Featured Image
Picture 4D Ultrasound of baby in mother's

PETITION: Investigate George Soros' role in funding domestic terrorism! Sign the petition here.

June 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Another batch of documents obtained by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch is shedding more light on the US Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) past involvement in unethical research, particularly its “humanized mice” experiments using tissue derived from aborted babies.

Controversy broke out in 2018 when an FDA notice surfaced detailing a contract to the fetal tissue procurement firm Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. (ABR) to acquire “Tissue for Humanized Mice.” Specifically, the experiments entailed implanting human thymus and liver tissue and stem cells from a human liver into a mouse, to give it a more human-like immune system for the purpose of testing drugs.

Dozens of pro-life leaders and House members successfully pressured the FDA and HHS to terminate the contract, but concerns remained over nearly $100 million in tax dollars that continued to pay for other research using tissue and organs from aborted babies.

In response, the Trump administration pledged to review the relevant funding and organizing via listening sessions with scientists, ethicists, and pro-life groups on the research. But scientists have since demanded that the administration resume funding that involves fetal tissue, under the pretext of developing treatments for COVID-19.

On Tuesday, Judicial Watch announced that it has received 165 pages of FDA records detailing the eight “humanized mice” contracts the agency made with ABR from 2012 to 2018. The contracts, totaling $96,370, were for the acquisition of “fresh and never frozen” tissue from babies aborted within the first six months of pregnancy.

“As part of this process [the Division of Applied Regulatory Science] needs to repeatedly acquire the proper type of tissues,” an FDA official explains in the new documents. “In order for the humanization to proceed correctly we need to obtain fetal tissue with a specific set of specialized characteristics,” including an “age range [of] 16-24 weeks” and that the “tissue must be fresh and never frozen.”

The existence of the contracts is not new information, and the details highlighted by Judicial Watch mostly focus on costs and payment. However, they offer a new window into the process, particularly the coldness with which the parts of dead babies are discussed like commodities.

One email thread from July 2017 is particularly noteworthy in that it shows ABR complaining about an FDA specialist requesting greater detail for the transaction than was generally required in past dealings.

“We‘ve done business with the F.D.A. for many years and we‘ve not experienced such rigorous procedures for the production of purchase orders,” the ABR representative writes. “Will this process be necessary for each P.O. created now?”

“These documents are a horror show,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These records show that the FDA was trafficking in human fetal parts. Incredibly, there continues to be a push to reopen these monstrous experiments!”

Pro-lifers emphatically reject the notion that tissue from aborted children is necessary to cure illness. 

“The fact is that there are modern, successful alternatives available,” the Charlotte Lozier Institute says. “Already, over 60 potential treatments are under investigation — none of which need aborted fetal tissue to fight coronavirus. Instead of wasting precious time listening to these dishonest claims, we should continue to focus our attention on successful, ethical alternatives that don't require the exploitation of baby body parts, taxpayer dollars, and public sentiment that just wants a swift and compassionate end to this crisis.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.