Despite support by pro-life Republicans and Reps. Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Jason Altmire (D-PA) an amendment to expand the definition of "family member" to include the unborn and adoptive children in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act failed in the House Education and Labor Committee. Chairman George Miller (D-CA) did offer a provision that would include "fetuses" in the bill. However, this does not address children in the process of being adopted and unborn children younger than nine weeks' gestation. Also, it does not remedy the dilemma for IVF embryos. FRC will continue to urge House members to close this devastating loophole.
FRC Home
Managing Editor:
Contributors:
- Timothy Dailey
- Chuck Donovan
- Pat Fagan
- Michael Fragoso
- Chris Gacek
- Moira Gaul
- Tom McClusky
- Robert Morrison
- David Prentice
- Cathy Ruse
- Bill Saunders
- Peter Sprigg
- Charmaine Yoest
Search:
Categories:
- Bloggers' Briefing
- Economics
- Education
- Family
- Family Facts
- FRC Videos
- Government
- Human Sexuality
- Life & Bioethics
- Marriage
- Misc.
- Movie Reviews
- Other Issues
- Perkins' Perspective
- Religion & Culture
- The Courts
- This Day in History
Archives:
« Internet Porn: Accidents Waiting To Happen | Main | FRC at National Religious Broadcasters »
Comments (1)
This seems very underhanded to me - the GNDA was written for a purpose completly unrelated to what the proposed ammendments intend. Its just 'cheating' to try to sneak one law through by piggybacking on a more popular law - though the practice is a time-honored legislative tradition now. Extending the protection to embryos would certinly be unpopular, as PGD is a prodecure which has a great deal of public support. Only the strictest of pro-lifers (and most dogmatic of Catholics) object to that. Same applies for first-trimester abortions that would be severely disabled or have very short and/or painful lives. Its not until the second trimester that opposition becomes significent.
Im sure the FRC would object very heavily if someone, for example, added an ammendment to increase federal funding for Planed Parenthood to an act intended to revise drug safety testing standards. How is this any different?
Also, if either of those two suggested ammendments were to be included, it would almost certinly result in the entire act being struck down in court. I imagine the true proponents of a GNDA are strongly opposed to the ammendments for that reason alone. Its not a 'loophole' - its written the way it is by design.
February 17, 2007 7:15 AM | Comment Permalink