New Jersey Assembly Bill A2653

New Jersey 2024-2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24
• Refer: 1/9/24

Caption

Prohibits using cadaveric fetal tissue obtained from elective abortion procedure for research purposes and using any cadaveric fetal tissue to research cosmetic treatments.

Impact

This legislation amends existing law, specifically P.L.2003, c.203, which previously allowed for the possibility of obtaining cadaveric fetal tissue from elective abortions for research purposes. By prohibiting these uses, A2653 alters the landscape of research initiatives involving fetal tissue, ostensibly to align with public policy that may reflect community moral standards. Such a change underscores the ongoing debate over reproductive rights and the ethical implications of utilizing fetal remains in research while ensuring compliance with both state and federal legal frameworks governing the sale and use of embryo or fetal tissues.

Summary

Bill A2653, introduced in New Jersey's 221st Legislature, aims to legislate the use of cadaveric fetal tissue within research contexts, particularly focusing on tissue obtained from elective abortion procedures. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of such tissue for any research purposes and also restricts its use in studies related to cosmetic treatments. In doing so, A2653 seeks to establish clear boundaries on how cadaveric fetal tissue may be employed in research and acknowledges ethical concerns surrounding the use of fetal tissues in medical and scientific domains.

Contention

The introduction of A2653 is likely to elicit substantial division among stakeholders. Supporters might argue that the bill upholds ethical considerations and public sentiment against utilizing fetal tissue in research. However, opponents may contend that it stifles valuable scientific research that could benefit medical advancements, particularly in areas related to genetic testing and disease treatment. The bill's impacts on existing opportunities for medical research are critical discussion points, which could widen the gap between those advocating for reproductive rights and those seeking to impose restrictions.