by Jill Stanek

From BBC News, February 5:

Scientists believe they have made a potential breakthrough in the treatment of serious disease by creating a human embryo with three separate parents.

The Newcastle University team believe the technique could help to eradicate a whole class of hereditary diseases, including some forms of epilepsy.

The embryos have been created using DNA from a man and two women in lab tests.

Obviously pro-lifers will have a problem with this on many levels. But supporters of human embryo experimentation shouldn't. Right? The goal is human perfection, after all. Let not the means interfere. Question for supporters, though: What exactly is human perfection?

[Photo courtesy of BBC News]

Democrats sat on their hands during this section of President Bush's State of the Union address last night...

On matters of science and life, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life. So we are expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research.

How in the world could anyone oppose that, except, of course, if fixated on death?

Meanwhile, almost everyone in the house gave him a standing o when calling for a ban on human cloning:

And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves. So I call on the Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting, or cloning of human life.

But liberals were lying. They only appeared to support a ban on cloning because the American public does. Mark my words, no ban on human cloning will come from this Congress unless it is a sham bill outlawing "reproductive" human cloning but not "therapeutic" human cloning.

Cloning is the only possible means to make human embryo experimentation work. It is the only theoretical way to provide an exact match between donor and recipient.

Surprise. John McCain parsed words and made contradictory statements to reiterate support for human embryo experimentation last week, according to the Catholic News Agency, January 26:

Sen. McCain called his decision to back the research "a very agonizing and tough decision."

He continued, saying, "All I can say to you is that I went back and forth, back and forth on it and I came in on one of the toughest decisions I've ever had, in favor of that research. And one reason being, very frankly, is those embryos will be either discarded or kept in permanent frozen status."...

Referring to the recent break through in stem cell research which allows scientists to use skin cells to create stem cells, McCain said that, "I believe that skin stem cell research has every potential very soon of making that discussion academic.... Sam Brownback and others are very encouraged at this latest advance...."

McCain cited leftover embryos as his primary reason for supporting escr, of which there are, in actuality, few. Where was the reporter asking why this decision was "angonizing" and "tough"? McCain needed to say out loud he understands this is killing unwanted humans.

Then McCain said he hoped new discoveries would render escr unnecessary. So the problem of leftover embryos would return. What next would McCain propose to alleviate this problem, if he cares so much? Again, where are reporters asking these questions?

Finally, note McCain did not say he himself was encouraged by the news that researchers may have unlocked a way to make adult stem cells pluripotent like embryo stem cells. He said Brownback, a Catholic, was encouraged.

So don't expect McCain to abandon support in that event.

I so hate the fact I have to dissect most politicians' words.

The Republican I least want to see as the presidential nominee next to Rudy Giuliani is John McCain. Over and over McCain has betrayed pro-lifers, and badly, from McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which shuts us out of the political process close to elections, to the Gang of 14, when he neutered not only us but his own party.

[HT: Dr. Frank and LifeNews.com]

On January 15, the FDA announced it considered cloned meat and milk safe for human consumption. It also announced it would not require food labels specifying products were cloned or from cloned animals.

Pretty much everyone is squeamish about this, particularly liberal vegetarian types.

Many, if not most liberals, however, consider cloning humans for research and potential use for human cures just fine.

Another example of an upside down world.

[Cartoon by Tony Auth for the Philadelphia Enquirer]

This December 30 Times Online article was both upsetting and encouraging.

It stated that in the last 14 years, 1.2 million embryos fertilized for in vitro fertilization have been destroyed, due to overproduction or damage:

As many as 40 eggs can be [retrieved] in some treatments and all are fertilised in IVF.

The embryos are then assessed for viability, with only about 20% usually considered strong enough to implant successfully in a woman.

I'm not crazy about IVF and there's a new reason why....

I didn't realize the percentage of weak or injured embryos was so high. No wonder doctors are overfertilizing them.

The upside of the story were the solutions mentioned: decrease the number of eggs fertilized; work harder to promote embryo adoption. Not once was embryonic stem cell experimentation mentioned. Refreshing.

Also helpful is news that the success rate of freezing unfertilized eggs is increasing.

Other good news is the IVF industry is said to be reanalyzing the invasive and potentially dangerous drug/hormone injection regimen it puts women through as well as entering "an era of single-embryo transfers," which will ease complications of manufactured pregnancies with multiples.

[HT: moderator Valerie]

This cartoon is political satire but gives credit where it's due, so I'll laugh.

And the credit goes to President Bush (in the scrubs) for withholding federal funding of human embryo experimentation based on ethical considerations. Meanwhile, 2 research groups announced independently last month they had successfully reprogrammed adult skin cells to become the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Hence, the cartoon, by Joel Pett for the Lexington Herald-Ledger:

The New York Times wrote today that 1 of those researchers, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, was motivated to search for an alternative to embryo dissection based on his morals....

Inspiration can appear in unexpected places. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka found it while looking through a microscope at a friend's fertility clinic.

Dr. Yamanaka was an assistant professor of pharmacology doing research involving embryonic stem cells when he made the social call to the clinic about eight years ago. At the friend's invitation, he looked down the microscope at one of the human embryos stored at the clinic. The glimpse changed his scientific career.

"When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters," said Dr. Yamanaka, 45, a father of two.... "I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way."

There is always a moral way, which is always superior as well, btw.

This is truly an amazing story, of little Dallas Hextell. Doctors used Dallas' own cord blood stem cells to treat his Cerebral Palsy with miraculous results. Click on image to link to video of news story:

Three points to take:

1. Cord blood stem cells are ethical. They are a type of adult stem cells.

2. Adult stem cells are miraculously treating patients NOW.

3. Save your baby's cord blood!

[HT: friend Chris M.]

Last week came news of a huge stem cell breakthrough. How big? According to ABC:

"It represents a phenomenal breakthrough, more important than cloning... or the discovery of human embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center in Portland. "This is a Nobel Prize worthy advance."

And from the Associated Press....

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone - the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, whose company, Advanced Cell Technology, has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

It really is big. Separate research teams in the US and Japan both announced they had reprogrammed adult skin cells to become the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. The innovation is called "direct reprogramming" and the cells are called "iPS cells." Ironically, the American team, led by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was the first to isolate embryonic stem cells in 1998.

The double payoff is these cells will provide exact donor-patient matches (the donor being the patient) that scientists had heretofore thought only possible by cloning. Speaking of, according to the AP:

Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, has said he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.

But in the week following this grand announcement, which would nullify ethical debates on embryonic stem cell research and cloning, Democrats, particularly presidential candidates, have gone silent. Objectively speaking, they should be rejoicing. Consider House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's June 21 statement the day before President Bush vetoed the latest Democrat-sponsored escr funding bill:

"Tomorrow, with a single stroke of his cruel veto pen, President Bush will dash the hopes of millions of Americans seeking cures through the miracle of stem-cell research."

But now those cruelly dashed - unintangible - hopes have been restored by a bigger - tangible - miracle.

So it seems President Bush's pen wasn't so cruel, it was wise. And that's why Democrats have gone silent, except a few like Tom Harkin who are still weakly waving the escr banner. The wedge is gone.

But there's more. John Kass, Chicago Tribune columnist, wrote yesterday:

Though I can't begin to explain the science, the politics seem clear, despite the Orwellian twisting of the language over the years, despite the political symbolism and political iconography. It's clear enough.

It's about abortion. It has always been about abortion, about the choices we make and how we fight to use or deny human embryos for research -- all of it like hands that shape our future culture.

There have been other scientific and funding aspects to the stem-cell debate, but at the retail political level, "stem-cell research" has long been a proxy for abortion rights and for the rights of human life unborn.

So "stem-cell" is code, a slogan, the fact understood by political consultants and their candidates, by the abortion rights groups and the politicians who seek their votes and by those that oppose abortion rights and seek those other votes.

[Photo of cell division courtesy of The Times Online]

Voters for the first time have rejected a referendum to fund human embryonic stem cell research, in New Jersey of all places, a liberal bastion.

This came despite the best attempts by liberals and MSM to hide the paramount reason for the controversy, that it was about EMBRYONIC stem cell research, still on full display the morning after as evidenced by hidelines to the left.

The stunning defeat, which betrayed all pre-election polls to the contrary, may or may not signal a turn away from this liberally created must have. The decision by NJ voters for the first time in 17 years to reject a ballot initiative, this one to allow the state to borrow $450 million to fund escr, may have been purely pragmatic: NJ's property taxes are the highest in the U.S., and it has the 3rd highest overall tax burden. NJ's state deficit is $3 billion and its debt load over $33.5 billion, making it the 4th most indebted state....

Pundits say NJ voters had simply had it, although I'm hopeful its not that simple, noting those same voters in that same election approved borrowing $200 million to preserve open spaces.

I'm also happy to note the big emotional guns didn't work this time either. Two pro-stem cell ads (excluding the word "embryonic") by Michael J. Fox as well as campaigning by Christopher Reeve's brother Benjamin didn't garner enough sympathy votes.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jon Corzine is now in a huge bind. It's no wonder he spent $200,000 of his own money to promote the failed referendum. According to the Associated Press:

He's already allocated $10 million for stem cell work this year and approved $270 million for stem cell research facilities. The governor said he was confident money from the private sector and universities would make the research facilities viable.

The governor is turning to exactly the right place, but his confidence may be short-lived (although I suspect it's false to begin with). Corzine will find the private sector isn't funding escr. It's a bad investment. Adult stem cell research and umbilical cord stem cell research are where all the action and cures are.

The fog suddenly lifts when it's one's own life in question.

A Tuscaloosa News article yesterday fascinated me, after I got past the so typically spun hideline (above):

A Montgomery woman who said she recovered from significant heart problems with the help of adult stem cell research on Wednesday endorsed a resolution by the Silver-Haired Legislature calling on the state to fund the research....

"I applaud this body for taking courage," Carron Morrow said of the resolution, which recommends the Alabama Legislature approve funding for adult stem cell research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Adult stem cell research funding was one of three issues of interest to all age groups that were approved by the Silver-Haired Legislature, which concluded its three-day conference in Montgomery on Wednesday.

Morrow said she has had four heart attacks, leaving her heart's right side virtually useless. She said she participated in a test not knowing whether she was getting her own processed cells or a placebo. She said her heart has been rejuvenated and shess healthy now.

The Silver-Haired Legislature is made up of Alabamians 60 and older, one from each of the state's 105 House districts. It meets each year to consider senior issues that it then recommends to the Legislature for consideration.

Seniors are getting it. I hope this is the beginning of a trend of the powerful senior lobby speaking in support of adult stem cell research.

As Morrow attested, adult stem cell research and treatment are helping people here and now (and not just seniors, but also children).

Embryonic stem cell research is decades away, as its proponents admit, from maybe being of value. Here's an excerpt from a July 4, 2005, Los Angeles Times editorial, when the embryonic stem cell hypers began to backtrack from making wild promises to voters to pass a massive escr funding giveaway program:

California voters received, instead, a TV campaign promising cures tomorrow for a host of diseases, some of which may never respond to stem cell therapy. The professional cautions are only appearing now, after the money is committed. The shock of discovery that 'tomorrow' may be 20 or 30 years away (or may never come) could be severe.

Here's hoping aging baby boomers will help steer funding and support away from embryonic stem cell research to adult stem cell research.

This could really be the start of something. A google check of "silver haired legislature" showed they are organized in at least 27 states. This is great.

Cures without Cloning filed a lawsuit Friday against MO Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

They want to add an initiative question to the next MO election ballot asking voters whether they want to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer, i.e., human cloning. Simple. Straightforward

They're exposing and attempting to fix language deceptive human embryonic stem cell/cloning supporters added to the 2006 initiative, which was to say it banned human cloning, when it did the opposite simply by changing the definition of cloning.

Carnahan's job as SOS was to review the new initiative and write a ballot summary. Here's what she came up with....

... to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients' access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006.

A total mischaracterization.

When even liberals agree Carnhan did something shady, it's bad. Pro-human embryo experimentation St. Louis Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan scolded Carnahan:

Reverse course, Robin. You're wrong.

Ever since voters narrowly passed Amendment 2 (stem cell initiative) last year, opponents of that amendment have argued that the voters were deceived by misinformation and cloudy language.

In particular, the opponents have argued that the summary for Amendment 2 was misleading when it stated that the amendment would ban human cloning. They argue that somatic cell nuclear transfer - the transplanting of DNA into an unfertilized egg to grow stem cells, a technique protected under the amendment - is the first step in human cloning. They ask, How can you say you're banning something when you're protecting it?

Proponents of the amendment answer that the amendment prohibits implanting the cloned cells in a womb, and therefore it really does ban human cloning....

The opponents of Amendment 2 want to put the issue to the voters again. They want to amend the definition of human cloning... to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer.

That seems clear....

It is the job of the Secretary of State to summarize the issue in simple language. In this instance, the proposed summary states that the initiative would "repeal the current ban on human cloning" and "criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures."

Come on, Robin. Repeal the current ban? That's confusing. It would expand the ban. Criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures? That's loaded language. Just say it would prohibit research that is currently allowed under both state and federal law....

[Cloning opponents] have the right to clear language. Everybody should be able to understand what this is about. This is not an effort to repeal the current ban on human cloning. This is an effort to amend the definition of human cloning to include somatic cell nuclear transfer. This is
not about stopping stem cell research. This is about stopping embryonic stem cell research.

If the language isn't clear, nothing will be resolved. Amendment 2 was supposed to ensure the legality of embryonic stem cell research and establish Missouri as a safe place to do cutting-edge research. That did not happen....

The current mess is the result of fuzzy language, language that allowed the opponents of Amendment 2 to cry foul. Let's not repeat our mistakes. Win or lose next time, let's be done with it.

Beyond challenging Carnahan's misleading description of the intiative, some are calling for her impeachment, since she has taken at least $25k from pro-human cloning groups.

The lawsuit contends this is a constitutional free speech issue. Bullet points:

Communicating with MO citizens about an initiative measure is core political speech, subject to heightened First Amendment protection.

The government has attached its own speech to our measure, drowning out some of our message.

At a minimum, this will make it more expensive and time-consuming to get our message to our supporters and other MO citizens. It also increases the probability that at least some of these individuals will not actually get our message at all.... It will also make us alter our own speech and adopt a different campaign than we would have adopted had the government remained truly neutral.

This is an undue burden on our First Amendment right to speak on this issue. There is no compelling government interest in engaging in its own speech for or against this measure.

Even if there was a compelling government interest in engaging in its own speech for or against this measure, the ballot that voters see when they walk into the voting booth is not the place for the government to speak.

Even liberals and those who support cloning should agree with the right of MO citizens to have a fair chance to vote it up or down.

The Kaiser Network is a pro-abortion, pro-embryo/cloning research organization that distributes a daily report on health policy from that slanted perspective.

Today's was the funniest ever....

The group Cures Without Cloning on Wednesday filed a ballot proposal with the Missouri Secretary of State seeking to modify a state constitutional amendment that protects human embryonic stem cell research....

The amendment - titled the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative and approved by Missouri voters in November 2006 - ensures that stem cell research permitted under federal law is protected in the state and prohibits human cloning.

It also allows stem cell research that involves somatic cell nuclear transfer, which some opponents consider a type of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is conducted by inserting the genetic material from a patient's cell - usually from a skin cell - into an unfertilized egg from another person. The patient's genetic material incorporates into the egg and causes it to develop into an embryo that is a genetic match to the skin cell patient....

"Some opponents"? How about, "All scientists"? Good definition, though.

Hey, Kaiser, you make it sound as if there is more than one "type of human cloning." Care to name another?

Ah, thanks for the Friday afternoon funny.

[Illustration courtesy of the Reproductive Cloning Network]

DomaniCell ("the leading service provider in the field of cell collection, processing, storage and therapies") accounced last week it is expanding its service to offer young, healthy adults the opportunity to proactively store some of their own stem cells now in the event they need them later for an unforeseen illness or accident.

Great idea. Exact match, frozen, ready, and waiting....

Companies already offer parents of newborns the opportunity to store their umbilical cord stem cells for the baby - or close family members. (Umbilical cord stem cells are extraordinary because only four of six markers are needed to match a donor to recipient, as opposed to bone marrow stem cells, where six of six are needed.)

DomaniCell's press release, listing Progenitor Cell Therapy as a partner, stated:

Together the companies and their senior management team have performed over 30,000 cell therapy procedures, processed and stored over 18,000 cell therapy products and transported over 14,000 cell therapy products for clinical use in over 5000 patients to-date.

How many of these procedures, products, therapies were with human embryo stem cells? How many of those 5,000 patients?

The company rep confirmed with me this morning: ZERO.

All were using adult or umbilical cord stem cells.

Sooo, question for all you human embryo/cloning research zealots. If someone gave you $1,000 and said you could use it to save your own cells or donate it to human embryo experimentation, which would you choose?

Do you believe the escr hype when it comes down to you? Do you think your cloned organs or blood are right around the corner?

The greater good would be served by donating to the future. And surely the multitude of therapies and cures available now through adult/umblical cord stem cells are also right around the corner with embryos and clones.

Got leftover embryos in cold storage? Now you can use them to keep you out of cold storage.

According to ABC News, August 14:

StemLifeLine, a California-based biotechnology company, is now offering a controversial but potentially life-saving fourth option.

StemLifeLine allows families to "develop" remaining embryos into "personalized stem cell lines," the first theoretical step in creating cures for a host of debilitating and deadly diseases....

"The embryonic stem cells could be used to develop cures for diseases like diabetes, lymphoma and Parkinson's," said Dr. Russell Foulk, director of two of the four fertility clinics putting patients in touch with StemLifeLine and a member of the company's board of directors.

StemLifeLine is offering what they call "personalized stem cell lines." Those lines could then be turned into treatments that could be specially designed genetic matches just for donors, Foulk said.

"The advantage of using genetically similar material is the decreased chance of rejection. We can already take adult stem cells from bone marrow to help treat leukemia but they have to come from relatives," he said.

The StemLifeLine website features a nice photo of a Dad, Mom, and two kids. Dad has injested the kid you can't see by syringe, a new way to eat one's own. But he sure feels spry.

And sweet double-dipping, Dr. Faulk. Not too noticeable a conflict of interest.

The Associated Press reported August 9 that the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor is suing MI Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm for discrimination:

Granholm, who wants to lift Michigan's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, has a link on her state [taxpayer funded] Web site that encourages citizens to sign a petition asking the state Legislature to pass bills that would lift restrictions on such research.

The law center says Granholm refused requests from its clients to place their own petition on the Web site opposing embryonic stem cell research....

Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said the lawsuit is being reviewed.

"Under no circumstances will the governor abandon her fight to lift the restrictions on stem cell research in Michigan," Boyd said.

Apparently Granholm's people did a quick review, and apparently the governor is abandoning this part of her fight.

A check today showed the link Granholm previously promoted, www.michigan.gov/stemcell, is gone.

So is her taxpayer funded webpage promoting the petition.

But sorry, Guv, it's cached. (Click to enlarge.)...

Granholm is a pro-abort Catholic who is so bad on the life issue she vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban in 2003, although her veto was promptly overruled by a citizen petition drive.

Granholm doesn't have much luck with citizen petitions.

In this case, Granholm must not really want to know whether the majority of MI citizens support taxpayer funded human embryo experimentation.

Who can forget that shaky Michael J. Fox ad encouraging Missourians to vote to fund human embryo experimentation last November?

One of the lies of Amendment Two was that it outlawed cloning, which it actually sanctioned.

The amendment stated in one section, "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," which it could only say by redefining the word. Yet in another section it endorsed "somatic cell nuclear transfer," which is cloning.

Pro-lifers even sued - and lost - over the misleading ballot language.

MSM didn't help, of course, calling the valid argument - which anyone, even a reporter, could confirm by looking in a dictionary - a "claim."

But Amendment Two squeaked by, 51-49%, and MSM no longer has to play dumb, either that or it has forgotten to aid and abet the cover-up....

The Washington Post yesterday called a clone a clone when it reported that public funded human embryo experimentation is suffering serious setbacks in MO. This is due in large part to the threat of an initiative to call Amendment Two's bluff and ban somatic cell nuclear transfer:

Some researchers even fear the techniques known as therapeutic cloning could still be outlawed in Missouri.

Scientist Kevin Eggan had once considered packing up his lab at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and moving to Missouri. Now he's reluctant.

"I couldn't possibly come to a place where I thought the potentially lifesaving research I want to do could become illegal," said Eggan....

I've repeatedly said embryonic stem cell researchers need cloning to stand any chance of fulfilling their wild promises. This is because embryos are unique humans with unique genetic markers, so any tissue grown from their cells will most often not match recipients. Only clones will.

[hat tip: Family Research Council]

Advocates of human embryo destruction experimentation almost always list Alzheimer's as a disease they hope it will cure.

This is a myth, a lie. As the Washington Post reported three years ago, "of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."

This is because Alzheimer's does not arise from a specialized population of brain cells. "[I]n contrast to Parkinson's, diabetes and spinal injuries, Alzheimer's disease involves the loss of huge numbers and varieties of the brain's 100 billion nerve cells - and countless connections, or synapses, among them," explained the Post article.

That information was backdrop for this point.

The June issue of AARP Bulletin, a publication by the American Association of Retired Persons, the largest American nonprofit advocacy group for those aged 50+, contained this....

"Within three years, it's all but certain we'll have disease-modifying drugs that fundamentally change the nature of Alzheimer's," says Sam Gandy, M.D., chair of the National Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the Alzheimer's Association and director of the Farber Institute for Neurosciences in Philadelphia.

Neil Buckholtz, chief of the Dementias of Aging Branch at the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, MD, adds, "We've gone from drugs that help for a time with the symptoms of Alzheimer's to trying to develop drugs that will actually slow down or reverse the disease itself."...

Scientists are... confident that one of the more than four dozen other drugs now in human trials will succeed....

Experts say there is a solid basis for all this optimism: Today's drug trials are the fruit of 20 years of scientific work on Alzheimer's.

"We're now at a point where we understand enough about the molecules and mechanisms of the disease to target new therapies very, very precisely," says Douglas R. Galasko, M.D., interim director of the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego....

This next generation of drugs is designed to prevent, destroy and clean out deposits of beta-amyloid plaque that kill the brain's nerve cells, leading to the devastating loss of memory, reason and, ultimately, life that characterizes Alzheimer's.

Imagine that. No human embryo dissections needed. Try not to forget.

[Hat tip: Mome]

OrdinaryGal at Daily Kos has written an extraordinarily unintelligent post tying President Bush's veto of taxpayer-funded human embryo experimentation with her lament that a blind U.S. baby will have to go to China to participate in an umbilical cord stem cell study that may restore his vision.

OG says she has "been reading up" on stem cell research. Well, she needs to read a little more, first learning the most basic fact: There are different kinds of stem cells.

OG wondered, "Why couldn't the Bush Administration follow the lead of California and try to make a difference in the field of medical research relating to serious, chronic health conditions," after lauding the Golden State for passing Proposition 71, "which will provide ten billion dollars in state funding for human embryonic stem cell research."

Actually, it was $3 billion, doubled to $6 billion with interest, but facts didn't figure into OG's post.

And actually, not one taxed penny earmarked to fund human embryo experimentation could go toward sight-saving umbilical cord stem cell research.

Since umbilical cord stem cell research is so important to OG, she may want to switch from supporting John Edwards, as she professed, to supporting Republicans and the Bush Administration.

Because in December 2005, President Bush signed the pro-life Republican-sponsored Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which authorized $79 million to establish a cord blood matching network and to add 150k cord blood units to the national inventory, so as to create a 90% patient crossmatch.

The Act also authorized any cord blood deemed unsuitable for transplant to be donated for research. Bill sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith, noted, "Published studies have shown that cord blood stem cells have the capacity to change into other cell types, including nerve cells, heart cells and insulin-secreting cells."

In fact, a study less than two weeks old found cord blood stem cells successful in treating children with Type I Diabetes.

[Photo courtesy of Medical Journal of Australia. Retrieving cord blood is painless. It is drawn from the umbilical cord section still attached to the placenta after the cord is cut going to the baby.]

What with wars, rumors of wars, the Social Security crisis, and border security, to name just a few issues our elected officials should be pondering, how instead are they spending their time?

By recycling a bill President Bush has already promised to veto which would federally fund embryo experimentation.

Today the House passed S. 5, the embryo destructive research bill, by a vote of 247-176, albeit with two more pro-life votes than in January, when the tally was 253-174.

However, the change appeared due to absentees and deaths, not of heart.

The bill has now cleared both chambers and will be sent to the President to veto. An override attempt in the House would fail. Only 146 votes are needed to uphold a veto, which we already have.

Meanwhile, the front pages of the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, and Washington Post all featured stories today about a research breakthrough that may render embryonic stem cells needless. Explained the LAT....

Scientists have succeeded in reprogramming ordinary cells from the tips of mouse tails and rewinding their developmental clocks so they are virtually indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells, according to studies published today....

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient, say a cheek swab or some skin cells, and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Dr. Robert Lanza, an embryonic stem cell researcher and head of scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, MA, who was not involved in the research. "It would be like turning lead into gold."

Newsbusters [hat tip: jasper] was pleasantly surprised by the prominence MSM gave this research, although it noted MSM's curbed enthusiasm, always strangely undaunted when reporting the "hope" and "promise" of embryo experimentation.

Also new news since January but ignored by this liberal-controlled Congress bent on ideology over science, as reported by the Associated Press:

Thirteen young diabetics in Brazil have ditched their insulin shots and need no other medication thanks to a risky, but promising treatment with their own stem cells - apparently the first time such a feat has been accomplished.

Though too early to call it a cure, the procedure has enabled the young people, who have type 1 diabetes, to live insulin-free so far, some as long as three years. The treatment involves stem cell transplants from the patients' own blood.

"It's the first time in the history of type 1 diabetes where people have gone with no treatment whatsoever... no medications at all, with normal blood sugars," said study co-author Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University’s medical school in Chicago.

[Photo, courtesy of the AP, shows researchers flanking a young type 1 diabetic, who wishes to remain unidentified, who no longer needs insulin, thanks to his own adult stem cells.]

From National Right to Life, tonight:

The U.S. House of Representatives today rejected a bill, deceptively labeled as a ban on human cloning, that actually would have allowed large-scale cloning of human embryos solely for purposes of research....

The vote on the bill, H.R. 2560, was 204 to 213 - short of a majority, and 74 votes short of the two-thirds majority that was required for approval under the fast-track procedure that the House Democratic leadership used to try to rush the bill through less than a day after its introduction....

The bill... was introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Co.) only Tuesday night, and brought to the House floor early the next day (today) under a procedure... usually employed for noncontroversial matters. The language of the bill was not even available on the official congressional website when the measure was debated on the House floor.

An excerpt from National Right to Life's letter against to congresspersons opposing DeGette's clone and kill bill, issued just a few minutes ago:

Curiously, Congresswoman DeGette is a cosponsor of another bill, H.R. 1964, the so-called 'Freedom of Choice Act,' which among other things, says that the government "may not deny or interfere with a woman's right... to bear a child.... "

Under H.R. 2560, however, a woman has a right to have cloned human embryos created with her genetic material and/or eggs, but not the right to "bear" the cloned child.

Does Congresswoman DeGette agree with those who say that a baby whose life was begun by cloning would not be a real human "child"? Does she believe that Dolly was not a real sheep?

Oh, the complications of being a pro-deather.

Re: Congresswoman Diana DeGette's phony cloning ban, President Bush issued the following statement a few hours ago (underline his):

The President unequivocally opposes all forms of human cloning. The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life. Thus, if legislation were presented to the President that permitted human embryos to be created, developed, and destroyed simply for research purposes, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

About the statement, a DC source added, "It is noteworthy that the President is currently in Germany for the G8 Summit. G8 countries Germany, France, Canada and Italy have total cloning bans on the books."

Thanks to all who answered my question yesterday: What do you think cloning is? I asked for simple and technical definitions.

Cameron, our resident doctorate biology major, answered: "Asexual propagation. Recent attempts at animal cloning have been described as identical twins born years apart."

SH answered: "'[Y]ou are genetically copying a life form, so the end result is a life form identical to the original."

Heather4life answered: "Duplication."

Jasper answered: "[T]o produce an exact copy of."

SamanthaT answered: "[T]he process of replicating genomic material from one organism for the purpose of reproducing that organism in whole or in part."

John M. answered: "[T]he popular (media) view is that a duplication takes place... a kind of living photocopy. The reality in science is somewhat different: each cell has a nucleus with DNA surrounded by a full-gel. Cloning then is the separation of these two... plunk in a DNA of choice and voila a clone."

All good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all would agree with Wikipedia's definition:

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or clone tissue from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning; human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction....

The most successful common cloning technique in non-human mammals is the process which produced Dolly the sheep.... The process is as follows: an egg cell taken from a donor has its nucleus removed. Another cell with the genetic material to be cloned is fused with the original egg cell. In theory, this process, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, could be applied to human beings.

Our understanding of cloning becomes important today.

Because today, pro-death CO Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette is expected to introduce the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007 on the floor of the U.S. House.

Will it be that? No. It is a sham, a phony, a lie.

In fact and incredibly, DeGette's "ban" actually authorizes human cloning experimentation. It is a clone-and-kill bill that parses by allowing human cloning for scientific experimentation but not for implantation in uteruses.

How so? DeGette has simply changed the definition of human cloning to suit her purposes.

Here is DeGette's definition of cloning:

(a) In General. - It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) to perform or attempt to perform human cloning....

(b) Definitions. - For purposes of this section:

(1) The term 'human cloning' means the implantation of the product of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.

(2) The term 'human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology' means transferring the nuclear material of a human somantic cell into an egg cell from which the nuclear material has been removed or rendered inert.

Of the 70+ comments received yesterday in response to my question, everyone basically agreed with the scientific definition of cloning, as explained in layperson's terms by Wikipedia.

Is it acceptable to you that politicians in bed with the biotech industry change the definition? Why do they have to? Why the cover-up? Why not just say out loud what they want?

Before I get to the point of my next post, I'd like to ask a simple question:

What do you think cloning is?

Give me either your simple understanding of it or a technical definition.

By Bethany Kerr:

From Commentary Magazine:
Yuval Levin - 3.2.2007 - 11:44AM
(copied in full)

The stem-cell debate raging in the U.S. these last six years has hinged on a question of life and death - that is, whether destroying a human embryo should be permissible. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ethical quandaries in the age of biotechnology. The kind of debates waiting for us just past the next turn will be far more subtle and complex, and directed to questions of human dignity as much as human life....

In 2004 California voters passed Proposition 71, legislation to give human embryo and cloning researchers $3 billion over 30 years. The CA attorney general determined the final cost for taxpayers will be $6 billion, including interest.

There will a couple huge gaffes in Prop 71:

1. It did not allow for the people to share in the profits. So pharmaceutical and biotech companies getting hand-outs from the state not only don't have to pay the people back but can keep any windfall revenues resulting from their research.

2. If treatments are developed, Prop 71 did not mandate that corporations make them available at a cheaper rate to the state's poor or uninsured, or to anyone else in California for that matter. So corporations that have gotten grants from the good people of CA can charge them just what they would charge out-of-staters for treatment.

Yesterday, negotiations via legislation were launched to fix all that. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry opposes it.

All those supporting taxpayer funded human embryo and cloning experimentation should bear all this in mind, which is, legislators are stupid, and the biotech industry is greedy.

From CCTV.com, today:

BEIJING - Scientists have created the world's first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs, according to news report Monday.

The sheep have 15 percent human cells and 85 percent animal cells and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer....

But the development is likely to revive criticisms about scientists playing God, with the possibility of silent viruses, which are harmless in animals, being introduced into the human race.

Animal rights activists fear that if the cells get mixed together, they could end up with cellular fusion, creating a hybrid which would have the features and characteristics of both man and sheep....

Does this mean animal rights activists will have to become pro-life activists?

[Photo courtesy of CCTV.]

"For too long, the stem cell debate has been distorted by those who advocate exclusively for research in which human embryos are destroyed. They insist that any attempt to find ways to advance stem-cell science without harming nascent life - and, thereby, to serve both science and ethics at once - is misguided."

~ Georgia state Sen. David Shafer, as quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 19

Also, a new document available on pdf, "75 new reasons to reconsider the alleged need for stem cell research that destroys human embryos," lists advances in adult stem cell research and other alternatives to embryonic stem cell research between June 2006 and February 2007.

[Hat tip: Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity]

New Jersey's Star-Ledger broadcast this headline yesterday: "Stem cell research gains ground in Catholic church."

Of course, the ignorant masses, unclear that some stem cell research is morally acceptable and some not but aware of an ongoing ethical debate on the topic, may conclude from that headline - as the liberal mainstream media obviously wishes - the NJ Catholic church is coming around.

Only five paragraphs into the story do we learn the Church supports umbilical cord and placenta stem cell research, which does not involve the killing of human embryos.

Also of interest is the possible dupe of the NJ Catholic church by legislators brandishing money....

One morning last spring, the Roman Catholic priest and the Jewish legislator met at Upper Montclair Country Club in Clifton to talk through an issue that had become a major headache for both men: state legislation funding stem cell research.

The initiative, conceived in late 2003 by state Sen. Richard Codey and aimed at making the state a center for the cutting-edge research, had become bogged down by opposition from legislators being hammered by both Catholic and evangelical Christian voters opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

"We decided to look for common ground," Assemblyman Neil Cohen (D-Union) said about his meeting with Rev. Joe Kukura, president of the New Jersey Catholic HealthCare Partnership....

On Friday, Kukura's boss, Archbishop John Myers, announced that 10 Catholic hospitals in New Jersey have signed contracts with blood repositories for public banking of umbilical cord and placenta blood. The stem cells from those donations will be stored at the not-for-profit Elie Katz Umbilical Cord Blood Program facility in Allendale, set to receive $10 million in state aid, and the Coriell Institute in Camden, also to receive state funding.....

Cohen is hoping he can count on the support of leaders like Myers and Kukura, who represent the state's 4 million Catholics. He is working to gain approval for a voter referendum on the November ballot seeking to pump up to $500 million into hands-on stem cell research -- both adult and embryonic. The proposal, according to Cohen, also would include funding for "all hospitals, not withstanding any denomination, that want to be part of the collection process."

While we can count on the NJ Catholic church NOT supporting human embryo experimentation, it looks like we can likewise count on liberal legislative and MSM spin to make it look so.

They already are.

Where was Barack Obama when we needed him? While legislatures around the country have been debating when human life begins and the morality of experimenting on human embryos, who knew liberal luminary Obama would provide the answer Sunday in Selma?  From Obama's speech:

We have too many children in poverty in this country, and everybody should be ashamed, but don't tell me it doesn't have a little to do with the fact that we've got too many daddies not acting like daddies. Don't think that fatherhood ends at conception.

Actually, that last line makes no sense.  But I am reminded of John Belushi in Animal House when he shouted, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" and will just go with it.

Obama was trying to say a man becomes a father at conception, which is fascinating.  You can't be a father to a newly created subhuman or nonhuman. 

Liberal blogger Archpundit dared to contradict Obama by saying...

... "A blastocyst is a clump of 50-150 undifferentiated cells. That is not a human being."

Shockingly, Archpundit insulted Obama even further! Responding to someone's assertion that "blastocysts are humans," Archpundit said that was "factually incorrect"! Horrors!  Did Archpundit call Obama a liar?

I asked Archie what then was factually correct? He said, "Where one specifically draws the line is debatable, but a blastocyst is not a human being. 150 undifferentiated cells does not make a human being."

It is fascinating that proponents of human embryo experimentation like Archie are so sure human life does not begin at conception but not so sure when it does.

It is equally fascinating that proponents of human embryo experimentation (and abortion) like Barack Obama appear to understand when human life begins (who also said during the Selma speech, "Thank God, He's made us in His image.") but don't mind condemning them to death.

Sunday's Chicago Tribune included a front page, above- and below-the-fold article on the "booming" human egg "donation" business. 

Women are being paid $5k-$13k and up to $100k for 15-20 eggs and are using the money to pay off loans and credit cards and put down payments on properties.  So the word "donor" is incorrect.

In the last eight years, the number of infertile couples purchasing human eggs has tripled, to the point where "some agencies find they have more donors than recipients," according to the article, which raised a red flag to me among many.

Legislators across the country (CA, IL, and NJ, for example) are introducing bills mandating taxpayer funded human embryo experimentation that include flagrantly deceptive language appearing to prohibit human cloning while they actually authorize it. (From the bills: "somatic cell nuclear transfer"; Google that term.) 

The rationale for escr so often given is to put human embryos to good use who would otherwise be discarded by IVF clinics.  Truth be told, only 2.8% of embryos are actually available for experimentation, but nonetheless, the day will come when legislators come clean about cloning, and they will use the same rationale to morally condone it that they now use for embryo experimentation.

In fact, cloning researchers are already complaining about a shortage of human eggs, and they readily admit they go to IVF clinics for them.  (Read NPR, JournalLive, and BioEd, for examples.)

Because of this, I found it remarkable that the lengthy Tribune article did not once mention the increasing demands by researchers for human eggs.

Penny Pullen, author of the weekly Life Advocacy Briefing, teaches pro-life terminology. From her I learned to say:

As part of her Briefing today, Penny gave a short lesson on proper terminology by which to frame the human embryo experimentation debate:

IOWA's LEGISLATURE HAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR a bill endorsing sacrifice of embryonic humans for utilitarian experimentation. The bill, which is likely to be signed by Gov. Chet Culver (D), would replace Iowa's human cloning ban and would authorize experimental cloning by another name.

We at Life Advocacy have not been privy to the Iowa-specific debate or political changes which precipitated this about-face, but, observing the terminology used by much of the pro-life movement nationally, we regretfully predict that the fight over embryo killing is likely to be lost wherever it emerges.

We cannot fathom why most advocates for Life speak about this issue in the same terms as are used by the amoral biotech lobby and its fellow travelers in the mainstream media. Calling this issue "embryonic stem cell research" is the equivalent of calling the abortion issue "choice," yet this obfuscatory terminology is used consistently by those same pro-life leaders who wring their hands over the seeming inability of the public to distinguish between "adult stem cells" and "embryonic stem cells."

Could the confusion result from the fundamental fact that the ethical problem is not the pursuit of research on stem cells but with the killing of embryonic human beings in the process?

Try consistently using the term "experimentation" instead of "research" and the expression "killing (or sacrificing or vivisecting or dissecting) embryonic humans" instead of "embryonic stem cells," and see the difference in the perception of those hearing the debate. Using precise, morally expressive terminology cuts through the scientific fog, identifies the issue for what it is, and brings the public into a proper understanding of what is at stake. Is this really so hard?

As liberal legislators across the country promote taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell/cloning experimentation, a main argument is there are leftover embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics they can see put to good use that would otherwise be discarded.

We have always maintained the number of embryos available for experimentation is minute, and women will soon be exploited for their eggs.  That day is here.

The AP/Boston Globe reported yesterday....

Human egg donation was a rarity not so long ago. But heightened demand for eggs -- and rising compensation for donors -- are prompting more young women to consider it.  Jennifer Dziura, a 28-year-old New Yorker, is one of them.  She received $8,000 to donate her eggs in the fall of 2005 and hopes she'll be chosen again before the private egg broker she's registered with considers her too old....

As more older moms look for help getting pregnant, younger women have become increasingly willing to part with their eggs. Some do it to help relatives and friends, or from a sense of altruism, but others openly acknowledge money is a big factor in their decision, prompting critics to worry that they're helping drive an unregulated market for human tissue....

"Everyone does it for the money," says Dziura.... "No one would do that for free -- maybe for your sister, but not for a stranger."

The American Society of Reproductive Medicine has set a compensation guideline of $5,000, with a limit of $10,000 for special cases -- if, for instance, a recipient wants eggs of rare ancestry....

Still, some egg brokers -- particularly those in the East and West -- are ignoring suggestions for a cap on compensation, and paying women more.

"Egg Donors Wanted" ads are common on the Internet, in college newspapers and on city trains. And with no federal laws limiting donor fees -- and fertility doctors conceding the difficulties of policing their own industry -- one ethicist says that eggs have quickly become "commoditized."

"It does feel a little more like the Wild West than it ought to," says Dr. Jeffrey Kahn, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics. And he only sees the problem growing as states such as California move closer to funding major stem-cell research, requiring more donor eggs....

A small survey from an Illinois clinic, included at a recent ASRM meeting, found that donors used compensation for everything from savings and down-payments on property to school expenses and car payments. Half of them also used some of the money to pay credit card debt and other loans....

"[I]f I'm honest, I did it for financial reasons; I wanted to travel," says the 31-year-old woman who lives in New York and works for an international nonprofit. She asked to remain anonymous since her family doesn't know she donated eggs three times.

"It would be a relief to know that my eggs were being used to find medical cures," she says, "rather than being used to produce additional kids for well-to-do American families."

[Photo, courtesy of Nature.com, is of "'Ripened eggs' used for cloning work"]

Princeton University professor Robert George gave great talking points about embryonic stem cell experimentation during a lecture last week at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, according to Towers Online, Feb. 15, the most important being:

"The fact that... embryonic stem cells probably will not prove to be the therapeutic miracle that they have been hyped to be isn't fundamentally the reason we should be opposed to the use of those cells..... The reason we should be opposed is a moral reason. [Embryonic stem cell research] involves, at least for now, the destruction of innocent human life to obtain the cells."

The fact is, someday escr researchers will get somewhere. The two fundametal talking points are, according to George: 1) the definition of human being; and 2) respect owed embryos.

The article, not long, is worth reading.

Two of many good points Sarah Flashing, at the blog Flashpoint, made in her critique of a C-Span-covered interview of Gail Pressburg, co-author of The Promise & Politics of Stem Cell Research, were these:

"Five-day old cells." Gail, are you afraid to use the word embryo? After all, the name of the research establishes that it is embryos from which the stem cells are being harvested. Let's not be coy.

As well, since when do we allow an age category to be applied to what are just clumps of cells?

This effort to disguise the personhood of the embryo by referring to it as just cells is disingenuous.

And combining this cellular way of talking about the embryo and the fact of age with the admission "well they'll just be thrown away anyway" is nothing less than conceding to the fact that these are human beings at the beginning stages of life.

The Michael J. Fox/embryonic stem cell-cloning flak has apparently renewed interest in a column I wrote two years ago entitled, "Michael J. Fox is a cannibal." One person even advised I remove it post haste before Fox sued me for defamation. It's a little late for that.

On page two is a fun exchange I had with a Megan Papesh, who posed an interesting question and who eventually equated early preborn humans with hair follicles....

From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 12:26 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: curiosity

After reading your article in which you heinously call Michael J Fox a cannibal, am I left with one burning question. No, my question does not concern where you get off comparing him to Hitler or to slave owners. Your use of oversimplified sentence structure and grand generalizations already tells me that your opinion should matter as much as perhaps a toddler's.

My question is what you would think of me in a hypothetical situation. Let me give you a little background, if this helps you (though I doubt it, as you see the world in black and white). I am a 23-year old, educated woman and I have no children, nor do I plan on ever having children. My question is thus: what would you think if I were to tell you that I am willing to become impregnated repeatedly, only to have the zygotes ( not human) harvested for the purposes of stem cell research? If this were an option available to me presently, I can assure you I would take it.

Does this make me a Nazi war criminal, comparable to Josef Mengele? Does this make me a slave trader? Or, perhaps more realistically, does this make me someone concerned with the future of our aging generations?

I would appreciate a response, as the majority of people I know and work with consider this a wonderful idea. It is not often, especially among the educated, that one hears an opinion so close-minded and biased as your own.

_______________

From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: Re: curiosity

My answer to your hypothetical question: Your purposeful, repeated killing of your preborn human offspring would make you a serial killer.

_______________

From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity

Hundreds of thousands of people afflicted with diseases that could be prevented/cured through research with stem cells are currently suffering. To compare the sacrifice of several zygotes (nonhuman, bloodless, brainless, soul-less, if you will, cells) to the pain and eventual death of millions of people is not only morally repugnant, it is simply stupid. The people dying from these diseases are friends, family members, and parents.

Comparing a blastocyte that is 1/10 the size of the period at the end of this sentence to their lives is shameful. Does denying them this treatment, then, make me a mass murderer? I think I would rather be a serial killer.

_______________

From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:28 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: Re: curiosity

So you’re saying level of development and size determine whether one is human or not?

_______________

From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity

This is not a question of whether or not something is or will become a human (as I stated, a zygote is a collection of cells and I do not consider this to be a human regardless of the fact that, if carried to term , it will become a human). I am wondering how you can justify giving so much weight to a collection of cells that have the potential to be born (miscarriages happen) over lives that are currently being lead and slowly, painfully ended?

_______________

From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: RE: curiosity

So we’re only human “if carried to term”?

And yes, it is a question of whether or not something is or will become human. That is the entire question: When is a human a human? You indicated in your first email that level of development and size determine humanity. You indicated in your second email that age - only full-term babies - are human. Re: the latter, do those full-term babies have to be delivered to be human? What if a preterm baby is delivered? Does she not become human until her due date? You need to explain your hypothesis to me.

_______________

From: Megan Papesh
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:32 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: Re: curiosity

Despite the fact that you have done nothing to answer my questions, I will still gladly answer your's.

A hair follicle is no less human than a zygote. They carry the exact same DNA, the only difference is that one grows into a human and the other does not. A zygote, therefore, does not possess anything uniquely human about it that the hair follicle does not. Would you argue against someone shaving their head? I don't think so. My personal views on when a collection of cells becomes human is irrelevant to this issue. My argument is simply that the sacrifice of a ball of cells that could potentially possess actual life is worth it when you consider the benefits to those who are currently alive and suffering (and by life, before you ask, I mean consciousness and awareness. To answer your question before you ask again, I also believe that brain-dead patients are incapable of exercising the same rights as humans, such as the right to life, if they have permanently lost their ability to perceive and to be aware of their surroundings).

We can play this game of semantics as long as you wish, as I am sure you would like to because it diverts attention away from the actual issue at hand: in which situation will more lives be saved? I don't seem to be the serial killer here. You seem to be the one condemning these poor people to death. Are you not ashamed?

_______________

From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:58 PM
To: Megan Papesh
Subject: RE: curiosity

You defy medicine, science, logic, and religion by equating a zygote identically to a hair follicle. Your personal views on when cells become human are indeed relevant in that you advocate putting to death those zygotes. You also defy science by falsely indicating dissected zygotes will save people from dying. We’re wasting each other’s time here. I’ve answered your original question.

From Michael J. Fox's interview yesterday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week:

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.

Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I— On full disclosure, I haven't read it and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.

Fox doesn't "think that's true," although he hasn't read the language of the amendment?  Fox was apparently on the t.v. show Spin City too long.  He's been spun.

And yes he has put himself up for it distinctly.  When he stated in his McCaskill ad, "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope," he was speaking about Talent's opposition to human cloning, whether he understood what he was saying or not.

With all these famous people entering into the embryonic stem cell debate, I thought it only fitting that Jesse Jackson insert himself into the melee. Here is a quote from an essay he wrote several years ago:

Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join and drop into the fallopian tube and the pulsation of life take place. From that point, life may be described differently (as an egg, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult), but the essence is the same. The name has changed but the game remains the same.

Michael J. Fox states in his McKaskill for Missouri ad, "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

MSM should ask Fox to explain what that science is, but it won't and he won't.

For the record, it's human cloning.

The following ad is planned to play tonight during the World Series, although there are last minute details still being worked out. It features Jim Caviezel of "The Passion of Christ;" Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, Arizona Cardinals QB Kurt Warner, and Patricia Heaton of "Everybody Loves Raymond."

And no, Caviezel is not saying, "This is Jesus Christ, and I approve this message," at the beginning, as is being nefariously blogged (although that's hilarious). According to the American Papist blog, Caviezel is speaking Aramaic: "L'bar nash b'nashak," which is "The son of man with a kiss." Continues American Papist:

He is quoting the Gospel of Luke (22:48) which reads:

[47] While he [Jesus] was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him; [48] but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?"

By quoting this passage, Caviezal is making the point that just as Judas betrayed Jesus through a symbolic kiss of "friendship," the people of Missouri are being misled from the truth about amendment 2 by the false claim that amendment 2 will save lives (instead of actually harming innocent lives).

On July 19, President Bush signed the "Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006," a law that prohibits growing human embryos in animals or humans for research.

Did you think fetus farming was a figment of someone's imagination? A right-wing scare tactic, perhaps?

No.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's 2005 embryonic stem cell research executive order included "payment" for "transplantation, or implantation of [embryonic] tissue," with no age restriction. It also included "payment" for "cadaveric fetal tissue," or dead fetuses.

In other words, Blagojevich was planning to harvest a new crop in Illinois, fetuses, in uterine farms.

In October 2005, bioethicist Robert George of Princeton noted in The Weekly Standard that his home state of New Jersey had also passed legislation authorizing the harvest of "cadaveric fetal tissue."

"What the bill envisages and promotes, in other words," wrote George, "is fetus farming."

George theorized that because week-old embryos, the age currently being experimented upon, have a propensity to grow into cancerous tumors, researchers were beginning to look toward older preborn babies.

At 8 weeks gestation, basic structures for all body systems are established. All remaining time in the uterus is spent growing and refining tissues and organs.

"Because the developmental process stabilizes cells (which is why we are not all masses of tumors)," wrote George, "it is likely true that stem cells, tissues, and organs harvested from human beings at, say, 16 or 18 weeks or later could be used in the treatment of diseases."

Those plans have now been shot to hell, where they belong, making embryonic stem cell research ever more implausible.

Last year, there were two test bills that outted the IL General Assembly's social uberliberals: the gay special rights bill, which attracted them like pheromones, and the Born Alive bill, which repelled them like, well, dead babies.

This year's test bill is HB4156, the ban on taxpayer funded human cloning.

I spent yesterday in Springfield lobbying for HB4156. We're up to 50 co-sponsors. Only hardcore liberals would oppose such a bill. Between 75-80% of Americans consistently poll against human cloning, never mind having to pay for it, which Blagojevich forced on us with his executive order.

Only one rep yesterday flat-out refused to support HB4156. All others either said yes or that they'd consider it.

The rep was Careen Gordon, and her opposition surprised me.

Right before the 2004 election, Gordon wrote a letter to a constituent stating, "I was born and raised Catholic; as such I respect the rights of the unborn.... I have supported legislation advocated for by the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the National (sic) Federation for the Right to Life and promise to continue supporting legislation that protects the rights of the unborn."

I handed Gordon her letter yesterday and reminded her that both aforementioned groups support HB4156. She still refused to support it.

Perhaps the "rights of the unborn" Gordon planned as a candidate to protect were those of unborn clones.

There's only one problem with that. Researchers create clones in order to dissect and kill them.

The headline was buried in the Jan. 21 NewScience article reporting another potential scandal in the cloning world.

This one involved claims made in 2003 by researcher Hui-Zhen Sheng of China, who reported he had successfully harvested embryonic stem cells from rabbit-human embryos.

Scientists now wary after being duped by fallen clone king Hwang Woo-Suk are sounding the alarm on Sheng, because no one has been able to duplicate his work.

Scientists did not sound the alarm three years ago when Sheng inserted human cells into rabbit eggs. It only matters now whether Sheng lied about the products of that conception.

In other words, the means weren't called into account, just the ends.

ESCR and cloning researchers say they are an ethical bunch. For instance...

Continue reading my column today, "Morally challenged cloning research," on WorldNetDaily.com.

The headline was buried in this NewScience.com article today reporting skepticism on London cloning researcher Chris Shaw's recent claims of success of finding a way around the shortage of human eggs needed for experimentation.

While Shaw's boasts were called into question, his research wasn't, which was to "derive stem cells from embryos cloned using rabbit eggs."

First s/he-males, then Mickey Mouse, and now this, a real-life Bugs Bunny.

Dr. Doolittle once wished he could talk to the animals. Any day now, Dr., don't be surprised to converse with a live, 6-foot rabbit who asks, of course, "What's up, Doc?"

Question: Which type of stem cells do you think is being reported in this January 3 Australian Broadcasting Corporation story?

"These stem cells have the ability to... change as they grow into many different kinds of cells. Already researchers have been able to turn them into cartilage, bone and fat. Now they believe they can make them grow into the kind of tissue found in the brain....

"We think they have the potential to repair damaged muscle, like the heart after a heart attack, perhaps in the brain even after a stroke....

"[M]ore recently we've shown that these cells can also become neurons....

"Just two weeks ago we showed that they can be turned into nerve tissue. They can actually form what look like nerve cells and this, we think, is tremendously exciting for a whole range of neurological or brain diseases.... It's this ability that holds great hope for stroke sufferers....

"[E]extensive research has already been completed to show ___ stem cells can aid bone marrow recovery. Scientists are about to begin trialing these cells on children with leukaemia.... Researchers claim the wider application for those suffering strokes and heart attacks is tremendous."

Answer: Mesemkynal stem cells harvested from placenta and bone marrow.

Meanwhile, reseachers of those other stem cells so full of "hope" and "promise" announced this week they may have finally found a way to grow them without contaminants, never mind develop treatments.

Not only pro-life and pro-fiscally responsible government groups are raising red flags about CA's $3 billion ($6 billion with interest) stem cell initiative.

Read Capitol Weekly News' September 15 piece, "Stem cell research: cutting-edge science or corporate subsidies, courtesy of voters?" (reprinted on page 2).

Also read a very strong editorial in the September 18 Sacramento Bee entitled, "Editorial: Stem cell oversight board is flying blind" (also reprinted on page 2).

Also read what finally got the attention of California Democrat legislators: "Panel wants state to waive stem cell product royalties," published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Capitol Weekly News

September 15, 2005

The organizations created to fund stem cell research in California announced their first grants last week, despite the fact that the money is held up in lawsuits. But are they rushing to further science or escape politics?

Last fall, voters approved a stem cell initiative, Proposition 71, by a 59-41 percent margin. Ten months later, the $3 billion in bonds voters approved are tied up in lawsuits by Republican and anti-abortion groups who oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Yet, in the long-run, the organizations created by Prop. 71--the Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine--may have more to worry about from their original allies. A coalition of Democratic skeptics has put forth a message more likely to gain traction: You can support stem cell research and still oppose the results of Prop. 71.

"The debate was framed as being a referendum on stem cell research and whether you support President Bush," said Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society. "California voters didn’t approve this as a corporate subsidy."

Reynolds’ message has gotten support in the Legislature. After pulling back from a proposed constitutional amendment to place regulatory restrictions on the fledgling stem cell agency, Sen. Deborah Ortiz D-Sacramento, joined with Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, a stem cell research opponent, to push through SB 18. The bill calls for a state audit of stem cell grant funds. It also demands doctor’s to gain consent from women before their eggs
can be used to generate embryonic stem cells.

Despite other failed efforts to place restrictions on the new institute, most of which were blocked by Democratic leadership in the Senate, SB 18 sailed through the Senate 28-0 and Assembly 72-2.

Ortiz spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said that part of the goal is to make sure that the state gains some benefit from the money it spends, either in the form of financial payoff or low-cost treatments for citizens.

"Californians shouldn’t have to pay for this twice," Jordan said. "We’ve had a generous investment in this research. We should be able to see some return on that investment."

Despite the lawsuits and the Legislature’s actions, the ICOC announced its first grants last Friday. Grants worth $12.5 million will go to 169 researchers, mainly at major research universities within California.

"We can stand waiting, or we can get in the starter blocks and let people know we’re ready," said Dr. Zach Hall, speaking at a press conference with ICOC Chairman Robert Klein on Friday. On Saturday, Hall was named president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the ICOC’s partner organization.

Klein was the principal driver of Prop. 71, donating $2 million of his own money to the campaign. He’s often crossed swords with Ortiz, but has maintained support from Senate Democrats who have been reluctant to challenge the new agency.

Prop. 71 could hardly have fallen into a friendlier environment than California in late 2004. President Bush was still considered a pariah by many for his 2001 edict that researchers must stick to "existing stem cell lines." This decision had hamstrung stem cell research in the country and given other countries a major advantage.

Two high profile deaths last year--former President Ronald Reagan of Alzheimer’s in June and actor Christopher Reeve in October of complications from paralysis--further fueled the fire. Reagan’s struggles had turned former first lady Nancy Reagan into an advocate for stem cell research, complicating efforts to portray opposition as the default conservative position. Previously best known for playing Superman in movies, Reeves’ hulking-but-helpless image had become a virtual symbol for stem cell research.

Reynolds said that opponents were outspent $35 million to $200,000 during the election, making it difficult to communicate the complex arguments against Prop. 71.

For instance, he said, one of the most important issues is whether projects are funded with tax-exempt bonds. Funding projects with bonds that are exempt from federal taxes could save the state millions of dollars in the short term. But federal law, known as Bayh-Dole, bars states from gaining a return on investment on project funded this way. The best system, Reynolds said, would be to fund basic research with tax-exempt bonds and later research with taxable bonds, which would allow the state to still hold a stake in the resulting intellectual property.

CIRM and the ICOC have remained officially neutral about legislation and intellectual property issues, according to CIRM spokeswoman Nicole Pagano.

She said the ICOC’s Intellectual Property Task Force is scheduled to have its first official meeting next week.

Organizations that support CIRM and the ICOC, such as the Alliance for Stem Cell Research and the California Council on Science and Technology, have identified the Bayh-Dole model as something California should emulate. This 1980 law codified how the federal government deals with intellectual property issues.

Bayh-Dole is exactly the model his group is trying to avoid, Reynolds countered. He said the law has essentially become a codified system for giving away taxpayer money with little or no return.

Susan DeLaurentis, CEO of the Alliance for Stem Cell Research, a group founded by Klein but not officially connected to ICOC, said opponents are defying voters who have clearly spoken in favor of stem cell research. She said the she’s worried that opposition from Democrats over the intellectual property issue will slow crucial developments.

"The intellectual property problem isn’t going to be an issue for 10 to 14 years," she said, referring to estimates for when stem cell treatments might be commercially available. "There is time to figure this out."

_______________

Sacramento Bee

Published September 18, 2005

Story appeared in Forum section, Page E6

Robert Klein II, the self-appointed czar of California's stem cell institute, has created a completely unworkable system for dispensing $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants.
In fact, it is hard to imagine a system that is more convoluted and opaque than what Klein has created. Its shortcomings were on full display at a Sept. 9 meeting of the institute's oversight board here in Sacramento.

At the meeting, the 29-person board (with a few members absent) labored to decide which universities and research entities should receive the institute's first training grants, totalling about $13 million per year.
During the meeting, the distinguished scientists on the panel resembled ballerinas in Kurt Vonnegut's story, "Harrison Bergeron," who tried to dance with bag weights. The scientists didn't have the information they needed to make knowledgable decisions, and many seemed frustrated because of it.

Here's how the system works:

An applicant - a California researcher or university - applies to the stem cell institute for a grant. That application is reviewed by a working group of out-of-state scientists and eight patient advocates who serve on the institute's oversight board, one of whom is Klein.

The scientists score each proposal on its scientific merit; then the full working group recommends which ones are "highly meritorious," "meritorious" or "not recommended for funding." Those recommendations and a short evaluation of each grant - with the name of the applicant blacked out - are forwarded to the oversight board. Members are then asked to make multimillion-dollar decisions based on a two-page memo.

Why can't the oversight board members see all of the paperwork? If they did, those records would become public documents, open for all to review. Institute President Zach Hall says such transparency might discourage applicants from submitting complete and candid proposals. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. All we know is, for embryonic stem cell research, California's program is the only game in town.

As it is, the current system is grossly unfair. Patient advocates on the board have full knowledge of the applicants and the applications, yet everyone else is wearing blinders. That's why, during the Sept. 9 meeting, board members such as Stanford's Phil Pizzo complained, saying: "We don't have sufficient data....We have to rely on the recommendations of the working group."

You can't say the oversight board wasn't warned. Months ago, institute reformers told the oversight board that its closed-door policies would be self-defeating. "You will be confined to considering what the working groups put on your plate, with little or no sense of how it got there, or what is missing or why," wrote Terry Francke, counsel for the good-government group, Californians Aware.

The institute overseers now have two choices:

1) Become a true decision-making board and insist on all information about grant applications it is judging.

2) Become more like the National Institutes of Health, and delegate the job of awarding grants to an outside panel of scientists. Such scientists, as decision makers, would need to disclose their potential conflicts.

Without changes, the current experiment seems doomed for failure.

_______________

San Francisco Chronicle

August 24, 2005

A panel of university and business experts said Tuesday that California should waive its right to a share of royalties on the stem cell research the state will fund under a $3 billion program passed by voter initiative last year.

Although Proposition 71 allows the state to gain a partial interest in the intellectual property that results from the state-funded research, a committee of the California Council on Science and Technology said the state's financial stake could hinder progress toward stem cell-based therapies. Cutting into potential profits might discourage private investors from putting up the additional funds needed to develop lab discoveries into marketable products, the committee concluded.

The panel's report, though not binding on the institute controlling the stem cell research money, raised protests from taxpayer advocates and state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, one of the Legislature's strongest advocates for a flow of research benefits back to the state.

Ortiz said the proposed policy would violate both the language of Prop. 71 and the promises made to voters who passed it in November. Proponents of the initiative maintained that the $6 billion needed to issue bonds to support the research would generate more than that amount from a combination of royalties, increased biomedical business activity, and disease therapies that would lower state health care costs.

Ortiz, who chairs the subcommittee overseeing the stem cell project, said her fellow legislators are unlikely to support wholesale adoption of the proposed policy. "They take very seriously their obligation to make sure California gets a return on its investment," she said.

The Legislature has no direct control over the research funds, which are entrusted under Prop. 71 to an independent body called the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Critics of the initiative say the governing board is dominated by representatives of research institutions that could benefit from the grants, patient advocacy groups and members of the biomedical industry, with no one to speak directly on behalf of the state's interests.

Although the institute is authorized to negotiate with stem cell grant recipients for a share of patent rights on their inventions, it can forgo those rights. Ortiz has been working on a state constitutional amendment that would require the stem cell institute to guarantee California some payback, like a promise that therapies resulting from the research would be available to low-income state residents at discounted prices.

Her proposals have met with resistance from researchers as well as some stem cell institute members. As the debate raged, both the institute and legislators including Ortiz asked the California Council on Science and Technology to recommend an intellectual property policy for the $3 billion program. The council is a nonprofit organization of state-funded post- secondary institutions, private universities and private sector firms. Their report was financed by the University of California, the University of Southern California, and the California Healthcare Institute, a biomedical trade association.

The panel concluded that the state should follow the lead of the federal government, which for 25 years has handed out research grants from agencies like the National Institutes of Health without retaining a patent stake. Instead, grant recipients such as universities fully control the intellectual property rights, which they can license for fees or a royalty share to private companies. The policy, enacted in part under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, was intended to create financial incentives for speedier commercialization of medical advances.

The same rationale should guide the state, said Stephen Rockwood, the council committee co-chair and executive vice president of Science Applications International Corp. His panel concluded that Prop. 71 campaigners overstated the potential for state revenue from stem cell research royalties. And adding state patent rights to the stack of royalty obligations that might be needed to develop a therapy could deter investors, Rockwood said.

"Let's not be impatient, let's not expect to fill the state's coffers tomorrow," he said. "Let's get the drugs out as fast as we can."

Leaders at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine declined to comment.

But another legislator who invited the council's input said the stem cell institute should not adopt its full recommendations.

"I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on, 'What does the state get out of this deal?'" said Assemblyman Gene Mullin, D-South San Francisco. "You and I are paying $3 billion."

Jerry Flanagan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said that under the council's policy, returns from the cash-strapped state's money would eventually end up in private hands.

"Allowing private companies that receive public grants to own the intellectual property is a violation of the public trust," he said. "Voters were told they would benefit from stem cell research, but if the drug companies own the treatments, it will be the top executives and shareholders that will profit."

From today's News@nature.com:

Embryonic stem cells that are cultured in the lab accumulate an alarming array of genetic changes, including mutations known to be linked to cancer. The finding throws into question whether such cells could eventually be used for therapy, unless they can be kept fresh and checked for mutations before use....

In January, researchers announced that most human embryonic stem-cell lines... have been contaminated by animal cells used as a growth medium in lab dishes. Any cell containing such foreign proteins would presumably trigger a damaging immune response if transplanted into a human patient. Researchers realized they would have to grow their cells differently in order to use them for therapy.

Now another difficulty has come to light. The longer the cells are kept, and the more they divide, the more errors they build up in their genetic code. "These mutations we are finding are a much bigger problem," says Aravinda Chakravarti of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

Chakravarti and his colleagues decided to take a closer look.... Out of nine cell lines, eight developed one or more genetic changes commonly observed in human cancers, the team reports in Nature Genetics.

The finding undermines a general assumption that stem cells remain unblemished until they are programmed to become a certain type of cell. "This is not good news. It suggests that the biological properties of the cells before and after replicating could be different," says Chakravarti....

Today's Daily Illini includes a strong editorial against IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich's recent executive order that circumvented the IL General Assembly, forcing IL taxpayers to fund embyronic stem cell experimentation.

When a polarized issue is brought to the legislative table twice without a conclusion, it's takes some narcissism to make a call like this....

Blagojevich has made a bold decision. But it does not appear that he considered the voice of anyone other than himself in this case. He was elected to make decisions on the behalf of the citizens of Illinois, but he appears to be making decisions based solely upon his beliefs. There is no excuse for circumventing the legislature and deviously allocating money from the budget to further his personal agenda. The issue should have been debated within the legislature and not solely decided by the Governor's views on the topic....

Regardless of what the executive order brings in the future, Blagojevich's dereliction should not be forgiven or forgotten.

Several news organizations, like the Washington Times and CNSNews.com, are reporting on a new stem cell that has been found in placenta.

The new cell is "embryoniclike" in that it is "more versatile than [adult stem cells] while avoiding the ethical dilemmas surrounding [embryonic stem cells], according to CNS.

From today's TimesOnline.com:

Clinics could soon be screening embryos for genes that carry a predisposition to breast cancer and other tumours.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority announced yesterday that it is to consult the public about letting couples choose embryos free from genetic defects. The defects raise the risk of cancer but do not always trigger it....

Angela McNab, the authority’s chief executive, said... "What we are asking people is whether it is appropriate to use embryo screening technology to stop children being born with faulty genes when there is a chance they may never go on to suffer the cancer."

Who decides what is a "defect"?

Hat tip: Reader Laura

Forbes posted an article yesterday, written by Health Day News reporter Steven Reinberg, that stem cells are helping children with the "worst cases of acute lymphoblastic leukemia" better than traditional treatments.

This is great news. But Reinberg neglected to report the most important component of his story. This is that the stem cells in discussion were ADULT stem cells.

Given that the hot topic of the day is embryonic vs. adult stem cell research, omission of this fact can only be seen as purposeful, or the author is woefully ignorant of the topic.

Reinberg used the the terms "stem cells," "stem cell transplant," and "stem cell transplantation" nine times (including the story title), with no mention of their origin. The only reference is the term "related donor hemopoietic-cell transplantation" in the article, which would provide no clue to the nonmedically educated reader that this is bone marrow - aka adult stem cells - from a child's relative.

Because of what was left out of the story, and the word obfuscation that was not clarified, I must conclude the author purposefully intended to confuse the topic of stem cells in readers' minds.

This is why people polled on the topic of stem cell research think ESCR is a good thing. They don't understand the difference, nor do the mainstream press or liberals want them to understand.

From Citizen Link update:

Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is devoting a special edition of his Friday radio broadcast to answer liberal critics who have lambasted him for his opposition to science that relies on the destruction of human life. [See Jill's blog entry yesterday.]

"If any apologies are due," she explained, "it's the advocates of destructive research using embryonic humans who should be apologizing to their fellow members of the human family. It is never morally or ethically acceptable to intentionally destroy one human in the hopes of saving another — regardless of the age and location of the human to be sacrificed for research."

To listen to the show on the Internet, go here.

See action info on page 2....

Action opportunities from Citizen Link:

If you'd like to let Foxman and DeGette — as well as Michael Huttner, executive director of a Colorado group called ProgressNow.org — know what you think of their efforts to smear Dr. Dobson, you can send one e-mail message to all three by visiting the CitizenLink Action Center.

You also can call each of them via telephone at the numbers below:

• ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, 212-885-7707
• Rep. Diana DeGette, 202-225-4431
• ProgressNow.org Executive Director Michael Huttner, 303-931-4547

To learn more about stem-cell research and what's really at stake, we recommend the following articles:

• "What the Media Won't Tell You About Stem Cell Research"

• "Adult Stem Cells: It's Not Pie-in-the-Sky"

Entire press release excerpted on page 1:

August 4, 2005

by Pete Winn, associate editor

Focus on the Family Action chairman will address politically motivated attacks over his stand against destructive embryonic stem-cell research in Friday broadcast.

Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is devoting a special edition of his Friday radio broadcast to answer liberal critics who have lambasted him for his opposition to science that relies on the destruction of human life.

Dobson was assailed today for comments he made on his broadcast earlier this week comparing destructive embryonic stem-cell research to Nazi "science."

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo, co-sponsor of a bill to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, issued a statement condemning Dobson, while Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman sent a letter calling on Dobson to apologize and "immediately repudiate" his remarks.

"While reasonable, decent people may legitimately differ in their views of embryonic stem-cell research," Foxman said, "it is a gross distortion — and an offensive misuse of the Holocaust — to compare stem-cell research to hideous barbarities of Nazi pseudoscience."

Dobson countered that his statement was being "spun like a top by those who don't care about unborn life."

He said the original comment —"Experimentation on the blastocytes, which are fertilized eggs, has a Nazi-esque aura to it" — was being taken out of context by those who support embryonic stem-cell research.

"What part of 'We condemn what the Nazis did and it was horrible' . . . don't they get?" Dobson asked. "The truth is these are ultraliberals who want the legal approval — and the federal money to experiment on unborn life — and don't care a whit about unborn life at any age."

In a statement, Focus on the Family Action Senior Bioethics Analyst Carrie Gordon Earll — who will appear on Friday's broadcast with Dobson — said the analogy comparing the Nazi human experiments conducted during WWII and today's embryonic stem-cell research is "historically and ethically accurate and appropriate."

"If any apologies are due," she explained, "it's the advocates of destructive research using embryonic humans who should be apologizing to their fellow members of the human family. It is never morally or ethically acceptable to intentionally destroy one human in the hopes of saving another — regardless of the age and location of the human to be sacrificed for research.

On yesterday's Focus on the Family radio show, host Dr. James Dobson correctly compared embryonic stem cell experimentation with Nazi experiments conducted on live human patients during and prior to the Holocaust, and Nazi doctors with proponents of ESCR. Nazis also suggested that their experimentation would result in discoveries that "benefitted mankind."

Said Dobson:

You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things.

That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

Dobson takes up the topic on his show again today.

Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:

...The dirty little secret here, folks, if I may be so bold, is that the advocates of stem cell research are on the same side of the page as the pro-abortion crowd. Stem cell research is not... about stem cell research, it's about making sure that abortion keeps happening. Because if you can get people to go along with destroying perfectly fine embryos, the only way you can do that is to abort a fetus, by the way, then you can prolong abortion.

The left knows it's losing when it comes to the moral and ethical questions involving abortion. They're losing ground, they're losing public support on this, and that's why the Supreme Court nomination is so crucial to them, or all of them will be, and so stem cell research is taking over as the lead item while the hidden agenda is pro-abortion. It's just that simple....

More germane quotes on page 2

The left in this abortion business, when I tell you that that's the sacrament to their religion of liberalism, you've got to understand it's their communion. It's everything, and you cannot touch it, and nobody is going to stop it. Whatever they can find to legitimize it and what better way than to come off with the stem cell research business oriented toward saving lives as their means of actually promoting abortion. Make no mistake that's what this is about....

I'm just appalled that so many people apparently have fallen for this. We just have countless abortions to save lives. It's such a great gimmick, and it's a little bit disheartening to me that this has worked on so many people, but the reason it does is because a lot of families have a personal connection to this and would do anything to help a family member, and if they think it's harmless, as they've been led to believe, and if they think nothing is going to happen if there's no harm whatsoever to this embryo because the embryo is useless anyway blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you can't blame them for being hoodwinked on it but hoodwinked is what they've become. Tim in Columbus. And, by the way, the proof of this, John Edwards out there, this was just catastrophic what he said. It was outrageous to say that if John Kerry is president that Christopher Reeve would be walking soon or would have been walking. That is absurd, but that is typical of the kind of sales technique that has been used on this ever since this issue got legs, so to speak.

I received the following informative note from reader Petrina:

As a Type I diabetic for 43+ years since age 9, I applaud your article
about the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. I want a cure for diabetes, but not one derived from embryonic stem cells. Last year, the JDRF raised $85 million and spent $1 million in California lobbying for embryonic stem cell research (not exactly what people expected, I'm sure, when they gave their dollars for research to find a cure for diabetes!).

If we can cure diabetes in a morally acceptable way, we can put the JDRF out of business, which is not what they want.

Mr. Iacocca was on ABC's This Week yesterday discussing his involvement with diabetes stem cell research.

What do you think of US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's July 29 public statement in support of embryonic stem cell research in light of the fact he considers himself pro-life?

I am disappointed in Senator Bill Frist, to say the least. His announced position in favor of embryonic stem cell research today is not only unethical but nonsensical:

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. And it's biologically human. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

In the first paragraph, Sen. Frist negated his statements supporting the sanctity of life with his "but." (Definition of "but": "On the contrary; on the other hand; only; yet; still; however; nevertheless; more; further; -- as connective of sentences or clauses of a sentence, in a sense more or less exceptive or adversative")

Sen. Frist is saying faith and science are at opposite ethical ends on the topic of embryonic stem cell experimentation, and he has chosen science.

Sen. Frist rationalized his choice in the second paragraph by saying embryos should be killed "with utmost dignity and respect."

And frankly, Frist's third paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

The entire text of Sen. Frist's speech is on page 2.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 29, 2005 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

FRIST COMMENTS ON STEM CELL RESEARCH

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today gave the following speech on the Senate floor:

Since 2001 when stem cell research first captured our nation’s attention, I’ve said many times the issue will have to be reviewed on an ongoing basis -- and not just because the science holds tremendous promise, or because it’s developing with breathtaking speed. Indeed, stem cell research presents the first major moral and ethical challenge to biomedical research in the 21st century.

In this age of unprecedented discovery, challenges that arise from the nexus of advancing science and ethical considerations will come with increasing frequency. How can they not? Every day we unlock more of the mysteries of human life and more ways to promote and enhance our health. This compels profound questions -- moral questions that we understandably struggle with both as individuals and as a body politic.

How we answer these questions today -- and whether, in the end, we get them right -- impacts the promise not only of current research, but of future research, as well. It will define us as a civilized and ethical society forever in the eyes of history. We are, after all, laying the foundation of an age in human history that will touch our individual lives far more intimately than the Information Age and even the Industrial Age before it.

Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field of heart transplantation and at the same time address moral concerns introduced by new science, we had to ask the question: How do we define “death?” With time, careful thought, and a lot of courage from people who believed in the promise of transplant medicine, but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question, allowed the science to advance, and have since saved tens of thousands of lives.

So when I remove the human heart from someone who is brain dead, and I place it in the chest of someone whose heart is failing to give them new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity of life and respect for the individual.

Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the opportunity to save many lives and make countless other lives more fulfilling. That’s why we must get our stem cell policy right -- scientifically and ethically. And that’s why I stand on the floor of the United States Senate today.

*

Four years ago, I came to this floor and laid out a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within a thorough framework of ethics. I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. They dealt with all types of stem cell research, including adult and embryonic stem cells.

As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds -- while embryonic stem cell research is. Right now, to derive embryonic stem cells, an embryo -- which many, including myself, consider nascent human life -- must be destroyed. But I also strongly believe -- as do countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors -- that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.

I’ll come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today -- as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy -- that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.

Let me read to you my 5th principle as I presented it on this floor four years ago:

No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7847).

I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that consent should be granted under a careful and thorough federal regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds within accepted ethical bounds.

My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined in 2001 (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851) are as follows:

1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research;

2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation;

3. Ban Human Cloning;

4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding;

5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded;

6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process;

7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines;

8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System;

9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical Review;

10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research Restrictions.

That is what I said four years ago, and that is what I believe today. After all, principles are meant to stand the test of time -- even when applied to a field changing as rapidly as stem cell research.

*

I’m a physician. My profession is healing. I’ve devoted my life to attending to the needs of the sick and suffering and to promoting health and well being. For the past several years, I’ve temporarily set aside the profession of medicine to participate in public policy with a continued commitment to heal.

In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 2001, great promise to heal. Whether it’s diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer.

Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical science. These special properties explain why scientists and physicians feel so strongly about support of embryonic as well as adult stem cell research.

Unlike other stem cells, embryonic stem cells are “pluripotent.” That means they have the capacity to become any type of tissue in the human body. Moreover, they are capable of renewing themselves and replicating themselves over and over again -- indefinitely.

Adult stem cells meet certain medical needs. But embryonic stem cells -- because of these unique characteristics -- meet other medical needs that simply cannot be met today by adult stem cells. They especially offer hope for treating a range of diseases that require tissue to regenerate or restore function.

*

On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life.

But this policy restricted embryonic stem cell funding only to those cell lines that had been derived from embryos before the date of his announcement. In my policy I, too, proposed restricting number of cell lines, but I did not propose a specific cutoff date. Over time, with a limited number of cell lines, would we be able to realize the full promise of embryonic stem cell research?

When the President announced his policy, it was widely believed that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for federal funding. That has proven not to be the case. Today only 22 lines are eligible. Moreover, those lines unexpectedly after several generations are starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially thought (they are acquiring and losing chromosomes, losing the normal karyotype, and potentially losing growth control). They also were grown on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since, will likely limit their future potential for clinical therapy in humans (e.g., potential of viral contamination).

While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding (and thus NIH oversight) and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds.

*

During the past several weeks, I’ve made considerable effort to bring the debate on stem cell research to the Senate floor, in a way that provided colleagues with an opportunity to express their views on this issue and vote on proposals that reflected those views. While we have not yet reached consensus on how to proceed, the Senate will likely consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House in May by a vote of 238 to 194, at some point this Congress. This bill would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research for cells derived from human embryos that:

1. are created for the purpose of fertility treatments;

2. are no longer needed by those who received the treatments;

3. would otherwise be discarded and destroyed;

4. are donated for research with the written, informed consent of those who received the fertility treatments, but do not receive financial or other incentives for their donations.

The bill, as written, has significant shortcomings, which I believe must be addressed.

First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. One example we should look to is the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) that oversees DNA research. The RAC was established 25 years ago in response to public concerns about the safety of manipulation of genetic material through recombinant DNA techniques. Compliance with the guidelines (developed and reviewed by this oversight board of scientists, ethicists, and public representatives) is mandatory for investigators receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA.

Because most embryonic stem cell research today is being performed by the private sector (without NIH federal funding), there is today a lack of ethical and scientific oversight that routinely accompanies NIH-(federal) funded research.

Second, the bill doesn’t prohibit financial or other incentives between scientists and fertility clinics. Could such incentives, in the end, influence the decisions of parents seeking fertility treatments? This bill could seriously undermine the sanctity of the informed consent process.

Third, the bill doesn’t specify whether the patients or clinic staff or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be implanted or will be discarded. Obviously, any decision about the destiny of an embryo must clearly and ultimately rest with the parents.

These shortcomings merit a thoughtful and thorough rewrite of the bill. But as insufficient as the bill is, it is fundamentally consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

*

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

*

Congress must have the ability to fully exercise its oversight authority on an ongoing basis. And policymakers, I believe, have a responsibility to re-examine stem cell research policy in the future and, if necessary, make adjustments.

This is essential, in no small part, because of promising research not even imagined four years ago. Exciting techniques are now emerging that may make it unnecessary to destroy embryos (even those that will be discarded anyway) to obtain cells with the same unique “pluripotential” properties as embryonic stem cells.

For example, an adult stem cell could be “reprogrammed” back to an earlier embryonic stage. This, in particular, may prove to be the best way, both scientifically and ethically, to overcome rejection and other barriers to effective stem cell therapies. To me -- and I would hope to every member of this body -- that’s research worth supporting. Shouldn’t we want to discover therapies and cures -- given a choice -- through the most ethical and moral means?

So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly support newer, alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem cells -- whether they’re true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that have all of the unique properties of embryonic stem cells.

With more federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though still preliminary today, may offer huge scientific and clinical pay-offs. And just as important, they may bridge moral and ethical differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research because they totally avoid destruction of any human embryos.

These alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells include:

1. Extraction from embryos that are no longer living;

2. Non-lethal and non-harmful extraction from embryos;

3. Extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like;

4. Reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines.

*

Now, to date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. For example, the multi-organ and multi-tissue transplant center that I founded and directed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performed scores of life-saving bone marrow transplants every year to treat fatal cancers with adult stem cells.

And stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating leukemia, myeloproliferative disorders and congenital immune system disorders. Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become neural cells, which could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.

Thus, we should also strongly support increased funding for adult stem cell research. I’m a cosponsor of a bill that will make it much easier for patients to receive cord blood cell treatments.

*

Adult stem cells are powerful. They’ve effectively treated many diseases and are theoretically promising for others. But embryonic stem cells -- because they can become almost any human tissue (“pluripotent”) and renew and replicate themselves infinitely -- are uniquely necessary for potentially treating other diseases.

No doubt, the ethical questions over embryonic stem cell research are profound. They’re challenging. They merit serious debate. And not just on the Senate floor, but across America -- at our dining room tables, in our community centers, on our town squares.

We simply cannot flinch from the need to talk with each other, again and again, as biomedical progress unfolds and breakthroughs are made in the coming years and generations. The promise of the Biomedical Age is too profound for us to fail.

*

That’s why I believe it’s only fair, on an issue of such magnitude, that senators be given the respect and courtesy of having their ideas in this arena considered separately and cleanly, instead of in a whirl of amendments and complicated parliamentary maneuvers. I’ve been working to bring this about for the last few months. I’ll continue to do so.

And when we are able to bring this to the floor, we will certainly have a serious and thoughtful debate in the Senate. There are many conflicting points of view. And I recognize these differing views more than ever in my service as majority leader: I’ve had so many individual and private conversations with my colleagues that reflect the diversity and complexity of thought on this issue.

So how do we reconcile these differing views? As individuals, each of us holds views shaped by factors of intellect, of emotion, of spirit. If your daughter has diabetes, if your father has Parkinson’s, if your sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in those magnificent cells, recently discovered, that today originate only in an embryo.

As a physician, one should give hope -- but never false hope. Policy makers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to those suffering from disease. And we must be careful to always stay within clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines -- the soul of our civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it.

Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream. But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It’s time for a modified policy -- the right policy for this moment in time.

-30-

Although MSM has reported for months that passage of a federally-funded embryonic stem cell bill by the US Senate is a done deal, Reuters is now reporting otherwise. Specifically note the last paragraph, which gives a helpful hint in stopping this sort of legislation in the states:

Despite a veto threat by President Bush, the embryonic stem cell bill cleared the House in May with a surprisingly broad bipartisan margin. Backers believed they had momentum in the Senate and a vote was tentatively set for this month.

But now bill sponsors say there is only the slimmest of chances that the Senate can take up the bill before breaking for its August recess.

It bogged down in a procedural morass involving a half-dozen other stem cell and cloning bills -- some written with the apparent aim of peeling away support from the House-passed legislation.

But it will be back, so remain vigilant.

As an aside, this article includes a few common mistruths. One and two are:

Bush in August 2001 allowed research on a limited number of existing stem cell lines, most of which proved unsuitable and all of which turned out to be contaminated with mouse cells. But he has opposed further research on ethical grounds.

This paragraph infers that President Bush banned new embryonic stem cell research in 2001, which he did not. He only banned federal funding. Private investors are perfectly free to finance ESCR.

Also, all embryonic stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse cells, one of its unreported problems.

A third fallacy:

There are currently about 400,000 leftover embryos.

Rand Research reported that only 2.8 percent - or 11,000 - embryos are available for donation nationwide.

An editorial in today's Chicago Tribune entitled, "$10 million photo op," says Blagojevich's actions Tuesday were "incredibly devious, and they give legislators ample new reason not to trust anything he says or does."

The people, too.

A Daily Herald editorial today entitled, "Wrong way to start stem cell research," says, in part:

[R]esentment is certainly reinforced by this regrettable comment from the governor found in an Associated Press story:

"Anytime you do what is morally right... however you get there is immaterial."

So the governor has anointed himself king. And what he has deemed to be morally right, the morally wrong shall abide by via his order. If you oppose stem cell research, because of religious beliefs, or because you think it takes life, or because you are not sure embryo cells are that much superior to umbilical cord cells in doing stem cell research, or that this might be going down a slippery slope, you're irrelevant.

One positive that has come from all this is the press is verbalizing our points.

There is ongoing debate, of which I am a part, on IL House Minority Leader Tom Cross's blog re: his part in Gov. Blagojevich's underhanded $10 mil executive order forcing IL taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell experimentation/human cloning.

Although I differ with Rep. Cross on his part in the deal, I respect his willingness to allow open debate on his forum.

There's also quite a bit of chatter on Rich Miller's blog about this topic.

In his blog today, Jeff Berkowitz counts the number of times the media skipped over the word "embryonic" when reporting Blagojevich's $10 mil embryonic (and human cloning) stem cell experimentation executive order.

The Cook Co. GOP issued a press release less than an hour ago condemning Gov. Blagojevich for his underhanded $10 millions executive order yesterday authorizing ESCR/human cloning.

Most noteworthy is the point that they not only are taking on Gov. Blagojevich by this release, but also one of the men standing behind Blagojevich at yesterday's press conference - House Minority Leader Tom Cross.

Cross denies he knew anything about this. I find that just about impossible to believe.

Read press release on page 2.

Press Release

Cook County GOP Condemns Gov. Blagojevich's Shameless Act of Arrogance on Stem Cell Research

CHICAGO, IL, July 13, 2005 - Governor Rod Blagojevich showed his utter contempt for the democratic process, the constitutional role of the General Assembly and will of the people of Illinois yesterday when he signed an executive order committing $10 million of taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research.

"The Governor's actions yesterday were not only morally questionable, they made a mockery of the citizens of Illinois and their elected representatives in the General Assembly," stated Cook County Republican Party Communications Director Eric Kohn. "I'm sure Governor Blagojevich must be disappointed in his inability to convince a General Assembly controlled by his own Party to pass a stem cell research bill, but that doesn't justify throwing the democratic process out the window."

Several stem cell research bills, including a $100 million proposal introduced by Comptroller Dan Hynes, stalled in the Illinois General Assembly last year. Frustrated by lack of progress, Governor Blagojevich turned to the power of executive order to impose his embryonic stem cell research plan.

"This is an abuse of power by the Governor," noted Cook County Republican Party Chairman Gary J. Skoien. "But sadly, these abuses of power and complete disregard for the people of Illinois are what we've come to expect from Rod Blagojevich."

In defense of his questionable approach, Governor Blagojevich explained that "it's the right thing to do, and however you get there immaterial."

"More dangerous words were never spoken. Our democratic form of government was created to take authoritarian power like this out of the hands of rulers," declared Kohn. "That Rod Blagojevich has the gall to take the power to decide such a controversial issue out of the hands of the elected legislature is a new breed of arrogance."

"Embryonic stem cell research is not a public policy disagreement on how to fill a pothole. This is an issue viewed by many as the senseless slaughter of human life. For the Governor to feel he holds all the answers to the universe and questions passionately debated for decades is a brand of arrogance that is simply disturbing," opined Kohn.

"The bottom line is Governor Blagojevich has clearly shown the citizens of Illinois that he could care less what they and the representatives they've elected to speak for them think about an issue of life and death," concluded Kohn. "Come November of next year, he's going to be held accountable."

Rich Miller graciously gave permission to post this snippet from his subscriber-only daily fax of his thoughts re: the Blagojevich stem cell executive order yesterday:

Technically, the pro-life members can say that the money had no stated purpose until the governor issued his executive order to spend it. But this was undoubtedly a secret deal cut by three Dem leaders and, perhaps, one GOP leader and, as a result, has to be the most well-hidden appropriation we've seen in a long time. If I were one of those aforementioned Dems, I wouldn't be very happy.

(You can subscribe to Miller's Capitol Fax on his blog.)

Miller is right. Both House and Senate members voting for the budget can be nailed as voting to fund ESCR/cloning by both constituents and opponents.

Apparently leadership began talking about this in April.

For pro-life Democrats to say they didn't know about this is an unacceptable excuse. They have empowered their leaders, who should not let them vote for something they didn't know about, particularly if it is concerning an issue that is so extremely close to the heart, like the pro-life issue. It is unconscionable to trick political colleagues who are supposedly on the same team to vote for something they are deeply, ethically opposed to.

Blagojevich's press release stated:

Illinois joins New Jersey, California and Connecticut in providing funding for stem cell research.

What did NJ, CA, and CN do that IL didn't? They went through the legislative process, which Blagojevich impeded. Is that ok with you liberals? As long as you get your way, damn the elected representatives of the people, damn the people?

Blagojevich's press release also stated:

"Since the federal government has chosen to stall the medical advancements that will come with stem cell research, it is up to the states to take action," said Gov. Blagojevich. "We cannot allow our citizens to suffer when relief may be available."

"The federal government's inaction presented two options for Illinois," said Hynes. "We could either refuse to acknowledge the inevitability and worth of scientific progress, or we could embrace and find a means to harness it for the betterment of our citizens. We could be timid and reactionary, or bold and visionary. We chose to be bold."

Blagojevich is blaming the federal government for IL's "inaction" on embryonic stem cell experimentation/human cloning? He says "it is up to the states"? Isn't IL's legislature controlled by Democrats?

Rather, Blagojevich thwarted our state's political process in a tyrannical move. Of all people who should be insulted, it should be Democrat legislators who have been deceived and insulted by Blagojevich's power play.

It's interesting that my two favorite IL liberal bloggers - Miller and Zorn - had nothing to say today about Gov. Blagojevich's $10 mil executive order authorizing taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell experimentation and human cloning.

Perhaps they thought it was no biggie.

Or perhaps, caught between their anti-life position and Blagojevich's tyranny, they decided not to say anything at all.

I certainly have a lot to say. First, a specific, and then on to politics.

On specifics, Blagojevich is a lying liar. His press release stated (and he also verbalized at the press conference), "The Executive Order also mandates that no funding will be authorized for research involving human cloning."

That statement is so false (or to give benefit of doubt, utterly and incredibly ignorant) that I can hardly sit still. And this is a critical point, because most Americans are against human cloning. The executive order states, "The [IL Regenerative Medicine Institute] program shall provide funding for... somatic cell nuclear transfer," which is indeed human cloning. Look it up on google, Eric. Is this ok with you?

On to politics.

Blagojevich, and surely Madigan, Cross, Jones, and Schoenberg were all in on the intent of the generic $10 mil budget line-item that was tossed in the trough with other fine pork right before the budget deadline. That's why Cross, Schoenberg, and Hynes stopped fighting for their precious ESCR/cloning bill toward the end of session or any evil strain thereof.

The line-item is an appropriation "for grants and related expenses of hospitals and universities for scientific research."

Blago et al hoodwinked their own fellow Democrats, many of whom are pro-life and would never have voted for ESCR/cloning had they known. Instead, all Dem senators are now on record as voting to publicly fund ESCR/cloning, and I fully expect this will be used against them.

When will downstate Dems wise up (or grow cahones) and revolt against Chicago Dems? Once again liberal Dems are forcing their ideology on conservative Dems. What good is it being a conservative Democrat, I want to know.

Tom Cross? He was easy to spot at the press conference, standing on the podium brushing tears from his eyes as he looked at the purposefully placed innocent diabetic children - who had no idea they were being used as part of a huge political scam.

I can only pity Rep. Cross for having been hoodwinked himself into believing ESCR/cloning can possibly help his daughter. Rather, it is adult stem cell research that is even today helping diabetics. Cross and other parents of diabetics are actually hurting their children's chances of recovery by diverting money away from research and treatment that is doing something now toward research even defenders admit is "highly speculative" and may never pan out.

Politically, Cross has fallen into the hands of the Democrats and is dividing Republicans.

Enough ranting for now.

I was interviewed this evening by ABC 7 Chicago re: Gov. Blagojevich's $10 mil public funded embryonic stem cell/human cloning executive order today. If I'm on, it'll be on the 10p news. See the ABC site for left-slanted video of Blagojevich's actions today.

What's interesting about this July 3 UPI story, entitled "Stem cell scientists mourn Frist's change," is the first clause in its first sentence:

U.S. stem cell researchers are bracing for renewed debate and hopeful their former advocate, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will rejoin them [emphasis mine].

"Bracing"? "Renewed debate"? Are ESCR enthusiasts feeling the heat from under the magnifying glass of truth?

[Complete article on page 2.]

UPI
Stem cell scientists mourn Frist's change
July 3, 2005

U.S. stem cell researchers are bracing for renewed debate and hopeful their former advocate, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will rejoin them.

In July 2001, Frist, a transplant surgeon, urged his fellow senators to buck conservative orthodoxy and support federally funded research on embryonic stem cells.

However, the next month President George Bush announced a more restrictive policy, limiting federal research to already existing embryonic stem cells, and Frist backed down.

Ever since, Frist has shied away from the issue entirely, the Washington Post said.

"We, as scientists, had great expectations for what he could do," said Mary Hendrix, president and scientific director of the Children's Memorial Research Center at Northwestern University.

She told the newspaper she is puzzled and disappointed by what "appears to be a change in Senator Frist's position," adding "I thought he was a staunch supporter."

Copyright 2005 by United Press International

Excerpt from Michael Hiltzik's column in yesterday's Los Angeles Times:

Skepticism about the potential of stem cell research was wholly absent from the campaign for Proposition 71. As a scientific undertaking, the stem cell program is unique in that its sponsors, the state's voters, committed their money without receiving the slightest bit of professional scientific counsel....

California voters received, instead, a TV campaign promising cures tomorrow for a host of diseases, some of which may never respond to stem cell therapy. The professional cautions are only appearing now, after the money is committed. The shock of discovery that "tomorrow" may be 20 or 30 years away (or may never come) could be severe....

The cover of the July issue of Good Housekeeping shows former Good Morning America host Joan Lunden showing off her second set of surrogate twins born within two years. At age 54, Lunden was pushing the Brave New World envelope, I thought.

But, instead, pro-lifers should give her kudos. Reported GH....

When Lunden and [husband Jeff] Konigsberg first decided to work with a surrogate, several embryos were created (using Konigsberg's sperm). The embryos that weren't implanted were frozen and placed in storage. But after a while, Lunden says, "the clinic was asking, 'What do you want to do with the stored embryos? Do you want us to keep them frozen or do you want to use them?' Jeff looked at me and said, 'Oh, I think we have another little boy or girl who's very cold right now.' Right then, we decided to do it again."

There is so much to be infuriated about re: yesterday's Associated Press story on the embryo/cloning stem cell conference that opened June 21 in San Francisco. Like men going through mid-life crisis, embryonic stem cell proponents' own own hype has caused panicked insecurity with a public display of impotence and fessing up of the truth. Read for yourself....

SAN FRANCISCO - Despite optimism and enthusiasm, stem cell researchers arriving here Thursday for a conference are rowing hard against strong currents of financial, political and technical turmoil.

There's even talk of trying to temper heightened public expectations that cures for diseases are imminent.

"Many of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet," Celgene Corp. president Alan Lewis said Wednesday at a biotechnology trade show in Philadelphia....

Even the most outspoken proponents of the technology concede they are years away from actual drugs based on stem cells....

Recall my posting yesterday of the investment adviser's caution to let taxpayers shoulder the "highly speculative" embryonic stem cell risk as you continue the AP story:

He also noted that venture capitalists "are very cautious" about investing in stem cell companies because of uncertainty over the field's future....

Because President Bush has strictly limited the amount of federal funding for the work, scientists are left to rely on support from a few philanthropic groups and one corporate backer: Geron Corp., the money-losing Menlo Park, Calif., biotechnology company that has poured $100 million into human embryonic stem cell research since 1996 – about twice the amount the U.S. government has committed.

Geron is by far the largest company in the field, and it lost about $80 million last year. Other stem cell companies are struggling to stay afloat.

Advanced Cell Technology, a Worcester, Mass., firm has run into big financial problems. It also can't obtain a steady supply of women's eggs, a necessity and a giant ethical minefield.

This is causing...

... a growing number of liberal groups, such as women's rights organizations and biotechnology foes oppose the work as dehumanizing...

because...

... the egg supply has become a crucial sticking point for cloning supporters, which include California's new $3 billion stem cell agency – the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

Also recall when I said cloning is an indispensable component of embryonic stem cell experimentation as the story continues:

Agency President Zach Hall and other scientists say that cloning human embryos to harvest stem cells will be an indispensable way to make tailor-made drugs and develop powerful research tools.

Spread this article far and wide.

Yesterday, The Motley Fool reported:

... But when it comes to [private] investing, it's best to view the subject [of embryonic stem cell research] with as much detachment as possible....

Sure, federal support may increase the chances that embryonic stem cells will yield novel treatments. But the path to success is still likely to be peppered with setbacks and failures over a period of years and at a cost of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Federal investment is not a magic wand that will produce cures overnight.

Further, even if national legislation does fail, as seems likely, public investment in embryonic stem cell research will increase substantially anyway. California voters approved a referendum that will allocate $3 billion in state funding over 10 years to the field, and New Jersey is considering spending hundreds of millions on stem cell research and a research center at Rutgers University.

Despite the promise suggested by early studies, embryonic stem cell research remains highly speculative. More concrete results, not the amount of cash being poured into research, are the best basis for investing decisions.

Stem cells are the future of medicine, so private investers will indeed sink money into stem cell research they believe will pay off. Witness a report in the June 27 issue of Business Week :

Doctors, patients, and quite a few investors are counting on ViaCell to unlock the therapeutic promise of umbilical cord stem cells. These have been used, on a small scale, to treat more than 30 different diseases. Now ViaCell would like to make such cells available on a much larger scale. Backed by a $20 million partnership with biotech giant Amgen Inc., it has launched clinical trials to test whether doctors could use its specially-prepared cells in transplant procedures, instead of bone marrow. And a big boost could come from Washington, which is weighing laws to fund a national storage system for cord blood, currently in short supply.

What? You hadn't heard about a federal funding proposal that would aid umbilical cord stem cell research? All you've heard is that evil extremists are basically sentencing diabetic children and Michael Fox to death by banning embryonic stem cell research? Read on:

On May 24, the House of Representatives passed a bill that proposes a federally funded system for storing umbilical cord blood. The bill got little attention because on the same day, the House also passed legislation that aims to free up federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research -- touching off a storm of controversy and a veto threat from President Bush. Amid the din, [ViaCell CEO Marc] Beer was quietly cheering the umbilical cord bill. "It's a great validation," the CEO says. "It's a shame no one heard about it." If positive news on cord stem cells continues, doctors, patients, and investors will be all ears.

... although I expect MSM will cover theirs.

Hat tip: Reader MQuinn

From today's Electric New Paper, Singapore:

Australian movie stars, sportsmen and entrepreneurs alike are shelling out A$40,000 ($52,000) a pop for stem-cell treatment in China.

The controversial process is illegal Down Under, so they are queuing up for this 'fountain-of-youth' treatment overseas....

The radical procedure that uses fertilised eggs harvested from genetically-perfect female Chinese donors is said to wind back the clock on a range of diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis and chronic fatigue [emphasis mine].

How quickly the embryonic stem cell industry is morphing women into human hens. Where are the feminists?

Ohio's Advertiser-Tribune.com editorial board draws stem cell ethics into its well-written opposition of public-funded ESCR today. Read the entirety for yourself, but here's the open and close:

Politicians often prefer to delve into an issue that pulls heartstrings rather than engage in the often harder, much less glamorous work of doing things like building fiscally responsible budgets. So now we have congressional Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that voters put them in the majority to get busy on issues such as tax and entitlement reform, wandering into a needless confrontation with their own president over federal subsidies for morally perilous stem cell research.

A casual observer could be forgiven for believing that the future of such research hinges on federal funding, or for believing that the debate is between "scientific progress" and flat-earthers. For that is how the issue is cast by the Beltway media hoard. The stem cell research lobby is more than happy to capitalize on well-intentioned emotional pleas for research funding, for the focus on the emotive handily distracts from what is really a classic effort to extract subsidies from taxpayers for things the private sector can do itself. It would be wrong to ignore the moral peril involved in stem-cell research....

Meanwhile, private industry, which stands to reap huge financial rewards if stem cell research results in the development of new treatments for particularly dreaded diseases, has invested millions in research and is doing just fine without help from the government. That research will continue, with or without the fat subsidies proposed on Capitol Hill.

From DC source:

A short while ago Dr. Weldon offered an amendment to cut off National Institutes of Health funds to any entity involved in human cloning, and the amendment failed by a vote of 29-36.

If the researchers who are tirelessly working in the US right now to clone humans are somehow successful in the next few months or year, these are the names you need to remember. Those who voted against the Weldon Amendment are responsible.

Dr. Weldon and his staff are heroes for leading the charge. They have been working tirelessly for weeks on this and have endured incredible attacks and pressure. Even with all the attacks and threats of future penalties, Dr. Weldon was willing to do this for the cause, and for that he deserves a huge amount of credit. Reps. Wicker and Wamp also gave outstanding speeches in favor of the Weldon Amendment.

Votes follow....

36 voted for human cloning - the creation of human embryos for research - (against the Weldon Amendment):

Jerry Lewis, CA (R - Chairman) (worked very hard against the Weldon Amendment)

Ralph Regula, OH (R - Vice Chair) (worked very hard against the Weldon Amendment)

Jim Kolbe, AZ (R)

James Walsh, NY (R)

David L. Hobson, OH (R)

Joe Knollenberg, MI (R)

Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, NJ (R)

Kay Granger, TX (R)

John Sweeney, NY (R)

Mark Steven Kirk, IL (R)

David R. Obey, WI (D - Ranking Member)

John P. Murtha, PA (D) (spoke against the Weldon Amendment)

Norman D. Dicks, WA (D)

Martin Olav Sabo, MN (D)

Steny H. Hoyer, MD (D)

Marcy Kaptur, OH (D)

Peter J. Visclosky, IN (D)

Nita M. Lowey, NY (D)

Jose E. Serrano, NY (D)

James P. Moran, VA (D)

Rosa L. DeLauro, CT (D)

Ed Pastor, AZ (D)

David E. Price, NC (D)

Chet Edwards, TX (D)

Patrick J. Kennedy, RI (D)

James E. Clyburn, SC (D)

Maurice D. Hinchey, NY (D)

Allen Boyd, FL (D)

Lucille Roybal-Allard, CA (D)

Sam Farr, CA (D)

Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., IL (D)

Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, MI (D)

Chaka Fattah, PA (D)

Steven R. Rothman, NJ (D)

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., GA (D)

John W. Olver, MA (D)

-------------------------------------------

29 voted against human cloning (for the Weldon Amendment):

Alan B. Mollohan, WV (D)

Marion Berry, AR (D)

Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., AL (D)

Harold Rogers, KY (R)

Frank R. Wolf, VA (R)

Charles H. Taylor, NC (R)

Ernest J. Istook, Jr., OK (R)

Henry Bonilla, TX (R)

Roger F. Wicker, MS (R)

Jo Ann Emerson, MO (R)

Anne Northup, KY (R)

Randy "Duke" Cunningham, CA (R)

Todd Tiahrt, KS (R)

Zach Wamp, TN (R)

Tom Latham, IA (R)

John E. Peterson, PA (R)

Robert Aderholt, AL (R)

Virgil Goode, VA (R)

John Doolittle, CA (R)

Don Sherwood, PA (R)

Dave Weldon, FL (R)

Michael K. Simpson, ID (R)

John Abney Culberson, TX (R)

Ander Crenshaw, FL (R)

Dennis R. Rehberg, MT (R)

John Carter, TX (R)

Rodney Alexander, LA (R)

Jack Kingston, GA (R)

Ray LaHood, IL (R)

---------------------------------------------

1 did not vote

C. W. Bill Young, FL (R) (didn't vote)

By my count, this makes the third lawsuit filed by pro-family groups against the CA embryonic stem cell initiative.

Kaiser Network reported yesterday that the National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children has filed suit against the new law saying it violates an embryo's constitutional rights and freedom from slavery.

Although naysayers indicate the lawsuit has little chance, the Chicken Little San Francisco Examiner warns a successful lawsuit "could end the whole practice of in vitro fertilization because of the liabilities surrounding 'murdering' an embryo or violating its rights," and "granting independent personhood to an embryo could nullify Roe v. Wade.

We can only hope.

Hat tip: IFRL News

Related:
"CA embryonic stem cell initiative: dying in the petri dish," 6-7-05

A Stanford University press release today, advertising an upcoming "first time ever"(!) "advanced"(!) training program on creating and maintaining embryonic stem cell lines, used the seldom used "prospects grim" sales approach:

[I]t isn't as simple as just buying the [embryonic stem] cells and launching a new research program. The cells are in limited supply and are notoriously difficult to maintain in a lab. They can't be frozen easily, they are sickly, they quickly form new cell types rather than remaining as stem cells and the cell population changes over time.

Elsewhere the release calls embryonic cells "persnickety," making them sound like rambunctious little children. Wait, they are.

So what's the obsessive attraction to ESCs? It can only be Stem Cell Delirium in conjunction with Mad Hype Disease.

Great cartoon... "A clump of condor cells"

Hat tip: Jerry

A major anti-life talking point when pitching embryonic stem cell experimentation is the "400,000" extra embryos number, which is misleading, as I have previously written about. In actuality, only about 2.8% of those embryos, or 11,000, are available for experimentation.

An article in today's Detroit Health News lets loose with the truth...

According to a 2003 study by the Rand Corp., patients have designated about 2 percent of the 400,000 embryos in frozen storage for discard, about 2 percent for donation to other couples, about 3 percent for donation to private research and about 88 percent for future "family building" [emphasis mine].

The article also inadvertently draws one to the more appropriate solution regarding extra embryos: Shouldn't we seek to have less of them?

[MSM's pro-embryonic stem cell stories usually contain minimized truths for the beholding eye. "MSM's embronic truths magnified" is an ongoing feature spotlighting those truths.]

The piece, "Bible gets workout in stem-cell debate," in today's Kansas City Star is interesting on its own merits: Christian ESCR proponents try to use the Bible as back-up. (Most galling is a Princeton ethics professor's use Jesus' "least of these" words in Matthew 25 to support ESCR, when actually one can't find less "least of these" than embryos.)

But also note the use of "early" stem cell research in place of "embryonic" stem cell research throughout the piece, authored by the paper's religious columnist, no less.

My column last week was about anti-lifers' attempts to turn our verbiage against so as to put us on the defensive, particularly on the stem cell issue. This letter to the editor in today's Joplin Independent is an example. (It also contains inconsistencies and factual errors that a Show Me State pro-lifer could well take on.)

Daniel McConchie, of Americans United for Life, has written an article for The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity dissecting the ethics of four "imaginative" new ways researchers have proposed to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos, so they say: the Parthenote proposal, the Morula proposal, the Organ Transplant (i.e., "brain dead embryo") proposal, and the Alternate Nuclear Transfer proposal. One other quote of interest....

[Click graphic to enlarge Parthenote creation path. Credit: Redford Stem Cell Research Foundation

[A]ll other objections aside, we do not yet have sufficient knowledge from animal models to justify the pursuit of any embryonic stem cell research in humans. While pursuing in animal studies the knowledgebase that might justify human trials, these methods of obtaining such cells should be used so that we might have as much knowledge as possible for determining potential ethical means of obtaining embryonic stem cells if or when it becomes necessary to do so.

I said yesterday that MSM's pro-embryonic stem cell stories usually contain incredible, minimized truths for the beholding eye. Here are a few in a Houston Chronicle article today, entitled, "South Korean will urge research into customized tissue for patients (bold emphases mine)....

....South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang will tell a gathering of scientists and other advocates of stem-cell research at Baylor College of Medicine how he made nearly a dozen cloned human embryos that are genetic twins of diseased patients.

The achievement brings scientists closer to what many say is the future of medicine, where doctors treat heart patients with customized heart tissue, diabetics with insulin-producing pancreatic tissue and a host of other diseases with genetically tailored spare parts....

Hwang's breakthrough made one thing clearer: Stem-cell science isn't just about deriving utilitarian benefit from leftover embryos discarded by fertility clinics. It's also about creating new embryos whose stem cells have even greater medical potential, known as therapeutic cloning....

Indeed, the summit at Baylor is not so much a science conference as a chance to plot strategy to advance the stem-cell movement's agenda. With the exception of Hwang's session and one other, the themes concern public perception and effective advocacy....

[S]aid Gerald Schatten, a reproductive scientist with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the only U.S. member of Hwang's team, "Imagine what we'll be able to find in the embryonic cell lines of people with diseases [Jill note: i.e., CLONES] we have little understanding of, such as autism"....