Forbes v. Napolitano, No. 99–17372, 2000 U.S. App. WL 1879932 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2000).
2.
“Court rules fetal tissue ban unconstitutional,”Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 31, 2000, at 3a.
3.
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.
4.
“Research: Arizona Ban on Fetal Tissue Research Struck Down as Unconstitutionally Vague,”BNA's Health Law Reporter (January 4, 2001).
5.
Forbes, supra note 1, at 1.
6.
Id. at 2.
7.
ZionC., “The Legal and Ethical Issue of Fetal Tissue Research and Transplantation,”Oregon Law Review, (Winter 1996): 1281–96, at 1283.
8.
Id., at 1283.
9.
Forbes, supra note 1, at 2.
10.
Id. at 2.
11.
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1.
12.
Forbes, supra note 1, at 2.
13.
Id. at 2.
14.
Id. at 2.
15.
Id. at 4.
16.
Id. at 4.
17.
Id. at 4.
18.
Id. at 5.
19.
Zion, supra note 7, at 1281.
20.
AllenM., “Bush Reverses Abortion Aid: U.S. Funds Are Denied to Groups That Promote Procedure Abroad,”The Washington Post, January 23, 2001, at A1.
21.
KieferF., “Reversing what Clinton has done: How easy?”The Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2001, at 3.
22.
WadmanM., “Republican Candidates Clash on Fetal Tissue in Research,”Nature, February 17, 2000, at 694.
23.
SamuelsonJ., “On Fetal Tissue, McCain's Right,”Wisconsin State Journal, February 29, 2000, at 8A.
24.
“Gore Backed by Varmus, 56 Other Laureates, Over 750 Scientists In Letter,”Blue Sheet, November 22, 2000.
25.
TysverR., “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.
26.
Id. at 9.
27.
McGinleyL., “HHS Choice Upsets Antiabortion Allies Over Stem Cells,”Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2001, at A28.
28.
OlsonJ., “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.