 |
|
|
WASHINGTON INSIDER
Autumn 2007
|
Richard M. Doerflinger
Deputy Director
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, D.C.
House Passes Amended Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill
In Spring 2007, this column discussed the pending Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (S. 358 and H.R. 493), which would bar employers and health
insurers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information
about them or their family members.1 As introduced in both chambers of Congress,
the bill contained a major loophole: “family member” was defined to include a
child already “born to” or adopted by the individual. Thus, the results of prenatal or
preimplantation genetic diagnosis could be used to discriminate against individuals
and entire families.
When the House Education and Labor Committee approved the bill on February
14, 2007, it rejected an amendment offered by Reps. Timothy Walberg (R-MI)
and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) to expand the definition of “family member” to include
a child to be born or to be adopted. The vote against this amendment was 27 to 20.
However, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the bill on
March 23, it accepted compromise language negotiated by Rep. Bart Stupak (DMI),
Democratic cochair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus:
Genetic Information of a Fetus or Embryo: Any reference in this part to genetic
information concerning an individual or family member of an individual
shall—(1) with respect to such an individual or family member of an individual
who is a pregnant woman, include genetic information of any fetus carried by
such pregnant woman; and (2) with respect to an individual or family member
utilizing an assisted reproductive technology, include genetic information of
any embryo legally held by the individual or family member.
The bill’s application to children in the adoption process was also improved by
referencing an existing definition of a “dependent” in federal law, which includes
children placed for adoption.
These improvements were retained in the final bill approved by the House 420
to 3 on April 25.2 Rep. Stupak’s success in negotiating this language was a tribute
to his skill and dedication, and a reminder of how important it is always to have
pro-life advocates in both major parties in Congress.
The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a similar bill in the 109th Congress,
but without language on prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing. The Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions reported out its companion bill
on March 29, without addressing the loophole regarding unborn children. However,
the Senate could choose to vote on the House-approved bill or make similar changes
to its own bill when it is brought to the Senate floor. President Bush has expressed
an interest in signing legislation against genetic discrimination.
Continued Impasse on Stem Cell Legislation, New Executive Order
Past installments of this column reported action in 2007 on the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act (S. 5 and H.R. 3) by both chambers of Congress. This bill
would authorize federal funding for stem cell research that requires the destruction
of live human embryos. On January 11, the House of Representatives approved
H.R. 3 by a vote of 253 to 174; on April 11, the Senate approved its companion bill
S. 5 by a vote of 63 to 34.
The Senate bill differs from H.R. 3 in that it includes an added provision for
funding “alternative” means for deriving pluripotent stem cells without harming human
embryos. A measure to fund such alternative means was approved unanimously
by the Senate last year as a free-standing bill, but was blocked by supporters of
embryonic stem cell research in the House. Sponsors of S. 5 apparently added this
language to their bill for several reasons: First, they felt it might attract more votes
to the bill, since there is more support in the Senate for such alternative research
than for research requiring embryo destruction. Second, this addition created a
difference between the House and Senate bills, requiring the House to vote again
on the new version (to maintain the issue’s visibility and the political pressure on
President Bush). Third, if the House approved a version of the bill that originated
in the Senate and the President vetoed the bill as in the past, the first vote on overriding
his veto would take place in the Senate, where the two-thirds margin needed
to override might be obtained. A successful Senate override vote would place more
pressure on the House, which has fallen far short of the margin needed to override the veto in the past. However, the Senate’s April 11 vote was 63 to 34, still one vote
short of a two-thirds majority.
The House took up S. 5 on June 7 under a rule allowing limited debate and
no amendments. This time the bill was approved 246 to 176, again well short of
the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. No member changed
his or her vote, and the only difference from the vote in January was due to the
members who happened to be absent each time. The Senate’s cynical strategy of
appending a provision on nondestructive stem cell research to an underlying destructive
bill fooled no one into supporting the entire bill. The only opportunity the
bill’s opponents had for broadening the debate was to offer a motion to send the bill
back to committee with instructions; they moved to replace S. 5 with an amended
version of last year’s “alternative” pluripotent stem cell bill. This motion failed 180
to 242, but gave opponents of destructive embryo research an opportunity to vote
for cutting-edge stem cell research without the admixture of morally objectionable
provisions for destroying early human life.
The House debate followed familiar lines: advocates for S. 5 made grandiose
and unsupported claims that destructive embryo research is the “only hope” for
patients with various diseases, and opponents pointed out that the scientific evidence
suggests the opposite and that there is also a moral issue involved.3 Rep. Chris
Smith (R-NJ) entered into the record a documented list of 111 advances in adult
stem cell research and other alternatives to destructive embryo research that had
been reported since Congress voted on this issue in June 2006.4 Such committed
dedication to the scientific evidence only seemed to throw supporters of the bill into
even more extreme forms of hype, with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
declaring, “Science is a gift of God to all of us. And science has taken us to a place
that is Biblical in its power to cure, and that is the embryonic stem cell research.”5
In short, the debate offered some support for the claim that this issue pits scientific
fact against religious zeal, though not in the way many Americans might assume.
Interestingly, the day before the House vote, newspapers across the country
were reporting on three new studies confirming that ordinary mouse body cells
might be transformed into cells with all the properties of embryonic stem cells by
the insertion of four simple genetic factors. This finding was originally published
by a Japanese team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka last year,6 and was discussed last
September at a conference on stem cell research in Rome cosponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life.7 The new studies, by Dr. Yamanaka and by two teams of
American researchers, refined his conclusions and offered incontrovertible proof that
the much-sought-after quality of pluripotency can be produced, at least in animal
models, without any use of embryos.8 Commenting on the studies on behalf of the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, this author observed:
Because adult cell reprogramming does not pose the moral problem of creating
or destroying embryos, or of exploiting women for their eggs, it may offer a way
for people of all faiths and ethical backgrounds to use, subsidize, and enjoy any
benefits from pluripotent stem cell research. This would be a gain for science,
ethics and society.9
Congressional supporters of S. 5 had a different reaction. Reps. Diana DeGette
(D-CO) and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) publicly expressed frustration at the regularity
with which advances in adult stem cell research seem to emerge immediately before
or during floor debates on the alleged need for embryonic stem cells. For example,
on January 7, just before the House’s debate on H.R. 3, Nature Biotechnology
published online a study by Dr. Anthony Atala and his colleagues at the Wake Forest
Institute for Regenerative Medicine indicating that cells with the versatility of
embryonic stem cells might be obtained harmlessly from amniotic fluid.10 Similarly,
on the day the Senate debated S. 5 in April—in fact, just hours after Senator Tom
Harkin (D-IA) said on the Senate floor that adult stem cells “still haven’t provided
the answer for juvenile diabetes”11—the American Medical Association released
the results of a clinical trial in which adult stem cells enabled patients with juvenile
diabetes to forgo insulin injections for up to three years.12
“I used to, growing up, I used to say paranoid people have enemies, too,” said
Rep. Emanuel. “It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a sudden
there is a major scientific discovery that basically says you don’t have to do stem
cell research.”13 The implied charge was that the editors of these scientific journals
(who strongly support embryonic stem cell research) were for some reason timing
the release of these advances to embarrass their own political allies. In a tonguein-
cheek article, the Washington Post’s top science reporter poked some fun at this
conspiracy theory, pointing out that there is always a stem cell advance before these
votes because there is almost always a stem cell advance—and an advance receives
more attention if it is relevant to a timely political event on Capitol Hill.14
President Bush emphasized this point about ethically responsible alternatives
on June 20, when he spoke in the East Room of the White House about his decision
to veto S. 5:
Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical—and it is
not the only option before us. We’re already seeing remarkable advances in the
science and therapeutic uses of stem cells drawn from adults and children and
the blood from umbilical cords—with no harm to the donor. Researchers value
embryonic stem cells because they are pluripotent, which means that they have
the potential to develop into nearly all the cell types and tissues in the body. Researchers
are now developing promising new techniques that offer the potential
to produce pluripotent stem cells—without having to destroy human life.15
The President also announced that he was issuing an executive order to promote
federal funding of research to derive and test these “alternative” sources of pluripotent
stem cells, provided that such cells are clearly “derived without creating
a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to
harm a human embryo or fetus.” Cell lines derived from these ethically acceptable
sources are to be added to the current Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry of federally eligible cell lines, now to be renamed the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell
Registry.16
Cardinal Justin Rigali, speaking as chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’
Committee for Pro-Life Activities, commended the President for his actions, citing
recent advances in nonembryonic stem cell research such as those mentioned
above. Cardinal Rigali added:
Tragically, some embryonic stem cell advocates in Congress have dismissed
such advances or even greeted them with suspicion, as though medical progress
were less genuine or praiseworthy when it respects early human life. I urge them
to follow the President’s lead on this issue, by promoting research and therapies
that everyone can live with.17
While Congress lacks the votes to override the President’s veto of S. 5, it seems this
may not be the only venue in which the issue of embryonic stem cell research is
raised this year. As of this writing, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Arlen Specter
(R-PA) were said to be planning new language for this year’s Labor/Health and Human
Services appropriations bill that would challenge the President’s policy. One
prediction is that they may simply change the cutoff date for eligible embryonic
stem cell lines, making cell lines eligible if they were obtained by destroying human
embryos up to June of this year rather than August 2001.
Defeat of Deceptive Human Cloning Bill
The day before the House vote on S. 5, the Democratic leadership of the House
forced a vote on another bill, a Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 2560) introduced
by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO). This legislation was brought forward in a
most unusual and irresponsible way. It was considered by no committee, and its text
was not available to Republican members until the evening before it was brought
up under a “suspension of the rules,” an expedited procedure generally reserved for
noncontroversial measures, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage.
Democratic supporters of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5 and
H.R. 3) were apparently concerned that when the House approved H.R. 3 in January,
opponents had offered and almost passed a “motion to recommit” that would
have barred federally funded embryonic stem cell research grants to institutions
involved in human cloning research. The motion had been offered to dramatize the
close connection between stem cell research using so-called “spare” embryos and
the ultimate agenda of mass-producing embryos by cloning. As expected, supporters
of the act had to become more overt in acknowledging the slippery slope from
“spare” embryos to the agenda of “therapeutic cloning” in order to argue against this change in their bill. Seeking to avoid a repetition of the January debate, they
decided suddenly to offer their own kind of “ban” on human cloning first, to defuse
support for a renewed motion of this kind. (As noted above, opponents of S. 5
ended up choosing a different approach for their “motion to recommit” in June in
any case, focusing instead on replacing S. 5 with a bill on alternative pluripotent
stem cell research.)
However, the DeGette “ban” on human cloning was in fact nothing of the kind.
H.R. 2560 would place no limitations whatever on the human cloning procedure,
used for whatever purpose. Instead, it defined “human cloning” as “the implantation
of the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology into a uterus or
the functional equivalent of a uterus.” It offered a federal prohibition on pregnancy
and live birth involving a cloned child, imposing a prison term of up to ten years
and a $10 million civil penalty for any person involved in the effort to initiate such
a pregnancy (not excluding the woman herself).
Trying to enforce such a law would pose enormous practical, legal, and even
constitutional questions. In fact, Rep. DeGette is herself a co-sponsor of the Freedom
of Choice Act (H.R. 1964), which declares that the Constitution protects a woman’s
right to decide “whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.”
Consistency demands that she view her own cloning bill as unconstitutional. The
prospect of federal marshals arresting and imprisoning a woman or her physician
for initiating an unauthorized pregnancy conjures images of the coercive population
program in the People’s Republic of China. In any case, since there is no current
means for reliably distinguishing cloned and fertilized embryos from each other
once they are created (a reality that made the South Korean cloning hoax of 2005
possible), it is difficult to see how this could be enforced without imposing new
legal scrutiny on fertility clinics generally.
The purpose of such a bill, of course, is not really to prevent so-called reproductive
cloning but to allow and maintain the practice of so-called therapeutic or
research cloning (a practice that, once refined, would facilitate the development of
cloning for reproductive purposes). By establishing a legal policy that no cloned
embryo may be involved in starting a pregnancy, Congress would establish the parameters
for an “embryo farming” industry in which all cloned embryos are created
solely to be destroyed for research. Or, as this author said more colorfully after the
House vote, “H.R. 2560 would have made the federal government into the publicly
funded security guards for human embryo farms, helping to ensure that none of
their victims get out of the laboratory alive.”18
Initial reports were that Rep. DeGette expected her bill to receive a two-thirds
majority, because it was presented as at least a partial “ban” on human cloning—and
public sentiment against cloning is so strong that no one wants to be seen as opposing a
ban on the practice. In the end, however, many members of Congress were sufficiently educated to the actual text and implications of the bill that they recognized it as a further expansion of the destructive embryo research agenda. To the surprise of many, the bill did not achieve even a simple majority, failing on a vote of 204 to 213.
A genuine Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 2564), prohibiting the cloning
of human embryos for any purpose, was also introduced in the House at about the same
time by Rep. David Weldon (R-FL) and thirty-five cosponsors of both parties; however,
this bill faces an uphill battle in receiving serious consideration during this Congress.
Supreme Court Decision on Partial-Birth Abortion
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision on the federal
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on April 17, upholding the Act as constitutionally
valid on a 5-to-4 majority. Aside from its bearing on the abortion issue itself, the
decision in Gonzales v. Carhart has some encouraging implications regarding the
Court’s ability to resolve legal disputes in the bioethics field in the future.19 The
failure of some courts to provide such a fair assessment has been as obvious in the
bioethics field as on the abortion issue—as when Missouri courts last year certified
a ballot initiative on cloning as valid, although it claimed to prohibit human cloning
but actually created a right to conduct human cloning.
The majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy has a number of
positive features, including these:
- The Court is now determined to make an even-handed judgment regarding
factual claims and policy arguments, instead of deferring chiefly to the
claims and interests of those directly involved in questionable uses of medical
technology. “The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the
course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other
physicians in the medical community”20 (1636). The Court also reaffirms
that government has a valid interest in “protecting the integrity and ethics
of the medical profession,” and that “ethical and moral concerns” may be
a valid reason for prohibiting a particular procedure some physicians want
to perform (1633). We can hope that this government interest will extend to
protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical research community.
- In sharp contrast with the Court’s vague references to “potential life” and its
claim not to know “when life begins” in the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973,
the Court’s current majority sees the objective reality of unborn human life
more clearly: “By common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus
is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb” (1627). The Court refers to the being in the womb as an “unborn child” (1634) and describes abortion as “killing” that child (1621, 1623).
- The Court had spoken in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 of the need
to give genuine weight to government’s legitimate interest in protecting
unborn life; this decision begins to deliver on that promise. Preserving and
promoting fetal life “from the inception of the pregnancy” and generally
promoting “respect for the dignity of human life” are treated as a legitimate
basis for legislation (1633).
- The Court also recognizes a valid interest in protecting women involved in abortion,
by “ensuring so grave a choice is well informed” (1634). We can hope that
a similar interest will provide a sound basis for ensuring informed consent for
women undergoing in vitro fertilization, donating embryos for research, or subjecting
themselves to risky fertility drugs to donate eggs for cloning research.
Some proponents of unfettered biotechnology want to establish a constitutional
“right” to pursue scientific research, including harmful research on embryos and
other classes of human beings, that would outweigh all countervailing interests.21
Judging from its new abortion decision, the Supreme Court does not seem tempted
to that view. Rather, it will give due consideration to human life and human dignity,
to the need for ethical integrity in medicine, and to the interests of women who risk
being exploited by an ethically challenged biotechnology industry.
Richard M. Doerflinger
Notes
1 The text and history of any federal bill can be accessed on Congress’s Web site
THOMAS (http://thomas.loc.gov/) by typing the bill number in the home page search
window.
2 The bill had to be amended in several places to ensure that this rule of construction
would govern employment discrimination and all varieties of health benefits plans. See
H.R. 493 (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) as passed by the House, Sec. 101
(c), at 110th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec. 153.67 (April 25, 2007), H4084; Sec. 102 (a)(3),
at H4086; Sec. 102 (b)(1)(B), at H4087; Sec. 103 (c), at H4088; Sec. 104 (b)(2), at H4089;
and Sec. 209 (b), at H4093.
3 For example, see 110th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec. 153.91 (June 7, 2007), H6121 (Rep.
Jan Schakowsky on embryonic stem cells as the “only hope” for a child with juvenile diabetes)
and H6131 (Rep. Gene Green on these cells as the “only hope” for spinal cord injury).
4 Ibid., H6128–H6130. This compendium of 111 advances, with live links to the source articles, is also available at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/alternatives/111newreasons.html.
5 Ibid., H6138.
6 K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse
Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,” Cell 126.4 (August 25,
2006): 652–655.
7 See K. Takahashi and S. Yamanaka, “Identification of Factors That Generate Pluripotent
Stem Cells from Fibroblast Culture,” abstract, International Congress on Stem Cells:
What Future for Therapy? Rome, September 14–16, 2006, “Final Programme,” 49, http://
frblin.club.fr/fiamc/stemcells/abstracts.pdf.
8 K. Okita, T. Ichisaka, and S. Yamanaka, “Generation of Germline-Competent Induced
Pluripotent Stem Cells,” Nature, published online June 6, 2007, abstract at http://www.nature.
com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05934.html; N. Maherali et al., “Directly Reprogrammed
Fibroblasts Show Global Epigenetic Remodeling and Widespread Tissue Contribution,”
Cell—Stem Cell 1.1 (June 7, 2007): 55–70, http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/
fulltext?uid=PIIS1934590907000203; and M. Wernig et al., “In Vitro Reprogramming
of Fibroblasts into a Pluripotent ES-Cell-Like State,” Nature, published online June 6, 2007,
abstract at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05944.html.
9 R. Doerflinger, quoted in U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “New Studies Show
Promise for Ethical Stem Cell Research,” press release, June 7, 2007, http://www.usccb.
org/comm/archives/2007/07-100.shtml.
10 See P. De Coppi et al., “Isolation of Amniotic Stem Cell Lines with Potential for
Therapy,” Nature Biotechnology 25.1 (January 2007): 100–106, published online January 7,
2007, abstract at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n1/abs/nbt1274.html.
11 110th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec. 153.57 (April 10, 2007), S4240.
12 See Associated Press, “Stem Cell Experiment Lets Diabetics Forgo Insulin,”
April 10, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040485/; J. Voltarelli et al., “Autologous
Nonmyeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus,” JAMA 297.14 (April 11, 2007): 1568–1576, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/14/1568.
13 110th Cong., 1st sess., Cong. Rec. 153.91 (June 7, 2007), H6132. Rep. Emanuel
was misrepresenting the situation, as the discoveries only show that stem cell research can
advance without destroying human embryos. In any case, imagine the state of mind of
lawmakers who claim to stand for “cures” but are tempted to see news of life-saving cures
as coming from “enemies.”
14 See R. Weiss, “Darn Cells, Dividing Yet Again!” Washington Post, June 10, 2007,
D1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR200706090146
3.html?nav=rss_technology. The reporter also cites a possible conspiracy theory on the pro-life
side, quoting this author as suggesting that divine intervention may be responsible for these
timely scenarios: “God is telling us He is there!” I actually said to the reporter, “God is telling
you He is there!” (The reporter, Rick Weiss, has publicly announced that he is an atheist.) I
then said that advances in adult stem cell research are likely to occur during congressional
debates on this issue in any case because such advances are almost daily occurrences.
15 White House, “President Bush Discusses Stem Cell Veto and Executive Order,” press release, June 20, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-8.html.
16 White House, “Executive Order: Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically
Responsible Ways,” press release, June 20, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases
/2007/06/20070620-6.html.
17 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Cardinal Rigali Commends President Bush
for Veto of Destructive Embryo Research Bill,” press release, June 20, 2007, http://www.
usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-113.shtml.
18 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “USCCB Official Comments on Approval
of Bill to Fund Stem Cell Research Requiring the Destruction of Human Embryos,” press
release, June 7, 2007, http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-099.shtml.
19 For a more complete overview of the decision and its implications, see U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops, “The Supreme Court and Partial-Birth Abortion: Questions and Answers,”
fact sheet, May 21, 2007, http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/pbafactsheet507.pdf.
20 Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007). Page numbers in the text appear in
parentheses.
21 For a critique of this claim, see Wesley J. Smith, “Constitutional Cloning,” Daily
Standard, September 29, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/004/692cxzsc.asp.
|
|
|
