 |
|
|
WASHINGTON INSIDER
Summer 2005
|
The President's Council on Bioethics
The Council met on March 3 and 4. (Transcripts and documents may be found
at www.bioethics.gov. ) On March 4, the Council considered non-embryonic sources
of stem cells as well as human-animal chimeras (see below for more on chimeras).
On March 3, the Council considered issues related to aging and caregiving. Issues
closely related to care of the elderly were precisely the ones before the nation in the
most riveting bioethics case of recent memory—that of Terri Schiavo.
The Terri Schiavo Case
It is difficult to imagine that any reader of the Quarterly will not be familiar
with the facts of the case. But to summarize—Terri Schiavo suffered injuries and
was admitted to a hospital in 1990. Because of negligent care, she suffered serious
impairment of her faculties. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, won a large judgment
against the hospital. The funds recovered were used for Terri's care for several
years. However, her husband subsequently petitioned to have Terri's feeding tubes
removed, claiming she had indicated this would have been her wish if she became a
"burden" to others. Terri's parents fought this action, and sought to have Terri's
husband removed as her guardian. During a lengthy litigation, the Florida guardianship
court apparently—and, improperly, under Florida law1 —appointed itself "guardian"
in some aspects of the case.2 Eventually, Florida courts found, by "clear and
convincing evidence" (the highest standard in civil cases, similar to what "beyond a
reasonable doubt" is in criminal cases), that the contentions of Terri's husband
regarding Terri's wishes were persuasive despite the assertions of the family to the
contrary and despite affidavits challenging the veracity of Michael's claims. This
seems to have been, at the very least, a questionable ruling.
The Florida court then ordered the feeding tube to be removed. In October
2003, the Florida legislature responded by passing "Terri's Law," establishing an
additional level of review before any final decision could be made regarding nutrition
and hydration. This law was, in turn, subject to litigation. In September 2004, it was
held to be unconstitutional under Florida law by that state's supreme court, and the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. (The Family Research Council was
heavily involved in this litigation. FRC's former president, Ken Connor, represented
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, and I and others at the council prepared a "friend of
the court" brief arguing that such action by the Florida legislature was wholly appropriate
and in keeping with long-standing legislative custom.)
The order of the Florida guardianship court, directing "the Guardian, Michael
Schiavo … [to] cause the removal of the nutrition and hydration tube from the Ward,
Theresa Marie Schiavo,"3 was, upon expiration of a
temporary stay,4 to go into
effect on March 18, 2005. The U.S. House of Representatives' Government Reform
Committee then issued subpoenas for Terri Schiavo, her husband Michael, the hospice
administrator, and two of the patient's attending physicians to appear on March 28
as part of an investigation by the House of Representatives into the Schiavo case.
Despite the obvious fact that Terri Schiavo could not appear at the hearing if, due to
withdrawal of food and hydration, she had died, the Florida guardianship court refused
to modify its order, and Terri's feeding tube was removed on March 18.
The Congress of the United States next considered two bills, one in the House
of Representatives and one in the Senate, to address the situation. The bill in the
House—H.R.1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005—would
have mandated additional review before an incapacitated person could be denied
food and water. 5 The Senate bill, S. 686, addressed only the Schiavo case. (The
Senate bill is what is known as a "private relief bill." Many are passed each session,
continuing a practice going back to 1817.)
Congress, reconvening briefly on March 20 after adjourning for Easter recess,
passed the Senate version, and the act was signed into law by President Bush immediately.6
It should be noted that one reason for the difficulty in passing the broader
version was the opposition of political representatives from Oregon. Oregon is, of
course, the only state to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Some of Oregon's
elected representatives refused to support—in other words, they promised to delay,
indefinitely, consideration of—any legislation that might, somehow, make physicianassisted
suicide in Oregon more difficult or subject individual cases to federal review.
The act provided that a suit could be brought in federal district court in Florida
"for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution
or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food,
fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life."
Terri's parents brought such a lawsuit and sought a temporary restraining order,
or TRO. If granted, the TRO would have mandated that the feeding and nutrition
tube be reinserted in Terri while the lawsuit, which alleged deprivation of her civil
rights, proceeded. Obviously, even given an expedited consideration of the lawsuit in
the federal courts, unless the feeding tube had been reinserted, Terri would have died
long before the lawsuit could be decided.
The federal district court in Florida denied the motion for a TRO. The court
followed the normal rules for deciding a TRO. It conceded that three of the four
elements were clearly satisfied—irreparable injury was likely if the TRO was not
granted; the magnitude of injury to the plaintiffs (the Schindlers) outweighed the
magnitude of harm that would be caused by granting the TRO; and the TRO was not
adverse to the public interest. However, the court found the fourth element, the
likelihood that the plaintiffs would win the underlying case, was not satisfied. (It
should be noted that many legal professionals believe the court's ruling was erroneous
on this point.)
Many observers were surprised by the decision. As noted, Terri Schiavo would
certainly be dead before the underlying lawsuit could be decided. Denial of the TRO
meant, in effect, that the lawsuit, aimed at securing her civil rights and preserving her
life, would never be decided. The denial also frustrated what seemed to be the clear
will of the Congress—to have a further review of the facts in the case before Terri's
feeding tubes were removed and she died. In fact, it is hard to imagine a case in
which the granting of a TRO was more pressing and more appropriate. (TROs are
frequently granted in litigation involving commercial interests. Certainly such cases,
however momentous, do not involve anything so "final and irrevocable" as the death
of a human being.)
Nonetheless, the federal district court stated that Congress had not clearly indicated
that, in litigation under S. 686, it meant to have the normal rules for granting
TROs suspended or modified. Thus, the district court stated it was constrained to
follow the normal rules, and it denied the TRO.7 The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the parents' appeal,8 and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review
the case.
During the pendancy of this litigation, Governor Jeb Bush urged the Florida
legislature to pass legislation to save Terri's life.9 However, the Florida Senate failed
to pass a bill that would have prohibited the denial of food and nutrition to anyone
who had not expressed those wishes in writing.
Terri Schiavo died on March 31. It is certain that this case focused the nation's
attention on issues such as "the right to die," "living wills," and "extraordinary"
versus "ordinary" care—some of which are not actually implicated in the case.10 It
surely points to the need for federal (i.e., comprehensive) attention—certainly hearings,
and probably new legal protections—to the situation of those who are incapacitated.
Terri Schiavo was not dying, nor was she on "life support." Her death as a
result of the judicial order was from dehydration and starvation.11 This is a very
painful way to die, especially for someone misdiagnosed as being in a persistent
vegetative state, as we know from the remarkable story of Kate Adamson, whose
feeding tubes were removed for eight days but who lived to tell about it.12 It is
possible that Terri Schiavo was likewise misdiagnosed and, likewise, underwent the
torture experienced by Kate Adamson.13
Terri Schiavo was a disabled woman. It is possible that she could have "recovered"
to some degree if a renewed effort had been made.14 Under federal law—the
Americans with Disabilities Act—no one may discriminate against the disabled, and,
surely, causing the death of disabled persons, when they are guilty of no crime, is the
most severe discrimination of all. Likewise, no one may be "deprived of life …
without due process of law." Remember that sometimes state courts fail in their
primary task of delivering justice; that is why we have habeas corpus review by
federal courts for death row inmates and other felons. This case seems to illustrate
the compelling need for similar federal review before those who are innocent of any
wrongdoing are denied food and water. May God grant that this case will cause
Americans to consider whether we (the healthy) are beginning to judge some (the
incapacitated, the handicapped, the disabled) to have lives "unworthy of life." That
phrase chills, and it should. We can never build a culture of life unless we recognize
the equal worth and dignity of every human being, regardless of race, religion, sex,
age, location, or disability.
Efforts to Undermine the President's Stem Cell Research Policy
It will be recalled that President Bush prohibited the use of federal funds for
research involving the destruction of human embryos if that destruction took place
after August 9, 2001, the date of his order. Congressman Mike Castle, a Republican
from Delaware, has been a long-time opponent of the President's policy and has
introduced legislation to override it. House leadership has apparently agreed to a vote
on the House floor on the bill sometime within the next few months.15
Castle's bill, cosponsored by Diana DeGette, a Democrat from Colorado, has
183 cosponsors.16 It provides "ethics rules" for human embryonic stem cell research,
limiting research to that involving embryos created during IVF (in vitro fertilization),
donated by the "parents" without compensation and with knowledge of the
fate of the embryos. However, and more likely, House leadership could substitute
another (pro-life) bill for the current one or significantly alter it through amendments.
In any case, it is clear that opponents of the President's policy will be pushing very
hard to overrule that policy during this Congress.
Governmental Action concerning Stem Cell Research
and Related Issues
In the States
The passage of Proposition 71 in California17 has sparked a movement in
many states to create state incentives favoring human embryonic stem cell research
(ESCR) and cloning.18 The legislative effort in Illinois19 was described in Richard
Doerflinger's last column (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.1 [Spring 2005]:
25–33). The good news from Illinois is that a state court judge permitted a "wrongful
death" suit to be brought against a fertility clinic that had discarded an embryo
created through IVF. Although the judge regrettably used the discredited term "preembryo,"
he did so to good effect, holding that "a pre-embryo is a human being."20
The parents were permitted to sue for compensation, as would the parents of any
other child who had been killed. Needless to say, the decision is quite likely to be
appealed.
In Massachusetts, the legislature has been considering a bill that would change
state law to make it permissible to destroy embryonic human beings in research.21 As
is invariably true, proponents of the bill misrepresent the facts of ESCR and human
cloning— for example, ignoring the distinction between ESCR and research using
adult stem cells (only ESCR necessitates the destruction of a living human being)—
while relying on a nonexistent distinction between so-called "reproductive cloning"
(creating a clone in order to bring it to birth) and so-called "therapeutic cloning"
(creating a clone in order to destroy it during research). In truth, however, every
instance of successful human cloning, for whatever ultimate purpose, creates a living
human being.
Existing Massachusetts law seems to ban "therapeutic cloning" and ESCR. It
states that it is unlawful to destroy a human fetus "before or after expulsion from the
mother's womb," defining the word "fetus" to include embryos.22 A plausible
reading of that language is that it prohibits all destruction of embryos, regardless of
whether they have actually ever been in a womb. However, a legal opinion from the
District Attorney in Worcester in 1971 stated that the law applied only to embryos
that had been implanted in a woman's womb. Thus, embryo-destructive research in
Massachusetts conducted by Advanced Cell Technologies and at Harvard University
has not been prosecuted.23
The Massachusetts Senate passed the bill on March 30, and the House passed
it on March 31. Unfortunately, both bodies passed the bill by large-enough margins
that the measure is now veto-proof. However, Governor Mitt Romney has said that
he still intends to veto the bill, as he had promised to do.
Governor Romney came out prominently on the question of stem cell research
at the beginning of 2005.24 He opposes the creation of embryos in order to destroy
them (as in ESCR and "therapeutic cloning"), but he supports the use of "spare" IVF
embryos in research. He had considered introducing legislation that would make it
clear that existing Massachusetts law (as mentioned above) prohibits the destruction
of embryos during "therapeutic cloning" or ESCR. However, unless such a clarification
included a provision permitting the destruction of IVF embryos, their destruction
would seem also to be prohibited, contrary to the governor's stated public position.
Thus, it appears, due both to the strength of pro-cloning, pro-ESCR forces in the
Massachusetts legislature and to the contradictions inherent in the governor's own
position, that no such legislation will be introduced.
It should be noted that Governor Romney's position—banning the creation of
embryos for the purpose of destroying them, while permitting the destruction of
embryos created for other reasons (for example, to provide children to childless
couples through IVF)—is precisely the "compromise" that has been reached in several
important foreign jurisdictions, such as Australia and Canada.
This strategy is doomed to fail for two reasons. First, it values some human
lives but not others, and is thus built around a contradiction about the dignity of
human life. Second, the pro-cloning, pro-ESCR industry and its friends, while often
claiming to want to use only those IVF embryos "that will be otherwise discarded,"
know that there will never be "sufficient" IVF embryos to support research. They
simply want to use IVF embryos until they can convince the citizens to support the
creation of embryos solely for destruction. Governor Romney is to be commended
for calling their bluff, and thereby focusing the debate on whether human embryos
should be created in order to be destroyed.
In the Congress
On March 17, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Congressman Dave Weldon
(R-Fla) reintroduced their bills to ban all forms of human cloning. The Senate bill,
S. 658, had twenty-eight cosponsors, including Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La). The
House bill passed in the last Congress, but the Senate version was never brought to
the floor for a vote. While the House bill can be expected to pass again, it is unclear
what the chances are for passage in the Senate. (Nor is it clear whether other bills
dealing with similar subjects might be introduced.) It is hoped that the Brownback
bill will come to a vote so that citizens will be able to evaluate the positions taken by
their representatives.
Senator Brownback also introduced S. 659, which would ban the production of
human-animal chimeras. In a related development, the Patent Office denied a patent
on a human-animal hybrid.25 The questions—of what precisely a chimera is, whether
is it different from a hybrid, and whether one or the other or both should be banned—
are complicated. For instance, few would consider the transplantation of an animal
organ into a human being to create a "human-animal hybrid." But line drawing is
difficult. Often the term "chimera" is used to refer to alteration of the genetic makeup
of a human (or of an animal). Still, questions persist. Would it be wrong to insert an
animal gene into human DNA (via germline genetic engineering) if, by so doing, a
serious handicap or disease were eliminated? These and other issues will be considered
frequently in the coming years, and months, as biotech companies pursue research.
And careful attention from responsible bioethicists will be necessary to help
lawmakers, and the public, understand the ethical (and moral) issues involved.
International Developments on Cloning
At the United Nations
A significant victory was achieved at the United Nations in late February and
early March. First, the Sixth Committee voted in favor of a declaration urging its
members to adopt laws banning all forms of human cloning (and urging them to
adopt measures to prevent the exploitation of women for their "eggs," or oocytes).
Then, the General Assembly did likewise, by a wider margin.26 While the U.N.
declaration27 does not create binding international law, it does set an international
standard. Since the issue of human cloning was first introduced by nations such as
Britain that wanted to create a treaty permitting "therapeutic cloning" by the ruse of
banning only "reproductive cloning" (see above for definitions), the passage of the
declaration, condemning "all forms of human cloning," is a clear victory for anticloning
forces.
Pro-cloning nations (many of which are in Europe) claim that, as the U.N.
declaration is not legally binding, it will have no effect. Note should be taken, however,
that on March 10, the European Parliament adopted a resolution expressly
praising the declaration. The E.P. resolution "welcomes" the declaration, "which
refers explicitly to the need to prevent the exploitation of women, and asks the
[European] Commission accordingly to rule out support and funding for human
cloning under any [European Union] programme."28
Other Nations
Prime Minister John Howard has been unable to persuade the Australian states
to extend by one year the three-year moratorium on the use of IVF embryos in
research.29 It is unfortunate that this development comes just at the moment when
research, funded in part by the Catholic Church, may have shown that adult stem
cells from the nasal passage have the same plasticity as embryonic stem cells, thereby
alleviating the argument most commonly made in favor of ESCR.30
Legal Developments regarding Assisted Suicide and Abortion
Abortion
"Jane Roe," the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, in the years after that decision, came
to regret it. She subsequently became an anti-abortion advocate. Under her real
name, Norma McCorvey, she filed suit, requesting that Roe be overturned because it
was based on important factual errors. On February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to do so (by rejecting her appeals from a lower court's denial of her lawsuit).31
Assisted Suicide
Oregon is the only state in the union that permits physician-assisted suicide.
Physicians causing the suicide of their "patients" often prescribe drugs that are federally
regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the act, "controlled substances"
can be used only for medical purposes. Thus, the issue arose whether the
practice in Oregon complied with the act.32
The Drug Enforcement Administration had ruled that it did not. However,
Attorney General Janet Reno overruled DEA. Reno stated that Oregon physicians
would not be prosecuted for prescribing federally controlled drugs to assist in suicide
so long as they followed Oregon procedures.
When John Ashcroft became President George Bush's attorney general, he
reversed Reno's policy. Ashcroft believed there should be uniform enforcement of
the act; it should not be subject to different interpretations (potentially) within each
of the fifty states. Ashcroft took the position that assisted suicide was not a legitimate
medical use of controlled substances. Oregon challenged his ruling. And the issue has
been litigated ever since. On February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review
the case.33 Note that, despite newspaper headlines to the contrary, the case does not
involve the question of the constitutionality of the underlying Oregon laws permitting
physician-assisted suicide.
Marriage and the Law
In previous columns, I have discussed developments concerning the effort to
amend the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage by restricting it to one man and one
woman. While little has happened in Congress in the past few months, there has
been a significant legal development.
On December 6, the U.N. General Assembly adopted "by consensus" the Doha
Declaration. As many readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in recent cases,
been relying on international standards to decide some cases (such as Lawrence v.
Texas). One source of such standards is international customary law. Such law is not
written, but is found from examining the customs of nations over a long period of
time. Activists seeking to undermine traditional marriage have argued that a custom
has evolved among the nations so as to no longer privilege traditional marriage. (This
is what is meant, they claim, by the term "various forms of the family," which has
been repeated in many U.N. documents but has not been explicitly defined.) Sometimes
it is explicitly argued that there is an international right to homosexual marriage.
In either case, traditional marriage is at risk if activist U.S. judges can claim that an
international right has come into existence. The Doha Declaration rebuts this claim,
and that is its significance.
The Doha Declaration was the product of a series of international meetings.34
The United Nations declared 2004 to be "The International Year of the Family."
When it did so, it noted the "Doha series of meetings" that would be taking place that
year. The Doha process, as it was called, was divided into two parts. First, there was
a series of international meetings of nongovernmental organizations and individuals
concerned with the health of the family. These took place in Latin America, Asia,
Europe, and Africa. At these meetings social science research was presented, and the
family was examined through legal, philosophical, theological, historical, anthropological,
and other lenses. Second, there was a meeting of representatives of sovereign
nations in Doha, Qatar. At that meeting, the nations adopted the Doha Declaration.
The declaration itself repeats the language of the oldest human rights documents,
such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such documents have strong
language supporting the traditional family and marriage.
In December, in fulfillment of the original commissioning by the United Nations,
the government of Qatar on behalf of 140 nations presented the results of the
Doha process to the U.N. General Assembly. When the General Assembly adopted
the Doha Declaration, the declaration became an official U.N. document. As such, it
can be cited in lawsuits against claims relying on "international law" and seeking to
undermine traditional marriage. Of course, the simple fact that 149 nations eventually
cosponsored the declaration is clear proof that no "custom" has developed among
the nations undermining the traditional family and marriage.
William L. Saunders
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Human Life and Bioethics
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.
Notes
1
"No judge shall act as guardian after this law becomes effective." Chapter 744,
Florida Statutes ("Florida Guardianship Law").
2
See O. Carter Snead, "Dynamic Complementarity: Terri's Law and Separation of Powers
Principles in the End-of-Life Context," Florida Law Review 57.1 (January 2005), 53.
3
Court order, In re: The Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Circuit Court
for Pinellas County, Florida, Probate Division (no. 90-2908GD-003), September 17, 2003.
4
Court order, In re: The Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Circuit Court for
Pinellas County, Florida, Probate Division (no. 90-2908GD-003), February 25, 2005.
5
A Senate companion bill to the House bill, which, for a variety of prudential political
reasons, did not go forward, provided that an incapacitated person would have a right to
federal court review if (a) there were a contested judicial proceeding concerning the wishes
of such person, (b) there were no valid written directive from the person, and (c) there were
a court order authorizing the withholding of food, fluids, or medical treatment that was
necessary to sustain that person's life. See article by the bill's sponsor, Senator Mel
Martinez of Florida, "Legal Refuge: Congress Aims to Protect Terri Schiavo," National
Review Online, March 16, 2005.
6
Act for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Public Law 109-3,
190th Cong., 1st session (March 21, 2005).
7
Court order, Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo et al., U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (no. 8:05-CV-530-T-27TBM), March 25, 2005.
8
Nonetheless, one judge (of the three) dissented, noting (a) that the district court's
ruling frustrated the will of Congress, "which is to maintain the status quo by keeping
Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider
the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs"; and (b) "mindful of equitable principles,
the extraordinary circumstances presented by this appeal require that we grant the petition
to preserve federal jurisdiction and permit the opportunity to give Plaintiffs' claims the
full and meaningful review they deserve." Eleventh Circuit opinion, Schiavo ex rel.
Schindler v. Schiavo et al. (no. 5-11556), March 23, 2005, 11.
9
Samantha Gross, "Florida Senate Begins Debate on Bill Aimed at Keeping Terri
Schiavo on Feeding Tube," Associated Press, March 23, 2005.
10
A misleading ABC poll claimed Schiavo was "on life support" and had "no consciousness,"
thereby confusing respondents as to the real issues in the case. See wording
of poll at http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf, 4.
11
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, among many others, has denounced this: "She is being
starved to death. She is being dehydrated to death. And this is inhumane." Quoted in Susan
Jones, "Jesse Jackson Sees Schiavo Case as Profound Moral Issue," CNSNews.com,
March 29, 2005; www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/culture/archive/200503/
CUL20050329b.html.
12
Adamson wrote a book about the experience, Kate's Journey: Triumph over Adversity.
Her story is recounted by Wesley Smith in "A ‘Painless Death'?" Daily Standard,
November 12, 2003, at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/
003/370oqiwy.asp. Adamson says that being denied food and water while conscious and
unable to communicate "was sheer torture."
13
Some medical specialists certainly believe this is possible. See, for example, Bob
LaMendola, "Neurologists Disagree with State Specialist on Terri's Brain Damage," South
Florida Sun-Sentinel, March 24, 2005.
14
Terri's husband, Michael, had her speech therapy discontinued in 1993. Might Terri
have been able to regain her ability to speak if such therapy had been continued? Note should
be taken of an article in The Washington Post on February 15, 2005. Titled "Kansas Woman
Regains Ability to Talk after Twenty Years," it details the recovery of speech by a woman
who had been severely injured by a drunken driver. The article reported, "[Her doctor] said
physicians are not sure why she suddenly began talking but believe critical pathways in the
brain may have regenerated." Her recovery followed group and intensive individual therapy.
15
Rick Weiss, "House Leaders Agree to Vote on Relaxing Stem Cell Limits," Washington
Post, March 25, 2005, A03.
16
While this is a large number of cosponsors, it is less than the 206 members of the
House who signed Castle's letter questioning the President's policy. (See the report in my
previous column, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4.4 [Winter 2004]: 671–677).
17
It is amusing that, following the passage of Proposition 71, its supporters are now
bickering among themselves over some of the issues, such as conflicts of interest, that
opponents of the bill pointed out were inherent in the proposition during the debate. See,
for example, Ariana Cha, "A Struggling Science Experiment: States Closely Watch
California's Stem Cell Initiative," Washington Post, February 13, 2005 (final edition), A01.
18
See, for example, Roland Jones, "After California, More States Eye Stem Cell
Research—High Hopes that Hefty Investments Will Lead to Cures and Profits," MSNBC
News, February 9, 2005.
19
Illinois House Bill 3815 and Senate Bill 2100. The House bill is in committee,
and the Senate bill was due to have a "second reading" during the first week of April.
20
Steve Patterson and Abdon M. Pallasch, "Destroyed Embryo Deemed Human,"
Chicago Sun-Times, February 5, 2005, 3.
21
See, for example, Scott S. Greenberger,"Romney's Ads Blast Stem Cell Measure—
Senate Legislation Radical, Governor Says," Boston Globe, March 30, 2005.
22
General Laws of Massachusetts, Title XVI, Chapter 112, and Section 12J (a)-I: "No
person shall use any live human fetus whether before or after expulsion from its mother's
womb, for scientific, laboratory, research, or other kind of experimentation." Subsection
(a)-IV provides, "For purposes of this section, the word ‘fetus' shall include also an embryo
or neonate."
23
Governor Romney has criticized these institutions directly. See, for example,
Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Romney vs. Harvard," National Review Online, February 11, 2005.
24
See, for example, "Stem Cell Politics in Massachusetts" (editorial), New York Times, February 11, 2005.
25
See Rick Weiss, "U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid—Scientist Sought
Legal Precedent to Keep Others from Profiting from Similar Inventions," Washington Post,
February 13, 2005, A03.
26
Irwin Arieff, "U.N. Backs U.S. Plea for Total Ban on Human Cloning," Reuters,
March 8, 2005.
27
U.N. General Assembly, Fifty-Ninth Session. International Convention against
the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings: Report of the Sixth Committee, A/59/516/
Add.1, March 8, 2005. The text of the U.N. declaration appears on p. 357 of this issue.
28
European Parliament, Resolution on the Trade in Human Egg Cells, no. P6_TAPROV(
2005)0074, March 10, 2005.
29
Australian Associated Press, "No Need for More Stem Cell Embryos: MP," Sydney
Morning Herald, March 29, 2005; http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-need-formore-
stem-cell-embryos-MPs/2005/03/29/1111862384922.html.
30
Wayne Smith, "Pell Hails Stem Cell Discovery," The Australian, March 22, 2005
(first edition), 2.
31
Reuters, "U.S. Top Court Rejects Bid to Reopen Roe v. Wade," February 22, 2005.
32
See, generally, Wesley J. Smith, "Prescription for Chaos: Understanding the Lethal
Oregon Case That's Hitting the Supreme Court," National Review Online, February 23,
2005; http://www.nationalreview.com/SmithW/ Smith200502230745.asp.
33
Hope Yen, "High Court to Review Assisted Suicide Law," Associated Press, February
22, 2005.
34
See, generally, William Saunders, The Doha Declaration: An International Consensus
in Favor of Marriage and the Traditonal Family (Washington, DC: Family Research
Council, 2005; http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05B02), and other FRC publications.
|
|
|
