They were against 'after the fact' options. Like "plan B".
Which don't cause abortions, contradictory to their claims. Also they were against preventative methods such as IUDs, which you conveniently left out from your argument.
Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted.
This isn't new and is how it has always been. If 15 years ago you attempted to use your RC for aerial photography, the FAA would consider that a violation. The rest of your examples are also no new.
Some of that is given back by having a lot more university-supported Postdocs, where as public R1s largely require their faculty to fund postdocs of their own grants.
It sounds like you may accounting a little differently than what occurred at my institution. The 40% was taken for administration and overhead; all faculty and student pay, hardware and software, and any other research materials all came out of the remaining 60%. Part of why the ARL balked was because THEY were the administrators and approval had to go through THEM, not the university. There's no reason the university should have taken so much for "administration" they weren't providing.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
That's very misleading. After the 1986 Challenger explosion, one of the intended goals of the shuttle, to deploy and maintain spy satellites and equipment, was considered too risky. As a consequence many of these missions were shifted to other launch platforms such as the Delta rocket family. I'd argue that all of these should be considered mission failures, from the shuttle's perspective.
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky