Over the past week, the Obama Administration has made two key decisions on bioethics — both of which promote unethical and anti-life policies.

First, on November 24, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13521, establishing the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. The new Commission, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will “advise the President on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology. The Commission shall pursue its work with the goal of identifying and promoting policies and practices that ensure scientific research, healthcare delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in an ethically responsible manner.” By deliberate design, the Commission will be heavily involved in determining the Administration’s policies regarding human cloning, embryonic stem-cell research, and already-proven and ethical forms of research such as the use of adult stem cells.

However, it is important to view the Order and the purported goals of this Commission in light of the fact that, in June 2009, President Obama dissolved the President’s Council on Bioethics established by President George W. Bush in 2001. As Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council has noted, the Council’s charter was not scheduled to end until September 2009 and, at the time there was concern that “it was booted early to clear the deck for a new bioethics group aligned with the [P]resident. But no new bioethics council was formed to fill the void. Seems likely the old bioethics council was just giving contrary signals to the President (10 of the 18 members criticized the President after his March 9 speech where he opened the possibility of using more human embryos for research, including creating cloned human embryos for experiments.) Given that the [National Institutes of Health] was preparing to promulgate new guidelines for using human embryos, including the steps to take for their destruction to allow federal taxpayer funding of their harvested cells, the ‘President’s’ bioethics council presented an official unwelcome burr under the saddle.”

The complete membership of the Commission has yet to be disclosed, but the Executive Order provides that “at least one and not more than three [of the Commission members] … may be bioethicists or scientists drawn from the executive branch, as designated by the President.” So, President Obama is in a position to appoint like-minded individuals to the Commission — individuals, who like the President, support life-destroying and unethical research while blithely ignoring the substantial promise of ethical forms of research including adult stem-cell research which has already yielded treatments and therapies for more than 70 diseases and conditions.

And just today, the Administration explicitly authorized the use of taxpayer dollars for destructive embryo research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has approved up to $21 million for research on 13 embryonic stem-cell lines — lines created through the destruction of days-old human embryos. Notably, in March 2009, President Obama rescinded President Bush’s August 2001 Executive Order limiting federal funding to research on then-existing embryonic stem-cell lines and prohibiting federal funding of the production of or research on newly-created embryonic stem-cell lines.

In making today’s announcement, NIH’s Frances Collins noted that “[w]hat we are announcing today is just the beginning.” According to LifeNews.com, “NIH is also reviewing hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for federal funding under the guidelines the agency issued to implement Obama’s order.”

The politically-driven audacity of these moves cannot be underestimated. Why are American taxpayers being forced to fund research that many consider immoral? Moreover, why are we investing in this immoral research when ethical forms of research are yielding real treatments for real patients while destructive embryo research has never yielded a single positive outcome? The answer would appear to be: “It’s politics, stupid.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

While the Presidential election has naturally garnered the majority of the media’s and the public’s attention, there are also critical races and issues being considered in the states.  Five states, California, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, and Washington are considering ballot initiatives that directly implicate important life issues:  abortion, biotechnologies, and the end-of-life.

California Proposition 4: Parental Notice

Proposition 4, or the “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative” (also known to its supporters as “Sarah’s Law”), will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California.  Proposition 4 proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure that parents are notified (and involved) when their minor daughters are considering abortion by requiring abortion providers to notify the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative family member.  Once the parent or guardian is notified, the provider may not perform an abortion on the minor for 48 hours.
In addition, the initiative mandates that abortion providers report statistical information about all abortions (including abortions on minors) to state officials, requires the minor’s non-coerced consent for an abortion, and authorizes monetary damages against physicians if any portion of the new law is violated.

For more information, click here.

Colorado Proposition 48: Human Life Amendment

Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”  This definition of “personhood” would apply to specific sections of the Colorado Constitution and would inform future actions take by the State, the state government, and state officials.

For more information, click here

Michigan Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

The “Stem Cell Initiative,” also known as “CureMichigan,” will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposal 2.  This amendment would allow unregulated and unrestricted destruction of human embryos for research purposes.  It would also allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics and could open the door for the legalization of human cloning.

Proposal 2 would drastically alter existing Michigan law.  Michigan currently prohibits “nontherapeutic research” on a “live human embryo, fetus, or neonate,” fetal experimentation, and human cloning.

For more information, click here (PDF, pages 14-16).

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11: Abortion Ban

An abortion ban initiative, known as “Initiated Measure 11,” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment.  If voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution would ban all abortions except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health.  Anyone performing an abortion in violation of the amendment could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

For more information, click here (PDF, page 8).

Washington Initiative 1000: Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Washington Initiative 1000, also known as “I-1000,” purports to give “mentally competent, terminally ill adults, medically-predicted to die within six months,” the legal choice to request and self-administer a lethal overdose of medication prescribed by a physician.  The measure requires two oral and one written requests by the patient, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of the patient decision.  Physicians, patients, and others acting in “good faith compliance” with the measure would not face criminal or civil liability.

For more information, click here.

Last week, long-time friend of AUL, Representative (Dr.) David Weldon went to the House floor and stated with authority, “[T]here is no medical reason to proceed with research into cloning human embryos for their stem cells because that science is obsolete, it is more cumbersome, it is more expensive.  We have a better, quicker, easier way to do it.”

Dr. Weldon was referring to recent breakthroughs this summer, which he termed “breath-taking” and thought to be “impossible” just a few short years ago.  Specifically, he highlighted two such breakthroughs.

First, Dr. Weldon explained that researchers at Harvard University recently used mice to show that it is possible to directly reprogram adult cells in the pancreas into insulin-producing cells, without removing any cells from the pancreas.  In other words, these researchers were able to directly and specifically transform one adult cell type into another adult cell type.  AUL reported on this breakthrough here.

Dr. Weldon added that these researchers have “shown that, in principle, it is possible to induce the body to heal itself by reprogramming one cell type into another.”  In other words, we don’t need cloning, and we don’t need embryonic stem cell research, in order to reach cures and treatments for the millions of suffering patients in the U.S.

The second breakthrough reported by Dr. Weldon also involved a reprogramming technique.  In this breakthrough, researchers from Harvard and Columbia were able to create 21 disease-specific stem cell lines that will enable researchers to study diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Type I diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.  And again, through the reprogramming technique, researchers will be able to study these diseases—in the quest for cures and treatments—without the creation, use, or destruction of any human embryos.

Dr. Weldon noted that both of these breakthroughs occurred despite the fact that federal funding was extended only to embryonic stem cell lines that were created prior to August of 2001.  This research is moving forward at “breakneck speed,” leaving embryonic stem cell research far behind.

In concluding, Dr. Weldon remarked, “Science is moving beyond the debate.  Science is taking us in a direction of ethically responsible research.”

Dr. Weldon’s speech can be viewed here.

Science Alert Australia & New Zealand reports that Western Australia’s Upper House has rejected human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

Dr. Millet, director of Curtin University of Technology’s Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy explains why.

“The whole debate has changed, and it’s changed dramatically since the Yamanaka discovery because, while both his method and therapeutic cloning technologies have their problems, the advantage of the Yamanaka method is that you get 100 per cent of the donor’s own DNA and, of course, collecting skin cells involves minimum invasiveness and trauma. Most importantly, it is far less morally problematic than creating an embryo with the sole purpose of destroying it.”

He goes on to make the pragmatic public policy case in addition to the scientific and ethical case above:

“One of the arguments against therapeutic cloning is that the research has a low likelihood of a short- to medium-term outcome,” Dr Millett says. “So we have to ask ourselves, what is the opportunity cost of funding this research? By spending millions on embryonic stem cell research, what other important science is missing out? Are there better things to spend our money on?

What will the result be? Again, Dr. Millet:

“This could be the turning point for stem cell science here. It is entirely feasible that the (Upper House) decision could lead to [Western Australia] becoming one of the world centres of research into alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.”

Well said.

What US state will take a similar leadership position on adult stem cell research and attempt to establish itself as a “world center of research into alternatives to embryonic stem cell research?”

As life-affirming laws in Michigan increase, the abortion rates in Michigan continue to plummet. Michigan state health officials announced last week that the abortion rate in the state have dropped to a record low since record-keeping began in 1979. The current abortion rate shows a 50% drop since the peak in 1987, and a 3.7% drop from 2006. The Michigan Department of Community Health reported that in 1987 there were 350 abortions for every 1,000 live births. In 2007, the number of abortions dropped to 200 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The drastic drop in the Michigan abortion rate in 2007 is no surprise. Americans United for Life (AUL) ranked Michigan as the #1 pro-life state for 2007. AUL bases its rankings on the number of pro-life laws being enforced in a state, and the breadth of protection provided by each law.

Michigan currently has a number of women’s health and safety laws in effect, including:

• a comprehensive informed consent for abortion statute;
• a statute providing an option for women to view an ultrasound image of the unborn child;
• parental consent statute for abortions performed on minors;
• minimum health and safety requirements for abortion facilities;
• and a prohibition of the use of public funds and school health coverage plans for abortions.

Michigan law also contains provisions that specifically protect the health and safety of the unborn and the newly born. Michigan law defines the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide, and defines non-fatal assaults on an unborn child as a crime. In addition, Michigan law requires that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive must be given immediate and appropriate care.

In terms of bioethics, Michigan law bans human cloning, for both reproductive and research purposes. Michigan also bans fetal experimentation and non-therapeutic research on a live human embryo, fetus, or neonate. As for end-of-life issues, Michigan treats physician-assisted suicide as a felony.

Lastly, Michigan law protects the rights of conscience of healthcare providers in the abortion context. Under Michigan law, healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities who object on grounds of conscience may not be forced to participate in the performance of an abortion, and may refrain from participation.

It is no coincidence that the abortion rate in Michigan has dropped to its all-time low, and that Michigan has the best pro-life, incremental legislation in place. Research shows that incremental protections are effective means of lowering the number of abortions performed. Michigan is a concrete example of this conclusion. The effectiveness and importance of passing life-affirming, incremental legislation in the states has been made clear enough. For those interested in making abortion rare, Michigan stands out as a model.

To go to National Right to Life’s article elaborating on congruent abortion data click here.

I’ve just discovered that our friends at bioethics.com have posted summaries of the candidates’ documented positions on stem cell research, cloning, human embryo research, abortion, and health care.

Democrat
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama

Republican
John McCain

As the 2008 Presidential Election approaches, we find ourselves struggling to determine which presidential candidate will best serve our country and hold fast to the principles and values we hold dear. One factor of increasing importance in this determination is a candidate’s position on abortion and life issues. How important is it for the pro-life cause to elect a pro-life President? What impact will the next President of the United States have on the pro-life agenda? Does it really matter what the next President’s position on life issues is? The answer is simple: Yes, it does matter. The President of the United States plays a crucial role in advancing the pro-life cause in America, and the election of a pro-life President will guarantee a political environment that is supportive of pro-life legislation and policies.

To read the entire article click here.

On Tuesday, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed into law LB 606, which prohibits the state funding of human cloning for any purpose. 

Significantly, this bill prohibits the funding of both cloning-to-produce-children, as well as cloning-for-biomedical-research.  Unfortunately, many states ban and/or prohibit funding only for cloning-to-produce-children, meaning that researchers can utilize cloning and create embryos without limit, as long as they kill the embryos and do not allow them to mature.

LB 606 has been seen as a compromise by both sides of the issue.  Human cloning for any purpose is still allowed in Nebraska, but the State will not fund it.

Nebraska joins a handful of other states that restrict funding of human cloning and/or destructive embryo research, including Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, and Virginia.  Obviously, the low number of states prohibiting such funding highlights the need for more high profile funding restrictions in other states.

Discover has published an interview with Leon Kass, the former chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, that is far ranging in its discussion of health policy issues. Touching on ethics, technological innovation, end of life issues, reproduction issues, stem cell research, therapy vs. enhancement, access to healthcare, and civic engagement, the interview is well worth your time.

Over the past couple of weeks a fascinating back-and-forth has been going on between the authors of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, and Slate.com bioethics reporter William Saletan (see here).

The latest entry, by George and Tollefsen was posted today at National Review Online. It’s well worth your time.

Leon Kass, former Chair of The President’s Council on Bioethics, writes in the Weekly Standard on why it is time to ban human cloning, and how to go about doing it.

Despite the president’s numerous calls for action, we remain the only major nation in the high-tech world that cannot summon itself to ban human cloning, thanks to the standoff over the embryo issues. Fortunately, science has given Congress another chance to act. In the last six months, the scientific landscape has changed dramatically. On the one hand, the need for anti-cloning legislation is now greater than ever; on the other hand, there are reasons why a new approach can succeed.

. . .

First, it now makes great sense to beef up federal support for regenerative medicine, prominently featuring ramped-up work with iPSCs (and other non-embryo-destroying sources of pluripotent human stem cells).

. . .

Second, we should call for a legislative ban on all attempts to conceive a child save by the union of egg and sperm (both taken from adults).

. . .

Third, the time is also ripe for a separate bill to defend nascent life, by setting up a reasonable boundary in the realm of embryo research. We should call for a (four- or five-year) moratorium on all de novo creation — by whatever means — of human embryos for use in research.

Read the whole thing.

Sunday’s New York Times Book Review carried a review of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. The reviewer, Slate.com’s bioethics writer/reporter William Saletan, is someone that I generally respect as a thoughtful writer, even though I don’t always agree with him. His review of Embryo, though, is an unusually poor showing.

In response to the review, Embryo authors Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen penned a extensive — and needed — response at National Review Online.

In attempting to resist our conclusion that human embryos ought not to be exploited and killed, while at the same time acknowledging their moral standing and the special respect they are owed, Saletan gets himself into a jam. To meet our argument that a human embryo is, as a matter of scientific fact, a developing human being—i.e., a living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stages of development—and thus, as a matter of basic justice, a possessor of inherent dignity and a right to life, Saletan is driven to deny that human embryos are whole entities, as opposed to mere parts (such as gametes, tissues, or organs). He denies that embryos are determinate individuals, and he seems to doubt that they are organisms at all. But if these denials and doubts are warranted, then there is no rational basis for believing that human embryos “deserve our respect” or that “we should never create or destroy them lightly.” Saletan is trying to find a plot of solid ground lying between the views of radical liberal bioethicists, on the one side, and defenders of the pro-life view, on the other. The failure of his effort shows that the middle ground is nothing but quicksand.

UPDATE: Salten has written and Slate has posted a response to the response. Key phrase: “true, but . . .” Judge for yourself.

“It is human beings they are experimenting with,” says Countess Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, regarding the creation of 3-parent embryos by scientists at Newcastle University, England.

The new technique amounts to human cloning, using an embryo as a source of DNA.

Newcastle scientists created 10 embryos using the DNA of 3 parents – one man, and two women, and have hailed it as a breakthrough in IVF treatment. The Newcastle team effectively gave 10 embryos a “mitochondira transplant,” replacing an abnormal mitochondria with a normal one. The scientists aim at developing a treatment for diseases caused by faults in mitochondria, such as certain forms of epilepsy. Professor Patrick Chinnery of the University of Newcastle stated, “We believe we could develop this technique and offer treatment in the foreseeable future that will give families some hope of avoiding passing these diseases to their children.”

Countess Quintavalle pointed out that research in the America using the DNA from one man and two women was discontinued due to “huge abnormalities” in the resulting embryos. In light of the U.S. research, Quintavalle described the New Castle research as “risky, dangerous,” and a step towards “designer babies.”

Further experimentation on the techniques’ safety and efficacy is necessary before it can be used as treatment. If the technique proves to be effective, a bill to regulate this new form of human cloning will be considered by the House of Commons around March of this year.

“We should not be messing around with the building blocks of life,” Quintavalle concluded.

BBC

Chicago, Illinois – November 20: A pair of scientific papers released today report that scientists in the United States and Japan have succeeded in producing powerful stem cells by “direct reprogramming” of skin cells.

The stem cells produced by direct reprogramming are believed to have the same power that embryonic stem cells possess, that is, the ability to become virtually any cell type.

In addition, direct reprogramming does not use human eggs, so it does not endanger the health of women by asking them to endure the risky procedure associated with egg retrieval.

AUL president Clarke Forsythe, who also directs the AUL Project on Law and Bioethics remarked, “This tremendous breakthrough is both ethically and scientifically sound.”

This news comes on the heels of an announcement by Ian Wilmut, the scientist who produced Dolly the cloned sheep, that he is abandoning cloning in favor of work with the reprogramming technique.

“While we are excited about this ethical breakthrough, and thankful that scientists are already embracing it,” said Mailee Smith, AUL staff counsel, “the need for states to pass legislation that bans all forms of human cloning remains.”

Indeed, the Associated Press reports that Harvard’s Dr. George Daley, who is also president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), plans to continue cloning research in addition to direct reprogramming.

Associate Press Coverage
Wall Street Journal Coverage
Science Article
Cell Article (PDF)

About Americans United for Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which every human being is welcomed in life and protected in law. The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971. The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’s Frontline program chronicled our successful efforts in Mississippi.

Cathy Ruse of Family Research Council weighs in at NRO on the latest in the battle over cloning in Missouri: Missouri Manipulation — Don’t get conned on cloning.

Just posted at AUL.org, our review of the 2007 state legislative sessions.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Overall Trends andAnalysis
• Abortion
  • Amendments to General Abortion Statutes
  • Abortion Bans/Constitutional Amendments
  • Abortion Clinic Regulations
  • Clinic Access/FACE
  • Coerced Abortions
  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers
  • Freedom of Choice Act/FOCA
  • Informed Consent/Women’s Right to Know
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Legislative Declarations
  • Parental Involvement
  • Provider Requirements/Limitations
  • Public Funding for Abortion
  • RU-486
  • Reporting
  • Spousal Notification
• Contraception
  • “Contraceptive Equity”
  • Emergency Contraception/Plan B
• Protection for Unborn Victims of Violence and Newly-Born
  • Protection of Unborn Victims of Violence
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection
  • “Baby Moses” Laws
  • Stillbirth Certificates
  • Substance Abuse During Pregnancy/Child Endangerment
• Bioethics
  • Constitutional Amendments
  • Human Cloning
  • Destructive Embryo Research (DER)/Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)
  • Chimeras
• Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies / In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Regulation
• Healthcare Rights of Conscience (ROC)
  • Abortion
  • Broad ROC Protection
  • Contraception
  • Protection for Pharmacists
  • “Compulsion” Bills
• End-of-Life
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Advance Directives
  • Pain Control and Palliative Care
  • Prevention of Dehydration and Starvation
• Endnotes

Full Report Available at AUL.org

A coalition of concerned Missouri citizens, doctors, and academics yesterday launched the “Cures Without Cloning” (CWC) initiative to prohibit human cloning in Missouri.

Cures Without Cloning seeks to:

1. Prohibit human cloning.
2. Continue to search for cures and treatments using ethical stem cell research.
3. Prohibit tax-payer money from being used for human cloning experiments.

Press release announcing launch

Home of Cures without Cloning