Tagged HHS

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

We’re barreling toward November, folks. (How is it mid-October already?) As you might expect, election stories made up the bulk of the health care news this week. Other great gems and intriguing developments surfaced, though, so let’s get right to it.

Republicans on the campaign trail have been hammered by attack ads over their stance on the health law, with “preexisting conditions protections” — insurance safeguards for patients diagnosed with chronic illness — becoming a catch-all phrase for the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act. Even the law’s most vocal opponents have been reading tea leaves and softening their stances. That’s why statements from GOP leadership this week that Congress could revisit their “repeal” fight post-midterms may have landed with a thunk.

The New York Times: Republican Candidates Soften Tone on Health Care As Their Leaders Dig In

The Washington Post: Trump Says ‘All Republicans’ Back Protections for Preexisting Conditions, Despite Repeated Attempts to Repeal Obamacare

Democrats are pulling out a tried-and-true talking point that seemed perfectly timed for them as news of the federal deficit reignited Republican talk about cutting entitlement programs. Dems (who have been playing defense over Medicare) seized the opportunity to accuse Republicans of putting the beloved program on the chopping block.

The Associated Press: Dems Shift Line of Attack, Warning of GOP Threat to Medicare

As the parties duke it out on the trail, voters seem to agree on one thing: Our health care system is broken and someone needs to fix it. “It’s crippling people. It’s crippling me,” one voter says in Politico’s deep read that takes us to a Pennsylvania county where the “margins of electoral victories traditionally are as slim as the spectrum of political opinion is vast.”

Politico Magazine: The Great American Health Care Panic

On the state level, a Missouri Democrat opposed to abortion struggles to find her place in the party. And Georgia becomes a preview of the growing political clout of home health aides.

The New York Times: Is It Possible to Be an Anti-Abortion Democrat? One Woman Tried to Find Out

Politico: Home Health Aides Test Political Clout in Georgia Governor’s Race


The Trump administration this week proposed a requirement that pharma add drug prices to TV ads — triggering skepticism. One problem is that ad prices wouldn’t reflect what most people end up paying for a drug at the pharmacy counter.

Politico: Trump Set to Force Drugmakers to Post Prices in Ads

What I found surprising, considering how common those ads are, is that just a few dozen drugmakers run any at all — nearly half are put out by five companies. Those manufacturers would bear the brunt of the new rules.

Stat: Five Drug Makers Will Be Hit Hardest By Trump’s New Proposal on Drug Ads

Trying to think outside the box to rein in high drug prices, several states are considering treating pharma as they would a public utility — with rate-setting bodies to review, approve or adjust medication prices.

Stat: A Growing Number of States Consider Legislation to Treat Pharma As a Utility

And keep an eye on this battle: Minnesota became the first state to sue drugmakers over the price of insulin, but I don’t think it will be the last. The “life-or-death” drug has gotten a lot of attention recently, synthesizing the human toll of high costs into a digestible talking point.

Stat: Minnesota Becomes First State to Sue Major Insulin Makers Over Price-Gouging


Another 4,100 Arkansas beneficiaries were dropped from the state’s Medicaid rolls, and 4,800 more are at risk next month (on top of the original 4,353 people dropped last month) — all because of the state’s new work requirements. For critics of the restrictions, their worst fears are realized, while state and national officials focus on what they call positive outcomes. It’s unclear why so many workers are failing to report their hours, but experts suggest limited internet access and lack of knowledge about the requirements as possibilities.

Modern Healthcare: 4,100 More Arkansans Lose Medicaid Over Work Requirements


Anthem was slammed this week with a $16 million settlement over its massive data breach. (Remember the biggest known health care hack in U.S. history?) That penalty is nearly three times the previous record paid over such a case.

The Associated Press: Insurer Anthem Will Pay Record $16M for Massive Data Breach


I’m not sure whether it’s because I saturate myself in health care stories, but I detect a serious reckoning in the field of medical research. The latest call for retractions involves a prominent cardiologist.

The New York Times: Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist


In the miscellaneous must-read file:

• A mysterious polio-like illness that causes sudden paralysis is hitting children in states across the country. The wave of cases is similar to one officials saw in 2014 and 2016, but experts are baffled.

Los Angeles Times: What Is AFM? Everything You Need to Know About the Polio-Like Virus Suddenly Affecting Children Across the U.S.

• I have to admit, this is the headline that most piqued my interest this week. Gene editing is such a hot field, but in the racially charged landscape of the country, scientists are worried their research into genes and genetic diversity will be twisted by hate groups to support their views.

The New York Times: Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (And Why Geneticists Are Alarmed)

• Why hasn’t #WhyIStayed caught on fire like #MeToo? Stigma, for one. But also the #MeToo movement has shown how powerful multiple accusations can be, amplified to the point they can’t be ignored. In a domestic violence situation, it’s often only one survivor speaking out.

The New York Times: Domestic Violence Awareness Hasn’t Caught Up With #MeToo. Here’s Why.

• Viruses don’t always have to be a scary thing. This therapy uses bacteriophages — literally, eaters of bacteria — that inject themselves into germs and cause them to explode. (As this delightful image from the Stat article describes: The viruses can “pop bacteria the way middle schoolers pop zits.”)

Stat: How The Navy Brought a Once-Derided Scientist Out of Retirement — and Into the Virus-Selling Business

• “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Call Jane.” That’s how a clandestine underground abortion network advertised during the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, according to this retro report from the NYT.

The New York Times: Code Name Jane: The Women Behind a Covert Abortion Network


It turns out, it is now scientifically supported that daylight helps kill germs indoors. So make sure to let the sun in this weekend! And have a good one.

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

We’re barreling toward November, folks. (How is it mid-October already?) As you might expect, election stories made up the bulk of the health care news this week. Other great gems and intriguing developments surfaced, though, so let’s get right to it.

Republicans on the campaign trail have been hammered by attack ads over their stance on the health law, with “preexisting conditions protections” — insurance safeguards for patients diagnosed with chronic illness — becoming a catch-all phrase for the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act. Even the law’s most vocal opponents have been reading tea leaves and softening their stances. That’s why statements from GOP leadership this week that Congress could revisit their “repeal” fight post-midterms may have landed with a thunk.

The New York Times: Republican Candidates Soften Tone on Health Care As Their Leaders Dig In

The Washington Post: Trump Says ‘All Republicans’ Back Protections for Preexisting Conditions, Despite Repeated Attempts to Repeal Obamacare

Democrats are pulling out a tried-and-true talking point that seemed perfectly timed for them as news of the federal deficit reignited Republican talk about cutting entitlement programs. Dems (who have been playing defense over Medicare) seized the opportunity to accuse Republicans of putting the beloved program on the chopping block.

The Associated Press: Dems Shift Line of Attack, Warning of GOP Threat to Medicare

As the parties duke it out on the trail, voters seem to agree on one thing: Our health care system is broken and someone needs to fix it. “It’s crippling people. It’s crippling me,” one voter says in Politico’s deep read that takes us to a Pennsylvania county where the “margins of electoral victories traditionally are as slim as the spectrum of political opinion is vast.”

Politico Magazine: The Great American Health Care Panic

On the state level, a Missouri Democrat opposed to abortion struggles to find her place in the party. And Georgia becomes a preview of the growing political clout of home health aides.

The New York Times: Is It Possible to Be an Anti-Abortion Democrat? One Woman Tried to Find Out

Politico: Home Health Aides Test Political Clout in Georgia Governor’s Race


The Trump administration this week proposed a requirement that pharma add drug prices to TV ads — triggering skepticism. One problem is that ad prices wouldn’t reflect what most people end up paying for a drug at the pharmacy counter.

Politico: Trump Set to Force Drugmakers to Post Prices in Ads

What I found surprising, considering how common those ads are, is that just a few dozen drugmakers run any at all — nearly half are put out by five companies. Those manufacturers would bear the brunt of the new rules.

Stat: Five Drug Makers Will Be Hit Hardest By Trump’s New Proposal on Drug Ads

Trying to think outside the box to rein in high drug prices, several states are considering treating pharma as they would a public utility — with rate-setting bodies to review, approve or adjust medication prices.

Stat: A Growing Number of States Consider Legislation to Treat Pharma As a Utility

And keep an eye on this battle: Minnesota became the first state to sue drugmakers over the price of insulin, but I don’t think it will be the last. The “life-or-death” drug has gotten a lot of attention recently, synthesizing the human toll of high costs into a digestible talking point.

Stat: Minnesota Becomes First State to Sue Major Insulin Makers Over Price-Gouging


Another 4,100 Arkansas beneficiaries were dropped from the state’s Medicaid rolls, and 4,800 more are at risk next month (on top of the original 4,353 people dropped last month) — all because of the state’s new work requirements. For critics of the restrictions, their worst fears are realized, while state and national officials focus on what they call positive outcomes. It’s unclear why so many workers are failing to report their hours, but experts suggest limited internet access and lack of knowledge about the requirements as possibilities.

Modern Healthcare: 4,100 More Arkansans Lose Medicaid Over Work Requirements


Anthem was slammed this week with a $16 million settlement over its massive data breach. (Remember the biggest known health care hack in U.S. history?) That penalty is nearly three times the previous record paid over such a case.

The Associated Press: Insurer Anthem Will Pay Record $16M for Massive Data Breach


I’m not sure whether it’s because I saturate myself in health care stories, but I detect a serious reckoning in the field of medical research. The latest call for retractions involves a prominent cardiologist.

The New York Times: Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist


In the miscellaneous must-read file:

• A mysterious polio-like illness that causes sudden paralysis is hitting children in states across the country. The wave of cases is similar to one officials saw in 2014 and 2016, but experts are baffled.

Los Angeles Times: What Is AFM? Everything You Need to Know About the Polio-Like Virus Suddenly Affecting Children Across the U.S.

• I have to admit, this is the headline that most piqued my interest this week. Gene editing is such a hot field, but in the racially charged landscape of the country, scientists are worried their research into genes and genetic diversity will be twisted by hate groups to support their views.

The New York Times: Why White Supremacists Are Chugging Milk (And Why Geneticists Are Alarmed)

• Why hasn’t #WhyIStayed caught on fire like #MeToo? Stigma, for one. But also the #MeToo movement has shown how powerful multiple accusations can be, amplified to the point they can’t be ignored. In a domestic violence situation, it’s often only one survivor speaking out.

The New York Times: Domestic Violence Awareness Hasn’t Caught Up With #MeToo. Here’s Why.

• Viruses don’t always have to be a scary thing. This therapy uses bacteriophages — literally, eaters of bacteria — that inject themselves into germs and cause them to explode. (As this delightful image from the Stat article describes: The viruses can “pop bacteria the way middle schoolers pop zits.”)

Stat: How The Navy Brought a Once-Derided Scientist Out of Retirement — and Into the Virus-Selling Business

• “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Call Jane.” That’s how a clandestine underground abortion network advertised during the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, according to this retro report from the NYT.

The New York Times: Code Name Jane: The Women Behind a Covert Abortion Network


It turns out, it is now scientifically supported that daylight helps kill germs indoors. So make sure to let the sun in this weekend! And have a good one.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Republicans’ Preexisting Political Problem

Ensuring that people with preexisting health conditions can get and keep health insurance has become one of the leading issues around the country ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. And it has put Republicans in something of a bind — many either voted to repeal these coverage protections as part of the 2017 effort in Congress or have signed onto a lawsuit that would invalidate them.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration, eager to show progress regarding high prescription drug costs — another issue important to voters — has issued a regulation that would require prices to be posted as part of television drug advertisements.

Also this week: an interview with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former member of Congress who is using his current post to pursue a long list of health initiatives.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal and Joanne Kenen of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Congress passed a package of bills addressing the nation’s opioid epidemic on a rare note of bipartisanship. Many of the measures are designed to help prevent opioid addiction but are short on treatment options.
  • Democrats have made health care — especially the protections for people with preexisting conditions — their central strategy in midterm campaigns. It’s an issue that the GOP did not want to be campaigning on.
  • Republicans say that despite their moves to destroy the federal health law, they would work to preserve coverage options for people with preexisting conditions. But they don’t lay out what those options would be and earlier efforts have major loopholes, Democrats point out.
  • The announcement by federal health officials this week that they want drug prices added to advertisements about the products is expected to have marginal effects because pricing is so complicated. If the federal government requires drugmakers to post their prices on ads, the manufacturers are widely expected to sue based on First Amendment issues.
  • Open enrollment for Medicare began this week and runs until Dec. 7. Medicare Advantage, the private-plan option for enrollees, is becoming increasingly popular and now covers more than a third of Medicare beneficiaries.
  • But while Medicare Advantage offers many benefits the traditional program does not — frequently including dental and foot care — a recent report from the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services finds that some of these plans may be wrongly denying care to Medicare patients. At the same time, Medicare beneficiaries who choose to use Medicare Advantage plans may be in for a shock if they later decide to switch back to the traditional form of Medicare. They may not be eligible at that point to buy a Medigap plan to help cover their cost sharing.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?” by Austin Frakt

Stephanie Armour: The Associated Press’ “Study: Without Medicaid Expansion, Poor Forgo Medical Care,” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Rebecca Adams: The New Yorker’s “Rural Georgians Want Medicaid, But They’re Divided on Stacey Abrams, the Candidate Who Wants to Expand It,” by Charles Bethea

Joanne Kenen: Seven Days Vermont’s “Obituary: Madelyn Linsenmeir, 1988-2018.”

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Republicans’ Preexisting Political Problem

Ensuring that people with preexisting health conditions can get and keep health insurance has become one of the leading issues around the country ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. And it has put Republicans in something of a bind — many either voted to repeal these coverage protections as part of the 2017 effort in Congress or have signed onto a lawsuit that would invalidate them.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration, eager to show progress regarding high prescription drug costs — another issue important to voters — has issued a regulation that would require prices to be posted as part of television drug advertisements.

Also this week: an interview with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a former member of Congress who is using his current post to pursue a long list of health initiatives.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal and Joanne Kenen of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Democrats have made health care — especially the protections for people with preexisting conditions — their central strategy in midterm campaigns. It’s an issue that the GOP did not want to be campaigning on.
  • Republicans say that despite their moves to destroy the federal health law, they would work to preserve coverage options for people with preexisting conditions. But they don’t lay out what those options would be and earlier efforts have major loopholes, Democrats point out.
  • The announcement by federal health officials this week that they want drug prices added to advertisements about the products is expected to have marginal effects because pricing is so complicated. If the federal government requires drugmakers to post their prices on ads, the manufacturers are widely expected to sue based on First Amendment issues.
  • Open enrollment for Medicare began this week and runs until Dec. 7. Medicare Advantage, the private-plan option for enrollees, is becoming increasingly popular and now covers more than a third of Medicare beneficiaries.
  • But while Medicare Advantage offers many benefits the traditional program does not — frequently including dental and foot care — a recent report from the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services finds that some of these plans may be wrongly denying care to Medicare patients. At the same time, Medicare beneficiaries who choose to use Medicare Advantage plans may be in for a shock if they later decide to switch back to the traditional form of Medicare. They may not be eligible at that point to buy a Medigap plan to help cover their cost sharing.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?” by Austin Frakt

Stephanie Armour: The Associated Press’ “Study: Without Medicaid Expansion, Poor Forgo Medical Care,” by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Rebecca Adams: The New Yorker’s “Rural Georgians Want Medicaid, But They’re Divided on Stacey Abrams, the Candidate Who Wants to Expand It,” by Charles Bethea

Joanne Kenen: Seven Days Vermont’s “Obituary: Madelyn Linsenmeir, 1988-2018.”

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Falling Premiums And Rising Political Tensions

The Trump administration announced that, for the first time, the average premium for a key plan sold on the federal health law’s insurance marketplaces will fall slightly next year. Federal officials said that changes they have made helped facilitate the reduction, but others argue that it was because more plans are moving back into those federal exchanges and making money.

The news is likely to further inflame the political debate on health care in the run-up to the midterm elections. Democrats and Republicans are battling over which party is more attuned to consumers’ needs on protections for people with preexisting conditions and affordable health care.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump signed two bills this week that would ban efforts to keep pharmacists from telling customers that their prescriptions would be cheaper if they paid in cash, rather than using their insurance. And the Food and Drug Administration this week announced it will ease the process for drugmakers to bring some products to market.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Mary Agnes Carey of Kaiser Health News, Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News and Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • The drop in the average price for ACA plans follows a recent analysis that found insurers are regaining profitability in the individual market.
  • Democrats this week were unsuccessful in their effort to get the Senate to reverse a new policy that eased rules for short-term health plans. The administration argues that these plans help provide a more affordable option for many people, but Democrats complain that they are junk insurance because they don’t have many of the protections offered through the ACA.
  • Trump and members of Congress celebrated a rare moment of bipartisanship on health care when the president signed the two bills restricting gag orders on pharmacists. Despite the goodwill, the much-touted aim of the administration to constrain drug prices has not made much progress.
  • Health care has been a key issue in midterm campaigns, with Democrats hitting hard at their opponents to charge that the GOP would not guarantee ACA protections for people with preexisting conditions. But Republicans are fighting back with personal stories of their own health concerns — and an op-ed by the president on concerns about some Democrats’ plans to expand Medicare.
  • The new policy announced by the FDA this week will apply to complex drugs, which are drugs that are coupled with a device, such as patches or auto-injectors. The agency said it would be more flexible in reviewing materials for approving those devices.

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

The Feds’ Termination Of A Tiny Contract Inflames Bitter Fight Over Fetal Tissue

Federal health officials announced late last month they had terminated their contract with a company that supplies human fetal tissue for medical research and were checking that similar contracts, as well as studies conducted with that tissue, comply with federal law.

The seemingly innocuous release about a tiny government contract, which came out as Americans focused on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, belied the big stakes and contentious issue behind it. Government officials are considering pulling federal funding for a decades-old form of research that has yielded a number of medical advances, including the polio vaccine.

The Department of Health and Human Services has faced mounting pressure from conservative lawmakers and abortion opponents, who strongly supported President Donald Trump’s candidacy, to halt the use of tissue obtained from aborted fetuses.

“The federal government must find ethical alternatives as soon as possible, and should end all association with those who participate in any trafficking or procurement of aborted baby organs,” 45 leaders from groups, including Susan B. Anthony List and the Family Research Council, wrote in a recent letter to HHS.

But a letter to congressional leaders, signed by 64 medical and scientific institutions including the American Academy of Pediatrics and Johns Hopkins University, said interfering in fetal tissue research would be “devastating.” The letter cited its impact in understanding viruses like Zika and HIV, as well as ongoing clinical trials to find treatments for spinal cord injuries.

“Fetal tissue research has been critical for scientific and medical advances that have saved the lives of millions of people,” they wrote.

The supplier whose contract was terminated, a California-based company called Advanced Bioscience Resources, came under fire in 2015 when it was identified in videos that surreptitiously captured Planned Parenthood officials discussing how fetal tissue is provided to researchers.

The videos were part of a controversial sting operation by activists who alleged Planned Parenthood was unlawfully profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, including to Advanced Bioscience Resources. Planned Parenthood officials condemned the videos, which they said were deceptively edited. After its own investigation, a Texas grand jury declined to indict anyone from Planned Parenthood, instead indicting two of the activists responsible for the videos.

HHS vowed to look into the research “in light of the serious regulatory, moral, and ethical considerations.”

The announcement also comes weeks before Election Day, giving Republicans an opportunity to employ a potent talking point — their rigid opposition to Planned Parenthood — as they urge their supporters to vote.

Here’s what you need to know to understand the debate.

Where does fetal tissue come from, and how is it used in research?

Tissue from human fetuses is frequently used to make cell cultures, which allow researchers to examine biological processes in a laboratory setting.

The tissue comes from elective abortions, with the written consent of the woman donating the tissue. Health facilities where the abortion occurred may provide it directly to researchers or transfer it to a supplier, such as Advanced Bioscience Resources.

It is unclear how many suppliers there are. A 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service identified just a few known suppliers, citing a New York Times story that said many researchers go to just two companies: Advanced Bioscience Resources and another California-based company called StemExpress.

Researchers have used fetal tissue to study genetic diseases and development disorders like Down syndrome, as well as to test the toxicity of medications taken by pregnant women and the efficacy of vaccines. The measles vaccine, for example, was developed with the help of fetal tissue.

Fetal tissue also has been transplanted into patients in attempts to treat various disorders, injuries and illnesses, including Parkinson’s disease.

Why is HHS reviewing compliance with federal law? Isn’t this research legal?

It is legal to conduct research using fetal tissue, subject to laws and regulations addressing issues such as consent from the woman undergoing the abortion. Researchers in the United States have used fetal tissue since the 1930s, and the federal government has funded such research since the 1950s, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Things get thorny when it comes to acquiring the tissue. A 1993 law made it illegal “to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” In other words, you can neither sell nor purchase fetal tissue in the United States.

But the ban comes with a caveat: Companies that supply researchers with fetal tissue can charge to cover their costs for things like storage, preservation and transportation.

Republican lawmakers and abortion opponents have accused Advanced Bioscience Resources, as well as StemExpress and another supplier that has since gone out of business, of inflating their costs to turn a profit.

After the release of the sting videos in 2015, House and Senate Republicans launched lengthy investigations into fetal tissue acquisition and research, culminating in a pair of reports that accused the suppliers, Planned Parenthood and a handful of its affiliates of illegal sales and purchases.

In late 2016, Republican lawmakers asked the Justice Department to investigate the matter, and several news outlets reported last December that it appeared to be doing so. (The Justice Department typically does not confirm the existence of ongoing investigations.)

So, why is HHS doing this now?

In August, the conservative news outlet CNSNews.com reported the Food and Drug Administration had signed a one-year, nearly $16,000 contract with Advanced Bioscience Resources to acquire fetal tissue for transplantation in mice in federal research labs.

It was not the government’s first contract with the supplier. Records show the FDA contracted with Advanced Bioscience Resources in 2015 and 2016.

In September, 85 House Republicans sent a letter to Scott Gottlieb, the head of the FDA, noting that lawmakers had found evidence the supplier may have violated federal law during their investigations.

“We urge you to cancel this contract immediately and utilize alternative, modern scientific techniques that do not contribute to the trafficking in baby body parts,” the lawmakers wrote. 

Has fetal tissue research been an issue in the past?

Yes. In 1988, in fact, HHS banned funding for research on fetal tissue transplantation while an advisory panel reviewed the issue. While divided in their views on abortion, most panel members supported the conclusion that, since abortion was legal and the research could yield significant medical discoveries, this research was “acceptable public policy.”

The George H.W. Bush administration rejected the panel’s conclusion, concerned the research would create incentives for women to have abortions, and the ban stood until President Bill Clinton eliminated it in 1993, shortly after being sworn in.

Democrats in Congress seized on the safeguards recommended by the panel and soon passed the 1993 law that, among other things, banned the sale and purchase of fetal tissue.

A similar fight over stem cells erupted in 2001, when President George W. Bush severely restricted research on embryonic stem cells, which are taken from human embryos donated by couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. President Barack Obama later lifted the restrictions.


KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.