From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:53:57 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <74214@cup.portal.com> 
>L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

>>	Copied without permission from:     
>>	The Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1993
>>
>>	CLINTON DISMANTLES BUSH AND REAGAN RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION
>>
>>	By Karen Tumulty and Marlene Cimons
>>
>> By executive order, Clinton:
>>
>>	- Ended a five-year ban on fetal tissue research, which scientists
>> believe holds the possibility of benefiting patients with Parkinson's
>> disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Huntington's disease, spinal cord
>> injuries and other conditions.

>This is an incorrect characterization of the Bush administration's
>policy on fetal tissue research.  There was no ban on fetal
>tissue research as the paper suggests.  Rather, the Bush 
>administration prohibited the federal *funding* of fetal tissue
>research which used the remains from *elective* abortions.  
>Researchers could obtain federal funding for research which
>used the fetal remains from *spontaneous* abortions. 

Well thanks for clearing up that inaccuracy.  But think about this:
How much "fetal tissue" can be obtained for research from only "spontaneous
abortions" (miscarriages, I assume)?  How much "fetal tissue" could be
obtained for research from only "elective abortions"?  How much could be
obtained for research from *both* sources?  Which number do you suppose
would enable such research to be most effective?
How much private funding is available for medical research?  How much
federal funding is available for medical research?  How much funding is
available from *both* sources?  Which number do you suppose would enable
the most amount of beneficial research to be conducted?

The only reason the "ban" didn't extend to privately funded research is that
it would not be within the authority of the presidency by any stretch of the
imagination.  I'm sure if they could have gotten away with banning all fetal
research period, they would have done so, regardless of the cost to the
advancement of medical science.  Their reasoning is that finding medical uses
for fetal tissue would encourage people to have abortions (in the future).

An example that seems to back that up is the family that chose to get pregnant
and get an abortion to provide tissue for a transplant that would save one of
their *other* children.  (It had to be a genetically related source and have
the adaptive properties of fetal tissue.)  However, most cases of abortion
would not be affected by such research, except that women may not feel as
guilty about it if they know that it may be able to help another person.  It
would not blow up the number of abortions *desired*; it would only make the
choice easier to bear.  The cost and trouble involved would still deter most
sane people from getting pregnant just to provide fetal tissue for research
--asside from medical reasons like the above example; most people don't have
a child who can only be saved by a transplant of fetal tissue from a sibling.

>Doug Holtsinger

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright