8/27/17 University Battles Fetal-Tissue Law BY JACOB GERSHMAN A legal challenge to an Indi- ana law...

 

Transcribed Image Text:

8/27/17 University Battles Fetal-Tissue Law BY JACOB GERSHMAN A legal challenge to an Indi- ana law that criminalizes re- search using the remains of aborted fetuses could deter- mine how much power states I have to restrict scientific ac- cess to fetal tissue. The unusual case pits Indi- ana's government against the state's flagship research uni- versity, which is asking a fed- eral court to declare Indiana's fetal-tissue statute unconsti tutional. The 2016 law makes it a felony to intentionally ac- quire, receive, sell or transfer aborted fetal tissue. Indiana University filed suit soon af- ter Mike Pence, now the vice president, signed it into law in his final months as Indiana A federal judge is weighing whether to dismiss the lawsuit and allow prosecutors to en- force the law or to strike down the statute. A ruling could by year end. come by year end. The dispute isn't the first to a state target a regulation of fe- tal tissue. But it is the first time that medical researchers have led the charge, according to lawyers involved. Also set- set ting the case apart is the uni- versity's lead argument: that the state's regulation is an un- constitutional restraint on in- terstate commerce. Were the legal Were the legal argument to prevail, according to lawyers, it could be leveled against sim- ilar fetal-tissue restrictions on the books in other conserva- tive states, such as South Da- kota and Louisiana. Since 2011, Indiana Univer- sity has received fetal brains from the Birth Defects Re- search Laboratory at the Uni- versity of Washington under a A 2016 law passed by the Indiana legislature makes it a felony to intentionally acquire, receive, sell or transfer aborted fetal tissue. Commerce Claim at Center of Lawsuit Indiana University's lawsuit against the state makes multi- ple constitutional claims. A fe- tal tissue law, it argues, vio- by lates the First Amendment abridging academic freedom, and it says it violates rights to equal protection by discrimi nating against researchers who use aborted fetal tissue. the But more pronal school invokes doctrine that prevents states from interfering with free trade across their borders. University court briefs liken the tissue regulation to state laws invali- National Institutes of Health grant. The remains are used by Debomoy Lahiri, a professor of neurobiology, psychiatry and genetics who is trying to de- velop a cure for Alzheimer's. Dr. Lahiri extracts the healthy tissue from the brains dated years ago banning the sale of margarine or banning the sale of of fresh meat slaugh- tered more than 100 miles from the point of sale. It is an argument premised on the idea that aborted fetal tissue acquired by Debomoy Lahiri, a professor, is an "article of The fetal parts commerce. "Dr. obtain it, qualify as such because Lahiri must fee to must pay a and it crosses state lines when shipped to Indiana from Washington," the university stated in a brief. Attorneys f for the state say the fetal shipments can't be considered trade given that federal law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. -Jacob Gershman as a "control" to understand how a diseased brain works differently, says the university. s tissue from mis- He also carriages, but said in a deposi- tion that aborted fetal tissue is more scientifically valuable. In court filings, Indiana Uni- versity accuses the state of threatening "significant re- search progress related to Alz- heimer's and other diseases" and the institution's "impor- tant role and reputation in the global research community." Indiana stated in court pa- pers that the criminal penal- ties under its 2016 law are in- tended to insulate "mothers from pressure to allow re- search on an aborted fetus." The state also suggests the university is exaggerating the threat to scientific advance- ment, claiming that Dr. Lahiri is the only scientist at the uni- versity who uses fetal tissue in research. The litigation follows a court ruling from last year that blocked Indiana from en- forcing other parts of its abor- tion law, including a a rule re- quiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains and a ban on abortions when a woman seeks the procedure because the fe- tus has a risk of Down syn- rick drome or other disabilities. In that litigation, which was brought by Planned Parent- hood, a federal judge ruled that Indiana was likely violat- ing a woman's constitutional right to abortion. The right to abortion isn't at issue in the Indiana Univer- sity case. But the abortion de- bate has spilled into court pa- pers. Lawyers for the university have contended the fetal tissue law isn't advancing a legitimate public interest but that lawmakers voted for it. out of a desire to express their "moral disdain for abortion." "This case isn't about abor- tion. It is a case about Indiana prohibiting a very controver sial research practice," said John Bursch, an outside lawyer for the state. C ZOOM + 8. Kelo v. City of New London 9.Toys "R" Us v. Carnasie Kids Esc to exit full screen Page < 8 of 8 VII.(16 points) Read the Wall Street Journal article titled University Battles Fetal-Tissue Law" (August 24, 2017) located under Modules and write a two (2) to (3) page case study using the Critical Thinking steps in the textbook (modified as follows): Facts Issues Ruling and Reasoning [provide your own ruling and the reasoning behind it] Relevant Rules of Law and Analogies [Use at least one (1) case study from our readings to help support or illustrate your argument-e.g., National Association of Optometrists (& Lens Crafters) v. Brown [Case 5-3] or Moore v. UC Regents] Ethical Norms [What ethical norms are compatible or in conflict with your ruling?] Missing Information ZOOM + 8/27/17 University Battles Fetal-Tissue Law BY JACOB GERSHMAN A legal challenge to an Indi- ana law that criminalizes re- search using the remains of aborted fetuses could deter- mine how much power states I have to restrict scientific ac- cess to fetal tissue. The unusual case pits Indi- ana's government against the state's flagship research uni- versity, which is asking a fed- eral court to declare Indiana's fetal-tissue statute unconsti tutional. The 2016 law makes it a felony to intentionally ac- quire, receive, sell or transfer aborted fetal tissue. Indiana University filed suit soon af- ter Mike Pence, now the vice president, signed it into law in his final months as Indiana A federal judge is weighing whether to dismiss the lawsuit and allow prosecutors to en- force the law or to strike down the statute. A ruling could by year end. come by year end. The dispute isn't the first to a state target a regulation of fe- tal tissue. But it is the first time that medical researchers have led the charge, according to lawyers involved. Also set- set ting the case apart is the uni- versity's lead argument: that the state's regulation is an un- constitutional restraint on in- terstate commerce. Were the legal Were the legal argument to prevail, according to lawyers, it could be leveled against sim- ilar fetal-tissue restrictions on the books in other conserva- tive states, such as South Da- kota and Louisiana. Since 2011, Indiana Univer- sity has received fetal brains from the Birth Defects Re- search Laboratory at the Uni- versity of Washington under a A 2016 law passed by the Indiana legislature makes it a felony to intentionally acquire, receive, sell or transfer aborted fetal tissue. Commerce Claim at Center of Lawsuit Indiana University's lawsuit against the state makes multi- ple constitutional claims. A fe- tal tissue law, it argues, vio- by lates the First Amendment abridging academic freedom, and it says it violates rights to equal protection by discrimi nating against researchers who use aborted fetal tissue. the But more pronal school invokes doctrine that prevents states from interfering with free trade across their borders. University court briefs liken the tissue regulation to state laws invali- National Institutes of Health grant. The remains are used by Debomoy Lahiri, a professor of neurobiology, psychiatry and genetics who is trying to de- velop a cure for Alzheimer's. Dr. Lahiri extracts the healthy tissue from the brains dated years ago banning the sale of margarine or banning the sale of of fresh meat slaugh- tered more than 100 miles from the point of sale. It is an argument premised on the idea that aborted fetal tissue acquired by Debomoy Lahiri, a professor, is an "article of The fetal parts commerce. "Dr. obtain it, qualify as such because Lahiri must fee to must pay a and it crosses state lines when shipped to Indiana from Washington," the university stated in a brief. Attorneys f for the state say the fetal shipments can't be considered trade given that federal law prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. -Jacob Gershman as a "control" to understand how a diseased brain works differently, says the university. s tissue from mis- He also carriages, but said in a deposi- tion that aborted fetal tissue is more scientifically valuable. In court filings, Indiana Uni- versity accuses the state of threatening "significant re- search progress related to Alz- heimer's and other diseases" and the institution's "impor- tant role and reputation in the global research community." Indiana stated in court pa- pers that the criminal penal- ties under its 2016 law are in- tended to insulate "mothers from pressure to allow re- search on an aborted fetus." The state also suggests the university is exaggerating the threat to scientific advance- ment, claiming that Dr. Lahiri is the only scientist at the uni- versity who uses fetal tissue in research. The litigation follows a court ruling from last year that blocked Indiana from en- forcing other parts of its abor- tion law, including a a rule re- quiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains and a ban on abortions when a woman seeks the procedure because the fe- tus has a risk of Down syn- rick drome or other disabilities. In that litigation, which was brought by Planned Parent- hood, a federal judge ruled that Indiana was likely violat- ing a woman's constitutional right to abortion. The right to abortion isn't at issue in the Indiana Univer- sity case. But the abortion de- bate has spilled into court pa- pers. Lawyers for the university have contended the fetal tissue law isn't advancing a legitimate public interest but that lawmakers voted for it. out of a desire to express their "moral disdain for abortion." "This case isn't about abor- tion. It is a case about Indiana prohibiting a very controver sial research practice," said John Bursch, an outside lawyer for the state. C ZOOM + 8. Kelo v. City of New London 9.Toys "R" Us v. Carnasie Kids Esc to exit full screen Page < 8 of 8 VII.(16 points) Read the Wall Street Journal article titled University Battles Fetal-Tissue Law" (August 24, 2017) located under Modules and write a two (2) to (3) page case study using the Critical Thinking steps in the textbook (modified as follows): Facts Issues Ruling and Reasoning [provide your own ruling and the reasoning behind it] Relevant Rules of Law and Analogies [Use at least one (1) case study from our readings to help support or illustrate your argument-e.g., National Association of Optometrists (& Lens Crafters) v. Brown [Case 5-3] or Moore v. UC Regents] Ethical Norms [What ethical norms are compatible or in conflict with your ruling?] Missing Information ZOOM +