Kansas Coalition
for Lifesaving Cures
PO Box 394
Topeka KS 66601-0394
Toll-free: 800-821-2658
Email: info@kansascures.com
| NEWS ARTICLE February 25, 2007 Wichita Eagle |
Events suggest support for cloning measures has slipped
By John Hanna, (AP)
TOPEKA, Kan. - As the Legislature passed the midpoint of its 2007 session, events suggested that critics of embryonic stem cell research have seen support erode for their legislation on human cloning.
The House Health and Human Services Committee endorsed two bills last week, setting up a debate in the chamber. One measure established legal definitions, telling Kansans what constitutes human cloning, and the other prohibited the state from putting money into such research.
Both bills targeted a process at the center of the cloning debate, one that supporters say isn't cloning but one that some scientists, many abortion opponents and embryonic stem cell research critics say is exactly that.
Debates about cloning and embryonic stem cell research have been a part of the House's agenda for the past seven years, reflecting its anti-abortion majorities. Proposals dealing with cloning and embryonic stem cell research passed there four of the six previous years.
But no debate occurred last week. The bills returned to committee to wait for sunnier political weather.
"I try not to run bills that don't have a good chance of passage," explained Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, who supports such legislation.
Debates about cloning and embryonic stem cell research are intertwined because the much-discussed process some legislators want to discourage or even prevent is used to create embryonic stem cells for research.
It's somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. The nucleus of an egg, with 23 chromosomes, is replaced with the nucleus of another cell, with the full contingent of 46 chromosomes. After the cell begins to divide in a laboratory, researchers harvest its stem cells and discard the rest.
Such a process was used to clone a sheep in 1997, and critics say it represents human cloning because an egg with half the normal contingent of chromosomes emerges with a full contingent and divides. Simply put, they say, a human embryo is created, no matter what its fate.
Some scientists and policy makers distinguish between "reproductive" cloning, in which the goal is to produce live offspring, and "therapeutic" cloning for medical research. And some also say SCNT isn't cloning because the product is never implanted in the womb.
It's clear which side the backers of the two House bills take. The definitions bill describes SCNT as producing "a cloned embryo." The other bill bans state funding for producing - of course - "a cloned embryo," an attempt to do so, or the shipping of products from such research.
In Missouri, such research is protected by an amendment to the state constitution approved in November with 51 percent of the vote, after advocates spent more than $30 million on their campaign.
The current debate in Kansas has its roots in a sentence added as an amendment in 2001 to a bill meant to encourage research at state universities: "No research activities on human cloning shall be conducted by any state educational institution under the jurisdiction and control of the state Board of Regents."
The bill passed with 104 out of 125 votes, but the policy didn't survive a skeptical Senate. The debate has become complicated, with legislation becoming more detailed and specific.
Backers of this year's bills contend the issue is simple to understand once the science is boiled down into simple language. Some legislators aren't so sure.
"I think a lot of people are still struggling to understand the science because we have science experts here giving us different views of the same issue," said House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg. "A lot of people in the middle are trying to figure out, how do we sort this out, protect the sanctity of human life and not cut off lifesaving cures."
The potential for lifesaving cures is the biggest reason defenders of SCNT and embryonic stem cell research give for not imposing restrictions. While the potential is hotly debated, one thing seems clear: The promise of such cures is the most potent political weapon against legislation like the House bills.
"When you have here a petri dish and your diabetic sister, who wins?" said Rep. Sue Storm, D-Overland Park, who opposes the bill. "That's my position, and I have qualms about that at all."
Anti-cloning legislation also passed the House in 2002, 2004 and 2006, only to languish in the Senate, the last two times amid fears that such legislation could damage the state's efforts to nurture an emerging bioscience industry.
Backers of the bill say such fears are unfounded, but bioscience industry officials have created enough questions that some legislators want to tread carefully.
Finally, the House has 24 members this year who weren't serving last year. They include Rep. Cindy Neighbor, D-Shawnee, whose November victory over Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, cost the chamber its most active backer of cloning legislation.
"We've got a House that hasn't been tested yet. We had a lot of new members this year," said Health and Human Services Committee Chairwoman Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita. "Now we've got to spend some time educating."
It's difficult to determine whether Neufeld's decision not to have the debate last week represents a setback of only a week or two for critics of SCNT and embryonic stem cell research, or whether no bill will pass this year. But his hesitation is significant, given the House's history.
Backers of such legislation are having to work harder this year, and that is a sign that their support may be slipping.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Political Writer John Hanna has covered state government and politics since 1987.