Iowans misled about stem cell bill
By Hannah Flanders
Readers: Muscatine Right to Life hopes that a series of guest editorials, beginning today and running about once a month, will help residents of the Muscatine area be better aware of pro-life issues and what is going on in the Legislature or even in our own community.
—Andrew Rauenbuehler
Muscatine Right to Life
Were Iowa citizens deceived and even lied to when the governor pushed to repeal the Iowa human cloning ban by calling it a so-called stem cell research initiative?Without a doubt, the citizens of Iowa have been craftily misinformed on the issues and facts concerning the so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill.
The most frustrating part about this bill is that there has NEVER been a ban on any kind of stem cell research in Iowa. Before this bill was ever brought up, all scientists in Iowa had the legal ability to perform any form of stem cell research! We Iowans were led to believe the fallacy that the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill would allow stem cell research to begin in Iowa, which is most obviously unnecessary since there never was a ban on stem cell research in the first place.Although any kind of stem cell research was permitted in the state of Iowa, what was not allowed was any form of human cloning. Before the passing of this human cloning bill, it was a Class C felony for anyone to attempt cloning a human being. The penalty of this action would result in a 15-year prison term.We Iowans were told that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning through this bill. We were also told that House File 287 and Senate File 162, so-called “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bills, merely entered the human cloning code section to add language allowing “somatic cell nuclear transfer” to be legal according to the bill, and we were then assured that having taken the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” language out, the Iowa human cloning ban (initiated in 2002) would be reaffirmed.What we were not told was that somatic cell nuclear transfer is a form of human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, human embryos can be formed without a male sperm involved.The process works in this system: Scientists take the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and put it into an egg cell (ovum) that has had its nucleus removed. Regardless of any arguments, the result of this process is a cloned embryo. In fact, somatic cell nuclear transfer was the exact method used to clone “Dolly” the sheep.The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply the act of creating a human embryo without a male sperm.The cloned human embryos formed through somatic cell nuclear transfer could either be implanted within a woman’s womb (which is known as reproductive cloning) or could be used for scientific research in which the clone would be harvested for its stem cells and therefore destroyed. Somatic cell nuclear transfer” (therapeutic cloning) and reproductive cloning are exactly the same, the only difference between these two cloning methods is that in one case the clone would be implanted in a woman’s womb and in the other it would be destroyed.Reproductive cloning is still illegal in the state of Iowa.As fellow citizens and taxpayers of Iowa, we deserve the right to be informed on the plans and happenings in the Iowa Legislature. Those in favor of the human cloning bill did not properly inform the Iowa citizens that somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning are the same thing. They merely told us that no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning and that our human cloning ban would be reaffirmed.If no one had suggested lifting the ban on human cloning, then why was the so-called embryonic stem cell research initiative bill concerning somatic cell nuclear transfer passed? Human cloning and somatic nuclear cell transfer are the same thing, whether stated simply or scientifically. How is it possible that the Iowa Legislature can take language from the cloning code section (somatic cell nuclear transfer) and then reaffirm the ban on cloning if, somatic nuclear cell transfer is cloning?Wouldn’t you agree that this would be making something both legal and illegal at the same time?The bottom line is human cloning is no longer banned in the state of Iowa.
Hannah Flanders, age 15, is a member of the recently formed Muscatine Right to Life chapter, part of a national organization whose stated goal is to “restore legal protection to innocent human life.”
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
MRL's Guest Editorial in the Muscatine Journal
Muscatine Right to Life will start having a monthly guest editorial published in the Muscatine Journal. Look for the first one soon. If you would like to write one to be published in a coming month send it to muscatinerighttolife@hotmail.com.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
CEDAW
Urge senators to oppose CEDAW (pro-abortion treaty)
WASHINGTON (February 27, 2007) – The U.S. Senate could vote this year on whether to ratify a treaty that some international bodies have interpreted to prohibit any limitations on abortion.
The treaty is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or for short “CEDAW” (pronounced “SEE-daw”). NRLC strongly opposes ratification of CEDAW because the treaty already has been construed to condemn virtually all limits on abortion by the U.N. committee that is charged with enforcing it, by the European Parliament, and by pro-abortion litigating groups. Many other pro-life organizations also oppose ratification of CEDAW, including Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Focus on the Family, and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
What is CEDAW?
The CEDAW is a treaty that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. Since then it has been ratified by 185 nations, but never by the United States. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate in 1980, but the Senate has never voted on whether to ratify it – in part because of serious questions about the impact it could have in many areas of U.S. law, including laws pertaining to abortion.
Although the CEDAW does not mention the word “abortion,” Article 12 does require signing nations to “eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality between men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Since about 1995, Article 12 and other provisions have been creatively interpreted by official bodies, ranging from the European Parliament to the UN CEDAW Committee, to condemn limitations on abortion, on grounds that any restrictions on abortion constitute discrimination against women. To read NRLC's February 1, 2007 letter to the Senate, which cites a number of examples, click here.
The NRLC letter to the Senate concluded: “In summary: the CEDAW, if ratified, would be used to assert an international obligation on the federal and state governments to provide public funding for abortion, to refrain from adopting or enforcing restrictions on partial-birth abortions, to refrain from adopting or enforcing laws to protect the rights of parents with respect to their minor daughters, to eliminate conscience-protection laws, and otherwise to condemn any limitations on abortion. . . . For these reasons, a vote in favor of a ratification resolution is a vote in favor of all of these sweeping pro-abortion policies, and will be accurately so characterized in our scorecard of key roll call votes for the 110th Congress.”
Prospects in 2007 Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.), a CEDAW supporter who took over this year as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Senate Democrats are under pressure from liberal advocacy groups to press the treaty to a vote of the full Senate this year.
All but a few of the Senate’s 51 Democrats already have endorsed the CEDAW. However, many of the 49 Republican senators have never taken a position on it. Even if every Democratic senator voted in favor of ratification, treaty supporters would need 16 Republican senators’ votes in order to achieve the required two-thirds margin (if every senator votes). “Ratification of CEDAW can be stopped,” says NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “It requires the votes of only one-third of the senators, plus one, to block ratification of a treaty.”
Immediate Action Requested
Please enter your zip code into the "Take Action" Box below, in order to send e-mail urging your two U.S. senators to oppose ratification of the CEDAW.
Also, you can telephone any senator’s office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121. If you are not sure who your senators are, just tell the operator which state you live in, and you will be directed to the correct offices. Or, you can look up the direct phone and fax numbers for the offices of your U.S. Senators by going to the "Elected Officials" tab at the top of this page. PLEASE NOTE: Because of security procedures, there are often long delays in the delivery and counting of U.S. mail on Capitol Hill, so we highly recommend the use of e-mail, telephone, and fax. Whatever methods you choose, you should make it clear that you are a constituent, politely urge the senator to “oppose ratification of the CEDAW (pronounced ‘SEE-daw’) treaty,” and ask for a written response explaining the senator's position.
WASHINGTON (February 27, 2007) – The U.S. Senate could vote this year on whether to ratify a treaty that some international bodies have interpreted to prohibit any limitations on abortion.
The treaty is called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or for short “CEDAW” (pronounced “SEE-daw”). NRLC strongly opposes ratification of CEDAW because the treaty already has been construed to condemn virtually all limits on abortion by the U.N. committee that is charged with enforcing it, by the European Parliament, and by pro-abortion litigating groups. Many other pro-life organizations also oppose ratification of CEDAW, including Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Focus on the Family, and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
What is CEDAW?
The CEDAW is a treaty that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. Since then it has been ratified by 185 nations, but never by the United States. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate in 1980, but the Senate has never voted on whether to ratify it – in part because of serious questions about the impact it could have in many areas of U.S. law, including laws pertaining to abortion.
Although the CEDAW does not mention the word “abortion,” Article 12 does require signing nations to “eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality between men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Since about 1995, Article 12 and other provisions have been creatively interpreted by official bodies, ranging from the European Parliament to the UN CEDAW Committee, to condemn limitations on abortion, on grounds that any restrictions on abortion constitute discrimination against women. To read NRLC's February 1, 2007 letter to the Senate, which cites a number of examples, click here.
The NRLC letter to the Senate concluded: “In summary: the CEDAW, if ratified, would be used to assert an international obligation on the federal and state governments to provide public funding for abortion, to refrain from adopting or enforcing restrictions on partial-birth abortions, to refrain from adopting or enforcing laws to protect the rights of parents with respect to their minor daughters, to eliminate conscience-protection laws, and otherwise to condemn any limitations on abortion. . . . For these reasons, a vote in favor of a ratification resolution is a vote in favor of all of these sweeping pro-abortion policies, and will be accurately so characterized in our scorecard of key roll call votes for the 110th Congress.”
Prospects in 2007 Senator Joseph Biden (D-De.), a CEDAW supporter who took over this year as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Senate Democrats are under pressure from liberal advocacy groups to press the treaty to a vote of the full Senate this year.
All but a few of the Senate’s 51 Democrats already have endorsed the CEDAW. However, many of the 49 Republican senators have never taken a position on it. Even if every Democratic senator voted in favor of ratification, treaty supporters would need 16 Republican senators’ votes in order to achieve the required two-thirds margin (if every senator votes). “Ratification of CEDAW can be stopped,” says NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “It requires the votes of only one-third of the senators, plus one, to block ratification of a treaty.”
Immediate Action Requested
Please enter your zip code into the "Take Action" Box below, in order to send e-mail urging your two U.S. senators to oppose ratification of the CEDAW.
Also, you can telephone any senator’s office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121. If you are not sure who your senators are, just tell the operator which state you live in, and you will be directed to the correct offices. Or, you can look up the direct phone and fax numbers for the offices of your U.S. Senators by going to the "Elected Officials" tab at the top of this page. PLEASE NOTE: Because of security procedures, there are often long delays in the delivery and counting of U.S. mail on Capitol Hill, so we highly recommend the use of e-mail, telephone, and fax. Whatever methods you choose, you should make it clear that you are a constituent, politely urge the senator to “oppose ratification of the CEDAW (pronounced ‘SEE-daw’) treaty,” and ask for a written response explaining the senator's position.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Recent Letters to the Editor
Embryo research misrepresentedBy Ed Siering, Muscatine, Iowa
The Iowa Legislature has enacted and the governor has signed into law a statute that permits medical research on cloned embryos. Despite decades of research on animal models and despite almost a full decade of research with human embryos, embryonic stem cells have not produced a single medical benefit.Why does the Iowa government expect economic benefit from funding such research when, according to Forbes magazine, the challenges of creating commercial products from embryonic stem cells is so difficult and prohibitively expensive that private investors and most major drug and biotech companies have not invested in it?
Why is there no private money willing to so venture?Thousands and thousands of patients have benefited from adult stem cell treatments; patients afflicted with various cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias and blood disorders, metabolic disorders, wounds, and injuries have all been cured using adult stem cells, including the latest discovery, stem cells from cord blood.
But from embryos? Nada. Iowa, your Legislature and your governor have an agenda that they are not sharing with you. They are not being honest.
Why embryonic stem cell research is immoralBy Hannah Flanders,Age 15, Member, Muscatine Right to Life
I was very disappointed that the “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill passed in the Iowa Legislature. To put it plainly, embryonic stem cell research is immoral and unethical.In order for scientists to research embryonic stem cell lines, they use a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is also known as therapeutic cloning!The phrase “somatic nuclear cell transfer” means taking the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and putting it into an egg cell (ovum), which has had its nucleus removed. When the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” process” is applied, it forms a human embryo without a male sperm. This was the exact method in which “Dolly” the sheep was cloned.
It is very discouraging, because not only is embryonic stem cell research immoral, but it is also ineffective. Today there is not one successful treatment of embryonic stem cell research to report, whereas adult stem cell research (which I support 100 percent) has already generated 72 success cases!The difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research is black and white: Embryonic stem cell research is destroying lives, while adult stem cell research is saving them.
Although some people choose not to believe an embryo is a human being, they must agree that at one point ,every human being was in the form of an embryo — this is basic biology. I think many will agree with me that they are glad they were protected from an “embryonic stem cell research initiative” when they were in the form of an embryo.In the United States, we have a federal law (initiated in 1940) that protects bald eagles in every form of life. If someone shot a bald eagle, they would be subject to the penalties of the law. This same punishment would be inflicted upon those who destroyed the bird’s eggs (embryos). I am disgusted that our country will protect animals in EVERY stage of life, yet will not do the same for human beings.I am certainly not opposed to finding cures for those who have terminal illnesses. I have many close friends with type 1 juvenile diabetes.As much as I would like to see them cured, embryonic stem cell research is not justifiable. The fact that we would be curing one person at the expense of another’s life is utterly inhumane and incredibly selfish.Why not put our efforts toward a more promising alternative such as adult stem cell research?Life is a gift and it deserves protection and respect in every form from conception until natural death.
The Iowa Legislature has enacted and the governor has signed into law a statute that permits medical research on cloned embryos. Despite decades of research on animal models and despite almost a full decade of research with human embryos, embryonic stem cells have not produced a single medical benefit.Why does the Iowa government expect economic benefit from funding such research when, according to Forbes magazine, the challenges of creating commercial products from embryonic stem cells is so difficult and prohibitively expensive that private investors and most major drug and biotech companies have not invested in it?
Why is there no private money willing to so venture?Thousands and thousands of patients have benefited from adult stem cell treatments; patients afflicted with various cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias and blood disorders, metabolic disorders, wounds, and injuries have all been cured using adult stem cells, including the latest discovery, stem cells from cord blood.
But from embryos? Nada. Iowa, your Legislature and your governor have an agenda that they are not sharing with you. They are not being honest.
Why embryonic stem cell research is immoralBy Hannah Flanders,Age 15, Member, Muscatine Right to Life
I was very disappointed that the “embryonic stem cell research initiative” bill passed in the Iowa Legislature. To put it plainly, embryonic stem cell research is immoral and unethical.In order for scientists to research embryonic stem cell lines, they use a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is also known as therapeutic cloning!The phrase “somatic nuclear cell transfer” means taking the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell and putting it into an egg cell (ovum), which has had its nucleus removed. When the “somatic cell nuclear transfer” process” is applied, it forms a human embryo without a male sperm. This was the exact method in which “Dolly” the sheep was cloned.
It is very discouraging, because not only is embryonic stem cell research immoral, but it is also ineffective. Today there is not one successful treatment of embryonic stem cell research to report, whereas adult stem cell research (which I support 100 percent) has already generated 72 success cases!The difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research is black and white: Embryonic stem cell research is destroying lives, while adult stem cell research is saving them.
Although some people choose not to believe an embryo is a human being, they must agree that at one point ,every human being was in the form of an embryo — this is basic biology. I think many will agree with me that they are glad they were protected from an “embryonic stem cell research initiative” when they were in the form of an embryo.In the United States, we have a federal law (initiated in 1940) that protects bald eagles in every form of life. If someone shot a bald eagle, they would be subject to the penalties of the law. This same punishment would be inflicted upon those who destroyed the bird’s eggs (embryos). I am disgusted that our country will protect animals in EVERY stage of life, yet will not do the same for human beings.I am certainly not opposed to finding cures for those who have terminal illnesses. I have many close friends with type 1 juvenile diabetes.As much as I would like to see them cured, embryonic stem cell research is not justifiable. The fact that we would be curing one person at the expense of another’s life is utterly inhumane and incredibly selfish.Why not put our efforts toward a more promising alternative such as adult stem cell research?Life is a gift and it deserves protection and respect in every form from conception until natural death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
