while actually being > against it, if you know what I mean. If anyone has a good arguement to > counter Jesse's, please send it to me. I would like to continue trying to > change his mind. > > A jouster of windmills, Bruce McCallum