Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:10:24.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bioethics: Court Strikes down Arizona Ban on Fetal Tissue Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Avery W. Gardiner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Forbes v. Napolitano, No. 99–17372, 2000 U.S. App. WL 1879932 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2000).Google Scholar
“Court rules fetal tissue ban unconstitutional,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 31, 2000, at 3a.Google Scholar
Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1995); Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1986); Lifchez v. Hartigan, 914 F.3d 260 (7th Cir. 1990). See Forbes, supra note 1, at 1.Google Scholar
“Research: Arizona Ban on Fetal Tissue Research Struck Down as Unconstitutionally Vague,” BNA's Health Law Reporter (January 4, 2001).Google Scholar
Forbes, supra note 1, at 1.Google Scholar
Id. at 2.Google Scholar
Zion, C., “The Legal and Ethical Issue of Fetal Tissue Research and Transplantation,” Oregon Law Review, (Winter 1996): 1281–96, at 1283.Google Scholar
Id., at 1283.Google Scholar
Forbes, supra note 1, at 2.Google Scholar
Id. at 2.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1.Google Scholar
Forbes, supra note 1, at 2.Google Scholar
Id. at 2.Google Scholar
Id. at 2.Google Scholar
Id. at 4.Google Scholar
Id. at 4.Google Scholar
Id. at 4.Google Scholar
Id. at 5.Google Scholar
Zion, , supra note 7, at 1281.Google Scholar
Allen, M., “Bush Reverses Abortion Aid: U.S. Funds Are Denied to Groups That Promote Procedure Abroad,” The Washington Post, January 23, 2001, at A1.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F., “Reversing what Clinton has done: How easy?” The Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2001, at 3.Google Scholar
Wadman, M., “Republican Candidates Clash on Fetal Tissue in Research,” Nature, February 17, 2000, at 694.Google Scholar
Samuelson, J., “On Fetal Tissue, McCain's Right,” Wisconsin State Journal, February 29, 2000, at 8A.Google Scholar
“Gore Backed by Varmus, 56 Other Laureates, Over 750 Scientists In Letter,” Blue Sheet, November 22, 2000.Google Scholar
Tysver, R., “Fetal-Tissue Fight Revives In Legislature Lawmakers will get competing bills to limit researchers' use of cells from abortions,” Omaha World Herald, January 6, 2001, at 9.Google Scholar
Id. at 9.Google Scholar
McGinley, L., “HHS Choice Upsets Antiabortion Allies Over Stem Cells,” Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2001, at A28.Google Scholar
Olson, J., “Stem-Cell Debate Picks Up: The embryonic material is different from fetal cells, but its use in research raises similar ethical concerns,” Omaha World-Herald, September 17, 2000, at 1A.Google Scholar