Posts Tagged ‘law’

Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on March 31, 2012 at 3:38 am

Previously, you could not compensate someone for a bone marrow donation“donating bone marrow was classified the same as donating a kidney or any other organ, and payments were forbidden, punished by jail time.”

Now, bone marrow donation is so simple, it no longer resembles organ donation“the process of donating bone marrow [is] nearly identical to giving blood plasma and doesn’t amount to an organ transplant.”

So, you can get paid for a bone marrow donation“bone marrow donors [can] be paid for their donations like blood donors.”

Many believe this is a very positive move and will encourage more donations.

bone marrow is FULL of stem cells 🙂


Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling

Posted: 6:48pm on Mar 27, 2012; Modified: 9:27pm on Mar 27, 2012

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider a ruling that allows bone marrow donors to be paid for their donations like blood donors.

In December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shook up the organ transplant community when it overturned the criminality of paying bone marrow donors. Previously, donating bone marrow was classified the same as donating a kidney or any other organ, and payments were forbidden, punished by jail time.

But the court said a technological breakthrough makes the process of donating bone marrow nearly identical to giving blood plasma and doesn’t amount to an organ transplant.

On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit declined the Obama administration’s request to reconsider the ruling. Several organizations and activisits in the organ-donation community have urged the administration to fight the ruling.

The administration now has 90 days to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said the administration is reviewing its options.

The nonprofit patient advocacy group Institute for Justice called the original ruling a “major national shift in bone marrow donation policy” and said payments will encourage more donations.

SAN FRANCISCO: Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling | Health | Macon.com.



FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!” | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on March 21, 2012 at 4:27 am
FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!”

January 31, 2012

stem cellIn another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!


We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons:

  1. Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
  2. The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”


We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.


This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.


The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.


Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).


The Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic takes your blood and bone marrow, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and cultures it to get more cells before a doctor puts them back in your body to repair damaged tissue. The FDA states that when the stem cells are cultured, they become FDA-regulated drugs. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s bone marrow from his or her own body.


The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.


However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx same-day procedure.


Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.


The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.


Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.




Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”

Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this article reported that when blood and bone marrow were put into a centrifuge to separate the stem cells, the FDA considered the stem cells to be a drug and claimed authority to regulate them. The article has been updated to reflect that FDA only claims authority to regulate as drugs those stem cells which are cultured before being re-injected into the body.


FDA’s New Claim: “Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It!” | The Alliance for Natural Health USA.


insidious analysis…i been around the block once or twice and traveled and listened enough to know that things are not always what they seem and the reasons for doing so are rarely what they appear.

women’s rights are getting squeezed and rung out of them like yesterday’s dirty sponge water and while this is a travesty in and of itself I can’t help but believe that this is the beginning of many more injustices and changes which will make our heads spin. is this an effort to establish that: your body is not your own? we no longer have the right to choose what we put in our body (from vaginal probes to GMOs so “my body/their property” seems closer than i care to admit…

For an absolutely chilling account of “My Bodies, Their Property” read this:

“Patenting lives: life patents, culture and development” Forfeited Consent: Body parts in Eminent Domain Page 95 http://books.google.com/books?id=3hFLooYJRIcC&printsec=frontcover
“Intellectual property, medicine and health: current debates” Property and Human Tissue Page 123 http://books.google.com/books?id=ZIaM8LXlGG0C&printsec=frontcover

Basically, if a woman is state or corporate property, then so is her fetal matter; so doctors can remove the biological materials and use it with legal backing? OR, if a woman is genetically resistant to a specific disease, maybe they can just claim her child and use it for testing?

more and more i see actions performed under the umbrella excuse “the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few” How long before the health of the many is worth the death of the one? perhaps this an embryonic stem cell angle? one last gasp of pharma to fool the public into carrying the embryonic stem cell torch despite the FACT that embryonic stem cell treatments don’t work and do cause tumors?

this isn’t out of the realm of reality, if you disbelieve, go read Mike Chrichton’s 2006 book NEXT – “…and that the physician’s university had sold the rights in Frank’s cells to BioGen, a biotechnology startup company. As the book opens Frank is suing the university for unauthorized misuse of his cells, but the trial judge rules that the cells were “waste” that the university could dispose of as it wished. Frank’s lawyers advise that, even if he wins an appeal, the university as a tax-funded organization can still claim the rights to the cells under the doctrine of eminent domain.”

The pharma company then goes after his kids since the genetic material is the same and if they own the father, the own the son (and the sins of the father shall be visited on the sons…the genetic commercial potential tool) M.C. said about this book: “This novel is fiction, except for the parts that aren’t.”

We’ll see…this goes in the category of “i hope i’m wrong but this twisting in my gut is telling me otherwise”

Ebryonic stem cell research funding will go on

In STEM CELLS IN THE NEWS on May 2, 2011 at 12:15 am

1. It’s spelled eMbryonic, not ebryonic. They got the most important word in the article wrong in the title and in the first word of the title no less? Are you kidding me?
2. So what? Screw the embryos, they’re irrelevant! https://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/screw-the-embryos-they%e2%80%99re-irrelevant/ – dg

Ebryonic stem cell research funding will go on, federal court rules – 5.1.11 | MassDevice Staff

Embryonic stem cellsA federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s ruling to halt federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells, voting 2-1 that the policy does not violate a 1996 law.

In August, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia banned the funding policy, potentially derailing scores of projects looking into the causes of diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and cystic fibrosis. President Barack Obama had sought to deliver stem cell research funding from constraints imposed under the Bush administration, but Lamberth ruled that the policy violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, aimed at stopping the destruction of human embryos.

Dickey-Wicker proved to be a sticky wicket for both plaintiffs and defendants when the appeals court issued a temporary stay of the Lamberth ruling.

Obama’s policy allowed the use of stem cell lines derived from frozen embryos from fertility treatments that were no longer needed and donated according to stringent ethical guidelines. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, argued that the Obama policy violated the Dickey-Wicker rules.

The Obama administration appealed the decision to the D.C. appeals bench. In a 2-1 ruling, that court overturned Lamberth’s decision.

“We conclude the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an [embryonic stem cell] from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an [embryonic stem cell] will be used. We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction,” Judge Douglas Ginsberg wrote in the majority opinion, according to court documents. “All this is to say the balance of equities tilts against granting a preliminary injunction. That, combined with our conclusion the plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits, leads us to hold the district court abused its discretion in awarding preliminary injunctive relief..”

In a feisty dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson took issue with her colleague’s reasoning, writing that they have “taken a straightforward case of statutory construction and produced a result that would make Rube Goldberg tip his hat,” performing “linguistic jujitsu.”

“I must therefore respectfully dissent,” Henderson wrote. “Because derivation of [human embryonic stem cells] necessarily destroys a human embryo or embryos, and because derivation constitutes at least [human embryonic stem cell] research development under the amendment, all [human embryonic stem cell] research is ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.’ Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ challenge to the amendment is likely to succeed because the amendment prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to engage in [human embryonic stem cell] research in all of its sequences.”

Tacoma closing medical marijuana dispensaries

In Medical Marijuana on October 19, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Tacoma closing medical marijuana dispensaries


TACOMA, Wash. — The city of Tacoma has ordered eight medical marijuana dispensaries to shut their doors by Saturday because the city believes they are breaking state law.

Marijuana providers told The News Tribune the city is misinterpreting the law. Medical marijuana supporters planned to show up at Tuesday’s city council meeting to fight the move.

Philip Dawdy of Sensible Washington estimates the Tacoma dispensaries serve more than 10,000 patients in the area.

via Tacoma closing medical marijuana dispensaries.

U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy | Reuters

In STEM CELLS IN THE NEWS on August 23, 2010 at 9:50 pm

A U.S. court ruled in favor of a law suit filed in June against the National Institutes of Health by researchers.   The preliminary injunction on Monday stops federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research under the position that “human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.”  Christian groups also opposed to embryo research argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

While this ruling is based on moral issues and not scientific issues, there is a preponderance of evidence that scientifically, embryonic stem cells for treatment may prove to be a dead end for at least 20-50 years and adult stem cells are already proven safe and effective for treating over 130+ diseases in humans.  For more information on why adult stem cells are scientifically better suited for treating humans than embryonic stem cells, read these articles:

U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy

A microscopic view shows smooth muscle cells derived from human  embryonic stem cells showing the nuclei (blue) and proteins of the  cytoskeleton (green) in this handout photo released to Reuters by the  California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, March 9, 2009.  REUTERS/Alexey Terskikh/Burnham Institute for Medical  Research/California Institute for Regenerative Medicine/Handout

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:22pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on the sensitive issue.

The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

“(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed,” Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling. The Obama administration could appeal his decision or try to rewrite the guidelines to comply with U.S. law.

The suit against the National Institutes of Health, backed by some Christian groups opposed to embryo research, argued the NIH policy violated U.S. law and took funds from researchers seeking to work with adult stem cells.

The U.S. Department of Justice, White House and NIH had no immediate comment.

Key to the case is the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Congress adds to budget legislation every year. It bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

That was not an issue for the NIH until the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998. In 2001, then-President George W. Bush said he could only allow federal research money to pay for work done using a few batches, or lines, of the cells.

Many stem cell researchers objected, saying they could not do work needed to fulfill the promise of the powerful cells, which can give rise to all the tissues and cells in the human body. Privately funded researchers could do as they pleased, but federal funding is the cornerstone of such basic biological research.


As one of his first acts after taking office, Obama overturned that decision and the NIH set up a careful process for deciding which batches of human embryonic stem cells could be used by federally funded researchers.

The new guidelines do not allow the use of federal dollars to create the stem cells but do allow researchers to work with them if they are made by another lab.

Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the original suit saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding. They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells.

Sherley was not immediately available for comment.

“There is no after-the-fact remedy for this injury because the Court cannot compensate plaintiffs for their lost opportunity to receive funds,” Lamberth wrote.

He found that the injunction would not seriously harm researchers who focus on human embryonic stem cells because it would preserve the status quo and not interfere with their ability to get private funding.

With the preliminary injunction in place, the two sides will likely present arguments and case history to the judge over whether the guidelines can be permanently blocked or be allowed to go into effect.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

via U.S. court rules against Obama’s stem cell policy | Reuters.

US is #1 in Stem Cell Research! …sort of…

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS, CATCH UP! on April 29, 2010 at 7:39 pm

We are #1!

With the release of new lines of embryonic stem cells, the US may reclaim their title as #1!  But #1 in what regard? Consumption of stem cells?  Not quite…

Consumption of embryonic stem cells?  Well, yes…but…

We are really only the leader in “consumption of embryonic stem cells used for research”.  But there is a reason for this.  Many countries have tried to research embryonic stem cells for treatment, for a decade or more, with full governmental and fiduciary support and then…given up.  Embryonic stem cells bring with them transplant rejection issues and grow into tumors and cysts.

We are in fact about 8 years behind most of the developed world in adult stem cell research; the only stem cells that have over half a decade of proven safety and efficacy.  So hooray for us!

What else are we #1 in?

We are the…

  • #1 consumer of the stem cells that have shown the least potential for treatment (embryonic)!
  • #1 consumer of environmentally damaging and war causing oil!
  • #1 consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana!

Here’s an idea, snarky as it may be…
What do you say we load up an SUV with cocaine and heroin, have a slammin party, OD on drugs and die young!  We might as well cause embryonic stem cells won’t produce cures for diseases anytime soon!

Not a bad idea, at least we could go out with a bang…If only we could afford it.

Our country’s bank account is more than $-568,800,000,000 ranking us 188th in the world.  Not to worry, we still have a good chance of dying before needing stem cells.  The WHO ranks our health system at 37th, our life expectancy is 30th in the world, infant mortality is 34th in the world and this is all with our Health Expenditures as a % of GDP being almost the highest in the world (we are ranked #2).   Now that’s money well spent.

And we’ll all probably be shot soon anyway.  We are ranked 78th in intentional homicides (and in this category, #1 is good).

HOORAY FOR THE U.S.A.! What’s not to love? – dg

Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

In BUSINESS OF STEM CELLS on November 3, 2009 at 10:57 am

Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Posted on: November 2, 2009 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s new rules on federal funding for stem cell research, which reversed the Bush policy of prohibiting such funding in most cases. And I’m not usually a big fan of dismissing cases based on standing, but in this case there was just no legal basis for the challenge at all.


The plaintiffs in the case were the Christian Medical Association; Nightlight, a Christian adoption agency that urges the adoption of frozen embryos from fertility clinics; two doctors, James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, who do adult stem cell research but refuse to do embryonic research; two couples who have adopted such embryos; and – amusingly – the embryos themselves. Yes, they sued on behalf of all the snowflakes sitting in fertility clinic freezers.

The court dismissed the case for all plaintiffs based on a lack of standing. And it’s really hard to imagine what the legal argument might be for the suit by any of them. Here’s how the court summarizes their claims:


Plaintiffs allege that the guidelines, by allowing NIH to fund hESC research, will cause them irreparable harm. Specifically, Drs. Sherely and Deisher contend that the new guidelines will “result in increased competition for limited federal funding and will thereby injure [their] ability to successfully compete for . . . NIH stem cell research funds.” Nightlife alleges that the guidelines will cause a decrease in the number of embryos available for adoption…The Nelsons and Flynns maintain that the guidelines will “jeopardize the likelihood that embryos will become available” for them to adopt in the future. Finally, CMA alleges that the guidelines will frustrate its purpose and require it to expend significant resources to combat the ethical problems posed by hESC research.

via Court Dismisses Challenge to Embryonic Stem Cell Research : Dispatches from the Culture Wars.


In OFF THE BEATEN PATH on November 1, 2009 at 4:41 pm


A friend sent me the following comment and it got me thinking a lot about how someone makes the decision to get treated with stem cells.

Here’s his comment:

I know two [people with multiple sclerosis] personally who did the autogolous stem cell treatment procedure (stem cells are pulled from your on body and then implanted after being multiplied etc.- dg). One felt it helped a lot. The other said it helped minimally if at all.

Here’s my reply:

You always have to weigh your options when considering getting any kind of medical treatment.  Getting educated on the issues and variables is (IMO) the direct responsibility of the patient (although there are patient advocates who will help in this process).  There is no way that doctors (especially from the US) can keep up with the advances occurring around the world today.  Add the embryonic controversy pulling eyes away from the stem cells (adult or repair stem cells) that are making all the advancements and it’s no wonder the patient is on their own to find stem cell treatment information.

But in consideration of  your friend’s results:

The success rate for “significant therapeutic benefits” seem to be around 74% at this time which is pretty amazing IMO. SO one friend was one of the lucky 3/4 and the other was one of the unlucky 1/4.  Luckily there are virtually no negative side effects (soreness at the injection site treated with ibuprofen is typically the most extreme side effect if you can believe it!)

SO the worst that can happen is you get minimal response to the treatment, you take an advil andand you lose your money (which is a considerable issue considering so many people are doing fund raisers, etc on a limited budget in a bad economy).  Perhaps facilities should offer a return treatment at no or minimal cost for those that do not have benefit from the first treatment.  I work with one ‘future planned’ treatment center that is offering exactly that when they open their doors.  We’ll have to wait and see.

moore's law

To make the question more difficult to answer, you must factor this in…the field of stem cell treatments IS in it’s infancy and changes are occurring on par or faster than Moore’s law (computing hardware – the # of transistors/integrated circuit doubles every two years). I personally know of 2 separate innovations that will advance the field significantly in the next 3 months.

Point is, things are changing and improving every day.  The problem is (besides that none of us are getting any younger) neurological disease gets increasingly harder to treat the longer you wait.  SO where’s the magic window?  It’s different for each person.  Combine severity of symptoms, impact of your disease on what your lifestyle was prior to the disease, quality of life reduction/missed opportunities due to the disease and of course, your wallet.

There are no absolute answers…but there are people who are willing to help you sort through the variables and put together a game plan.  Surprisingly, these services are free.

Whatever your decision, do the research.  With over 800 articles, my blog [ https://repairstemcell.wordpress.com ] is a good place to get started.  The info is constantly updated and I am in touch with the top stem cell docs in the world who both feed me new advances and make sure I don’t make any errors in my info.   (btw, I don’t make any money from it, this is just my way of sharing what I know).

I am also happy to help people find what they are looking for.  You can email me at dsgrano@gmail.com I get about one or two dozen emails per day of people asking where to get treated, what is the current status of treatment for their disease, etc.  Feel free to bother me, I enjoy it 😉

ok, this reply got very long…they sometimes get away from me when I am writing and my fingers and brain get into a zone.  lol!  but there’s good info in here.  I hope it is helpful.



No more drive-through mastectomies!

In ALL ARTICLES, OFF THE BEATEN PATH on May 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm

breast reconstruction

Proposed Mastectomy Law Change
(written by a surgeon)

I’ll never forget the look in my patients eyes when I had to tell them they had to go home with the drains, new exercises and no breast. I remember begging the doctors to keep these women in the hospital longer, only to hear that they would, but their hands were tied by the insurance companies.

So there I sat with my patient giving them the instructions they needed to take care of themselves, knowing full well they didn’t grasp half of what I was saying, because the glazed, hopeless, frightened look spoke louder than the quiet ‘Thank you’ they muttered.

A mastectomy is when a woman’s breast is removed in order to remove cancerous breast cells/tissue. If you know anyone who has had a mastectomy, you may know that there is a lot of discomfort and pain afterwards. Insurance companies are trying to make mastectomies an outpatient procedure. Let’s give women the chance to recover properly in the hospital for 2 days after surgery.

This Mastectomy Bill is in Congress now. It takes 2 seconds to do this and is very important. Please take the time and do it really quick! The Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill is important legislation for all women.

Please send this to everyone in your address book. If there was ever a time when our voices and choices should be heard, this is one of those times. If you’re receiving this, it’s because I think you will take the 30 seconds to go to vote on this issue and send it on to others you know who will do the same.

There’s a bill called the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act which will require insurance companies to cover a minimum 48-hour hospital stay for patients undergoing a mastectomy. It’s about eliminating the ‘drive-through mastectomy’ where women are forced to go home just a few hours after surgery, against the wishes of their doctor, still groggy from anesthesia and sometimes with drainage tubes still attached.

Lifetime Television has put this bill on their web page with a petition drive to show your support.. Last year over half the House signed on. PLEASE! Sign the petition by clicking on the web site below. You need not give more than your name and zip code number.


This takes about 2 seconds. PLEASE PASS THIS ON to your 20 friends.

breast cancer cell 7

breast cancer cell

%d bloggers like this: