|
InstituteForJustice uploaded a new video
(1 week ago)
Press conference at the National Press Club.
Media Contact: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320
(DVD of press conference is available for TV-News outlets)
E...
more
Press conference at the National Press Club.
Media Contact: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320
(DVD of press conference is available for TV-News outlets)
Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors.
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.
NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment.
The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
InstituteForJustice uploaded a new video
(1 week ago)
FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow
Press conference at the National Press Club.
CHIP MELLOR: 00:15 - 01:05
JEFF ROWES: 01:05 - ...
more
FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow
Press conference at the National Press Club.
CHIP MELLOR: 00:15 - 01:05
JEFF ROWES: 01:05 - 03:03 04:03 - 04:37 [Akiim intro] 06:40 - 07:06 [Shaka intro] 08:53 - 09:43 [Wagner inro] 14:18 - 15:12 [wrap up]
DOREEN FLYNN: 03:04 - 03:57
AKIIM DESHAY: 04:37 - 06:37
DR. WAGNER: 09:44 - 14:16
Media Contact: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320
Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors.
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.
NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment.
The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
InstituteForJustice uploaded a new video
(1 week ago)
FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow
Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Mi...
more
FOR MORE ON THIS CASE, VISIT http://www.ij.org/bonemarrow
Every year, 1,000 Americans die because they cannot find a matching bone marrow donor. Minorities are hit especially hard. Common sense suggests that offering modest incentives to attract more bone marrow donors would be worth pursuing, but federal law makes that a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
That is why on October 28, 2009, adults with deadly blood diseases, the parents of sick children, a California nonprofit and a world-renowned medical doctor who specializes in bone marrow research joined with the Institute for Justice to launch a legal fight against the U.S. Attorney General to put an end to a ban on offering compensation for bone marrow donors.
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.
NOTAs criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells—such as blood—for which compensated donation is legal. That makes no sense because bone marrow, unlike organs such as kidneys, replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again. The ban also violates substantive due process because it irrationally interferes with the right to participate in safe, accepted, lifesaving, and otherwise legal medical treatment.
The only thing the bone marrow provision of NOTA appears to accomplish is unnecessary deaths. A victory in this case will not only give hope to thousands facing deadly diseases, but also reaffirm bedrock principles about constitutional protection for individual liberty. This is the first time NOTA has ever been the subject of a constitutional challenge.
'Actual Bone Marrow Donation' photo reproduced under a Creative Commons license from flickr user limowreck666.
less
|
|
| |
|
|
InstituteForJustice uploaded a new video
(5 months ago)
Florida is ground zero in the nationwide battle to cartelize the interior design industry.
http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/fl...
A small group of ...
more
Florida is ground zero in the nationwide battle to cartelize the interior design industry.
http://www.ij.org/economic_liberty/fl...
A small group of well-funded industry insiders led by the American Society of Interior Designers has been relentless in its pursuit of ever more restrictive laws. Studies have shown that interior design regulations result in higher prices, less variety, and fewer employment opportunities, especially for minorities and older mid-career switchers.
On May 26, 2009, the Institute for Justice joined with three interior designers—Eva Locke, Pat Levenson and Barbara Gardner—and the National Federation of Independent Business to file a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee challenging Floridas interior design law.
The Institute for Justice is the nations leading legal advocacy group for economic liberty—the right to earn an honest living free from excessive and arbitrary regulation. IJ has successfully challenged anti-competitive interior design laws across the country. Floridas suit promises to be the biggest fight yet in the battle against the interior design cartel, and may finally put an end to restrictive interior design laws nationwide.
More on IJ's interior design cases: http://www.ij.org/interiordesign
less
|
|
| |
|
|
InstituteForJustice favorited a video
(5 months ago)
On May 6, 2009, concerned parents, students, and others gathered in Washington, D.C.'s Freedom Plaza. They came to voice support for the D.C. Oppor...
more
On May 6, 2009, concerned parents, students, and others gathered in Washington, D.C.'s Freedom Plaza. They came to voice support for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school-voucher program authorized by Congress in 2004 (as the seat of the federal government, the District is overseen by Congress). The program gives 1,700 students up to $7,500 to attend whatever school their parents choose.
The program is wildly popular with parents and children—there are four applicants for every available slot—and a recent Department of Education study found that participants do significantly better than their public school peers.
Yet working with congressional Democrats and despite President Barack Obama's pledge to put politics and ideology aside in education, the Obama administration effectively killed the program through a backdoor legislative move. "[Education] Secretary [Arne] Duncan will use only one test in what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars," says the president. "It's not whether it's liberal or conservative, but whether it works."
Shortly after last week's rally, President Obama said that he would allow students currently enrolled in the program to finish up through high school, but that no new students would be allowed to enter the program. Thus, a president who exercises school choice himself, has consigned thousands of low-income students to attend massively underperforming D.C. public schools.
For more on the voucher program, watch "President Barack Obama & the DC School Voucher Program" by going here: http://reason.tv/video/show/782.html
For more videos go to http://reason.tv
less
|
|
