Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Were profits made in aborted tissue transfer?

Were profits made in aborted tissue transfer?

Last updated on: April 22, 2016 at 2:58 am by CNA Daily News

Were profits made in aborted tissue transfer? 2016-04-22T02:58:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Apr 21, 2016 / 08:58 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A special House investigative panel is alleging that a tissue procurement company and the abortion clinics it partnered with may have illegally profited from the sale of fetal tissue from aborted babies.

“No one should profit from a sale on baby body parts. Nobody,” stated Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), chair of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, at a Wednesday hearing on pricing of fetal tissue.

Wednesday’s hearing on fetal tissue pricing stems from a series of videos released last summer by the group Center for Medical Progress on the role of Planned Parenthood clinics in providing fetal tissue of aborted babies to harvesters for compensation.

The videos were taped undercover conversations with high-ranking Planned Parenthood doctors, some of whom joked casually about the pricing or extraction of fetal tissue. The conversations were with members of Center for Medical Progress posing as representatives of a fake tissue procurement company BioMax, looking to partner with Planned Parenthood clinics.

Project lead David Daleiden and his team alleged that Planned Parenthood broke the law by accepting illegal profits for the fetal tissue. Federal law prohibits the sale of fetal tissue but allows for “reasonable” compensation for when the tissue is donated for research purposes, like compensation for operating costs.

In the wake of the controversy, the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives was created to find out whether Planned Parenthood broke the law. To date, 12 states have declared, after investigations, that Planned Parenthood did not break the law.

The panel presented exhibits Wednesday alleging that one tissue procurement business – which turned out to be StemExpress – advertised profits to be made by abortion clinics by donating fetal tissue of aborted babies for research purposes.

Once the tissue was obtained from abortion clinics, the company, acting as a middle-man, then sold the tissue to researchers. In the documents provided, those sales were made at profits ranging from $595 for brain tissue to $890 for limb tissue.

Its partnerships with abortion clinics jumped from three in 2010 to almost 100 in 2014 to over 250 planned partnerships in 2016 before the negotiations with the national abortion trade organization fell through around the time the undercover videos were released. Their overall profits also rose from almost zero in 2010 to $4.5 million in 2014.

The panel released graphs allegedly showing a similar growth in the number of abortion clinics the company partnered with from 2010-2016 and its total revenue from 2010-2014.

Meanwhile, since technicians allegedly took care of all procurement of fetal tissue, from obtaining consent forms from mothers before their abortions to obtaining the tissue from clinics, the clinics had no operating costs to be reimbursed for as allowed by federal law and thus could have illegally profited from the transfer of fetal blood and tissue, the documents alleged.

Democrats on the panel responded that clinics did have operating costs to be covered in the fetal tissue donations. Witness Robert Raben of The Raben Group noted that costs associated with the sterilization of equipment and human resources staff time to help with consent forms from the mothers, for example, would qualify.

Federal law bans the sale of fetal tissue, but allows for the transfer of tissue for research purposes for “reasonable” compensation, so long as it is not “valuable consideration.” Lawful compensation includes for the purposes of “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

At the beginning of Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) alleged that the documents presented by the committee were “created wholesale” by Republican staffers and were “misleading.”

The chairwoman of the committee Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) responded that the documents were produced through “regular investigatory work” and information came from whistleblowers, subpoenas, former employees, citizens filing FOIA requests, and the internet.

StemExpress responded with a legal memo sent to the panel’s chair and ranking member saying that the documents could be stolen. Daleiden, the project chair for the Center for Medical Progress’ “Human Capital Project,” admitted that he used the password of a former employee to access the company’s records, and StemExpress alleged that he could have provided some of the documents to the panel.

Additionally, they did not profit from fetal tissue procurement, the company claimed. Although their overall profits rose from 2010 to 2014, fetal tissue procurement made up only one percent of profits in 2014-15. While their revenue from fetal tissue totaled just under $75,000 in 2014-15, the costs for the procurement were over $95,000, making it a $20,000 loss.

“In short, StemExpress does not provide fetal tissue to its customers to make money; rather, it is offered to support the needs of the world’s best researchers in their efforts to treat and cure diseases,” the company stated.

One of the witnesses, former Justice Department attorney Brian Lennon, thought that according to the documents presented by the panel, “the proofs more clearly establish” that the abortion clinics received illegal compensation.

The “price-partitioned payment is indeed ‘valuable consideration’ as none of the identified services excluded from the definition were provided by the clinics,” he said, referring to the lawful purposes of compensation. He pointed to the advertisements included in the report of the company telling potential clients they could make a profit.

Photo credit: 578foot via www.shutterstock.com.

Previous Post

April 21, 2016

No one is beyond conversion, Abby Johnson tells Georgetown students

Next Post

April 22, 2016 In India, this Marian devotion uses coconut oil – and draws quite a crowd

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What worldwide Christian youth movement was started by Robert Baden-Powell with a focus on outdoor activities and morality?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Boy Scouts Young Life Wesley Guild Sisters of Charity