Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
CNS News ^ | March 13, 2009 | Terence P. Jeffrey

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhoflipflops; bhostemcells; bioethics; clueless; first100days; obama; stemcell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-211 next last
To: calex59

“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”

No way no how. Reeves foundation, MJ Fox, hell even Nancy Reagan got jobbed, have to believe they won’t be shouting it out loud. Unless there is some angle that we are missing (very possible) this is simply a blunder.


61 posted on 03/13/2009 9:51:36 PM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

“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.”

What gets me is this: Private companies can do embryonic stem cell research, it is legal. Know how many diseases they have cured with them. Exactly ZERO. They are talking about federally funding research that has failed to show ANY promise of success. They are trying to fund failure! (Why am I still surprised at this??) Given that it is possible to get Stem Cells with OUT killing a human being, funding for murder seems just absolutely asinine. Stem cells gotten through other means HAVE produced results! Why not stick with something that works???????


62 posted on 03/13/2009 9:53:29 PM PDT by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

He doesn’t even know what he’s is supporting.


63 posted on 03/13/2009 9:59:14 PM PDT by screaming eagle2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

“It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society,” said Obama.”

I thought that moral pronouncements were above Hussein Obama’s pay grade.


64 posted on 03/13/2009 10:00:08 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

He just wanted to get Nancy Reagan excited. What a twit!


65 posted on 03/13/2009 10:13:43 PM PDT by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

“Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It”

What a tool.


66 posted on 03/13/2009 10:14:41 PM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAC21
“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” No way no how. Reeves foundation, MJ Fox, hell even Nancy Reagan got jobbed, have to believe they won’t be shouting it out loud. Unless there is some angle that we are missing (very possible) this is simply a blunder.

I didn't say he would get away with it. I said he was trying to game the system. I am a firm believer that he disregards his handlers advice quite frequently because his has bought into his own hype. He thinks he can say or do anything and it won't have a negative impact on him or the demwit party.

In my opinion his own arrogance will bring him down.

I agree that it was a blunder, but I think it was planned on his part. He is a very stupid man and fails to think things through.

67 posted on 03/13/2009 10:15:22 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I guess he was for funding research before he was against it.


68 posted on 03/13/2009 10:16:05 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Didn’t Nancy Reagan just praise him for lifting the ban. OOPS!


69 posted on 03/13/2009 10:50:02 PM PDT by 1035rep ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Other countries can also do the research but don't. For some reason never fully explained US taxpayer dollars are the only thing that can make embryonic stem cell research work.
70 posted on 03/13/2009 10:57:11 PM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Which is worse?
Obama's incompetence...


Or Charles Barkley's golf swing?

71 posted on 03/13/2009 11:19:14 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( Dear Mr. Obama - Please make it rain candy! P.S. I like jelly beans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
...President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research...

OK, I'm not going to stop reading there because this article has something important to say. But that sentence is the same lie, told ad-infinitum. Pres. Bush did NOT ban federal funding of stem cell research. He didn't even ban funding for embryonic SC research. He actually funded it for the first time ever, you lying liberal sacks of excrement. He simply placed the restriction on it that only existing SC lines could be funded federally.

But you mealy mouthed, sub-human, Nazi zombie, Marxist-socialist, baby-killing, power-tripping, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, elitist trash leftists call it a 'ban' because you can never be honest about even the smallest of things.

/rant

I now return you all to figuring out what 0bobblehead did now.

72 posted on 03/14/2009 12:01:02 AM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I dunno. I’m totally confused now.


73 posted on 03/14/2009 12:34:11 AM PDT by 3catsanadog (I plan to give the new President the same respect and dignity the other side gave Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

He’s just doing a Kerry “I reversed it before I banned it.”


74 posted on 03/14/2009 12:36:40 AM PDT by 3catsanadog (I plan to give the new President the same respect and dignity the other side gave Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/03/13/should-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research-be-permitted.html


75 posted on 03/14/2009 12:40:49 AM PDT by toldyou (Even if the voices aren't real they have some pretty good ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

bttt


76 posted on 03/14/2009 1:37:12 AM PDT by hattend (Sarah Palin has run a fishing business, a city, and a state. All Obama has done is run his mouth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
I guess this guy will have to take back his claps from the 1st signing ceremony.


77 posted on 03/14/2009 2:01:49 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

That’s what happens when you don’t read the bill your signing!
I guess he should have put it on his web page for 5 days to read Huh! This guy couldn’t find his arss with both hands!


78 posted on 03/14/2009 2:04:18 AM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
...the Dickey-Wicker amendment?

Can this be true, or is it sarcasm? Is the wittle bebe getting aww wonesome at the top?

79 posted on 03/14/2009 2:58:46 AM PDT by CanaGuy (Go Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
instead be left up to the Congress majority to decide without his position being made clear.

So he voted "present" again.

80 posted on 03/14/2009 3:32:17 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson