| Article Index |
|---|
| H.R. 3 - Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research |
| Page 2 |
| All Pages |
List of Democrats who opposed Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
| Costello Davis, Lincoln Donnelly Ellsworth Kaptur | Lipinski Marshall McIntyre Mollohan Oberstar | Peterson (MN) Rahall Shuler Stupak Taylor Wilson (OH) |
DFLA Letter opposing H.R. 3
Democrats For Life of America, Inc.
DFLA -The pro-life voice within the Democratic Party
_________________________________________________
January 10, 2007
Dear Representative,
I am writing to express the opposition of Democrats For Life of America to H.R. 3, a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. No hearings have ever been held on this bill in the House.
Particularly in light of the recent discovery regarding the potential of harvesting stem cells in a manner that would not harm human embryos, we urge you to vote no on the measure. As you know, scientists announced this week that amniotic fluid from pregnant women could potentially provide stem cells that could grow into brain, muscle and other tissue—and without harming human embryos. We believe that this type of research as well as forms of adult stem cell research are much more promising than any research that would harm potential human life. From a moral and ethical standpoint, if we can cure diseases without harming human life, we should proceed with that type of research.
Democrats For Life of America does support research on adult stem cells, including those from umbilical cord blood, which has proven time and time again to be effective in curing more than 72 different human diseases and injuries. By contrast, stem cell research that destroys human embryos does not have a single success. In fact the type of embryonic stem cell research being supported by H.R. 3 has been subject to immune rejection and has a strong tendency to form tumors. To date, stem cells from human embryos have not helped a single patient.
As you may recall, the embryonic stem cell research touted by Hwang Woo-suk at Seoul National University was discredited, and Hwang was later dismissed after an investigation in which he admitted that he faked much of the research. At the time, he was the leading researcher in this area.
In the 109th Congress, the Republicans bypassed the Committee process and allowed a vote on similar legislation. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) expressed concerns that, regardless of one’s position on embryonic stem cell research, there were too many unanswered questions and the Committee did not do its job of properly evaluating the legislation before sending it to the floor. This week, a similar bill is being brought to the floor without hearings that would address important medical, legal and ethical concerns. The many questions—that are still unanswered–need to be resolved before we go down the controversial path of using human embryos for research. In her floor speech, Congresswoman Kaptur stated:
Dear Representative,
I am writing to express the opposition of Democrats For Life of America to H.R. 3, a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. No hearings have ever been held on this bill in the House.
Particularly in light of the recent discovery regarding the potential of harvesting stem cells in a manner that would not harm human embryos, we urge you to vote no on the measure. As you know, scientists announced this week that amniotic fluid from pregnant women could potentially provide stem cells that could grow into brain, muscle and other tissue—and without harming human embryos. We believe that this type of research as well as forms of adult stem cell research are much more promising than any research that would harm potential human life. From a moral and ethical standpoint, if we can cure diseases without harming human life, we should proceed with that type of research.
Democrats For Life of America does support research on adult stem cells, including those from umbilical cord blood, which has proven time and time again to be effective in curing more than 72 different human diseases and injuries. By contrast, stem cell research that destroys human embryos does not have a single success. In fact the type of embryonic stem cell research being supported by H.R. 3 has been subject to immune rejection and has a strong tendency to form tumors. To date, stem cells from human embryos have not helped a single patient.
As you may recall, the embryonic stem cell research touted by Hwang Woo-suk at Seoul National University was discredited, and Hwang was later dismissed after an investigation in which he admitted that he faked much of the research. At the time, he was the leading researcher in this area.
In the 109th Congress, the Republicans bypassed the Committee process and allowed a vote on similar legislation. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) expressed concerns that, regardless of one’s position on embryonic stem cell research, there were too many unanswered questions and the Committee did not do its job of properly evaluating the legislation before sending it to the floor. This week, a similar bill is being brought to the floor without hearings that would address important medical, legal and ethical concerns. The many questions—that are still unanswered–need to be resolved before we go down the controversial path of using human embryos for research. In her floor speech, Congresswoman Kaptur stated:
“Where is the committee transcript that reveals to the majority of Members not on the committee, the ethical questions we, and every family, should be addressing concerning the proprietary nature of the DNA in any embryonic cell. We go to great lengths as a Congress to protect intellectual rights as our Constitution requires. After all, this nation provides patents for computer software, for medical devices, for seed corn genomes… and yet we provide no protection for the DNA of a human embryo? Whose DNA will be bequeathed to the future, and whose will not? How are we to evaluate this bill when so much is missing? How do we evaluate which embryos should be allowed to be sent to research, and how many to be adopted by infertile couples so those embryos can be developed into full human beings? Who will decide? Is it just a matter for the individual couple? Or is there a larger societal responsibility to protect life?
How is the woman whose eggs are being taken legally protected? How is her husband, or mate legally protected in this relationship? What are the rights of the embryo?
Where is the hearing record that informs us how to carefully manage any transfer of human embryos to research so their essential worth is recognized? We are told that the "Ethical requirements" section of the bill will suffice. Yet this section is but 156 words long. It directs that NIH will issue final guidelines within 60 days of passage if this bill. 60 days? That's not even enough time to conduct a session of Congress. I ask, is this realistic? And, who will influence NIH without more Congressional guidance?
Many of those questions remained unanswered as the House Committee has not held hearings on the measure in the 110th Congress.
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) also questioned the procedure that allowed the measure to come to the floor without Committee hearings to properly explore the many questions surrounding this type of research. He also questioned the treatment of human embryos under H.R. 810.
He stated:
“Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical research.
Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation.”
Also in the 109th Congress, the House passed by a vote of 413 to 0 the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. The bill authorized funding for stem cell research from umbilical
cord blood. Umbilical cord blood is a rich, non-controversial source of stem cells. Currently hospitals throw away millions of umbilical cords / cord blood units each year because the infrastructure required to properly collect and store them is not available. When funded, the bill will increase the number of cord blood units and cord blood stem cells available for treating patients, and expanding research will greatly increase the number of people who can be treated. Despite passage of this landmark bill, the House bill did not provide any funding for this lifesaving treatment option that received 100 percent support from the 109th Congress.
In conclusion, we urge you to oppose H.R. 3 and support full funding for research, such as that from umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells that does not harm potential human life, has a track record, and will cure millions from debilitating diseases.
Sincerely,
Kristen Day
Executive Director
How is the woman whose eggs are being taken legally protected? How is her husband, or mate legally protected in this relationship? What are the rights of the embryo?
Where is the hearing record that informs us how to carefully manage any transfer of human embryos to research so their essential worth is recognized? We are told that the "Ethical requirements" section of the bill will suffice. Yet this section is but 156 words long. It directs that NIH will issue final guidelines within 60 days of passage if this bill. 60 days? That's not even enough time to conduct a session of Congress. I ask, is this realistic? And, who will influence NIH without more Congressional guidance?
Many of those questions remained unanswered as the House Committee has not held hearings on the measure in the 110th Congress.
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) also questioned the procedure that allowed the measure to come to the floor without Committee hearings to properly explore the many questions surrounding this type of research. He also questioned the treatment of human embryos under H.R. 810.
He stated:
“Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical research.
Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation.”
Also in the 109th Congress, the House passed by a vote of 413 to 0 the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. The bill authorized funding for stem cell research from umbilical
cord blood. Umbilical cord blood is a rich, non-controversial source of stem cells. Currently hospitals throw away millions of umbilical cords / cord blood units each year because the infrastructure required to properly collect and store them is not available. When funded, the bill will increase the number of cord blood units and cord blood stem cells available for treating patients, and expanding research will greatly increase the number of people who can be treated. Despite passage of this landmark bill, the House bill did not provide any funding for this lifesaving treatment option that received 100 percent support from the 109th Congress.
In conclusion, we urge you to oppose H.R. 3 and support full funding for research, such as that from umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells that does not harm potential human life, has a track record, and will cure millions from debilitating diseases.
Sincerely,
Kristen Day
Executive Director
