Search form

Group 4 Created with Sketch.

Research

From our nation’s health department to the anti-abortion lobby, Equity Forward conducts extensive research on the various opponents of reproductive health care. Check out our reports, polling, fact sheets and FOIAs below.

Looking for Something?

The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council: Mirror Images of Hate

February 26, 2020 Fact Sheets

The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council: Mirror Images of Hate

The Heritage Foundation is fond of branding itself as a think tank of establishment conservatives. In reality, Heritage regularly spouts hateful ideas that are detrimental to LGBTQ individuals, women, people of color and low-income workers. Heritage’s policy positions are not dissimilar from those of peer organizations such asthe Family Research Council (FRC) that have earned designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.

More information on Heritage’s hateful policies and its influence on the Trump administration can be found in our report, “The Heritage Foundation’s Health Department: How an Increasingly Radical Right Wing Think Tank Is Controlling HHS —to the Detriment of Reproductive Health and Other Human Rights.

Policy Position Comparison Between The Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council

[See Comparison Chart here]1

Download Full PDF

Trump’s HHS Office for Civil Rights: Ideological Agenda, Nationwide Impact

February 26, 2020 Fact Sheets

Trump’s HHS Office for Civil Rights: Ideological Agenda, Nationwide Impact

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights(OCR)exists “to ensure that people have equal access to and the opportunity to participate in and receiveservices from HHS programs without facing unlawful discrimination.” However, under the Trump administration, OCR haspursued policies and taken actions to further a radical, ideological agenda at the expense of itsunderlying mission. OCR and its leadership are working to allow discrimination against underserved communities across the countryby prioritizing religious exemptions, denials of service and other means of restricting equitable access to health careover ensuring equal access to care.In the development and operation of the office’s new, unprecedented Conscience and Religious Freedom (CRF) division, there are questions about how the office’s new staff was hired and paid for, and the mission they are executing. 

OCR Leadership Entrenched in Anti-LGBTQand Anti-Abortion Movements

Roger Severino, Director of OCR, has demonstrated his ideology for years prior to his OCR appointment. Severino argued that,“maleness and femaleness are biological realities to be respected and affirmed, not altered or treated as diseases.” He has vigorously argued, “against legalizing same-sex marriage and mandated accommodations for transgender individuals in school locker rooms or public bathrooms.”  While at the Heritage Foundation, he wrote that Congress should barPlanned Parenthood affiliates,and other health centers that provide a broad range of reproductive care, from receivingMedicaid reimbursements or Title X grants if they continue to perform abortions.

Additionally, March Bell, the chief of staff at OCR, previously ran the congressional committee investigating the “fetal tissue procurement industry” and recommended the complete defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Undue Influence from Organizations Fighting to Restrict Rights

Severino was previously employed at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank that consistently takes extremist, anti-abortion positions. In December 2017, The Heritage Foundation released a report urging the administration to protect health workers with moral or religious objections fromperforming certain procedures, like abortionor gender confirmation surgery. One month later, OCR announced the creation of a new division to shieldthese same health workers.

Suspicious Financial and Controversial Contracting Practices

According to emails obtained by Equity Forward, it appears that contractors working at OCR were deeply involved in the planning and rollout of the division’s “conscience protection regulation.”

Further emails obtained from OCR staff raise questions on how the department was paying for new CRF division,which added at least a dozen new employees and contractorswithin its first year of operation. 

Indications of Anti-Science and Discriminatory Policy Priorities to Come

Blatant ideological motivation continues to impact the agenda at OCR. When speaking at the 2018 National Right to Life Convention, breaking decades of precedent by HHS officials, Severino stated, “Our President is fearless when it comes to life and conscience ... We’re just getting started.”The mostrecentexample of pursuing the Trump administration’s extreme agenda can be seen throughout Severino’s  interview with Roll Call. He indicated that OCR is also looking at other forms of religious discrimination, including the right to object to state vaccination requirements in certain government programs–all whilegovernment agencies are working to contain a multi-state measles outbreak. He also highlighted his goals to investigate states that require insurance to cover abortion and defend students training to be medical providers if they object to participating in abortions.

This alignment from both inside OCR and outside groups to which they have ties clearly prioritizes the administration’s extreme agenda over any fact-based, scientific or best practices approach to policy creation.

Download Full PDF

Title X Comparison: The Politicization Of The Nation’s Family Planning Program By The Trump Administration

February 26, 2020 Fact Sheets

The Title X Family Planning Grant Process Has Been Altered Drastically From The Obama Administration Through The Trump Administration.

The Trump administration scrapped what was formerly anon-political processunder the Obama administration with their 2018 and 2019 grant announcements for the Title X Family Planning Program. Through thenew guidelines, thefamily planning program can nowreward the most extreme, anti-birth control views of its political supporters.The inconsistencies between not just the Obama and Trump administrations,but year to year under Trump's HHS,are highlyunusual and make the process difficult for most granteesto navigate. The grantees that dobenefit from such changes were explicitly kept in mind with changes such as the 2018 shift that a Title X recipient comprised of a group of partner organizations need not all provide birth control. That recipients of an already under-resourced program arenot required to provide hormonal contraceptives undermines the very mission of the family planning program.The below comparisons outline how the grant processes have changed from the Obama era to 2018 (the first year the Trump administration overtook the program); how Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) changed the process from 2018 to 2019; and how the 2019 grant announcement compares to that of Obama’s tenure.

Title X: Obama Era Vs. 2018 Grant Announcements

 
Title X Grant Process in 2016, 2017 Under Obama Title X Grant Process in 2019 Under Trump
  Changes are highlighted, bolded, and underlined)
Grantees apply for grant under Title X Grantees apply for grant under Title X
Grant application is reviewed by the Objective Review Committee, a panel of independent reviewers with technical expertise in applicable fields. The review is described as “formal and confidential.” “Federal staff and an independent review panel” will review all applications.
The Objective Review Committees score the proposals using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and the number of low-income patients to be served. (10 points)
  2. The extent to which the applicant’s family planning services are needed locally. (20 points)
  3. The relative need of the applicant. (5 points)
  4. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance. (15 points)
  5. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff. (20 points)
  6. The relative availability of nonfederal resources within the community to be served and the degree that those resources are committed to the project. (10 points)
  7. The degree to the which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in the Title X regulations, subpart A. (20 points)
Proposals are scored using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and the number of low-income patients to be served. (10 points)
  2. The extent to which the applicant’s family planning services are needed locally. (10 points)
  3. The relative need of the applicant. (15 points)
  4. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance. (10 points)
  5. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff. (10 points)
  6. The relative availability of nonfederal resources within the community to be served and the degree that those resources are committed to the project. (10 points)
  7. The degree to the which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in the Title X regulations, subpart A. (10 points)
  8. The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the effective and efficient implementation of requirements set forth in the priorities and key issues on page 9-11 of the FOA. (25 Points)*

*The newly added scoring criteria in #8 above refers to the priorities and key issues in the FOA. These include that projects should include “natural family planning methods (also known as fertility awareness-based methods)”, promotion of abstinence and to “not normalize sexual risk behaviors.” Other than natural family planning methods, no other forms of birth control are listed as priorities or key issues.

The Program Description states, “For applicants that will not provide all services directly,the applicant must document the process and selection criteria it will use for providing an opportunity to receive subawardsto qualified entities eligible to receive federal funds in providing services throughout the service area to meet the needs of project beneficiaries. Family planning services include clinical family planning and related preventive health services; information, education, and counseling related to family planning; and, referral services as indicated.”



[The FOA goes on to list a broad range of family planning methods that includes contraceptive services]
The Program Description states, “An applicant may propose a family planning service project that either is comprised of a single provider or a group of partnering providers who deliver coordinated and comprehensive family planning services. If not providing all services directly, the applicant must have documented the process and selection criteria it will use for providing an opportunity to receive subawards to qualified entities eligible to receive federal funds in providing services throughout the service area to meet the needs of project beneficiaries. Single providers who have developed expertise in one family planning approach or method may be partners in a broader proposal that offers a broad range of family planning methods.”



[The FOA goes on to list a broad range of family planning methods that does NOT include hormonal contraceptives]
The Regional Health Administrators makes final grant-award decisions. This power was givento them in the 1980s to maintain the integrity of the funding processes. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, a political appointee, makes final grant-award decisions.

Title X: 2018 Vs. 2019 Grant Announcements

When HHS released its 2018 guidance for Title X family planning grant applications, critical changes were made that negatively impacted the grantmaking process’s integrity. These changes included replacing the Regional Health Administrators — who made final grant award decisions — with political appointee Valerie Huber, an anti-birth control, abstinence-only advocate, and giving heavy weight to projects that prioritize the rhythm method.Such rollbacks remain embedded in the 2019 guidance, released in November 2018.

The 2018 guidance was also sharply criticized for failing to even mention contraception. This year’s guidance has taken a few steps to address such criticism —while also doubling down on abstinence-only education language and pushing partnerships with faith-based organizations.

While the 2018 program priorities did not mention the word “contraceptive,”they also didnot mention outright abstinence counseling (though recommendations had included “providing counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities.”) The 2019 priorities, on the other hand, state that projects should offer a “broad range” of family planning methods, including “abstinence counseling, hormonal methods (oral contraceptives, rings and patches, injection, hormonal implants, intrauterine devices or systems), barrier methods (diaphragms, condoms), fertility awareness-based methods and/or permanent sterilization.”

Birth control, however, is not mentioned as 2019 key issue (nor was it last year). Instead, the key issues stress “sexual risk avoidance” as an effective means of birth control; advocate for “fertility awareness-based methods of family planning”; and recommend referrals to faith-based organizations in the case of “needs outside the scope of family planning” —such as abortion, which such faith-based organizations presumably oppose. The inconsistency between the 2018 and 2019 guidance is worth noting; under the previous administrations, grant expectations remained did not change from year to year.

In 2018, the guidelines’ Program Description laid out how an applicant could be comprised of either a single provider or a group of providers that togetherprovided a broad range of family planning methods —which did not include birth control. The following year, the Title X guidelines maintained the partnership clause but mandated that at least one of the partnering organizations has to provide hormonal contraceptives. At first glance, the designation of birth control as essential is a welcome change from the 2018 guidelines. However, the 2019 guidance document also claims abstinence-only education is a form of family planning —and its detailed directions on partnerships pave the way for anti-birth control groups to take funding from the under-resourced family planning program.

Below is a side by side comparison of the 2018 Title X grant process and scoring guidelines, and the 2019 issued guidelines.

Title X Grant Process in 2018 Title X Grant Process in 2019
  (Changes are highlighted, bolded, and underlined)
   
Grantees apply for grant under Title X Grantees apply for grant under Title X
“Federal staff and an independent review panel” will review all applications. “Federal staff and an independent review panel” will review all applications.
Proposals are scored using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and, in particular, the number of low-income patients to be served. (10 points)
  2. The extent to which the applicant’s family planning services are needed locally. (10 points)
  3. The relative need of the applicant. (15 points)
  4. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance. (10 points)
  5. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff. (10 points)
  6. The relative availability of nonfederal resources within the community to be served and the degree that those resources are committed to the project. (10 points)
  7. The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in the Title X regulations, subpart A. (10 points)
  8. The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the effective and efficient implementation of requirements set forth in the priorities and key issues on page 9-11 of the FOA. (25 points)*





*These key issues include that projects should incorporate “natural family planning methods (also known as fertility awareness based methods)”, promotion of abstinence and to “not normalize sexual risk behaviors.” Other than natural family planning methods, no other forms of birth control are listed as priorities or key issues.

Proposals are scored using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and, in particular, the number of low-income patients proposed to be served, and the extent to which family planning services are needed in the proposed service area. (15 points)
  2. The relative need of the applicant as evidenced by the budget narrative/justification. (10 points)
  3. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance as documented by available administrative staff and a detailed plan for the select in of qualified subrecipients, applicants must demonstrate/explain how they propose to provide oversight for the use of federal funds to providefamily planning services. (15 points)
  4. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff, including a plan for monitoring the clinical quality of family planning services according to the priorities outlined in this announcement. (20 points)*
  5. The ability of the applicant to make use of non-federal resources (i.e. non-Title X funds) and the degree to which those resources are used to enhance the range of family planning services provided through the project as evidenced by the budget object class descriptions and justifications. (15 points)
  6. The degree to which the applicant describes a detailed plan for ensuring compliance, including by any subrecipients, with the Title X statute, regulations and legislative mandates as described in the budget narrative. (15 points)
  7. The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the effective and efficient implementation of the 7key issues outlined in this funding announcement. (10 points)**





* 2019’s priorities state that projects should offer a “broad range” of family planning methods, including “abstinence counseling, hormonal methods (oral contraceptives, rings and patches, injection, hormonal implants, intrauterine devices or systems), barrier methods (diaphragms, condoms), fertility awareness-based methods and/or permanent sterilization.” [FY 2019 Family Planning Services Grants FOA]

** 2019’s key issues, which are determined by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH) and the Office of the Secretary (OS) within HHS, do not mention birth control. Rather, they emphasize “Providing resources that prioritize optimal health outcomes... with the goal of healthy relationships and stable marriages as they make decisions about preventing or achieving pregnancy”; “Providing counseling for adolescents that encourages sexual risk avoidance by delaying the onset of sexual activity as the healthiest choice” and “reducing the overall number of lifetime sexual partners”; “Communicating... a variety of fertility awareness-based methods of family planning”; and “Fostering Interaction with community and faith-based organizations to develop a network for client referrals when needs outside the scope of family planning are identified”. [FY 2019 Family Planning Services Grants FOA]

The Program Description states, “An applicant may propose a family planning service project that either is comprised of a single provider or a group of partnering providers who deliver coordinated and comprehensive family planning services. If not providing all services directly, the applicant must have documented the process and selection criteria it will use for providing an opportunity to receive subawards to qualified entities eligible to receive federal funds in providing services throughout the service area to meet the needs of project beneficiaries. Single providers who have developed expertise in one family planning approach or method may be partners in a broader proposal that offers a broad range of family planning methods.”



[The FOA goes on to list a broad range of family planning methods that does NOT include hormonal contraceptives]
The Program Description states, “An applicant may propose a family planning service project that either is comprised of asingle provider or a group of partnering providers who deliver coordinated and comprehensive family planning services. For applicants that will not provide all services directly, the applicant must document the process and criteria it will use for selecting subrecipients as well as a plan to monitor their performance. The applicant will take into consideration the extent to which thesubrecipient(s) indicates it can provide the required services and best serve individuals in needthroughout the proposed service area (or part thereof). If an applicant plans to only provide a limited range of family planning methods, they must select subrecipients who offer additional family planning methods or act as a subrecipient for another applicant. In order to fulfill therequirements in the Title X statute, the project, made up of the applicant, and any subrecipients, must provide a broad range of family planning methodsto clients throughout the proposed service area...A “broad range” would not necessarily need to include all categories, but should include hormonal methods since these are requested most frequently by clients and among the methods shown tobe most effective in preventing pregnancy.



[The FOA goes on to describe a “broad range” of family planning services as inclusive of hormonal contraceptive methods... but also of abstinence counseling]
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, a political appointee, makes final grant-award decisions. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, a political appointee, makes final grant-award decisions.

Title X: Obama Era Vs. 2019 Grant Announcements

A comparison of Obama Administration’s last-issued Title X guidelines —consistent between 2016 and 2017—to the second set of guidelines produced by the Trump Administration in 2019 highlights the divergent approaches to reproductive health care. Trump’s HHS appears determined to undermine what remains the only federal family planning program by attacking the essence of the program.

In 2016 and 2017, the number of patients served —especially low-income patients, who receive priority under Title X —and how badly family planning services were needed in the proposed area of the project, were treated as two separate application categories worth a cumulative 30 points. In 2019, these criteria that represent the mission of the Title X program have been consolidated into a singular category worth just 15 points.

And for the second year in a row, final grant-award decisions are made by the Deputy Assistant for Population Affairs —a political appointee —rather than the Regional Health Administrators, who had done so for decades to maintain the integrity of the Title X funding process.

The influence of anti-abortion crusaders at HHS remains clear, as the 2019 grant announcement comes on the heels of the proposed Domestic Gag Rule, which would mandate Title X recipients to create a physical separation of family planning services from abortion services —creating a financial burden for these clinics and impeding on abortion access for many women in one fell swoop. Hints of this rule change (which is currently held up in court) are evident with the category referring to the adequacy of facilities and staff being restored to 20 points in 2019 —after it was docked by 50 percent in 2018—likely to ensure project recipientscan adhere to the proposed Domestic Gag Rule guidelines.

Additionally, under Obama, a Title X applicant could designate subawards to execute additional family planning services that it would not provide. In 2019, the guidelines’ Program Description laidout extremely clearly how an applicant could be comprised of either a single provider or a group of providers that togetherprovided a broad range of family planning methods —one of which has to provide hormonal contraceptives. While birth control shouldbe designated as essential, the same guidance document claims abstinence-only education is a form of family planning —and its detailed directions on partnerships pave the way for anti-birth control groups to take funding from the under-resourced family planning program.

Below is a side by side comparison of the 2016/2017 Title X grant process and scoring guidelines, and the 2019 issued guidelines.

``
Title X Grant Process in 2016, 2017 Under Obama Title X Grant Process in 2019 Under Trump
  (Changes are highlighted, bolded, and underlined)
   
Grantees apply for grant under Title X Grantees apply for grant under Title X
Grant application is reviewed by the Objective Review Committee, a panel of independent reviewers with technical expertise in applicable fields. The review is described as “formal and confidential.” “Federal staff and an independent review panel” will review all applications.
The Objective Review Committees score the proposals using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and the number of low-income patients to be served. (10 points)
  2. The extent to which the applicant’s family planning services are needed locally. (20 points)
  3. The relative need of the applicant. (5 points)
  4. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance. (15 points)
  5. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff. (20 points)
  6. Therelative availability of nonfederal resources within the community to be served and the degree that those resources are committed to the project. (10 points)
  7. The degree to the which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in the Title X regulations, subpart A. (20 points)
Proposals are scored using the following methodology:
  1. The number of patients, and, in particular, the number of low-income patients proposed to be served, and the extent to which family planning services are needed in the proposed service area. (15 points)
  2. The relative need of the applicant as evidenced by the budget narrative/justification. (10 points)
  3. The capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the federal assistance as documented by available administrative staff and a detailed plan for the selectin of qualified subrecipients, applicants must demonstrate/explain how they propose to provide oversight for the use of federal funds to provide family planning services. (15 points)
  4. The adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff, including a plan for monitoring the clinical quality of family planning services according to the priorities outlined in this announcement. (20 points)*
  5. The ability of the applicant to make use of non-federal resources (i.e. non-Title X funds) and the degree to which those resources are used to enhance the range of family planning services provided through the project as evidenced by the budget object class descriptions and justifications. (15 points)
  6. The degree to which the applicant describes a detailed plan for ensuring compliance, including by any subrecipients, with the Title X statute, regulations and legislative mandates as described in the budget narrative. (15 points)
  7. The degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the effective and efficient implementation of the key issues outlined in this funding announcement. (10 points)**

* 2019’s priorities state that projects should offer a “broad range” of family planning methods, including “abstinence counseling, hormonal methods (oral contraceptives, rings and patches, injection, hormonal implants, intrauterine devices or systems), barrier methods (diaphragms, condoms), fertility awareness-based methods and/or permanent sterilization.” [FY 2019 Family Planning Services Grants FOA]



** 2019’s key issues, which are determined by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH) and the Office of the Secretary (OS) within HHS, do not mention birth control. Rather, they emphasize “Providing resources that prioritize optimal health outcomes... with the goal of healthy relationships and stable marriages as they make decisions about preventing or achieving pregnancy”; “Providing counseling for adolescents that encourages sexual risk avoidance by delaying the onset of sexual activity as the healthiest choice” and “reducing the overall number of lifetime sexual partners”; “Communicating... a variety of fertility awareness-based methods of family planning”; and “Fostering Interaction with community and faith-based organizations to develop a network for client referrals when needs outside the scope of family planning are identified”. [FY 2019 Family Planning Services Grants FOA]

The Program Description states, “For applicants that will not provide all services directly,the applicant must document the process and selection criteria it will use for providing an opportunity to receive subawardsto qualified entities eligible to receive federal funds in providing services throughout the service area to meet the needs of project beneficiaries. Family planning services include clinical family planning and related preventive health services; information, education, and counseling related to family planning; and, referral services as indicated.”



[The FOA goes on to list a broad range of family planning methods that includes contraceptive services]
The Program Description states, “An applicant may propose a family planning service project that either is comprised of asingle provider ora group of partnering providers who deliver coordinated and comprehensive family planning services. For applicants that will not provide all services directly, the applicant must document the process and criteria it will use for selecting subrecipients as well as a plan to monitor their performance. The applicant will take into consideration the extent to which thesubrecipient(s) indicates it can provide the required services and best serve individuals in needthroughout the proposed service area (or partthereof). If an applicant plans to only provide a limited range of family planning methods, they must select subrecipients who offer additional family planning methods or act as a subrecipient for another applicant. In order to fulfill the requirements inthe Title X statute, the project, made up of the applicant, and any subrecipients, must provide a broad range of family planning methodsto clients throughout the proposedservice area...A “broad range” would not necessarily need to include all categories, but should include hormonal methods since these are requested most frequently by clients and among the methods shown to be most effective in preventing pregnancy.



[The FOA goes on to describe a “broad range” of family planning services as inclusive of hormonal contraceptive methods... but also of abstinence counseling]
The Regional Health Administrators makes final grant-award decisions. This power was given to themin the 1980s to maintain the integrity of the funding processes. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, a political appointee, makes final grant-award decisions.

# # #

Download Full PDF

Research Relying on Fetal Tissue: The Facts

February 26, 2020 Fact Sheets

Research Relying on Fetal Tissue: The Facts

Critical for understanding human biology and development of new medical technologies.
  • This research has profound potential to advance clinical knowledge and treatment options for life-threatening and chronic diseases.
  • Researchers use fetal tissue to produce cell cultures that can be maintained in a laboratory environment for very long periods of time, in some cases indefinitely. The tissue can be processed to isolate specific cells or tissue types.
  • Research that relies on fetal tissue is used for (but not limited to) brain, eye, kidney, skin, pancreatic, liver, lung and spinal cord research and therapies.
The “gold standard” -an essential, irreplaceable resource for researchers.
  • This research holds unique promise for biomedical research; it does not provoke an immune response in transplant recipients to the same degree as adult tissue, and for some tissue types, fetal tissue regenerates more quickly than adult tissue.
  • Researchers who want to regenerate organs and tissues may use fetal tissue to learn how the human body makes them in the first place. Others look for defects in early development that can cause disease or miscarriage, or study normal development, which can guide therapeutic strategies.

For some avenues of research, there is NO substitute for fetal tissue.

Enables researchers to improve and save lives. 
  • Polio and rubella vaccines were developed from human fetal kidney cells. Without discovery of the polio vaccine it’s estimated polio would kill 640,000 people each year.
  • Fetal tissue was critical to the research for the development of a potential Ebola vaccine.
  • Fetal tissue is currently being used to research and develop treatments for a range of diseases and conditions affecting millions of people including:
    • Alzheimer’s disease
    • Parkinson disease
    • Huntington disease
    • Blindness
    • Pregnancy Complications
    • Birth defects
    • HIV
    • Zika Virus
    • Diabetes

Sources:

Congressional Research Service, Fetal tissue research: frequently asked questions, 2015,

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44129.pdf.

Wadman M, The truth about fetal tissue research, Nature, Dec. 7, 2015,

http://www.nature.com/news/the-truth-about-fetal-tissue-research-1.18960.

Boonstra H, Fetal Tissue Research: A Weapon and a Casualty in the War Against Abortion, Guttmacher Institute, Feb. 9, 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/fetal-tissue-research-weapon-and-casualty-war-against-abortion.

International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), Human Fetal Tissue: A Critical Resource for Biomedical Research, 2017, http://www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/policy-documents/fetal-tissue-research-resource-feb-2017-revfinal.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Research!America, Fetal Tissue Research, 2016, https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/uploads/PandA/Fetal%20Tissue%20Research%20Fact%20Sheet_2016.pdf.

Storrs C, How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine, CNN, Dec. 8, 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/index.html.

Download Full PDF