 |
|
|
WASHINGTON INSIDER
Summer 2006
|
President's Council on Bioethics
The Council met on February 2 and 3 to receive testimony on, and to discuss,
"human dignity," and its implications for (a) the treatment of psychological disorders
in children and (b) genetic screening.
Its next meeting is April 20 and 21.
Alternatives to Embryo-Destructive Research
In June 2005, a number of scientists and ethicists, including the author as well
as the editors of this journal, released a statement in which they endorsed the possibility
of oocyte-assisted reprogramming, or OAR.1 Essentially, the statement's argument
is this: if one can reprogram an oocyte so that it produces embryonic-like stem
cells without ever having been, even for a single instant, an embryo, then the procedure
would be ethically acceptable.2
The statement drew strong criticism from those associated with the journal
Communio.3 In return, several signers of the statement, again including the author of
this column, published responses to the Communio critique.4
In February 2006, pro-life Senator James Talent of Missouri withdrew as a
supporter of the bill, co-sponsored by Senators Brownback and Landrieu, to ban
human cloning. Senator Talent did so because he feared that the bill, if passed, might
ban OAR, too. In response, the signers of the original OAR statement wrote to
Senator Talent and issued a further statement explaining that OAR is distinct from
human cloning and would not be banned by the Brownback-Landrieu bill.5
In March 2006, the original signatories met to consider a variation of OAR.
They agreed that if the nucleus which was transferred to the denucleated egg could
be modified so that when placed into the egg it would cause the egg itself to become
an embryonic stem cell, such a procedure would be ethically acceptable. This is a
variation on the original OAR procedure, by which an egg is reprogrammed to create
embryonic stem cells, but not to be one itself from the beginning.6
The Supreme Court
Perhaps the most significant developments came not in Court decisions, but
through changes in Court personnel.
Confirmations
On January 31, the Senate confirmed Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit
to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The Senate vote came
seven days after he was reported favorably, on a straight-party line vote, by the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
The judiciary hearings were marked by slanderous charges against Alito, none
of which were justified.7 Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, made much of Alito's
membership in a Princeton group of which the senator disapproved. He demanded to
inspect records to which he claimed Chairman Specter had denied him access. After
an all-night review of the documents by Kennedy's staff, they were unable to find a
single mention of Alito's name in those documents.
Despite glowing testimony—from the American Bar Association's review panel,
from colleagues on the federal judiciary, and from former law clerks, men and women,
liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans—the unfounded and vicious
insinuations about Alito and his character continued to be made by committee Democrats;
at one point, his wife, sitting behind him, fled the hearing room in tears.
The attacks against Alito were clearly motivated by two factors—his Catholic
faith and his conservative judicial philosophy. But underlying it all is, as the newspapers
put it, "Roe v. Wade."8 This is a very misleading way of putting it, however, and
it perpetrates a misconception under which many Americans suffer. The abortion
license in the United States is not limited to the first trimester. Yet this is what is
implied by references to Roe. It would be more honest to refer to "Roe, Doe, Casey
& Stenberg." Doe v. Bolton (1973)9 is the case that made the abortion license unlimited.
Doe permitted abortion if a woman's "emotional" or "psychological" health
were at risk (in the opinion of the abortionist).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)10 is the case in which, by a 5-to-4 vote,
Roe was upheld, and the plurality announced the intellectually vacuous standard
embodied in the mystery passage (i.e., at the heart of liberty is the right to define the
meaning of existence and of the universe). The plurality went on to chide pro-life
Americans for failing to acknowledge that the Court's abortion opinions had settled
the issue, essentially telling them to shut up and go home. Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)11
is the case in which the Supreme Court refused to outlaw partial-birth abortion, even
though the American Medical Association stated that the practice was never medically
necessary. It required a "health exception" (like Doe), leaving it to the abortionist
to decide if the woman's health were, under that standard, at risk. This ruling was
too much for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had joined the plurality in Casey, and
he dissented. As he noted, if a broad "health exception" were always required, the
state's interest in unborn human life, which was recognized in Casey, would be
nullified.
The key vote in the 5-to-4 decision in Stenberg was Justice O'Connor. Thus,
pro-abortion groups and their Senate Democratic friends feared that by replacing
O'Connor, a vote for abortion would be lost. They may be right, but throughout the
history of the Senate confirmation process, nominees have never been required to
pass a "litmus test." Rather, the test has always been whether the nominee is well
qualified. Alito, a graduate of Yale Law School and the most experienced judge ever
nominated, surely passed that test. Indeed, Senate Republicans had approved the
nomination of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite her past as counsel for the ACLU,
because they judged her qualified by intellect and experience.
Justice Ginsburg, in fact, played a pivotal role in the hearings of the nominee
who preceded Alito—that of John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist as Chief
Justice.12 During his hearings, Roberts was repeatedly asked how he would rule on
specific cases, and he repeatedly invoked "the Ginsburg standard": just as she had
done during her hearings, he would tell the senators how he would approach a case,
what his analytical framework would be, but he would not tell them how he would
decide their hypothetical case, for, among other reasons, the role of the judge is to
decide particular cases, and no particular case (with its unique facts and legal
issues) was before him. He agreed with Ginsburg that anything else would be improper;
indeed, it would demonstrate that he did not have the requisite judicial
temperament.13
Unfortunately, Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee seemed unable
or unwilling to accept that, in a democracy, the role of a judge is different from
that of the legislator. The legislator makes the laws; the judge interprets them. If the
judge makes law, he usurps the legislative role and disenfranchises the people who
elected those legislators. Since Alito, like Roberts, was a practitioner of judicial restraint,
they were determined to oppose him.
Thus, the hearing of Samuel Alito (and, earlier, of John Roberts) revealed a
chasm between advocates of judicial activism and those advocating judicial restraint.
Given that it was through judicial usurpation that the Court in Roe v. Wade made
social policy for the entire national on a highly disputed issue, it is no surprise that
advocates of judicial activism on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against Alito.
What is more surprising—and sadder—is that nearly every Democrat in the Senate
voted against him on the Senate floor. (He was approved by a 58-to-42 margin.)
Fortunately, most Americans did not feel that Alito's judicial conservatism—or his
previously stated views that Roe was wrongly decided (an opinion he shared with
liberals such as Harvard professor Laurence Tribe)—disqualified him.14
Decisions
The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, decided
several important cases.
- Scheidler v. NOW (Feb. 27)15 —The Court ruled unanimously that abortion
protestors could not be sued under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act) or the Hobbs Act. This result should have been
obvious, since those statutes apply only if there has been robbery or extor-
tion, and neither was involved here. Unfortunately, it took years of litigation
and three trips to the Supreme Court before justice was served.
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood on Northern New England (January 18)16—
The case concerned whether a parental notification statute in New Hampshire
was invalid on its face if it did not provide for a waiver of such notice in
"a medical emergency." The Court ruled that, so long as the state asked the
Court for a limited ruling (i.e., to invalidate only those portions of the statute
that violated the Constitution), such a case could be remanded to the trial
court to determine if, in fact, there were any constitutionally defective portions
of the statute, which could then (alone) be enjoined. The decision was a
blow to Planned Parenthood, whose litigation strategy is always to challenge
a statue "on its face" (i.e., before it is applied in a particular case), arguing
that if there is any Constitutional defect, the entire statute should be enjoined.
- Gonzalez v. Oregon (January 17)17 —The Court ruled that the federal Controlled
Substances Act did not give the U.S. Attorney General the power to
prevent such substances from being used to assist suicide in Oregon. (Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. Alito did not participate
in the decision.) Although touted in the media as endorsing Oregon's
law on assisted suicide, the decision did no such thing; rather, it considered
the meaning of terms (written language) in a federal law. If Congress chooses,
it can remedy the problem by amending the statute to make it clear that
federally controlled substances may not be used to assist suicide.
The Supreme Court also announced that it will hear the case of Gonzales v.
Carhart,18 in which abortionists are challenging the validity of the federal ban on
partial-birth abortion. It is hoped that Justice Kennedy, who rejected the majority's
argument in Stenberg that a broad health exception was always required, will join a
majority to uphold the federal law.
Political Developments
The March for Life
The thirty-third annual March for Life, under the redoubtable leadership of
Nelly Gray, was held in Washington, D.C., on January 23. Once again, thousands
upon thousands of people refused to heed the hectoring of the Supreme Court plurality
in Casey; instead, they marched, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the abortion
license in America. On the day of the march, young people packed the Verizon
Center, the sports arena in downtown D.C., for a Mass.
Although President Bush did not appear at the rally, he made a live call, which
was broadcast to the participants. He told them "to take warmth and comfort from
our history, which tells us that a movement that appeals to the noblest and most
generous instincts of our fellow Americans and that is based on a sacred promise
enshrined in our founding document...will not fail."19 A few days later, in his State
of the Union address, the President remarked,
|
A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut
ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I
ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical
research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for
experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting
human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator, and that gift should
never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.20
|
In the months ahead, we shall see if Congress responds to this challenge.
Note: One of the great, though largely unsung, heroes of the pro-life cause,
Gail Quinn, executive director of the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life
Activities, has announced that she is retiring.
Democrats Release Statement of Principles
Fifty-five Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives released a statement
of principles on February 28.21 The statement ignored the primacy that the
Church gives to the life issue, what John Paul II called the "first right." It also misrepresented
the Church's teaching on conscience, which must always be informed by the
teachings of the magisterium.22 It is to be recalled that a similar statement of principles
was released by largely the same group during the campaign of John Kerry for the
presidency, following the statement by the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith
that communion must sometimes be denied to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.23
Note: Speaking at the third National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on April 7,
Bishop Robert Morlino, the chairman of the board of directors of the National Catholic
Bioethics Center, likened such efforts by Catholic politicians to redefining conscience
"as a line item veto with regard to elements of the Ten Commandments and the
teachings of the Church."24 An apt analogy, indeed.
Political Developments
United Kingdom
British law prohibits the implantation of embryos from IVF clinics without the
consent of both genetic parents. However, a British woman, Natallie Evans, sued
under the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that its provisions—
especially the right to a family life in article eight—trumped those of the United
Kingdom, because the United Kingdom was a signatory to the convention. However,
the European Court of Human Rights ruled against her (and went so far as to claim
that the convention did not protect the unborn).25
United Nations
A report from the Population Division of the United Nations disproved the
claims of abortion advocates that legalization decreases maternal mortality. The World
Mortality Report 2005 showed that countries where abortion is legal (such as Russia)
often have significantly higher rates of maternal mortality than do nations (such as
Ireland) where it is illegal.26
USAID
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) imposed sanctions
on two groups in Peru. Contrary to U.S. legal requirements, these two groups used
U.S. funds to promote legalization of the "morning-after pill."27
All nations in Latin America prohibit abortion or provide for very limited access
to it.28 Three lawsuits pending in the nation of Columbia allege that international law
requires Columbia to make abortion available.
Columbia
For such an obligation to exist, Columbia would have to be bound by international
law to provide for access to abortion. Such a legal obligation could arise under
either a treaty or customary international law, but there is no treaty that requires
abortion to be legalized.
(It must be noted, however, that the U.N. Human Rights Committee recently
ordered Peru to provide reparations to a girl who had been denied an abortion.29 As
in Columbia, abortion is not legal in Peru. The Human Rights Committee claimed
that a treaty, called the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, required legalization
of abortion. This is an absurdity—the treaty in question provides that every human
being has the inalienable right to life, which must be protected in law.30 Peru should
either ignore the committee or denounce the treaty.)
Further, there is no right under customary international law to abortion. In fact,
the very existence of laws making abortion illegal in Latin America rebuts any such
allegation, for they make it impossible for abortion proponents to satisfy the central
requirement of proving customary international law—that is, a consensus among
nations on the point in question.
On April 2, hundreds of thousands of Columbians marched in favor of keeping
abortion illegal.31 Still, it is possible that the Columbian Constitutional Court will
ignore the people's will and rule that Columbia must legalize abortion. As in the
United States, pro-abortion lawyers seek to achieve in the courts what they cannot
achieve at the ballot box. In Columbia as in the United States, the judicial usurpation
of politics is the greatest threat democracy faces.32
Scandal in Korea
In February and March 2004, a South Korean researcher, Hwang Woo Suk,
made an announcement that, in Mohammed Ali's words, "shocked the world." In an
article in Science,33 Hwang announced he had successfully cloned human embryos,
and that he had extracted embryonic stem cells from them. This was stunning news,
as it would have been the first successful attempt to do so.34
In the months that followed, Hwang became a national and international celebrity.
Students in South Korea even wore T-shirts with his name and photograph on
them. He became a symbol of national scientific achievement. Building on his success
and fame, Hwang announced in October 2005 an international consortium for
embryonic stem cell research.35
Then the fabric of his success began to unravel. First, concerns were raised
that he had exploited women in obtaining the egg cells (or oocytes) that he used
during cloning. Hwang answered this charge by asserting that the eggs had been
donated by students in his laboratory. Concerns then mounted that Hwang had used
his power over these students to coerce those donations.36
Next, reports surfaced that Hwang had misrepresented the number of embryonic
stem cell lines he had produced. Other researchers noticed, in photographs of
the cell lines, that some were exactly the same (i.e., the photos showed duplicates of
the same cell line).37 Hwang then admitted that he had misrepresented the number of
lines, but minimized the misrepresentation by claiming he still had a significant number of new lines.
Then questions began to arise about the validity of the underlying research
itself. Hwang denied those charges, but Science eventually withdrew the published
articles.38 Other scientists whose names were listed as co-authors with Hwang withdrew
their names.39 Finally, after Hwang admitted that he had fabricated the lines,
his license to conduct such research was revoked by the South Korean government.40
The fallout from these events has been significant. For instance, an ethics panel
at the University of Pittsburgh recommended disciplining Hwang's co-author, Gerald
Schatten, on a later paper.41 Schatten used Hwang's fabrications to apply for (and
receive) a $16.1 million federal grant for stem cell research.
Some researchers and scientific entrepreneurs worry that the fallout will discredit
all embryonic stem cell research.42 That is precisely the wrong reaction to the
scandal. Hwang rushed into this research for notoriety and financial reward. These
are the factors that have always driven human cloning and embryonic stem cell
research. As pointed out repeatedly by the authors of this column, the editors of this
journal, and many others, the excitement over embryonic stem cell research is mediadriven
hype.43 To date, there have been no successful human treatments using embryonic
stem cells, while the number of such successes with nonembryonic stem
cells keeps climbing.44 If embryonic stem cell research were as promising as many
claim, the venture-capital markets would rush to fund it. But they do not.
State Developments
California
The classic example of scientific entrepreneurs using taxpayers' dollars to fund
what the venture-capital markets will not is, of course, California. There, following
Proposition 71, lawsuits alleging conflicts of interest for the body that awards the
grants, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (i.e., that some of the same
people who serve with that body are applying for grants from it) have prevented
taxpayers' funds from going to the grantees. The suits also allege that the institute is
violating state requirements for open meetings as well as for state oversight. Arguments
concluded in these trials on March 2.45
Missouri
Sadly, many states are rushing to imitate California's ill-conceived efforts and
establish their own state mandates to conduct (with state funds) human embryonic stem
cell research. One such state is Missouri. As is too often the case, the pending ballot
initiative is misleading, claiming to ban cloning while actually permitting it for research
purposes. A lawsuit has been filed challenging the wording of the ballot initiative.46
South Dakota
The South Dakota legislature passed, and the governor signed, a law banning
all abortions.47
(Similar bills were introduced in Mississippi48
and Alabama,49 following
passage of the South Dakota bill.) The law was challenged by pro-abortion
groups, which, under an unusual state procedure, can mount a referendum drive to
place the issue directly before the citizens of the state. It is not certain whether the
issue will eventually go to the voters, but that seems likely.
Many pro-life Americans are divided over the advisability of the strategy South
Dakota is pursuing. Some fear it invites speedy invalidation in the federal courts, and
could even lead to a Supreme Court decision affirming Roe v. Wade and other abortion
decisions. (Even with the addition of Alito and Roberts to the Court, there are
not currently a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who have questioned the
central holding of the Court's abortion jurisprudence—specifically, that there is a
federal constitutional right to abortion.)
Other pro-life Americans believe legislators are morally obligated to act for the
common good and in accordance with the truth, and should, therefore, pass laws that
invalidate or restrict abortion, leaving it to the courts to do their job and uphold such
laws.
One thing is certain: the South Dakota legislature deserves to be applauded for
refusing to submit to judicial usurpation. As noted above, the usurpation of the
legislative role by the judiciary is the single greatest threat we face. The South Dakota
legislature has refused to submit to the "act of raw judicial power" (in the words
of Justice Byron White, dissenting in Roe v. Wade) by which the Supreme Court
imposed abortion on this country. They refused—as did those who participated in
the March for Life, as well as President Bush—to accept the Court's order in Casey
to surrender their rights as American citizens to call for change in unjust laws.
Conscience Protection
Under pressure from abortion advocates, Wal-Mart decided its pharmacies
would make the "morning-after pill" available. However, Wal-Mart permitted its
individual pharmacists to refrain from doing so.50
Marriage Protection
The editors of this journal asked me to cover the topic of marriage protection,
on which, though not involving bioethics, they felt their readers would want to be
informed.
Congress
A vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment is scheduled for June in the
Senate. It is expected to receive more than fifty votes, but fewer than the sixtyseven
needed to approve a constitutional amendment. (A vote will take place in the
House of Representatives in July, where it should receive the necessary two-thirds
majority.)
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which has legalized homosexual
marriage, ruled that out-of-state couples from states where homosexual marriage is
illegal could not, under an older state law, be married in Massachusetts.51 This does
not, of course, prevent married homosexual couples who are resident in Massachusetts
from moving to another state and claiming benefits due to married couples
under that state's law. Thus, the real possibility remains that the U.S. Supreme Court
will have to decide whether, under the full-faith-and-credit clause of the U.S. Constitution,
another state would be required to recognize as a valid marriage a homosexual
marriage from Massachusetts.
William L. Saunders, Jr.
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Human Life and Bioethics
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.
Notes
1
"Joint Statement on Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming: Production of Pluripotent
Stem Cells by Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming" (June 20, 2005) has been widely reprinted.
See, for example, the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person Web site, http:/
/www.westchesterinstitute.net/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=38&ca=22&te=12&id=35. The
statement was also published in the Verbatim section of the Quarterly 5.3 (Autumn 2005):
579–583.
2
The statement was careful to note that there is a separate ethical issue regarding
how the oocytes are obtained. However, if cells can be reprogrammed to become oocytes
(as existing research indicates is possible), it would not be "necessary" to obtain them
from a woman, thereby obviating ethical problems.
3
Adrian J. Walker, "A Way around the Cloning Objection against ANT? A Brief Response
to the Joint Statement on the Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte
Assisted Reprogramming," Communio 32.1 (Spring 2005): 188–194, and David L.
Schindler, "A Response to the Joint Statement, 'Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by
Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming,'" Communio 32.2 (Summer 2005): 369–380.
4
See, for instance, Stuart W. Swetland and William L. Saunders, "Joint Statement
on the OAR Proposal: A Response to Criticisms," and E. Christian Brugger, "ANT-OAR: A
Morally Acceptable Means for Deriving Pluripotent Stem Cells—A Reply to Criticisms,"
Communio 32.4 (Winter 2005):744–752 and 755–769, respectively.
5
"A Joint Statement on Human Cloning and Altered Nuclear Transfer" (February
23, 2006), http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=38&ca=
22&te=12&id=44.
6
Addendum (April 26, 2006) to "Joint Statement on Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming,"
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=38&ca=22&te=12&id=35.
7A complete record of the Alito confirmation hearings is available at http://frwebgate.
access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:25429.wais.
7
A complete record of the Alito confirmation hearings is available at http://frwebgate.
access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:25429.wais.
8
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
9
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
10
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
11
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
12
A complete record of the Roberts confirmation hearings is available at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh109-158/browse.html.
13
Roberts was approved by the full Senate on September 29, 2005.
14
"Poll: Alito Should Sit on High Court," CNN.com, January 23, 2006, http://www.cnn.
com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/alito/index.html.
15
Scheidler v. NOW, U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 04-1244, decided February 28,
2006.
16
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, U.S. Supreme Court
docket no. 04-1144, decided November 30, 2005.
17
Gonzales v. Oregon, U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 04-623, decided January 17, 2006.
18
Gonzales v. Carhart, U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 05-0380.
19
"President Bush Calls ‘March for Life' Participants" (January 24, 2006) transcript,
White House Office of the Press Secretary, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2005/01/20050124-7.html.
20
George W. Bush, "State of the Union Address" (January 31, 2006), The White
House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html.
21
"House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles" (February
28, 2006), Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLaura press release, http://www.house.gov/delauro/
press/2006/February/catholic_statement_2_28_06.html.
22
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, n. 16.
23
Philip F. Lawler, "Puzzling Exchange: Are the U.S. Bishops ‘In Complete Harmony'
with Vatican Instructions on Receiving the Eucharist?" Catholic World Report,
August–September 2004, 28–31.
24
Bishop Robert C. Morlino, "The Dictatorship of Relativism," keynote address at
the third annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, April 7, 2006, Washington, D.C.,
www.catholicprayerbreakfast.com.
25
"Woman Loses Frozen Embryos Fight," BBC News, March 7, 2006, http://
news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4779876.stm.
26
Bradford Short, "U.N. Data Show Banning Abortion Doesn't Increase Maternal
Mortality," Friday Fax 9.9 (February 17, 2006), Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute,
http://www.c-fam.org/FAX/Volume_9/faxv9n9.html. The full U.N. report may be found
at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmortality/WMR2005.pdf.
27
Joseph A. D'Agostino, "USAID Cracks Down on Abortion Promoters," Human Events
Online, December 19, 2005, http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10978.
28
Yuri Mantilla and William L. Saunders, Jr. "The Latin American Consensus: Human
Life Must Be Protected," Insight (May 9, 2002), Family Research Council, http://
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E2.
29
Juan Forero, "Push to Loosen Abortion Laws In Latin America," New York Times,
December 3, 2005, A6.
30
The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, part III, 6 (1), states that "every human
being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life." Available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm.
31
"El Divino Niño fue sacado de su Iglesia en el 20 de Julio para protestar contra el
aborto," Il Tiempo, April 3, 2006, http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/bogo/2006-04-03/ARTICULO-
WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2823502.html.
32
Robert P. George, Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution (Washington,
D.C.: Family Research Council, 2005).
33
Woo Suk Hwang et al., "Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst," Science 303.5664 (March 12, 2004): 1667–
1674, published online February 12, 2004.
34
An account of the whole affair, from boom to bust, can be found in Anthony Faiola
and Rick Weiss "South Korean Panel Debunks Scientist's Stem Cells Claims," Washington
Post, January 10, 2006, A09.
35
"International Stem Cell Bank Open," BBC News, October 19, 2005, http://news.bbc
.co.uk/1/hi/health/4355722.stm.
36
Constance Holden, "Korean Cloner Admits Lying about Oocyte Donations," Science
310.5753 (December 2, 2005): 1402–1403.
37
Gretchen Vogel, "Landmark Paper Has an Image Problem," Science 310.5754
(December 9, 2005): 1595.
38
David Kennedy, "Editorial Retraction," Science 311.5759 (January 20, 2006):
335, published online January 12, 2006.
39
Nicholas Wade, "American Co-Author Wants His Name Off Stem Cell Paper,"
New York Times, December 14, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/science/14CELL.html.
40
Jae-Soon Chang, "Stem Cell Researcher's License Revoked," Associated Press, March 16, 2006.
41
Woo Suk Hwang et al., "Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from
Human SCNT Blastocysts," Science 308.5729 (June 17, 2005): 1777–1783, on which
Schatten served as senior author. The panel's report can be found at University of Pittsburgh,
"Summary Investigative Report on Allegations of Possible Scientific Misconduct
on the Part of Gerald P. Schatten, Ph.D." (February 8, 2006), http://newsbureau.upmc.com/
PDF/Final%20Public%20Report%202.08.pdf.
42
"Stem Cell Scandal a Tragedy, Scientists Say," Reuters, January 12, 2006.
43
Kevin Shapiro, "Lessons of the Cloning Scandal," Commentary 121.4 ( April 2006).
44
Bradley R. Hughes, Jr. "Real-World Successes of Adult Stem Cell Treatments,"
Insight (October 6, 2004), Family Research Council, http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?
i=IS04J01.
45
The cases are People's Advocate v. Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee,
Superior Court of California for Alameda County, HG05-206766, and California Family
Bioethics Council v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, HG05-235177.
46
Rob Roberts, "Lawsuit: Stem Cell Ballot Language Is Misleading," Kansas City
Business Journal, November 29, 2005, http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/
2005/11/28/daily15.html.
47
There is dispute as to whether the law provides an exception where the life of the
mother is concerned.
48
"Mississippi Abortion Bill Dies This Session," Associated Press, March 27, 2006.
49
Bob Johnson, "Alabama Legislators Consider Bills to Ban Abortions," Associated
Press, March 25, 2006.
50
"Wal-Mart Standoff on ‘Morning After' Pill," UPI, March 24, 2006.
|
|
|
