|
National Senate Backs Kill Bill
Sen. Casey Votes Pro-Life; Sen. McCain Doesn’t
BY DAVID FREDDOSO REGISTER CORRESPONDENT April 22-28, 2007 Issue |
Posted 4/17/07 at 7:00 AM
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted
April 11 to fund scientific experiments on human embryos currently stored in
in-vitro fertilization clinics.
The embryos would be killed in the
process of doing research on their stem cells — cells that can develop into
most other kinds of human cells — in the hope of someday finding regenerative
cures to debilitating diseases.
Embryology teaches that a human
embryo — from inception to eight weeks — is an individual boy or girl with his
or her own unique DNA and normal life-expectancy.
The Church teaches that “from the
first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the
rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent
being to life” (Catechism 2270).
Congress wants to use tax money
withheld from Americans’ paychecks to pay for the deadly experiments.
The bill, which passed on a 63-34
vote, would reverse President Bush’s policy prohibiting the use of federal
money in research that kills human embryos. Bush reiterated his promise to veto
the bill on April 11: “The advancement of science and medicine need not
conflict with the ethical imperative to protect every human life,” the
president said after the bill’s passage. Bush vetoed a similar bill last year
in what was the first veto of his administration.
The Church states in the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1987 instruction, Donum
Vitae (Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of
Procreation), “Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos,
unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity
of the unborn child and the mother, and on condition that the parents have
given their free and informed consent to the procedure. It follows that all
research, even when limited to the simple observation of the embryo, would
become illicit were it to involve risk to the embryo’s physical integrity or life
by reason of the methods used or the effects induced” (No. 4).
Although the embryonic research bill
passed overwhelmingly, the Senate vote was a small victory for pro-lifers. By
holding on to 34 votes, they guaranteed that the bill is at least one vote shy
of the 67 needed to override a presidential veto. With Sen. Tim Johnson,
D-S.D., hospitalized for months now and unable to participate in votes,
supporters of the embryonic research bill had been expected to fall short
anyway. But because pro-lifers actually found 34 votes, there is a guarantee
that Bush’s veto will be upheld.
Moreover, the House of
Representatives passed a similar bill earlier this year by a vote of 253 to 174
— well short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto.
“I wish we’d won the vote,” said
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who has made cloning and stem-cell research his top
issues during nine years in the U.S. Senate. “I think we won the debate, but
people are pretty much locked into their positions,” he said. “Still, we got to
talk for two days on the Senate floor — in the most prestigious deliberative
body in the world — about the dignity of the human person at all stages of
life. Hopefully we’re making more and more people think again about this
question.”
Stem cells are undifferentiated,
primitive cells in the blood, umbilical cord, placenta and bone marrow that
have the ability both to multiply and to differentiate into specific blood
cells and other cell/tissue types. This ability allows them to replace cells
that have died, and they have been used to replace defective cells and/or
tissues.
Embryonic stem-cell research, which
involves killing a living human being in an attempt to find a cure for
different diseases, has proven not only destructive and costly, but has not
produced a single human cure.
Pope John Paul II said that all
research using stem cells from human embryos is “morally unacceptable.”
In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium
Vitae (The Value and Inviolability of Human Life), John Paul said,
“This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human
embryos and fetuses — sometimes ‘produced’ for this purpose by in vitro
fertilization — either to be used as ‘biological material’ or as providers of
organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases.
“The killing of innocent human
creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely
unacceptable act.”
The Senate vote was the latest round
in the battle over the ethical boundaries of government-funded research.
Supporters of government funds for embryonic-destructive research argue that
the research will bring about miraculous cures and therapies to treat diseases
that are currently untreatable. They view ethical objections to such research
as a mere hindrance to the progress of science
“It is time to take the handcuffs
off our scientists, those who say they will then be able to pursue what all
Americans are hoping for and promising research for so many diseases that
impact so many of our families,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in the Senate
debate. “For too long, this president has allowed politics and ideology to
trump lifesaving research.”
In fact, however, embryonic
stem-cell research is a highly speculative field that attracts very little
private investment because such cures could be decades away.
If therapies using embryonic cells
are someday developed, embryonic stem cells would be obtained through the
cloning of patients. The clones would be killed for their stem cells, which
would in turn be used to treat the patients. The problem is that cloned
stem-cells are extremely unstable and tend to produce malignant tumors in
animal trials. To date, no clinical trials on humans are possible because of
this danger.
Meanwhile, in the less controversial
field of adult stem cell research, new breakthroughs are being achieved
regularly. Because the cells are taken from patients themselves and not clones,
they are usually stable and do not carry the same risk of tumors. They also are
morally acceptable.
Non-embryonic stem-cell therapies
have now been used in human beings to treat 73 different diseases — in fact,
during the Senate debate, one more breakthrough in adult stem-cell treatments
was published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association. A team of American and Brazilian doctors successfully
caused a group of diabetics to begin producing insulin on their own again
through a treatment involving a mild form of chemotherapy and the use of adult
stem cells from their own blood.
“I’ve always thought that as long as
we can maintain the position of not killing more embryos, the research would
continue to favor our position,” Brownback said. “I think that’s already
playing out.”
Casey Votes Pro-Life
Among those voting against the
embryonic research bill were two Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and
freshman Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.
Casey’s late father, as a Democratic
governor of Pennsylvania, was a hero of the pro-life politics that had
dominated the Democratic Party until the 1960s. Many had wondered whether the
young Casey would follow in his footsteps. Casey announced his decision to vote
against the funding bill on the morning of the vote.
His vote is the first answer to
questions about just how pro-life he would be in the U.S. Senate. Those
questions were first raised when he took on and defeated pro-life Sen. Rick
Santorum, R-Pa. in last year’s election.
Casey said in a statement: “As I
said throughout my Senate campaign, I support the current federal policy
funding embryonic stem-cell research. There have been several encouraging
scientific developments that hold promise for the treatment of a number of
diseases and conditions. In particular, advances in amniotic stem-cell and
adult-cell reprogramming research give new hope for scientific breakthroughs.
“In addition, I support increased
funding for research on umbilical cord and placenta stem cells as well as the
possibility of embryonic stem-cell research methods that do not destroy the
embryo. I also support increased funding for basic health research through the National
Institutes of Health.
“I remain opposed to federal funding
for research that involves the destruction of living embryos,” he said. “That
is why I cannot support S.5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
“Over the past several months, I
have met with many people on all sides of this issue,” he continued. “I have
listened carefully, especially to those whose loved ones are suffering from
serious diseases and disabilities and who disagree with my position. I deeply
respect their views and hope they can come to understand mine.”
“He deserves nothing but
praise,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony
List. “Part of the reason the Democrats control the House and Senate this year
is that they moderated, they opened the doors to pro-lifers in their party and
elected pro-life members,” she said. “It’s exciting to see someone as
high-profile as Casey take a brave stance like this.”
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., one of the top three Republican presidential candidates for 2008,
voted in favor of funding embryonic research. Although he had voted for
embryo-destructive research in the past, McCain had led some pro-life leaders
to believe that he might move in their direction as he sought to position
himself for a presidential run.
“I was very disappointed,” said
Dannenfelser. “Sen. McCain gave the pro-life movement great reason for hope
because of a lot of things he was saying along the way.”
Joe Cella, president of the Catholic
activist group Fidelis, said that McCain’s vote was not really a big surprise,
since it reflected his previous position. “Still, I’m really concerned that
this will increase the pro-life divide that exists with Sen. McCain,” he said.
The Senate also easily passed a
bill, 70-28, which allows funding for research into alternative means of
obtaining stem cells “not derived from a human embryo.” The alternative
techniques for obtaining such cells include a controversial theory of how to
create embryo-like entities that cannot develop, and the extraction of stem
cells from dead embryos.
Some pro-lifers, such as American
Life League’s Judie Brown, however, were wary of the bill, the Hope Offered
Through Principles and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act (HOPE). According to the
bill, the term “naturally dead” means having “naturally and irreversibly lost
the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth and differentiation that
is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may
be alive in a disorganized state.”
Brown said the “arbitrary decision
to deem certain embryonic children as ‘naturally dead,’ even though they may be
alive and growing, is extremely dangerous.”
The bill would also allow funds for
research into how adult stem cells can be made to act like embryonic stem cells.
David Freddoso
writes from Washington.
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
Click here to donate
| 
.
