Antioch Road

Iowa Cloning Ban Repeal Getting Close

The Iowa Senate, voting 26-24, has passed legislation repealing Iowa's ban on human cloning (Iowa Code chapter 707B). Governor Chet Culver campaigned on that issue, promising the repeal in order to create a human embryo farm in Iowa City. Iowa Democrats also hold the Iowa House, 54-46. The Gazette reports, however, that "House Speaker Pat Murphy said Thursday it was unclear whether there are 51 votes in the House" to repeal the ban. Let us remember House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy's indication, just after the 2006 elections, that the House will steer clear of divisive social issues.

UPDATE (2/23/2007): Iowa's human cloning ban was short-lived, as the Iowa House passed the repeal 52-45.

Culver Moves Forward With ESCR Funding Plan

Apparently, the new Democratic leadership in the Iowa government is not going to "steer clear of divisive social issues." Governor Chet Culver announced today that his proposed budget will include $12.5M to establish an Orwellian "Iowa Center for Regenerative Medicine" in order to conduct embryonic stem cell research, reports the Gazette. (The Des Moines Register says it will be called the "Iowa Institute for Biomedical Discovery.") That's $2.5M more than his campaign promise. To go along with the proposal, Iowa Democrats plan to remove the state ban on human cloning.

Culver's $12.5M is just 0.4% of what California is spending, not to mention the numerous other states and private organizations involved in embryo destruction. So you can see how it is obvious that top scientists are going to flock to Iowa, making the state "a leader in offering cures to the world," as promised by Lt. Governor Patty Judge.

Book Review: Fighting for Dear Life: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo and What it Means For All of Us, by David Gibbs with Bob DeMoss

Every single one of us has a terminal body. Some of just have healthier terminal bodies. And some of us--like my newborn son--need substantial assistance to do something as simple as eating.

I don't expect the state of Iowa to order the withholding of nutrition to my son. But that is what the state of Florida--or, rather, one unchecked judge in Florida--ordered for someone else who could not feed herself: Terri Schiavo.

David Gibbs represented Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, in the later stages of that tragic event in our nation's history. His account of that event, Fighting for Dear Life, brings to heart and mind again the maddening outcome, which has already seemingly faded so quickly from our nation's conscience. As Gibbs tells it, it is his story of:

Why I fought for Terri.
Why I'd do it again.
And why I'd fight for you too.

Gibbs can't tell us why Terri Schiavo had to die. No human can. But Gibbs does tell us that Ms. Schiavo had minimal cognition; that her parents loved her and wanted nothing more than to care for her; that her husband had broken his marriage vows; that he refused to allow her to see the outside world or to allow the outside world see her; that he did not spend a dime of the medical malpractice judgment on her rehabilitation, despite telling the jury he would do so; that the only evidence of her supposed wish to die was her husband's and his family's hearsay statements, that the judicial system failed her, and that she died a painful, unnecessary death.

Few real life stories have such distinct Good Guys (Gibbs, the Schindlers, Ms. Schiavo herself, Governor Jeb Bush, President Bush, the Florida legislature, and the U.S. Congress) and Bad Guys (Michael Schiavo, George Felos, Judges George Greer and James Whittemore) as this one. If you care about life issues, and on the pro-life side, you will clinch your fists all over again.

Especially appreciated is the final five chapters, which are essentially a written sermon explaining the global importance of what we allowed to happen to Terri Schiavo. One can hope that Ms. Schiavo's story as told in Fighting for Dear Life will revive all of us again to a culture of life.

The State of the Stem Cell Wars

Time's Michael D. Lemonick asks "Are the Stem Cell Wars Over?" based on a new report in Nature Biotechnology that researchers have derived stem cells from "amniotic fluid that surrounds a developing fetus" that are "very close to a complete state of non-specialization," like embryonic stem cells. The stem cells derived from amniotic fluid do not require the killing of human embryos or fetuses.

Lemonick is wrong to suggest the war may be over. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research will almost certainly continue to seek government funding for such research. There is, after all, a lot of money involved. In fact, the idea of stem cells derived from amniotic fluid is not new. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported in August 2005 that "University of Pittsburgh researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly similar to embryonic stem cells in their ability to regenerate a wide variety of tissues. The cells, called amniotic epithelial cells, potentially could be used to produce new liver cells to treat liver failure, or new pancreatic islet cells to cure diabetes or new neurons to treat Parkinson's disease." Yet the movement to have you pay for human embryo destruction continues unabated. Senator Tom Harkin, one of the sponsors of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S.5), which would provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, issued a statement today asserting that the amniotic fluid stem cells research "does not in any way diminish the need to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act."

But even if Lemonick were right, he takes the opportunity to lob a parting grenade:

[O]pponents exaggerate the promise of adult stem cells, which are partially specialized. Those are all you need, say some right-to-lifers--essentially a lie, since they have no way of knowing.

(Emphasis added.) One of the great benefits of online publishing is the ability to link to a source. Sometimes we are too lazy to do so, but when we accuse someone or a group of people of lying, we ought to do so. I noted Lemonick's lack of a source for his accusation in the comments section, asking "What right to lifer says that adult stem cells are 'all you need?'" I'm familiar with the writings of many of the prominent pro-life writers and have never read any of them make such a claim. I further wrote, "The point has always been that adult stem cells are better because they have actually been proven to work and that they do not involve the killing of human life, not that they are magic."

Comments on Time's blogs are moderated and so do not appear on the site until author approval. Lemonick approved my comment, but did something I have never seen before in the comments section of a blog. He edited my comment by adding in his reply within my comment. He did so in a way (by just preceding his reply with a couple of dashes) that if you were not paying close attention, you would think his comments were actually mine. If that's not outside the bounds of blog decency, it should be.

In any event, Lemonick ignored my question and focused on my statement that adult stem cells "have actually been proven to work." Which is true. But Lemonick responded, "But in fact, they haven't been 'proven to work' in the sense that they can treat the enormous variety of diseases that involve cell death, or even a small subset of those diseases," and thus I "demonstrate the very hype [he's] talking about." Lemonick thus accused me of unwarranted hyping of adult stem cells based on words I did not use ("in the sense . . .").

Democratic Moderates to Prevent Overturning of Iowa's Human Cloning Ban?

New Iowa House majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Des Moines says that the House will, in the words of the Des Moines Register, "steer clear of divisive social issues" and will instead govern in the "mainstream." What does that mean for Governor-elect Chet Culver's promise to overturn Iowa's ban on human cloning?

Culver Will Fund Human Embyro Research and Seek to Overturn Cloning Ban

Iowa Secretary of State and Democrat Party Gubernatorial candidate Chet Culver has denounced Congressman and Iowa GOP Gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle's vote against HR 810, the embryonic stem cell research funding bill, and Nussle's subsequent vote not to override President Bush's veto of the bill.

Culver's denouncement included an announcement that, if he is elected Governor, he will fund a "$10 million investment in the creation of a Center for Regenerative Medicine in Iowa City, which will conduct cutting edge research and attract the top scientists in the field to Iowa." Who is he kidding? California is in the process of spending $3 billion killing human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells. Connecticut is spending $100 million. The Harvard University Stem Cell Institute is spending milliions of its own, and has now gone headlong into human cloning.

What does Culver think $10M is going to do to bring the top scientists here?

Culver is deceptive in his release. First, he says that Nussle is "standing directly in the way of this life-saving research that will one day help our family members and friends, and win the battle against deadly diseases." (Emphasis added.) In fact, Culver has no idea whether embryonic stem cells will produce viable treatments for anything, because no one knows. Unlike treatments derived from adult stem cells, presently there are no treatments derived from embryonic stem cells. There aren't even any treatments in clinical human trials.

Culver also says that Iowa has a "ban on important stem cell research," something he will lead to overturn. There is no such ban, and Culver surely knows it. What he is talking about is Iowa's ban on human cloning, enacted in 2002 (Iowa Code chapter 707B). But Culver lacks the backbone to stand up and say he wants Iowa's ban on human cloning revoked, so that Iowans could create and destroy human embryos for research purposes.

This is not the first time Culver has been deceptive on this issue. In a Culver advertisement during the Democratic primary campaign, a narrator stated about candidate Mike Blouin: "Blouin supports the Bush ban on stem-cell research." No such ban exists.

Elsewhere among Iowa Democrats, Senator Tom Harkin, in not one of the finer moments of rhetoric in U.S. political history, said, "Who set up the President of the United States -- this President -- as our moral pope? The president of the United States is not our moral Ayatollah. He may wish to be, but he's not." Harkin's preference is to abandon morality if it gets in the way of the wishes of scientists. As to who "set up the President" to be able to veto this legislation, or any legislation, for any reason he chooses, it was we the people who gave him the authority to exercise the power granted to him under Art. I, sec. 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, William H. Buckley has a typically insightful column on the subject. He writes:

When I was very young I would play with my younger sister weighty moral games. I remember one of them which said ... Suppose by pushing down just here (I touched my thumb down on a spot of grass) we could kill one Chinese at the other end of the world and we'd get $1 million. Should we do it?

No, Tish said. That would be murder.

I tried to prolong the grand inquiry by pointing out that there were different kinds of murder, some more sinful than others. "It wouldn't be as though we pulled out a pistol and shot the man."

She lingered for a moment, but came back. No, she said.
. . . .
Critics of the president, in high fury, say numerous things, among them that embryos by the millions are fated to die as a matter of course, so that to single out those that die, so to speak, under the researcher's knife is arbitrary and morally meaningless.

Well, so the argument goes, but we can take whatever satisfaction we wish from the knowledge that there is one Chinese there, whose life has been saved.

Read the whole thing.

Gianna's Story

Colorado legislator Ted Harvey put a face on Planned Parenthood's murderous (in this case, attempted) practices. Let him tell the story. (Hat tip: Mere Comments.)

400,000 Frozen Human Beings

CBS News' 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl reports on our nation's "surplus of embryos." Human embryos. 400,000 of them currently frozen in fertility clinics. They are human beings and they are unwanted, except by scientists who want to kill them for research purposes. The article contains some good comments from Robert George.

Polish Woman Denied Abortion; Says Rights Were Violated

"A Polish woman who was refused an abortion despite warnings that having a baby could make her blind is taking her case to Europe's human rights court," reports BBC News. "Alicja Tysiac's eyesight worsened drastically after she had her third baby, and she fears she will go blind."

Ms. Tysiac sought a legal abortion, arguing that having her baby would put her eyes at serious risk. I have no idea why having a baby would cause your eyes to go bad, but apparently three doctors told her so. In any event, Poland only allows abortions in limited cirumstances, and this wasn't one of them (or her doctors wouldn't agree with her that this is one of them). Ms. Tysiac thus had her baby.

So she's going to the European Court of Human Rights. While the "European Court of Human Rights cannot throw out Poland's laws, . . . it could rule that Ms Tysiac's rights have been violated."

The Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning is the group seeking to change Poland's laws. Wanda Nowiska from the group says: "The practice of the Polish abortion law is even stricter than the law itself. So in Poland we have no more than 200 legal abortions per year. That shows the magnitude of the problem." I'd hate to know how many more Polish children Ms. Nowiska thinks should be killed in the womb each year before there's no longer a "problem."

Just as disturbing as Ms. Nowiska's words are the actions of the mother, Ms. Tysiac. Her actions tell her third child, now born, I am mad because I was denied my "right" to kill you. You are not worth it.

The child deserves better.

John Roberts: Roe "Entitled to Respect"

The story of Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearings of John Roberts is that Roberts "dodged" Senators' attempts to pin down his views on abortion. Roberts did say, however, that Roe v. Wade is "entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis." (Hat tip: La Shawn Barber.)

That statement ultimately means nothing. Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter's ode to stare decisis in Planned Parenthood v. Casey--something not adhered to before or after in the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence--notwithstanding, stare decisis would not require a future Chief Justice Roberts to do anything.

This is one reason (among a whole potato sack full of others) why I could never be confirmed as a federal judge: I won't play the game.

Judge Roberts was probably just playing the game: He provided a safe, non-specific answer that leaves him more than wiggle room, but something closer to absolute free reign, on what he would do when presented with an opportunity to overrule Casey (which supplanted Roe).

Probably.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions isn't sure, according to the Washington Times: "I don't know how to read it. It made me realize that I don't know what he'll do."

Yes, we don't know. We can only pray.

But would that John Roberts would have stood up and led.