341

Bioethics & Biotechnology

Defending Life 2010

342

Americans United for Life

 343

Bioethics & Biotechnology

W ith each passing year, we face new and increasingly complex
challenges to the sanctity of human life. Medical research and
new biotechnologies are advancing far faster than our society’s ethical and
legal constraints ensuring their moral use. When Aldous Huxley wrote
Brave New World in 1932, human cloning was just science fiction. Today,
human cloning is a reality.

We have seen extraordinary advances in medical research over the past 10

years. The once languishing area of stem cell research has surged to life.
Every day, new treatments developed from adult stem cells are being used
to treat real people suffering from once incurable diseases and serious inju-
ries. Others, while not cured, have made such progress that their illnesses
or injuries no longer dominate their everyday lives, and they once again
engage in life in a way they never thought possible.

Scientists have been able to help patients suffering from over 70 differ-
ent diseases and injuries—including brain cancer, leukemia, lymphoma,
Crone’s disease, Lupus, heart damage, Parkinson’s, Sickle cell anemia,
and end-stage bladder disease—using adult stem cells. Conversely, mor-
ally-problematic embryonic stem-cell research has not helped a single hu-
man patient.

Despite the promising advances in adult stem-cell research, many scien-

tists and politicians continue to seek unfettered freedom (and our tax dol-
lars) for immoral uses of biotechnology in the hope of miracle cures. If
we do not act with greater urgency, the abuse of nascent human life will
become more entrenched and far more difficult to regulate. Powerful ethi-
cal and legal limits are needed to preserve and protect the sanctity of all
human life.

In this section, we have focused on providing accurate and up-to-date

information on advances in biotechnology, including human cloning, de-
structive embryo research (DER), and ethical alternatives to DER—such
as adult stem cells, human skin cells, and cord blood.

Moreover, capitalizing on the national debate over the “Octo-Mom” and

Defending Life 2010

344

the ethical limits of assisted reproduction, we hope to spark thoughtful, re-

sponsible discussion and debate on the regulation of assisted reproductive
technologies (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF). For example, we
argue in favor of informed consent for IVF and limitations on the number of
embryos that may be implanted during an IVF treatment cycle. We also urge
that embryo adoption be given as an option to parents of IVF-created em-
bryos, and that such an adoption be recognized under state law. It is critical
we provide meaningful oversight and regulation of IVF and other reproduc-
tive technologies, as the so-called leftover embryos in IVF clinics around the
nation are at the heart of ongoing debates over DER and human cloning.

Americans United for Life

 345

“The Brave New World” of Bioethics

A survey of federal and state laws
By Mailee R. Smith
Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

C ontinuing advances in biomedical sci-

ence and technology are raising chal-
lenging and profound ethical issues—for indi-
done by taking a days-old embryo that has
grown to the several hundred-cell stage, break-
ing it apart, and taking the cells from the em-
viduals and families, for scientists and health- bryo’s inner mass.1 These unspecialized cells
care professionals, and for the broader society. are then grown and used for research.
Many important human values are implicated,
among them health and the relief of suffering, More than ten years after the first isolation of
respect for life and the human person, human embryonic stem cells, there is not a single dis-
freedom, and human dignity. The flourish- ease that these cells have been used to cure,
ing field of modern bioethics arose to explore regardless of whether the cells obtained from
these issues, and various bodies, including the embryos are created through sperm and egg or
U.S. Congress, state legislatures, local research through cloning. Scientists have been conduct-
review boards, academic bioethics institutes, ing research on mouse embryonic stem cells for
and several national commissions, continue to over 25 years and are still unable to cure mice.2
wrestle with them. Research on humans that necessitates destroy-
ing human embryos would be repugnant even
The term “bioethics” commonly refers to the if it led to cures. However, such research on
moral questions and implications raised by humans is even more unseemly given the fact
biological discoveries and biomedical advanc- that this research has rarely (and never consis-
es, and particularly those questions raised by tently) worked in animals.
experimentation on living human beings. As
such, the field covers a variety of scientific and There are successful, ethical alternatives to us-
medical areas, including destructive embryo ing human embryos as a source of stem cells
research, cloning, assisted reproduction, and for research and therapeutic purposes. One im-
genetic testing—areas lacking significant pro- portant source is umbilical cord blood—a very
tective regulation under either federal or state rich source of stem cells. Another is adult stem
law. cells from various organs. Researchers have
long known, for example, that bone marrow
Issues can form into blood cells. We now know that
bone-marrow cells can form into fat, cartilage,
Destructive Embryo Research (DER) and bone tissue. A third promising source is
neural stem cells. These stem cells have been
Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the successfully isolated and cultured from living
destruction of a living human embryo. It is human neural tissue and even from adult cadav-

Defending Life 2010

346

ers. Moreover, research breakthroughs since The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on
2007 are opening the door for the reprogram- the legal status of a human embryo outside of
ming of adult stem cells into the embryonic the mother’s womb. In August 2001, Presi-
stem cell state—without the use or destruction dent George W. Bush announced that federal
of human embryos. funding would be allowed only for research on
then-existing embryonic stem-cell lines. But in
Adult stem cells have helped patients with over March 2009, President Barack Obama signed
70 different diseases, with more being continu- an Executive Order reversing that policy.
ally added. The future of human cures is not in
destroying some humans to treat others. It is in It is, therefore, up to the states to institute pro-
ethical treatments that treat all human life with tective measures. Currently, seven states either
dignity and respect. But proponents of embry- expressly or impliedly ban DER on embryos
onic stem-cell research have purposely created created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or
a false impression cloned human em-
that embryonic stem bryos, and 19 states
cells have a proven ban fetal experimen-
therapeutic use, when tation. In addition to
they have in reality these direct bans on
never helped a single research, at least six
human patient. states restrict funding
or the use of state fa-
In addition to the facts cilities for DER, and
that 1) it is necessary 16 states have passed
to destroy nascent hu- legislation encourag-
man life to obtain em- ing the use of adult
bryonic stem cells for stem cells or umbili-
research, and 2) embryonic stem-cell research cal cord blood and/or the donation of umbilical
has never helped a human patient, such re- cord blood.
search is also immoral because the only way to
obtain the human eggs necessary to create em- AUL has drafted several models to help states
bryos is to exploit women. A woman normally curb ineffective, unethical research and pro-
only produces one or two eggs per reproduc- mote ethical research that is already making a
tive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, difference. These models include the “Destruc-
a woman must take drugs that will cause her to tive Embryo Research Act” banning destruc-
super-ovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, tive embryo research; a “Prohibition on Public
and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in Funding of Human Cloning and Destructive
order to retrieve them. Thus, it is simply not Embryo Research Act”; and an “Egg Provider
possible to obtain enough eggs from willing Protection Act,” focused on preventing the ex-
women to adequately pursue this research or ploitation of women.
treat possible diseases that may come from any
breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.3

Americans United for Life

 347

Human Cloning is destined to be destroyed for its stem cells

and the other for implantation in a womb do
One of the inherent problems in using embry- not—and cannot—change the basic scientific
onic stem cells in therapies is the problem of fact that the cloned human embryos created for
transplantation. If a transplanted cell’s DNA therapeutic or reproductive purposes are simul-
is even somewhat different from the DNA of taneously human beings. For this reason and
the person being treated, the body usually sees others, comprehensive bans on human cloning
those cells as invaders and kills them off— should be enacted in the 50 states and by the
much like what happens when whole-organ U.S. Congress.
transplants are rejected because of the recipi-
ent’s immune system response. Without the Currently, no federal law bans human cloning
use of drugs to suppress the patient’s immune for any purpose, and the U.S. Supreme Court
system, transplanted tissue generally survives has not yet spoken on the subject. However,
only a few hours or days. seven states ban human cloning for any pur-
pose, while eight states ban cloning-to-pro-
To overcome this inherent problem, scientists duce-children. Five states have no laws ban-
began pursuing human cloning as a method ning human cloning, but do possess statutes
for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for which may be interpreted as prohibiting harm-
transplantation. Human cloning is the process ful experimentation on IVF-created or cloned
through which an human egg is taken from human embryos. Conversely, at least seven
a woman, the nucleus is removed, and then states fund cloning or embryonic stem-cell re-
it is replaced with a nucleus from a patient’s search.
body cell. Using electrical shock or “chemical
bath,” the egg is tricked into believing it has AUL has drafted a “Human Cloning Prohibi-
been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becom- tion Act” to assist states seeking to ban human
ing a human embryo. cloning for all purposes. And as previously
mentioned, AUL has also drafted a model bill
A general misconception exists that there are prohibiting the public funding of such unethi-
two types of human cloning: therapeutic clon- cal research.
ing (or “cloning-for-biomedical-research”) and
reproductive cloning (or “cloning-to-produce- Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)
children”). However, these designations are
simply two different rationales or justifications In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the fertilization
offered for the same procedure, known medi- of a human egg by a human sperm outside a
cally as “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” or hu- woman’s body, in a laboratory. The term “as-
man cloning. sisted reproductive technology” (ART) encom-
passes both IVF as well as other newer forms
Both rationales are morally wrong because of ART. Despite the increasingly wide-spread
both scientifically begin with the creation of a use of these reproductive technologies, there
cloned human being at the embryonic stage of is a lack of common-sense regulation of these
life. The differing justifications that one clone procedures at both the federal and state levels.

Defending Life 2010

348

This lack of regulation has resulted in the stor- example, at least 14 states address insurance
age of more than 400,000 cryopreserved (fro- coverage of ART.
zen) human embryos in laboratories across the
United States. Meanwhile, a small number of states have vari-
ous provisions providing that only physicians
In 2004, the President’s Council on Bioethics may perform ART, placing limits on assisted
issued a report, Reproduction & Responsibil- insemination procedures, defining the legal
ity, outlining the lack of regulation of ART. As status of the child created by ART, defining
the Council’s report points the legal status of the parent
out, “[t]here is only one fed- or donor, regulating the use
eral statute that aims at the of public funds or facilities
regulation of assisted repro- for ART, mandating informed
duction: the ‘Fertility Clinic consent for ART, or govern-
Success Rate and Certifica- ing the treatment of human
tion Act of 1992’ (sometimes embryos.
called the ‘Wyden Act’),”
and it only serves two pur- Responsible state and federal
poses: 1) providing consum- regulation is necessary for
ers with information about several reasons:
the effectiveness of ART
services, and 2) providing states with a model • Assisted reproductive technologies,
certification process for embryo laboratories.4 primarily IVF, are the gateway to all
Additionally, the “Clinic Laboratory Improve- future genetic engineering. The cur-
ment Amendments of 1988” govern quality as- rent lack of regulation promotes the
surance and control in clinical laboratories in- creation and destruction of excess em-
cluding those involved in ART, and the Centers bryos and, if not adequately responded
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has to, promotes conditions conducive for
announced a new national ART Surveillance human cloning and other immoral ex-
System. These regulations pale in comparison perimentation on human life in its ear-
to those in place in Great Britain, Germany, liest forms.
Sweden, Switzerland, and many other Euro-
pean nations, where, for example, the number • The health of women undergoing IVF,
of embryos transferred per reproductive cycle who are often injected with hormones
is limited by law. that may cause cancer and other dis-
eases, may be compromised, and sub-
The Council’s March 2004 report further con- sequently-born children may suffer
firmed that ART is little regulated by the states. genetic damage from the procedures.
In fact, as the report noted, “[t]he vast majority
of state statutes directly concerned with assist- • There are increasing numbers of mul-
ed reproduction … are concerned mostly with tiple births (with associated health and
the question of access to such services.”5 For safety concerns), as well as the use

Americans United for Life

 349

of so-called selective reductions (i.e., require adopting couples to undergo extensive

abortions) of unborn children. screening, such as fingerprinting, background
checks, home studies, infant CPR, and par-
AUL has drafted model legislation, entitled the enting classes. Placing families and adoptive
“Assisted Reproductive Technologies Disclo- families prepare informational portfolios about
sure and Risk Reduction Act,” aimed at ensur- themselves—dossiers including everything
ing truly informed consent by couples under- from photographs to information regarding
going ART processes as well as regulating the religious backgrounds. Like birth mothers,
number of embryos that can be transferred in a genetic parents use this information to choose
single reproductive cycle. adoptive parents to bear and raise their em-
bryos.
Embryo Adoption
Currently, however, embryos are usually
The lack of ART regulation has left hundreds stranded in a sort of legal no man’s-land. Many
of thousands of embryos frozen in time. But courts are reluctant to classify embryos as prop-
through embryo adoption, couples can adopt erty, but they also do not characterize them as
so-called leftover embryos from other couples human beings. Laws regarding embryo dona-
who have already undergone IVF. This pro- tion and adoption are, at best, unsettled. There
cess represents an emerging alternative to the are no federal laws which specifically address
traditional options left to IVF parents: indefi- these issues, but three states have provided
nite cryopreservation, donation to anonymous general guidance for embryo donation and al-
persons, or donation for research. low for embryo adoption.

Not only does embryo adoption allow parents AUL has crafted a model bill, entitled the
to choose an alternative other than destruction “Embryo Adoption Act,” for states interested
for research, but it also offers a more attractive in explicitly permitting embryo adoption and
option than donation. When the embryos are bringing it under the auspices of their existing
donated to other couples, as opposed to adopt- adoption laws.
ed by them, the process is anonymous and the
placement is usually determined by the fertility Genetic Testing and Discrimination
clinic’s physician. Receiving couples usually
undergo only basic medical screening and psy- Genetic testing is currently available for 1,500
chological counseling. diseases, and tests for hundreds of others are
currently being developed.6 But, as with other
When embryos are adopted, on the other hand, areas of biotechnological success, ethical is-
the process is typically much more open. The sues have arisen with the advancement of ge-
adopting family will likely have access to the netic testing. For example, can health insur-
child’s history, a potential match for future or- ance companies use the results of genetic test-
gan donation, and the possibility of a relation- ing in granting or denying coverage? Or can
ship with the placing family. Programs such employers screen the genetic information of
as the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program potential employees before making hiring or

Defending Life 2010

350

promotion decisions? one way or another—either by affirming life

or, sadly, by encouraging abortion. While most
Denying health insurance coverage on the ba- states and the District of Columbia encourage
sis of genetic disease is not new. In the 1970s, life by prohibiting discrimination by insurance
some insurance companies denied coverage or companies, there are a number of states that
charged higher premiums to African Ameri- encourage the “prevention” (i.e., abortion) of
cans who carried the Sickle cell anemia gene. birth defects through the use of amniocentesis
More recently, young children were denied and prenatal testing. At least 14 states encour-
health insurance because they carried a re- age such genetic testing or allow discrimina-
cessive genetic disease. In another example, tion by insurance companies.
the health insurance coverage of a young boy
with Fragile X Syndrome (an inherited form of Key terms
mental retardation) was dropped; the company
claimed the syndrome was a pre-existing con- • Adult stem cells—semi-specialized
dition. On the employment front, workers for cells that create the end-stage cells
Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad were that do the work of the body. Pres-
tested for genetic predisposition to carpal tun- ent throughout life, they continually
nel syndrome. work to replace dying end-stage cells.
There are no ethical difficulties asso-
In 2008, Congress took an initial step toward ciated with using these cells as there
protecting patients against such discrimination are with embryonic stem cells. Some-
by passing the “Genetic Information Nondis- times referred to as “multipotent stem
crimination Act” (GINA). GINA prohibits em- cells,” more than 70 different diseases
ployers and health insurers from discriminat- have been treated with these cells.
ing against persons on the basis of their genetic
information. • Cloning—the creation, by whatever
technique, of an entity genetically
But this is only an initial step. GINA only pro- identical to another entity already in
tects against discrimination by employers and existence. Through cloning, the new
health insurers—it does not prohibit discrimi- entity has only one genetic parent, not
nation by life, disability, or long-term care in- two as in normal reproduction.
surers. Further, no current federal law or U.S.
Supreme Court precedent addresses the issue • Cloning-for-biomedical-research—
of prenatal testing and the proper use of the the creation of a new human being at
results of genetic testing performed on the un- the embryonic stage of life genetically
born. Therefore, it is up to the states to ensure identical to a single parent, with the in-
that their citizens are not discriminated against tention of harvesting the clone’s stem
by health, life, disability, and long-term care cells for experimentation, thereby re-
insurers. sulting in the destruction of the cloned
human being.
Some states already address prenatal testing in

Americans United for Life

 351

• Cloning-to-produce-children —the trol. The primary ethical issues associ-

creation of a new human being at the ated with using these cells are that they
embryonic stage of life genetically currently require the destruction of a
identical to a single parent, with the living human embryo and that use of
intention that the cloned human be- such cells in medical research consti-
ing will be implanted in a womb and tutes unethical experimentation when
born. there has not been adequate research
using animals. Sometimes referred to
• Cord blood stem cell—an adult stem as “pluripotent stem cells,” there is not
cell found in the umbilical cord blood a single disease that scientists can treat
of newborn infants. Umbilical cords, with these cells.
which are routinely discarded, were
discovered to have an unusually high • Genetic discrimination—discrimina-
concentration of adult stem cells which tion which “occurs if people are treat-
are very easy to obtain and are capable ed unfairly because of differences in
of treating a host of diseases. In 2006, their DNA that increase their chances
Congress passed legislation that will of getting a certain disease. For ex-
create a national umbilical cord blood ample, a health insurer might refuse to
bank similar to the national bone mar- give coverage to a woman who has a
row system for the public. DNA difference that raises her odds of
getting breast cancer. Employers also
• Embryo—an entity that, through could use DNA information to decide
whatever means (normal reproduc- whether to hire or fire workers.”7
tion, cloning, or other method), has a
full complement of DNA and, with the • Genetic testing—testing “developed
proper environment and nutrition and to find DNA differences that affect
unless otherwise interrupted, will de- our health.”8 In other words, these are
velop along the natural course of pro- tests which “look for alterations in a
gression for that species into further person’s genes or changes in the level
stages of development until natural of key proteins coded for by specific
death. genes.”9 It is believed that healthcare
providers will be able to utilize “infor-
• Embryonic stem cell—an early-stage mation about each person’s DNA to
stem cell obtained by destroying em- develop more individualized ways of
bryos of the same species. Embryonic detecting, treating and preventing dis-
stem cells can become virtually any ease.”10
type of cell in the body, but only if
properly directed in their development. • Somatic cell nuclear transfer
This naturally happens in the organized (SCNT)—a type of cloning. A pro-
human embryo, but is something that cess in which the nucleus (and there-
scientists have yet to learn how to con- fore the original DNA) is removed

Defending Life 2010

352

from an egg and discarded, the nucleus Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really
of a somatic (or body) cell containing human.
the genetic material of another entity is Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first
transplanted into the egg, and an elec- mammal clone, was not a sheep, despite the
tric shock or chemical solution is used fact she was created using a sheep egg and
to trick the egg into believing it has sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted
been fertilized. The egg, containing like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not
another entity’s DNA, begins dividing human, then what are they? The only logical
as any other early embryo. answer is that a cloned human embryo is fully
human.
• Zygote—a one-cell embryo. From
this one cell will arise every cell in the Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned
body. Sometimes referred to as a fer- embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.
tilized egg or “totipotent cell.” Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues sur-
rounding the creation of human clones or why
Myths & Facts a clone was created, if created it should not be
forbidden to live. We do not require the de-
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are struction of human life when created through
close to finding cures for a host of terrible dis- other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws
eases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological against creating cloned embryos should not re-
disorders such as Parkinson’s. quire the clone’s destruction.
Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure
anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo
humans does little good and can do great harm. research or human cloning will stifle scien-
Adult stem-cell research is helping cure or treat tific research or economic development in my
more than 70 diseases, with more work being state.
prepared for or currently in clinical trials. Fact: Few companies even do this research, in
part because there are no foreseeable cures that
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, includ- will recoup the dollars needed for investment.
ing the destruction of embryos for their parts, And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up
is morally and ethically acceptable. not producing cures, companies may not sur-
Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embry- vive long enough to produce any benefit.
onic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical
to destroy human embryos for their “parts.” Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertil-
Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of ization (IVF) procedures are just going to die
destroying human embryos, there is no ethi- anyway. We should get some benefit from
cal justification for destroying nascent human them.
life regardless of its origins. It is never right to Fact: It is not necessarily the case that em-
intentionally kill innocent human life to save bryos left over from IVF procedures will be
another’s life, especially in such a systematic destroyed. Some parents change their mind
manner. and decide to implant the embryos to give

Americans United for Life

 353

them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infer- parents’ possible future use. Encouraging em-
tile couples are adopting embryos that would bryo adoption will simply lessen the number of
otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryo- embryos that remain indefinitely suspended in
preservation. Even if these embryos would be frozen storage, and further allow loving fami-
destroyed, it does not give us the right to use lies to bear and raise children.
them for research material.
Myth: Now that the federal government has
Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells passed GINA, patients are fully protected.
smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing hu- Fact: GINA does not cover everyone. For
man being who is suffering and may die with- example, GINA does not cover members of
out this research. the military. In addition, GINA only pertains
Fact: It is not your size or location that gives to employers and health insurers. It does not
you value and dignity; rather, it is your status prohibit discrimination by life, disability, or
as a member of the human race. Every human long-term care insurers. Furthermore, GINA
being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or is only a minimum standard of protection that
as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the pro- must be met in all states. States are free to pass
tections accorded to all other human beings. If laws providing more protection and more re-
we decide that some members of the human strictions on the use of genetic information by
race should not receive those protections, then insurers and others.
we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or a sim-
ple majority decides some of us are no longer Myth: Americans who possess certain genetic
worthy of life. traits are already protected under the “Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act” (ADA).
Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as Fact: While it is true that the ADA prohib-
embryonic stem cells. its employers from discriminating against dis-
Fact: While it is generally agreed that embry- abled persons who are capable of performing
onic stem cells are more flexible in becoming their duties with reasonable accommodation,
different tissue types than adult stem cells, and the Equal Employment Opportunities
the idea that adult cells are not as capable as Commission (EEOC) has stated that healthy
embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure persons with genetic predispositions to a dis-
speculation. Currently, adult cells are much ease fall within the scope of the ADA, this car-
more capable of treating human beings than ries no weight with insurance companies, who
embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a sin- are not held accountable to the EEOC in their
gle disease. decisions of who and who not to insure. Thus,
GINA and state laws are necessary to protect
Myth: Promoting embryo adoption will limit individuals from such discrimination on the
the availability of embryos for research and part of insurance companies.
will therefore prevent us from discovering im-
portant cures for debilitating diseases. Myth: My state adequately protects me against
Fact: The vast majority of embryos in storage genetic discrimination.
(over 80 percent) are reserved for the genetic Fact: While at least 40 states and the District

Defending Life 2010

354

of Columbia prohibit discrimination in health

insurance policies based upon the results of
genetic testing, the degree of protection dif-
fers. For example, some states specifically
prohibit health insurers from requiring testing,
while others allow health insurers to consider
the results of tests only if the patients volun-
tarily submit favorable results. On the other
hand, some states actually encourage genetic
testing or allow discrimination in certain types
of health insurance policies. Thus, states are
encouraged to enact further restrictions limit-
ing the use of genetic information by all insur-
ance companies.

Endnotes
1
Michael J. Schlambott et. al., Derivation of pluripotent stem
cells from cultured human primordial germ cells, Proc. Nat’l
Acad. Sci. USA 95:23, 13726-731 (1998).
2
See M. J. Evans & M. H. Kaufman, Establishment in culture
of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos, Nature 292, 154–56
(1981).
3
See David Prentice, Under the Microscope: A Scientific Look at
Cloning, Family Policy 15:3. See also Wesley J. Smith, Lessons
From the Cloning Debate: The Need for a Secular Approach,
in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century 194-96 (Charles W.
Colson & Nigel M. de S. Cameron, eds. 2004) (explaining that
it is not physiologically possible to obtain enough eggs to treat
disease through stem cell research and human cloning).
4
President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibil-
ity (March 2004).
5
Id. at 51.
6
Genetic & Public Policy Center of Johns Hopkins University,
Genetic Privacy & Discrimination (updated March 2009), avail-
able at http://www.dnapolicy.org/policy.privacy.php (last visited
July 17, 2009).
7
National Human Genome Research Institute, Genetic Discrimi-
nation Fact Sheet: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Law
of 2008 (updated January 9, 2009), available at http://www.ge-
nome.gov/10002328 (last visited July 17, 2009).
8
Id.
9
National Human Genome Research Institute, Frequently Asked
Questions About Genetic Testing (February 5, 2009), available at
http://www.genome.gov/19516567 (last visited July 17, 2009).
10
National Human Genome Research Institute, Genetic Dis-
crimination Fact Sheet: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Law of 2008, supra.

Americans United for Life

 355

Laws Related to Human Cloning

Seven states ban cloning for any purpose, including both cloning-to-produce-children
and cloning-for-biomedical-research: AR, IN, MI, ND, OK, SD, and VA.

Eight states allow human cloning for destructive embryo research

(cloning-for-biomedical-research) but prohibit attempting to bring a cloned child to
term (cloning-to-produce-children): CA, CT, IL, IA, MA, MO, MT, and RI.

Five states have no specific law on human cloning, but have other statutes that either
expressly or implicitly ban destructive human embryo research on IVF-created
embryos and possibly on cloned human embryos: LA, ME, MN, NM, and PA.

One state permits destructive experimentation on both cloned human embryos and
cloned human fetuses up to live birth: NJ.

Defending Life 2010

356

Laws Related to Destructive Embryo Research

Seven states either expressly or implicitly ban destructive human embryo

research on IVF-created embryos and/or cloned human embryos: LA, ME, MN,
NM, OK, PA, and SD.

One state expressly permits destructive experimentation on IVF-created

embryos: MI

One state permits destructive experimentation on both cloned human embryos

and cloned human fetuses up to live birth: NJ

Americans United for Life

 357

Funding of Cloning &

Destructive Human Embryo Research

Seven states use state tax dollars to fund destructive human embryo research:
CA, CT, IL, MD, MA, NJ, and WI.

Six states restrict funding or use of state facilities for human cloning and/or
destructive human embryo research: AZ, IN, KS, LA, MN, and NE.

One state restricts funding for human cloning and/or destructive embryo research
and prohibits loans for entities conducting destructive human embryo research,
but also allows tax incentives for destructive human embryo research by providing
that research equipment is not taxed: VA

Defending Life 2010

358

Ethical Research Alternatives

At least 16 states promote or encourage the use of umbilical cord cells and/or
other forms of adult stem cells for research: AZ, CO, FL, GA, MD, MA, MO, NE,
NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK, TN, TX, and VA.

Americans United for Life

 359

Other Restrictions on Cloning &

Destructive Human Embryo Research

Nineteen states continue to ban so-called fetal experimentation (however, four federal
courts have invalidated other states’ fetal experimentation laws): FL, KY, LA, ME,
MA, MN, MT, NE, NM, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WY.

Defending Life 2010

360

Laws Related to Chimeras

One state prohibits the creation of human-animal hybrids: LA.

Americans United for Life

 361

State Regulation of ART/IVF

Only one state comprehensively regulates ART/IVF and facilities performing such
procedures: PA

At least five states regulate the donation and/or transfer of human sperm, human
eggs, or pre-embryos: CA, FL, ID, NY, and OK

Four states require some form of informed consent or impose specific contractual
requirements for ART/IVF: AR, CT, MA, and VA

Defending Life 2010

362

Other State Regulations of ART/IVF

At least five states regulate the types of healthcare providers that can perform
ART/IVF: AR, CT, ID, NH, and OR

Two states regulate gestational surrogacy: FL and NY

At least two other states provide minimal regulation of ART/IVF: SD and TX

Americans United for Life

 363

Laws Regarding Life & Parenthood in ART/IVF

Only one state by law defines an embryo conceived through ART/IVF as a “juridical
(or legal) person”: LA

Two states regulate the use and treatment of gametes, neonates, embryos, or fetuses:
MI and SD

At least six states terminate parental rights/responsibilities of donors or otherwise

govern the legal status of children conceived through the use of ART/IVF: AL, CA,
CT, DE, FL, and ND

Defending Life 2010

364

Laws Related to Embryo Donation & Adoption

Four states have laws in effect providing some general guidance for embryo
donation: CA, OH, OK, and TX.

Three states have laws in effect providing some general guidance for embryo
donation and allow for embryo adoption: FL, GA, and LA.

Americans United for Life

 365

2009 State Legislative Sessions in Review:

Bioethics & biotechnology
By Mailee R. Smith
Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

O ne of the basic foundations of Ameri-

can society is that human beings have
inherent dignity and, therefore, are always to
ing human beings as commodities.
Biotech companies advocating for the
legalization and government funding
be treated as ends and never merely as means of embryonic stem-cell research usu-
to an end. Consequently, even the noble goal ally neglect to inform the public that
of healing people must not be achieved by the embryonic research is far superceded
immoral means of destroying other human be- in successful current applications by
ings, including those at the embryonic stage those derived from ethical research,
of life. Of all human beings, embryos are the principally that involving adult stem
most defenseless against abuse. The intention- cells.
al destruction of some human beings for the
alleged good of other human beings is always • Bans on medical research that destroys
morally wrong. Therefore, destroying human human life at its earliest stages or that
embryos to harvest their stem cells should be creates human life for further research
legally proscribed, as should all forms of hu- or experimentation (i.e., human clon-
man cloning. ing) would have the indirect benefit of
allowing research money and effort to
Unfortunately, the ongoing legislative debates be directed to the already productive
in state houses around the nation over mea- field of adult stem-cell transplantation
sures to proscribe or support stem cell research and somatic cell gene therapies. These
and human cloning are filled with hyperbole procedures are free of the ethical di-
and misinformation. The following is just a lemmas associated with destructive
sampling of important information all too often human embryo research.
missing or withheld from crucial public discus-
sions over the desirability and morality of re- • Importantly, adult stem cells have a
search and experimentation on human beings proven record of effective clinical
at the earliest stages of life: remedies, which cannot be said for em-
bryonic stem cells. To date, scientists
• The American people and their elected have been able to help patients suf-
representatives should be cautious of fering from over 70 different diseases
the seductive claims of medical utopia and injuries—including brain cancer,
made by biotech research firms who leukemia, lymphoma, Crone’s disease,
have a strong financial interest in us- Lupus, heart damage, Parkinson’s,

Defending Life 2010

366

Sickle cell anemia, and end-stage blad- Human Cloning

der disease—using adult stem cells.
No clinical use of human embryonic At least 11 states—including Alabama, Geor-
stem cells has yet been published in gia, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
the scientific literature. Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
and West Virginia—considered measures relat-
• A general misconception exists that ed to human cloning.
there are two types of human clon-
ing—“cloning-to-produce-children” Montana enacted a measure that bans cloning
and “cloning-for-biomedical-re- for reproductive purposes (cloning-to-pro-
search.” In truth, these designations duce-children), but it does not ban cloning for
are simply two different rationales all purposes.
or justifications offered for the same
procedure, known medically as “so- Oklahoma enacted a measure that prohibits hu-
matic cell nuclear transfer,” or human man cloning for all purposes (both cloning-to-
cloning. Both rationales are morally produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical-
wrong because scientifically both be- research).
gin with the creation of a cloned hu-
man being at the embryonic stage of Destructive Embryo Research
life. The differing justifications that
one clone is destined for implantation At least 12 states—including Alabama, Cali-
in a womb and the other is destined fornia, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
to be destroyed for its stem cells do Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New
not—and cannot—change the basic York, Oklahoma, and Oregon—considered
scientific fact that the cloned human measures banning or promoting destructive
embryos created for both reproductive embryo research. In addition, West Virginia
or therapeutic purposes are simultane- considered a measure prohibiting the use of
ously human beings. “unborn children” in research experiments.

In 2009, legislators in 31 states considered Oklahoma enacted a measure which prohibits

more than 95 measures related to biotechnolo- nontherapeutic research that destroys human
gies. This level of activity represents an almost embryos or subjects embryos to risk of injury
20 percent increase from 2008. Over the last or death.
several years, however, we have seen a signifi-
cant downward trend in legislation concerning Ethical Forms of Research
these critical and emerging areas. Thus, even
with the increase in bioethics-related legis- At least seven states—Illinois, Maine, Michi-
lation in 2009, this level of activity does not gan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and
compare favorably to the 500 bills introduced Texas—considered measures promoting ethical
in 2005. forms of stem cell research, including the use
of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood.

Americans United for Life

 367

North Carolina enacted legislation requiring Chimeras

the Department of Health and Human Services
to make publications available to the public Only three states—Georgia, Louisiana, and
regarding umbilical cord stem cells and um- Michigan—considered measures prohibiting
bilical cord blood banking. The new law also the creation of human-animal hybrids, with
requires that the Department encourage health- Louisiana enacting its bill.
care professionals to provide the publications
to their pregnant patients. Assisted Reproductive Technology

State Funding of Biotechnology At least 19 states considered measures related

to assisted reproductive technologies (ART),
Funding measures ran the gamut in 2009, from including in vitro fertilization (IVF). As usual,
prohibiting taxpayer funding of destructive em- most of these bills involved access to—not
bryo research and/or clon- regulation of—the ART in-
ing, to funding ethical forms dustry.
of research, to funding de-
structive embryo research. At least 11 states—including
In all, eight states considered Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
funding measures related to Kentucky, Maryland, Massa-
biotechnologies. chusetts, Michigan, Missis-
sippi, Missouri, Oregon, and
Four states—Minnesota, Rhode Island—considered
Missouri, New York, and measures broadening insur-
Texas—considered mea- ance coverage for assisted
sures prohibiting or limiting reproductive technologies.
the use of public funding for
human cloning or destructive embryo research. At least eight states—including California,
Minnesota enacted a measure prohibiting the Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Mis-
funding of human cloning. souri, New York, and Oklahoma—considered
measures regulating (to varying degrees) the
Three states—Maine, Nebraska, and Okla- ART industry. Missouri’s bill would have lim-
homa—considered measures funding ethical ited the number of embryos a physician could
forms of research. Nebraska enacted a mea- implant in a woman per reproductive cycle.
sure that funds programs enacted in 2008 that
support ethical research, and Oklahoma direct- A handful of states—including Georgia, Iowa,
ed funding toward ethical research. New York, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—
considered measures related to parentage.
Only one state, Oregon, considered legislation North Dakota enacted a law involving ART
funding destructive embryo research. and inheritance rights.

Nebraska considered a measure calling for an

Defending Life 2010

368

interim study to examine in vitro fertilization.

Embryo Adoption

While only one state considered a measure re-

lated to embryo adoption in 2008, five states—
Georgia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Okla-
homa, and Tennessee—considered such mea-
sures in 2009.

Georgia enacted a law changing the definition

of “child” to include a human embryo and pro-
viding specific procedures for embryo adop-
tion.

Human Egg Donation

At least three states—California, Florida, and

Minnesota—considered legislation regulating
the donation of or solicitation of human eggs.

Genetic Discrimination

Colorado enacted a measure providing for li-

ability and limitations on disclosure of genetic
information and preventing genetic informa-
tion from being used to deny access to health-
care insurance or Medicare supplemental in-
surance coverage.

Americans United for Life