Medicine - Court Overturns Fetal Tissue Ban
Associated Press
Saturday 30 December 2000
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court panel has ruled unconstitutional an Arizona law prohibiting the use of fetal tissue in medical research.
The decision Friday from the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wipes out the nation's last ban on such practices.
The 1984 Arizona statute was too vague for doctors to know what type of medical experimentation or scientific investigation on aborted fetuses was illegal, the court said.
``Individuals must be given a reasonable opportunity to discern whether their conduct is proscribed so they can choose whether or not to comply with the law,'' Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote for the court.
Similar laws have been overturned in Utah, Louisiana and Illinois. Congress lifted a ban on federally funded research using fetal tissue in 1993.
Arizona's law barred the use of aborted fetal tissue or embryo for medical experimentation or scientific or medical investigation unless to perform a ``routine pathological examination'' or to diagnose a maternal or fetal condition that prompted the abortion.
The law was challenged by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in 1996 on behalf of four Parkinson's disease patients. Two Arizona affiliates of Planned Parenthood later joined the lawsuit.
Medical studies suggest some fetal tissue transplants can treat the neurological disorder because the tissue produces dopamine, a substance in the brain that controls voluntary movement.
The appeals court ruling upholds a similar decision from U.S. District Court Judge William Browning in Arizona.
``We've got judges here making opinions about the statute, which is not vague in my opinion,'' Arizona Right to Life President John Jakubczyk said.
The state also maintained the statute was clear. It argued that a doctor could avoid violating the law, which carries an 18-month sentence, by not performing any tests or procedures on aborted fetuses.
``This argument ignores the exceptions built into the statute that creates the confusion,'' Schroeder wrote.
The Arizona attorney general's office was reviewing the decision, spokeswoman Pati Urias said. The state may ask the court to review its decision or consider new legislation to circumvent the panel's ruling, she said.
There is a premium for a 'whole cadaver' of an otherwise healthy unborn child, to some researchers. One can only conjecture that at least one little one has arrived on 'wet ice' and been 'opened up' to reveal a still struggling, beating tiny heart. I would go into more depth but my source will not swear to more in a court of law for fear of tremendous retribution.