PrintIn March 2009, President Barack Obama lifted a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which involves killing frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures. By doing so, the president made it possible for federal National Institutes of Health grants to fund projects using these embryonic stem cells.
Within a few days of Obama’s move, the Oklahoma state legislature was discussing a bill to make it illegal for any Oklahoma business to conduct research that destroys a human embryo. By mid-April, the bill was passed but vetoed by the governor.
Texas and Mississippi both are working on bills to ban the use state funds for research that destroys human embryos and Oklahoma is considering a bill that would criminalize human embryonic stem cell experimentation. Arizona law bans use of state funds for embryonic stem cells research and prohibits all experimentation on human embryos. Louisiana prohibits research on embryos made in vitro fertiliz ation or IVF clinics and outlaws the destruction of fertilized embryos. Michigan state law restricts embryonic stem cell research.
A New Mexico bill, that would have permitted embryonic stem cell research, failed in April. Georgia banned therapeutic cloning and limited in vitro creation of embryos to reproductive purposes. The legislature also considered a bill, tabled until the next session, that would have outlawed the destruction of fertilized embryos, here defined as persons.
Similar “personhood” legislation has been introduced in Montana and North Dakota.
Progressives in both the scientific and political communities are obviously not going to take this sitting down. Faith in Public Life put out statements by various religious bodies saying, in effect, that since the babies are going to just be killed anyway, there might as well be some good taken from their violated, little bodies. For example, the United Methodist Church’s official posit ion is:
…Given the reality that most, if not all, of these excess embryos will be discarded–we believe that it is morally tolerable to use existing embryos for stem cell research purposes. This position is a matter of weighing the danger of further eroding the respect due to potential life against the possible, therapeutic benefits that are hoped for from such research…
Then, there’s the progressive economic argument that bans on embryonic stem cell research threaten the state’s fiscal well-being. For example, Charles Craig, president of Georgia Bio, is lobbying against any legislation that restricts research funding. If “Georgia were to restrict science considered legal and ethical by the federal government,” Craig was quoted as saying, “it would send a message that Georgia is out of step, and possibly anti-science and anti-technology,” not to mention that state funding bans of controversial research feel makes scientists feel…uncomfortable, and therefore unwelcome enough to take their laboratories elsewhere. [Peter Dizikes, “Stem cell division,” Salon.com, 5-11-09]
Conservative states, who see the issue in terms of life and death, are not particularly disturbed by media name-calling or threats of vague economic consequences…yet. But pressure is mounting.
Info: http://www.peterdizikes.com/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/11/stem_cell_politics/
RSS