NCBC: NCBQ

WASHINGTON INSIDER
Winter 2006

William L. Saunders, Jr.
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Human Life and Bioethics
Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.

National Developments

The President’s First Veto Since the last edition of this column, the big news is President George W. Bush’s veto of the Congressional bill repealing—and repudiating—his policy on stem cell research funding. 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.

On July 19, 2006, President Bush welcomed a number of pro-life leaders, including the authors of this column and the editor of this journal, into the East Room of the White House for an event destined to be a defining one for his presidency. It was a dramatic moment for several reasons. The president had stated that he would not accept a revocation of his policy; even so, the Congress, including many members of the president’s own party, had voted to do precisely that; and the president, mid-way through his second term in office, had not vetoed any previous legislation that passed the Congress. In addition, the media and celebrity drum-beat against the president’s policy had reached a crescendo.

As reported by Richard Doerflinger in the last edition of this column, the Congress had agreed to consider a “package” of three bioethics bills—the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) (hereafter, the “Alternatives Act”), the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504),1 and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (S. 471) (hereafter, the “Enhancement Act”). The last of these bills was the one that would have revoked the president’s existing restriction on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, providing, instead, that research using embryos “frozen” in IVF clinics would be eligible for federal funding.2

The Senate voted first, and approved all three bills.3 The House then approved two—the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and the Enhancement Act.4 However, due in part to misguided opposition by some pro-life Catholics, the House failed to pass the third, the Alternatives Act, by the necessary margin.5 This was unfortunate because, by eliminating a good stem cell research bill the president could sign while he simultaneously vetoed a bad bill, it threatened to deprive the president of an important teaching moment, that is, an opportunity to explain to the American public the difference between stem cell research which is morally licit (even “embryonic” stem cell research) and that which is not. (There is no apparent ethical principle limiting the use of embryonic stem cells if such cells were not derived by destroying or injuring a living human embryo.) However, in a televised event, the president delivered one of the strongest prolife speeches of his presidency. In ringing tones, he stated, “If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I’m not going to allow it.”6 The president concluded, “In this new era, our challenge is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life.” 7 He remedied the House’s failure to pass the Alternatives Act by directing the National Institutes of Health to fund research using “alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells.” 8

After the president signed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act into law and vetoed the Enhancement Act, the Enhancement Act was re-introduced in Congress in an effort to override the president’s veto. However, it failed to receive sufficient votes to do so.9

Alternatives to Embryo-Destructive Research

To much fanfare in the press, Advanced Cell Technologies, or ACT, announced on August 23 that it had perfected a technique by which it could remove stem cells from embryos without killing or injuring them.10 Sadly, as is invariably the case with media-trumpeted advances in embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), the media reports— and company claims—turned out to be baseless hype.11

The technique had been among those considered in a May 2005 white paper from the President’s Council on Bioethics, Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.12 The white paper examined pluripotent stem cells derived (1) from “organismically dead” embryos, (2) by blastomere extraction, (3) from “biological artifacts,” and (4) from somatic cell dedifferentiation. Of the four, the sole technique the council did not recommend for further consideration was blastomere extraction, which is precisely the technique used by ACT.

It eventually became clear that ACT’s procedure had killed every embryo from which stem cells had been taken. It also became clear that the “new” procedure was actually the long-standing procedure by which cells are taken from an embryo for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.13

In any case, the most promising (and most successful) “alternative to embryodestructive research” is “adult” stem cell research (ASCR), that is, research using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, placentas, and many places throughout the human body. In just the past few months, there have been several promising developments in ASCR.

In Missouri in August, a researcher announced that stem cells in blood were much more “plastic”—that is, able to transform themselves into other cell types (such as neural and blood vessel cells)—than many had imagined. Given the debate over amending the Missouri constitution to encourage ESCR, this announcement is ironic, at the least. 14

In recent months scientists have found that umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, small bone-marrow stem cells, and spermatogonial stem cells have comparable levels of pluripotency.15 The umbilical-cord-blood cells have shown the capacity to produce endothelial, neural, and insulin-secreting cells. One prominent Australian scientist notes that it is possible “to induce these adult [nasal] stem cells to become liver cells, heart cells, muscle cells, kidney cells, blood cells, fat cells and numerous other cell types indicative of a very broad developmental potential and far exceeding the expectations of an adult stem cell with the ability only to repair the tissue of origin.”16

In August, German researchers found that adult stem cells possessed an amazing capacity to repair damaged hearts. Using bone marrow stem cells to repair cardiac muscle, the researchers also found that patients can continue to improve over decades with repeated stem cell treatments. “We have always thought that a heart attack is permanent damage,” said Dr. Christopher Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, “but now there is the potential that this damage can be repaired.” 17

The media continues to ignore these studies, although the only successes in human treatments come from ASCR. Nonetheless, each success has benefited one or more living human beings. In order to draw together the record of those successes and to tell the personal stories of a dozen people who have benefited from these treatments, my colleague David Prentice and I have published a paper with Sarah Kleinfeld, “Adult Stem Cell Success Stories—2006,” which is available on the Family Research Council Web site.18

President’s Council on Bioethics

Three new members have joined the Council in recent months—Nick Eberstadt, Ph.D., the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy and Government at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and member of the Harvard University Center for Population and Development Studies; Floyd Bloom, M.D., the immediate past editor-in-chief of Science Magazine and professor emeritus in the molecular and integrative neuroscience department at the Scripps Research Institute; and Carl E. Schneider, J.D., the Chauncey Stillman Professor of Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of Law, and professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan.

The council met on June 22 and 23 to discuss organ transplantation and procurement as well as newborn screening for genetic disorders. These discussions continued at the council’s meeting on September 7 and 8, during which it considered a number of staff working papers on organ transplantation, genetic information, and death. These discussions will continue at the meeting on November 16 and 17. Also at the November meeting, the council will discuss whether (and how) to update its white paper on pluripotent stem cell sources. (That paper is examined below.)

State Developments

Missouri and Wisconsin

This fall the primary battlegrounds on stem cell research are Missouri and Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, the Democratic governor, Jim Doyle, is promising to continue his embryonic-stem-cell-friendly policies.19 He is also attacking his challenger, Mark Green, for being “anti-science” because he opposes ESCR. However, opposition to ESCR is anything but anti-science. Rather, supporting ASCR offers the greatest hopes for cures.

In Missouri, supporters of ESCR and human cloning have succeeded in placing a ballot initiative before the public. Titled “Stem Cell Initiative,” the proposed amendment to the state constitution is another example of untruth in labeling, a problem seemingly endemic to this subject.

The bill defines “cloning” as occurring when there is implantation in a woman’s womb.,20 This is, of course, completely inaccurate. Cloning—or, if one prefers, somatic cell nuclear transfer—is a technique with one aim: the creation of a living genetic duplicate. It does not matter where the living clone is located. Whether in a laboratory or in a womb, artificial or animal or human, “cloning” has occurred whenever a living genetic duplicate comes into existence.

Further, the Missouri initiative is gravely misguided. It would, as did the one in California, amend the state constitution. This is particularly troubling with an amendment, such as Missouri’s, that is so poorly drafted. For instance, the Missouri secretary of state notes that over forty other constitutional provisions and state laws may be affected. Yet, no one knows if they will, in fact, be affected or, if so, how! Missouri is a state with many pro-life provisions in its state constitution. Many of these would no longer have legal effect if the stem cell initiative passes.

My colleague David Prentice has been the subject of unfair and repeated attacks because, as a scientist, he has been honest enough to report that ASCR has delivered over seventy successful human treatments, while ESCR has not delivered one. Some fervent Missouri supporters of the stem cell initiative, including William Neaves, director of the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, which is the driving force behind the initiative, wrote a letter to Science magazine that appeared just before the Congressional votes discussed above, and the timing of its release suggests that it was calculated to affect those votes.21 The letter accuses Prentice of making claims he did not make—that all of these patients had been “cured” and that all these treatments were FDA-approved. What Prentice and others actually claim is this: in over seventy cases (involving thousands of individual patients), ASCR has yielded successful treatments and ESCR has yielded none. There are hundreds of FDA-approved trials in process with ASCR but, again, none with ESCR.22

Although the gap is narrowing, polls show majority support for the stem cell initiative as of the date of this column.

South Dakota

As noted in my last column, the South Dakota legislature passed, and the governor signed, a law banning all abortions.23 The law was challenged by proabortion groups, under an unusual state procedure. The issue will be before the South Dakota voters in November to either approve or disapprove the law. One troubling aspect of the “campaign” being waged for and against the referendum is the appearance of stories in local newspapers about increased IRS scrutiny of churches and political campaigns.24 It is hard not to feel cynical about the motives behind these stories, since they appear during each election cycle, particularly in states (or other localities) where pro-life forces have a chance to make a difference.

At the same time, liberal groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State object to the involvement of social conservatives in politics and send mailings that can be misleading. In order to counteract this, and to ensure that pastors are aware that they have every right (and responsibility) to speak out on issues affecting the common good, FRC and Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to thousands of churches throughout the country, including, of course, South Dakota.25

Addendum:
Marriage Protection

The editors would like me to provide an update on this topic.

The Courts

Generally speaking, there has been good news in the courts. The only exception is a decision of a lower court in Massachusetts.

In New York and Washington, to the surprise of many observers, state supreme courts held that state constitutions do not provide a right for same-sex couples to marry.26 A similar case is pending in New Jersey.27

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a federal district court and reinstated an amendment to Nebraska’s constitution that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.28

However, in Massachusetts—the only state where same-sex marriage is permitted— a state court ruled that same-sex couples from Rhode Island could marry in Massachusetts. That court said it could not find a positive prohibition in Rhode Island against same-sex marriage, and was constrained by the Massachusetts supreme court’s original decision to conclude that such couples could marry in Massachusetts. Given that Rhode Island law does speak of a “husband” and “wife,”29 this seems a farfetched result.

It is interesting that, of the same-sex couples from eight states who originally sought to marry in Massachusetts, only those from Rhode Island were permitted (eventually) to do so. However, it is important to note the ground of the decision— that is, that there was no positive prohibition on same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

A state that wishes to ensure that Massachusetts courts do not permit its resident same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts would be well advised to pass a law clearly forbidding it. The safest route of all is to amend its own state constitution.

Ballot Initiatives

Efforts to define marriage as being between one man and one woman are on the ballots in eight states.30 While it is true that such amendments have been adopted in every state to consider them, same-sex marriage proponents believe they have a chance to defeat such amendments in some states, such as Virginia, this fall.31 It should be noted that they have no chance—nor do they claim to— to pass amendments permitting same-sex marriage in any of these states.

However, the decision in Massachusetts mentioned above underlines the need for a national marriage amendment, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Rhode Island same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts will presumably return to Rhode Island and request to be granted the status of married couples in that state.32 When refused, they are sure to mount a court challenge. 33 As discussed extensively in this column before, there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will not strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and hold that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that Rhode Island (and, by extension, every state and municipality in the Union) recognize the Massachusettssanctioned same-sex marriage as valid.34 Thus, the only way to prevent the federal courts from imposing same-sex marriage throughout the nation is to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Notes

1 The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act forbids researchers from using fetal tissue for any purpose if the researchers know that a human pregnancy was initiated to provide that tissue, whether the fetus or embryo was gestated in a human or nonhuman animal. Public Law 109-242, U.S. Statutes at Large 120 (2006): 570.

2 “Ethical Requirements—Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following: (1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.” Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, S. 471, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (February 28, 2005).

3 The Senate votes were 63 yea, 37 nay for the Enhancement Act; 100 yea, 0 nay for the Alternatives Act; and 100 yea, 0 nay for the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act.

4 The House votes were 425 yea (8 not voting) for the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act and 238 yea, 194 nay (2 not voting) for the Enhancement Act.

5 Their opposition to the Alternatives Act was based on their opposition to altered nuclear transfer-oocyte assisted reprogramming (ANT-OAR), during which they believe an embryo is, or may be, killed. For a discussion of ANT-OAR, see my Washington Insider column in the Summer 2006 issue of the Quarterly, at http://www.ncbcenter.org/ summer_2006.asp. As noted previously, a distinguished array of pro-life Catholic scholars support ANT-OAR. (See “A Joint Statement on Human Cloning and ‘Altered Nuclear Transfer,’” http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=38&ca=22&te =12&id=44). In any case, the Alternatives Act did not mandate any particular form of “alternatives” research. Under the rules in force for the vote, a total of two-thirds was required to “pass” each bill. The Alternatives Act, with 273 yea and 154 nay, fell short.

6 Office of the President, “Message to the House of Representatives” (July 19, 2006), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-5.html.

7 Office of the President, “President Discusses Stem Cell Policy” (July 19, 2006), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-3.html.

8 “And so I direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Leavitt, and the Director of the National Institutes of Health to use all the tools at their disposal to aid the search for stem cell techniques that advance promising medical science in an ethical and morally responsible way.” Ibid.

9 The vote was 235 yea, 193 nay (51 votes short of the needed two-thirds majority).

10 Irina Klimanskaya et al., “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Single Blastomeres,” Nature, advance online publication August 23, 2006, http://www.nature.com/ nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05142.html.

11 Given the rise in the price of ACT stock following the announcement, there is at least some question whether the release was intentionally misleading. It turns out that, in spite of ACT vice president Robert Lanza’s claims that the stem cells were derived “while leaving the embryo intact,” all the embryos were destroyed in the process. See Marie McCullough, “No Stem Cell Triumph: Embryos Were Destroyed,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 31, 2006, http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/15401735.htm.

12 The paper is available at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/text.html.

13 Antonio Regalado, “Claim of Stem-Cell Breakthrough Attracts Scrutiny for Accuracy,” Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2006, A1.

14 “MU Researchers Grow Neural, Blood Vessel Cells from Adult Stem Cells,” University of Missouri–Columbia press release, September 18, 2006, http://munews .missouri.edu/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=11182.

15 Yong Zhao, Honglan Wang and Theodore Mazzone, “Identification of Stem Cells from Human Umbilical Cord Blood with Embryonic and Hematopoietic Characteristics,” Experimental Cell Research 312.13 (August 1, 2006): 2454–2464; M. Kucia et al., “A Population of Very Small Embryonic-like (VSEL) CXCR4+SSEA-1+Oct-4+ Stem Cells Identified in Adult Bone Marrow, Leukemia 20.5 (May 2006): 857–869; and M. Kanatsu-Shinohara and T. Shinohara, “The Germ of Pluripotency,” Nature Biotechnology 24.6 (June 2006): 663–664.

16 Alan Mackay-Sim, “Right Under Our Noses,” Courier Mail (Queensland, Australia), August 23, 2006, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20218084- 5003419,00.html.

17 Karen Kaplan and Alan Zarembo, “Adult Stem Cells Boost Ailing Hearts,” Mercury News (San Jose, California), September 21, 2006, http://www.mercurynews.com/ mld/mercurynews/news/15571293.htm.

18 Sarah Kleinfeld, David Prentice, and Bill Saunders, August 29, 2006, http://www.frc .org/get.cfm?i=IS06H01&x=1.The FRC has also produced a shorter pamphlet, which “puts a face” on this issue with the photographs (and stories) of nine individuals who have been helped. We have also produced a DVD, “Stem Cells: Beyond Hype to Real Hope,” which aims to make this issue understandable in a short (six-minute) presentation. These items are available at www.frc.org.

19 See Stem Cell Champions for Doyle, at http://www.stemcellchampionsfordoyle.com.

20 “‘Clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.” Wording of proposed new section 38(d), subsection 6(2), of article III of the Constitution of Missouri, http:// www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp.

21 Shane Smith, William Neaves, Stephen Teitelbaum, “Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases,” letter, Science 313.5786 (July 28, 2006): 439.

22 Kleinfeld, Prentice, and Saunders, “Adult Stem Cell Success Stories.”

23 There is dispute as to whether the law provides an exception where the life of the mother is concerned.

24 Laurie Goodstein, “IRS Eyes Religious Groups a More Enter Election Fray,” New York Times, September 18, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/us/politics/ 18church.html?ex=1160020800&en=725ac4a44ce12cf8&ei=5070.

25 IRS regulations prohibit pastors (churches) only from endorsing particular candidates. The letter from the FRC and the Alliance Defense Fund (August 2, 2006) is available at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH06H04.

26 See the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf) and the majority opinion of the Washington State Supreme Court in Andersen v. King County (http://www.courts.wa.gov/ opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=759341MAJ&cb=1).

27 Lewis v. Harris. See “The Straight Word,” New Jersey Law Journal, October 9, 2006.

28 Citizens for Equal Protection v. John Bruning, case 05-2604, U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Nebraska decision of July 14, 2006, http://www.ca8.uscourts .gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf.

29 Denise Lavoie, “Judge Rules Gay R.I. Couples Can Marry in Massachusetts,” September 29, 2006, http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/09/29/ judge_rules_gay_ri_couple_has_right_to_marry_in_mass/.

30See DOMA Watch, Marriage Amendment Summary, at http://www.domawatch.org/ about/amendmentsummary.html.

31 See DOMA Watch, Issues by State, at http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/ index.html. See also “Gay Couples Buoyed by New Virginia Marriage Poll” at http://365gay .com/Newscon06/09/091206virginia.htm.

32 Rhode Island’s Attorney General, Patrick C. Lynch, has said, “This ruling does not authorize same-sex marriages in Rhode Island and it does not mean that Rhode Island will recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts.” Lavoie, “Judge Rules.”

33 “R.I. Attorney General: ‘Gay Marriages’ Won’t Be Recognized,” BP News, October 2, 2006, http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24086.

34 See my Washington Insider columns in the Winter 2005 and Summer 2006 issues of the Quarterly, at http://www.ncbcenter.org/winter_2005.asp and http://www.ncbcenter .org/summer_2006.asp.

WASHINGTON INSIDER Winter 2006