Posted on 03/13/2009 8:12:20 PM PDT by Between the Lines
On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.
The amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.
“For the purposes of this section,” says the law, “the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism … that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” (The entire verbatim text of Section 509 of the omnibus spending law is reprinted at the bottom of this article.)
At a widely publicized White House ceremony on Monday, President Obama signed his own executive order lifting an executive order that President Bush had signed in 2001. While allowing federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created from embryos that had already been destroyed, Bush's 2001 order denied federal funding to research that required the killing of any additional embryos.
“For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions,” said the order that President Obama signed Monday. “The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.”
The order went on to say: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”
Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.
Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.
“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”
Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.
"Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."
Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.
“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”
In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.
“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society,” said Obama.
A bill sponsored in the last Congress by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) would specifically permit federal funding of research using human embryos that are created by cloning and kept alive for no more than 14 days so that their stem cells can be extracted. Federal funding of this type of research is prohibited by Dickey-Wicker.
Researchers are interested in cloning human embryos for prospective stem cell therapies because it might help overcome the problem posed by a patient's immune system, which rejects stem cells derived from another person but might accept stem cells if they are taken from an embryo cloned from the patient himself.
On Tuesday morning, The New York Times carried an editorial calling on Congress to repeal Dickey-Wicker.
“Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment,” The Times editorialized. “The amendment, which is regularly attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.”
“Congress should follow Mr. Obama's lead and lift this prohibition so such important work can benefit from an infusion of federal dollars,” The Times said.
The next day, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” which includes the Dickey-Wicker language. Unless Congress passes and President Obama signs new legislation to repeal Dickey-Wicker, it will now be the law of the land at least through September 30, when this fiscal year ends.
The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:
SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.
Dumbo has ears just like him.
Great point, just about puts him in the same class too :)
Another illustration of vitually no experience
If that’s the case, then it’s good news it’s not funded.
The Clinton adminstration circumvented Dickey-Wicker by issuing a legal opinion opining that the federal funds could be used to fund experiments on cell lines derived from destroyed embryos but could not be used for the actual creation and destruction of the embryos themselves. I suspect that, until Congress specifically addresses Dickey-Wicker, the Obama administration will do the same thing.
He was for it before he was against it.
Dear Democrats:
Not reading legislation before voting has consequences.
...cause he ain't gonna want any bacon! (Pssst: Any updates on gettin' a dog, either??? Nope. Muslims don't like dogs - CERTAINLY NOT inside the house....mark my words a dog "for the girls" won't EVER happen.)
This was not a mistake, or a defeat for Obama or pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research people.
There’s a crucial point none of you here seems to see... There is a difference between the law today and the law under the Bush EO..
The Bush EO banned federal funds from being used on stem cells not derived from pre-existing cell lines (i.e. cells that are derived from newly destroyed embryos).
Obama rescinded that EO.
The Dickey-Wicker Amendment bans the use of federal funds to destroy embryos (including to extract stem cells).
The Bush EO and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment do not serve the same function.
Now, federal funds may be used to fund research on stem cells derived from newly destroyed embryos. However, those embryos must have been destroyed using private (or not federal, anyway) funds.
Now he re-instates the ban on funding and makes very little noise about it.
His intention is clear: Fool the left into thinking he did what they want, and then try to placate the right by signing the ban. He knows we will find out about the ban,(because we actually follow current events) but he is pretty sure the left will remain ignorant for the most part, mainly because they want to.
Regrettably, this is probably a case of 'never ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence.'
I really hate to date myself here, but Robert Heinlein nailed politicians here:
"... I don't mean that a business politician won't steal; stealing is his business. But all politicians are non-productive. The only commodity any politician has to offer is jawbone. His personal integrity--meaning, if he gives his word, can you rely upon it?" A successful business politician knows this and guards his reputation for sticking by his own commitments--because he wants to stay in business--go on stealing, that is, not only this week, but next year, and years after that. So if he's smart enough to be sucessful at this very exacting trade, he can have the morals of a snapping turtle, but he performs in such a way as not to jeopardize the only thing he has to sell, his reputation for keeping promises
“But a reform politician has no such lodestone. His devotion is to the welfare of all the people–an abstraction of very high order and therefore capable of endless definitions. If indeed it can be defined in meaningful terms. In consequence your utterly sincere and incorruptible reform politician is capable of breaking his word three times before breakfast–not from personal dishonesty, as he sincerely regrets the necessity and will tell you so–but from unswerving devotion to his ideal.
“All it takes to get him to break his word is for someone to get his ear and convince him that it is necessary for the greater good of all the peepul. He’ll geek.
“After he gets hardened to this, he’s capable of cheating at solitaire. Fortunately he rarely stays in office long–except during the decay and fall of a culture.”
To me, that pretty much covers the current situation, doesn't it?
Another Heinlein prediction was that the era after the 1980's were referred to as the 'Crazy Years'. By his lights, I believe the present pretty much qualifies as '...during the decay and fall of a culture.' God knows, we're living them just now ... only instead of Nehemiah Scudder, we've got Barak Obama!
Doesn't this mean that the funds made available in the "ACT", may be used for the purpose of human embryonic research, not other readily available government funds.
I think this inclusion was meant to appease and deceive the pro-life group.
I suspect Obama is trying to have it both ways here. Gotta keep that approval rating as high as possible.
Ok, who let Kerry type on the teleprompter?
Jean Carrié is that you?
Yo-Yo Bama.
Carter was.
So does this mean that you can use federal funds to experiment with live embryos and pluck cells from them as long as you don't intend to kill the them? And if the embryos die as a result of all that plucking, why, you didn't mean it, so it doesn't count? Yikes!!!
Mia, you are correct. I think we have to many speed readers and this just went over their heads This statement means it only applies to these funds. You can bet there are other funds that will be used.
Obama does a barrel roll!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.