Obama-Era Contract Costs $14 Million: Requires ‘Terminated’ Babies

According to CNSNews, a little known federal contract signed by the National Institutes of Health with the University of California, San Francisco requires the college to make “humanized mice” using the body parts of aborted babies.

The contract, which is up for renewal December 5, 2018, creates a demand for aborted babies and is costing U.S. taxpayers $13,799,501.00; a move that is not only offensive to many people, but also raises serious questions about what the previous administration was doing with U.S. tax money.

The NIH calls the contract “Humanized Mouse Models for HIV Therapeutics Development.” Many people are sickened by the fact that it requires “late-term” aborted children for completion.

The Obama-era agreement began on December 6, 2013, and the government retains the option to renew it for up to six years, until December 2020.

CNSNews obtained the “Statement of Work” and sent sixteen questions to the Department of Health and Human Services and the University of California. The response was nothing short of horrific.

Basically, the university is using baby parts to research HIV and supposedly provide possible cures.

The ‘Statement of Work’ issued by the NIH (CNSNews)

A passage from an article in Pathogens, February 2017, details how research “conducted under the NIH contract with UCSF used intestines from babies aborted at 18 to 24 weeks in gestational age.”

Article from Pathogens (CNSNews)

It stated that that “human fetal intestines” were used to create “SCID-hu gut mice” and “were obtained from women with normal pregnancies before elective termination for nonmedical reasons.”

The statement of work argues, “Specifically, the contractor shall: … Obtain the necessary human fetal tissues for use under the contract, consistently and reliably, and in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and Local guidelines and regulations regarding the use of human fetal tissues.”

It also explains that the contractor is specifically required to “ensure the quality” of that tissue, as well as make two different types of “humanized” mice, using “human fetal thymus and liver” in constructing them.

In 2016, the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigated fetal-tissue procurement. Harvard University responded to an inquiry from Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky by providing a background paper that examined why “mice with human immune systems could only be created with tissue taken from aborted babies.”

“Mice that have human immune systems are an invaluable scientific resource, but these mice are engineered to this condition only by means of the use of human fetal material,” the Harvard article explained.

“If human fetal tissue is needed, why can it not be obtained from miscarriages instead of abortion?” the article queried.

“Here, timing is very important,” it responded. “Almost all miscarriages happen at home or in locations in which fetal material is not recovered and, importantly, preserved in a usable state.”

While that may be a good thing to some people, others feel that supporting a contract that requires the use of aborted baby parts only helps build the industry by creating a demand.

In the government contract summary, it states, “This model…consists of SCID mice implanted with syngeneic pieces of human fetal liver tissues by surgical placement under their kidney capsules. A single donor provides sufficient tissue to implant 50-60 mice.”

However, many people feel that even one donor is too many.

In the inquiry into this use of taxpayer funds, CNSNews asked, “Are there any methods of abortion that cannot be used to terminate an unborn baby whose tissue is going to be used to create the humanized mice required by this contract because that method of abortion would cause the tissue to be damaged or spoiled in a way that would make it unsuitable for creating these humanized mice?”

And, “If it were made illegal in the United States to abort an unborn child after that child has a detectable heartbeat would this federal contractor still be able to get the tissue it needs from aborted babies to construct the humanized mice required by this contract?”

The responses were robot-like, touting the “benefits” that could be obtained from such gruesome practices.

“NIH takes very seriously all ethical concerns surrounding fetal tissue research, and has a robust policy framework in place to ensure this research continues responsibly with the ultimate goal of improving health,” the NIH said.

“As you may be aware, HHS is currently reviewing all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations,” it added.

“NIH does not regulate and is not involved with medical services for abortions,” it claimed.

However, the demand for fetal tissues collected from aborted children 20-24 weeks, in some cases, seems to deny this claim.

“In connection with some research projects, NIH-funded researchers obtain human fetal tissue for biomedical research under conditions governed by law, specifically sections 498A and 498B of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 298g-1 and 298g-2, through intermediaries such as university tissue banks, and clinics associated with universities and companies,” the NIH reiterated.

It added, “Research to develop new mouse models with human immune cells is an active area of research,” concluding, “This contract is not specific as to the source or quantity of donor tissue that is used in the production of these animal models.”

The University of California explained that it “conducts research using fetal tissue that is vital to finding treatments and cures,” and that the “research is conducted in full compliance with federal and state law and is in keeping with the university’s education, research and public service missions.”

Regardless of the potential health benefits related by this sort of research, many people feel if a University or a group of doctors needs baby parts for their research, they should procure them without using taxpayer dollars.

Because essentially this boils down to one of the fundamental issues dividing the United States. People who believe in a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby may think this is a fine use of their money. However, those who firmly believe in the sanctity of life are angry that their tax dollars are being used to not only solicit abortions but demand them for “research.”