 |
|
|
WASHINGTON INSIDER
Summer 2007
|
William L. Saunders, Jr.
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Human Life and Bioethics
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.
National Developments
Bill to Overturn Stem Cell Funding Restrictions
In my last column, I reported on President Bush’s first veto—it was in July
2006, and it was of a Congressional bill (the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act”) to override restrictions of federal funding of human embryonic stem cell
research. (As readers will recall, the President announced in August 2001 that no
federal funding would be available for embryonic stem cell research where the stem
cells had been derived through the destruction of a human embryo after the date of
the President’s announcement.)
As readers know, the Democratic Party won overwhelmingly in the fall elections,
and became the majority party in the U.S. Congress, in both houses. Their leadership
announced that one of its priorities was promoting human embryonic stem cell research.
Accordingly, the bill was reintroduced on January 5 in the House of Representatives as
the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.” It was sponsored by the original
co-sponsors, Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mike Castle (R-DE), plus 216 additional
co-sponsors. The bill passed by a 253 to 174 vote on January 11.
The bill provides that human embryonic stem cell research is eligible for
federal funding if the embryos (1) were donated from IVF clinics, (2) were created
for purposes of fertility treatment, (3) were in excess of “clinical need,” and (4)
will “never be implanted” and “would be discarded,” and (5) were donated after
“informed consent” and without any “inducements.” In short, human embryonic
stem cell research utilizing stem cells from embryos from IVF clinics would, under
these conditions, be eligible for federal funding, which would be a repudiation of
the limits imposed by President Bush.
As this column goes to press, the Senate version, S. 5, came up for a vote. It
had been modified from the House version—adding language from a bill from the
last Congress sponsored by Pennsylvania senators Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, to support research involving pluripotent stem cells that had not been derived by
destroying a living human embryo. That bill had passed the Senate unanimously
during the last Congress, but had not survived in the House (where it was blocked
by Rep. Castle and other supporters of the original Castle/Degette bill, who preferred
research to proceed using IVF embryos). The addition of that language to S. 5 was
an interesting political maneuver. By doing so, those who opposed the President’s
restrictions hoped to draw enough support from senators who ordinarily vote prolife
to reach the necessary 67 votes to override the expected veto of S. 5 by the
President.1 If the veto could not be sustained in the Senate, the public pressure on
the House to override the veto would have increased greatly.
In the event, S. 5 passed the Senate, but did not receive 67 votes.2 It is, of
course, regrettable that the Senate passed a bill that would lead to the destruction of
embryonic human beings. However, the political reality is that the battle over S. 5
was all about the number who would support it. Since it received 4 votes less than
needed to override a presidential veto, there is less pressure on the President not to
veto it, and, more importantly, there will be less pressure on the House to override
the veto (if the Senate overrode the veto, the bill’s proponents would portray the
House as the “only institution standing in the way of cures for sick people”).
Readers should note that during the debate, while many Catholic senators were
speaking in favor of a bill that would lead to the destruction of embryonic human beings,
scientific research was being published that validated claims for the most advanced,
ethically sound alternative to embryonic stem cell research, i.e., adult stem cell research.
An article in the April 11 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association
reported success in treating juvenile diabetes using adult stem cells.3 This is politically
very important, because supporters of embryo-destructive research, such as
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), were claiming in the debate over S. 5 that adult stem
cells could not treat juvenile diabetes. Further, it is significant that the researchers
had to go to Brazil for funding, because the American medical establishment appears
to be focused only on embryonic stem cell research.
It is sad to note that many Catholic senators supported S. 5, some speaking quite
vociferously in support of it, including former Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry.4 This moral confusion was not limited, of course, to Catholics. Many supposedly “conservative” or “pro-life” senators voted in favor of S. 5, including Trent Lott (R-MS), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Richard Burr (R-NC). So
did “moderates” such as Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and John Tester
(D-MT). But it was shocking, to this observer at least, that John McCain, a presidential
candidate who aspires to lead “social conservatives,” voted in favor of S. 5.5
Some Catholics, however, voted against S. 5 and against taking embryonic
human life, including current presidential candidate Sam Brownback (R-KS), as
well as Jim Bunning (R-KY), Pete Domenici (R-NM), John Sununu (R-NH), David
Vitter (R-LA), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Mel Martinez (R-FL). It is noteworthy
(and praiseworthy) that the newly elected Democratic senator from Pennsylvania,
Bob Casey, voted against S. 5.
Forces opposing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in the Senate, led
by Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Norm Coleman (R-MN), introduced an
alternative bill, S. 30. That bill directs federal funding to alternative sources for stem
cells (i.e., from sources, such as “naturally dead embryos,” which provide embryonic
or embryo-like stem cells without requiring that a human embryo be destroyed).6
It was hoped that the introduction of this bill would help pro-life senators support
the President’s veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5). Senators
who ultimately support the President’s veto will be able, despite their opposition to
S. 5, to point to their vote for S. 30 to show that they support “stem cell research.”
This strategy may have worked (see above).
S. 30 itself passed by a vote of 70-28.7 Unfortunately, Catholic senators Richard Durbin (D-Il), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Robert
Menendez (D-NJ), and Patty Murray (D-WA) voted against it.8
In a related development, on March 19, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National
Institutes of Health, testified to the Senate health appropriations subcommittee
(which overseas the NIH budget) that he believed the President’s restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research were hurting basic research in the United States.9 This prompted those who oppose the President’s policy to push even harder for it to be overturned.10 Many observers thought it odd that the President did not immediately fire Zerhouni, who had only received pro-life support after his nomination
because it was understood he would not undermine the President’s policies.
Other Anti-life Measures
It is expected that the new Democratic congressional leadership will take a
number of anti-life steps.
First, the leadership will seek to overturn various pro-life “riders” that are
attached, yearly, to appropriations bills.11 This includes “Hyde-Weldon.” Hyde-
Weldon withholds federal funds from state and local governments that discriminate
against a health-care entity that refuses to provide, pay for, or refer for abortion.12
Hyde-Weldon is expected to be a particular target.
Second, the new leadership is supporting some bills that threaten freedom of
conscience for Catholics and pro-life entities. For instance, on February 20, H.R. 819,
the “Prevention First Act,” was introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would
require all health insurance providers to provide contraceptives, and would require
all hospitals to provide “emergency contraceptives.” This bill is a priority for Senate
leadership, too.
Third, on March 27, the ERA (or Equal Rights Amendment) was re-introduced
in Congress as the “Women’s Equality Amendment.” Supporters hope that,
if passed, it will ensure a “right” to an abortion even if the Supreme Court overturns
Roe v. Wade.13
Fourth, on March 8, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ted
Kennedy (D-MA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) re-introduced their bill from the previous Congress as the “Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research
Protection Act of 2007,” S. 812. Although the bill purports to ban human cloning, it
does not. Rather, it bans implantation of the cloned human being into a womb. Thus,
the bill would permit research cloning (sometimes called “therapeutic cloning”),
during which a human embryo is created and then destroyed in order to extract its
stem cells. (This dishonesty is repeated in almost all the state-level bills that purport
to ban cloning while encouraging embryonic stem cell research. See below.)
Alternatives to Embryo-Destructive Research
In July 2006, just prior to the vote on the original Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, Science magazine published a severe critique of claims by my
colleague, David Prentice, regarding successful human trials and treatments using
adult stem cells.14 The ordinary practice in scientific publishing is to allow the one
whose scientific claims are being attacked to respond in the same issue. However,
Science did not do this, leading to concerns that the publication of the critique
had been motivated by a desire to help secure passage of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
Science finally published Prentice’s response, and his defense of his claims,
in January.15
Also in January, there was a media frenzy over research by Dr. Anthony Atala
of Wake Forest University. Atala reported that there were stem cells in amniotic fluid
that offered promising results. Although it had been known that there were plentiful
adult stem cells in placentas, Atala’s study received extensive media coverage.16 The
media, which seldom reports on research showing the successes of adult stem cells,
seemed to find these amniotic stem cells “closer to” or “almost like” embryonic
stem cells. The conclusion is odd but encouraging, as it may signal a willingness on
the part of the media to report on research involving “stem cells” without its usual
spin that “only embryonic stem cells hold real promise.”
There is some concern that the use of amniotic stem cells could lead to greater
use of amniocentesis. One concern is that the procedure can be dangerous for the
fetus. Another is that greater use of the procedure will lead to more abortions (a
risk heightened by the recommendation of the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists for more extensive prenatal testing.)17 However, it seems that amniotic cells could be collected at birth (as are cord blood cells) without the use of amniocentesis at all, thereby obviating those concerns.
Banking of umbilical cord blood (with its stem cells) continues to grow,
both privately and publicly.18 Cord blood banking received a big public relations
and financial boost on February 1, when Richard Branson, the celebrity founder
of Virgin Airlines and other ventures, announced he was founding such a bank.19
Ten U.S. states have passed laws to encourage such banking. At least a dozen more
will consider such legislation this year. Private companies usually charge around
$1500 to collect the cord blood, and $125 or so for yearly storage. Alternatively,
parents may donate the cord blood to public banks, although there may be fees for
the original collection of the cord blood.
State Developments
As I reported in my last column, an important ballot initiative was voted
upon in Missouri in the fall. Regrettably, in a very close election, which the pro-
cloning forces once lead by over thirty points, the ballot initiative passed by a vote
of 1,077,276 to 1,028,495. Amendment 2, or the “Stem Cell Initiative,” as it was
called, claimed to ban cloning while actually anchoring the right to clone human
beings in the Missouri state constitution (see discussion of S. 812 above).
However, Missourians who want to truly ban human cloning have not given
up. They are pursuing a variety of legislative strategies to revoke Amendment 2.
20
In Iowa, the state’s five-year-old ban on human cloning and human embryonic
stem cell research was revoked.21
Bills seeking to ban human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are
pending in many states, such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Montana.
William L. Saunders, Jr.
|
|
|
