Skip to comments.Here Come the NJ Clones
Posted on 02/03/2003 7:38:16 PM PST by Coleus
Here Come the Jersey Clones A devastating bill inches toward law.
The U.S. Congress remains practically agnostic on human cloning. Or so its inaction suggests. A bill sits in the House of Representatives waiting to face debate. A Senate bill sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, too, waits in the wings. The president issued a challenge to the legislative branch to get moving during his State of the Union address last week, and to get moving toward a total prohibition on all human cloning not some half-baked ban that would, in the end, let the clone creation march onward anyway; just so long as you kill them in the end.
Congress may not be acting at the moment, but New Jersey is. On Monday, the Garden State's assembly's health committee takes up a particularly bad bill. Worse than the bad federal laws being proposed, the New Jersey bill does not even prohibit the implantation of a "cloned" embryo. The New Jersey bill would allow for the development of a clone up to and past birth, so long as scientists do not plan on someone raising the child they've created. It's only okay to clone, in other words, so long as you plan to kill the clone, ultimately.
If S1909/A2840 becomes state law, New Jersey would have the disastrous distinction of being the first state to allow human cloning and fetal harvesting the state would be allowing the manufacture of human beings to kill and use for their parts. As New Jersey Right to Life puts it, "This legislation opens a Pandora's box where human embryo and human fetal farms, human experimentation, and reproductive human cloning will be allowed to flourish."
All the while, however, the New Jersey bill, supported by "Superman," activist Christopher Reeve, claims to actually ban human cloning. This is possible because the bill defines cloning after birth.
The bill, in fact, reads like New Jersey lawmakers have taken on Princeton infanticide-defender Peter Singer as a consultant. The supposed ban reads: "A person who knowingly engages or assists, directly or indirectly, in the cloning of a human being is guilty of a crime of the first degree. As used in this act, 'cloning of a human being' means the replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material through the egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual" (emphasis added).
The New Jersey legislation "constitutes the moral madness of killing in the cause of healing with a possible profit motive that would encourage the grisly practice," according to a letter sent to Governor Jim McGreevey by four members of the President's Council on Bioethics (Princeton's Robert P. George, Stanford's William Hurlbut, Georgetown's Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, and Gilbert C. Meilaender of Valparaiso University).
In their letter, the four bioethics-commission members explain:
The pending legislation expressly authorizes the creation of new human beings by cloning and, perhaps unintentionally, their cultivation from the zygote stage through the newborn stage for the purpose of harvesting what the bills themselves refer to as "cadaveric" fetal tissue. Please pause to consider whose cadaver the tissue is to be derived from. It is the cadaver of a distinct member of the species homo sapiens a human being who would be brought into being by cloning and, presumably, implanted and permitted to develop to the desired stage of physical maturation for the purpose of being killed for the harvesting of his or her tissues.
Gerard V. Bradley, a constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame has warned that the effects of the bill, if passed would be "breathtaking, unprecedented, and widely regarded as morally disastrous. These effects include, most notably, a commercial market in the body parts of fetuses, and the birth of an unlimited number of 'cloned' babies."
Wesley J. Smith, author of Culture of Death: The Assault of Medical Ethics in America tells NRO: "It is remarkable and very telling that in less then two years, we have gone from 'only' wanting to harvest the stem cells from embryos left over from IVF procedures, to a state senate passing legislation that would permit the implantation and gestation of cloned fetuses to the ninth month, before requiring their destruction. This is not just a slide down a slippery slope, it is a headfirst plunge into the abyss."
Someone in the New Jersey assembly ought to consider the consequences of their disingenuous, devastating dive before they get human life in too deep, too late for second thoughts. And Congress should take a message from the Garden State before the Brave New World renders Capitol Hill irrelevant.
NJ CLONE AND KILL LEGISLATION RELEASED FROM ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE
ASSEMBLY VOTE COULD OCCUR AS EARLY AS MONDAY, FEB. 10, 2003. IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED!!!
Prepared by Marie Tasy
Director of Public & Legislative Affairs
New Jersey Right to Life www.njrtl.org
On February 3, 2003, The Assembly Health Committee released A2840/S1909 out of committee on a party line vote with six Democrats voting for the bill and two abstaining. The Committee heard 4 hours of testimony from witnesses, an overwhelming majority of whom were opposed to the legislation. The testimony was transcribed and will be available at a later date through the NJ Legislatures webpage.
NJRTL provided copies of a legal opinion addressed to NJRTL from Professor Gerard Bradley, et al. to Committee members as well as a letter written to Governor Jim McGreevey from four members of the Presidents Council on Bioethics outlining some grave problems with the legislation. After the committee was made aware that the bill would allow therapeutic cloning, forced abortions, reproductive cloning, and the commercial trafficking in baby body parts, the committee released the bill over the objections of NJRTL who asked that the bill not be released from committee, but rather held for further discussion. Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, FR Links to Loretta Weinberg's Legislation the Chair of the Committee indicated that the sponsor would review the bill, and, possibly add amendments on the floor when the bill comes up for a vote before the full Assembly. The Senate bill was merged with the Assembly bill, which means they are now identical.
The bill can come up for a vote as early as Monday, February 10, 2003.
Continue to contact your two Assembly members and urge them to vote NO on A2840/S1909 and NO on any amendments that may be offered.
See below article which reports on todays hearing:
Assembly panel approves stem cell bill
The Associated Press
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- A bill that would authorize stem cell research continued to raise objections from religious and anti-abortion groups Monday as it moved a step closer to becoming law.
After four hours of testimony, an Assembly committee approved the bill, praising it as a cutting edge tool that will allow research on cells to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis.
But groups such as New Jersey Right to Life and New Jersey Catholic Conference argued the bill would permit cloning of humans and the trafficking of human body parts.
"We believe it is more important than ever to stand for the principle that government must not treat any living human being as research material as a mere means for benefit to others," according to a statement from New Jersey's Catholic bishops.
The bill must now go before the full Assembly, and the legislation already has passed the Senate. Gov. James E. McGreevey also said he supports stem cell research and urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying it provides hope for those suffering from incurable illnesses.
If the bill becomes law, New Jersey would become the second state in the nation to allow stem cell research.
The law would require a doctor treating patients for infertility to provide enough information for them to make an educated choice regarding use of human embryos after infertility treatments. Most stem cell researchers get unwanted embryos donated by fertility clinics.
Stem cells are created in the first days of pregnancy and give rise to the human body. Scientists hope to someday direct stem cells to grow into replacement organs and tissues to treat a wide range of diseases.
To harvest stem cells, researchers must destroy days-old embryos -- a procedure condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, anti-abortion activists and others. Some were outraged that lawmakers advanced the bill.
"If this legislation passes, Raelians will feel perfectly comfortable calling New Jersey home and setting up their laboratories," said Marie Tasy, director of public and legislative affairs for New Jersey Right to Life.
In December, Clonaid, a group started by a religious sect called the Raelians, claimed to have produced the first human clone. But the group, which believes life on Earth was started by extraterrestrials, has failed to produce the child for independent DNA testing.
WASHINGTON - The failure of the last Congress to enact a ban on human cloning casts grave doubt on our ability to govern the unethical uses of biotechnology, even when it threatens things we hold dear. The new Congress must work to break the legislative impasse.
Opposition to cloning to produce children is practically unanimous in America: The vast majority of Americans oppose it. Most research scientists agree that it should be banned. Nearly every member of Congress has condemned it.
Cloning not only carries high risks of bodily harm to the cloned child, but it also threatens the dignity of human procreation, giving one generation unprecedented genetic control over the next. It is the first step toward a eugenic world in which children become objects of manipulation and products of will.
Yet legislation that would have banned cloning failed to pass the Senate last year. Partisans on both sides of the cloning debate sought to entangle it with the larger debate about stem cell and embryo research. Disentangling the two debates is the key to passing responsible legislation that would prohibit this practice in the United States.
We first need to be clear about the facts. All human cloning begins with the same act: the production of a cloned human embryo. Cloning to produce children would involve the implantation of such embryos in a woman's body and their development to birth; cloning for biomedical research, in contrast, involves the dissection of these embryos to obtain stem cells (and, someday perhaps, the harvesting of fetal tissues and organs).
The political controversy is whether both or only the first of these uses of cloning should be prohibited - and whether, as a practical and moral matter, it is possible to stop cloning to produce children while allowing cloning for research.
The debate so far has been inadequate and wrongly focused. Supporters of cloning for research have often tried to confuse the issue by euphemistic distortion - claiming that the production of cloned embryos is not really cloning, that the embryos produced are not really embryos at all. At
the same time, they have falsely characterized a ban on cloning for research as a ban on all embryo and stem cell research.
Opponents of cloning research, meanwhile, have been preoccupied with putting a stop to the destruction of embryos and so have failed to focus on what is unique about all human cloning: the expanded power to manipulate nascent
human life and thus to master the very technique that will make cloning to produce children possible. Were this danger better understood, opposition to the practice would mount.
It is true that cloning research offers hope, however speculative, for understanding and treating disease. Yet we should not deceive ourselves about the value and necessity of such research: there is virtually no precedent in animal work that demonstrates the unique benefits of creating and exploiting cloned embryos; we have only just begun to understand existing embryonic stem cells; and promising results with adult stem cells, if confirmed, may obviate altogether the putative need for cloned stem cells.
It is also true that the ethics of embryo research is relevant to the cloning debate. Cloning research would require the routine production of embryos solely as a source for experimentation. It would require large numbers of human eggs and invite the exploitation of egg donors. And legislation that allowed creating cloned embryos for research while criminalizing their implantation to create cloned children would mandate, by law, the destruction of nascent human life.
The central issue in the cloning debate, however, and the primary reason to support a ban or moratorium on all human cloning, is this: it threatens the dignity of human procreation. Concern about this threat should lead us to oppose all cloning, including cloning for research.
Human cloning must be seen in the context of our growing powers over human reproduction augmented by new knowledge of the human genome. Science already permits us to screen
human embryos in vitro for thousands of human genes. These include not only those that have markers for dread diseases, but also soon genes responsible for other human traits: not just sex, height or skin color but even intelligence, temperament or sexual orientation.
Genetic selection of embryos is today a growing industry. Some experts hail assisted reproduction as the route to genetically sound babies. While directed genetic change of human embryos (even for therapeutic purposes) may be a long way off, it has been accomplished in primates in the
laboratory. It would be naïve to believe that cloning children will be confined to infertile couples and that cloning research will be confined to studies of disease. Viewed in this larger context, the production of cloned embryos for any purpose is a significant leap in transforming procreation into a form of manufacture. The embryo created by cloning would be the first human embryo to have its genetic identity selected in advance, the first embryo whose makeup is not the unpredictable result of uniting sperm and egg. It is precisely this genetic control that makes cloned embryos appealing and useful.
But we should not be deceived: saying yes to cloned embryos, even for research, means saying yes, at least in principle, to an ever-expanding genetic mastery of one generation over the next. Once cloned human embryos exist in laboratories, the eugenic revolution will have begun.
It is these concerns that have caused many countries to prohibit all human cloning, both for reproduction and research. Germany, Italy, France, Norway, Australia and other democracies, many of which support embryo research, have said no to this practice. The European Parliament,
hardly an arm of the religious right, has also called for the prohibition of all human cloning.
Our country should do the same. The United States should prohibit all human cloning, regardless of its aim - or, at the very least, ban it for several years.
Such a policy would allow time to consider the real significance of crossing this crucial moral boundary. It would allow time for other areas of stem cell research, both adult and embryonic, to proceed. It would provide the most effective safeguard against the production of cloned children by stopping cloning before it starts. And it would allow the national debate to continue. If we do nothing now, human cloning will happen here, and we will have acquiesced in its arrival. It is time for
Congress to act.
Leon R. Kass, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics.
It is important to realize that an embryo IS an individual human being: goals of cloning scientists bear witness to the hidden truth that they are conceiving a unique human being, whether for reproductive or therapeutic aims. Giving tacit acceptance to a proven lie --that the embryo is not an individual human life-- is bad enough, weve done this for more than thirty years, but to embrace cannibalism founded on such a lie is far more degenerate.
Tacit acceptance for manipulating individual human life has lead from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide, proving the bankruptcy of continuing moderate acceptance. We are now staring at cannibalism in the name of whatever you care to call it. Even an embryo no bigger than a grain of sugar is an individual human life. Is it acceptable to kill that individual for their body parts? If you think that it is, at least know that it is cannibalism.
If anyone would like more details, in layman's language, concerning in vitro fertilization, embryonic exploitation, and therapeutic cloning, click on my name and read the essay posted on my profile page.
Is it time to start a 'letters to the editor' campaign regarding these issues, like we conducted prior to the 2000 election? Perhaps it is. Cut and paste at will, fellow Freepers. The material is offered for your use in activist work.
New Jersey and Devils. Perfect together. :)
It contains two types of cells, but only one of those is destined to become part of the fetus -- the other will form the placenta. So at the blastocyst stage, all the cells which develop into the fetus are undifferentiated.
"Moreover, because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.""CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, aka therapeutic cloning] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation of a human embryo."Robert P. Lanza, Arthur L. Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B. Cibelli, Michael D. West, Ronald M. Green; "The ethical validity of using nuclear transfer in human transplantation"; The Journal of the American Medical Association284, 3175-3179; Dec 27, 2000.
My name is Edmund D. Pellegrino. I serve currently as professor of medicine and medical ethics at Georgetown University. In my 55 years in medicine, I have worked as a practicing clinician, research scientist, teacher, scholar in ethics and administrator. On the basis of all these experiences, I wish to oppose any relaxation of the current congressional ban on the production and use of living human embryos as the source of embryonic stem cells.
My objection is not directed against research involving multi-potential stem cells per se. The possibilities such cells offer for the replacement or repair of dead or dying cells in a variety of diseased organs is very great. Such research should be vigorously pursued and generously supported by federal and private funds.
My objection is grounded in the ethical impropriety of the deliberate production and destruction of living human embryos for the purpose of harvesting embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass at the blastocyst stage of their early development. This extraction of the inner cell mass invariably results in the death of the embryo.
Effectively, this method ends the life of a new human being at its most vulnerable stage of existence. The human embryo is a member of the human species, the living result of the fusion of two living human cells. It is imprinted genetically as a unique member of the human species from the moment of conception. At that moment, it is set on its way to becoming a fully developed human adult. To interrupt this process is to violate the moral claim of a human being for protection at its most vulnerable stage. It is laudable to seek better ways to treat human disease and suffering.
But we are not free to use any means we choose. Even the good of others cannot justify the use of human embryos as mere means. The embryo's moral worth is not determined by its instrumental value for others. This would be to absolutize utility and to devalue the lives of all other classes of vulnerable human beings. The societal consequences are grave indeed.
These ethical objections cannot be over-ridden by the claim that the embryo is entitled to a "special respect" but that this respect can be violated if there is sufficient benefit for others. Respect is inherent in the moral status of what the human embryo is in fact. Respect is neither conferred nor removed by arbitrary social convention or convenience.
Nor can the ethical issues be side-stepped by calling the blastocyst a "pre-embryo." This is a euphemism of convenience with no ethical or biological justification. There is no arbitrary point at which we can logically confer or withdraw the moral claim of the embryo for protection of its life.
Moreover, there is genuine and increasing likelihood that the destruction of embryos is not necessary to obtain plutipotential stem cells. Recent work from very respectable scientific laboratories demonstrates the value of plutipotential stem cells from such sources as adult bone marrow (Johns Hopkins); adult human brain (University of Tennessee); neural stem cells (Harvard); muscle, thymus, T-cells, Epithelium stem cells (Tokyo); and autologous bone marrow cells. Use of cells from those sources would be morally defensible, since no living embryos are sacrificed. The effectiveness of these cells appears to equal that of cells obtained by destruction of living human embryos.
Pluripotential stem cells have enormous potential for human benefit, but, like all scientific research, research with these cells must be governed by ethical constraint. Lifting the Congressional ban is not justified logically; it is scientifically premature and unnecessary, and it is morally indefensible. If ethical constraint has any meaning, experiments involving production and destruction of living human embryos must not be done. Indeed, to be ethically sound the Congressional ban should be extended permanently to include privately supported as well as federally supported research involving the production and destruction of living human embryos. Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D.
Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D.- Dr. Pellegrino is the John Carroll Professor of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University. He is the former director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Center for the Advanced Study of Ethics, and is the current director of the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown. He is the author of over 450 published items in medical science, philosophy, and ethics and is a member of numerous editorial boards. Dr. Pellegrino is a Master of the American College of Physicians, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
The newly conceived individual human being is the director of all the form and function which hallmarks the lifetime of that individual. You've chosen to ignore the actual start of the individual continuum of this individual human life, in favor of characterizing the start of individuality as the point of cell differentiation for the embryonic body, yet the scientific facts proclaim that the differentiation begins at an earlier stage.
Growing tension between powerful forces over whether to enact a ban on all human cloning boils down to two ways of considering the status of the human embryo. There are those like President Bush and the vast majority of Americans who believe that a human embryo is a human being created by God in His image, through the sexual union of the male sperm and female egg. Others, represented in Congress by Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ted Kennedy D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others, plus the pharmaceutical and biotech industries and many scientific groups who support human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, consider the human embryo engendered through assisted or a-sexual reproduction, to be a man-made object to be used and ultimately killed in scientific experiments.
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, Because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. The Weldon/Stupak Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 to ban human cloning (H.R. 234) which passed the House in July 2001 and was stopped in the Senate by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), has been reintroduced in the House with 103 co-sponsors. Last week, the Brownback/Landrieu bill (S. 245), identical to the House version, was reintroduced in the Senate with 21 co-sponsors. In contrast, Senators Specter, Hatch, Feinstein and Kennedy have introduced a competing clone and kill bill (S. 303), which would allow the cloning of human embryos for experimentation, provided they are killed prior to 14 days of life. Their bill would result in the immoral and unethical establishment of what President Bush called human embryo farms.
In an opinion poll conducted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) on his web site, the vast majority of respondents said they support a total ban on human embryo cloning. 92% support the Brownback-Weldon ban and 84% wish to ban the Specter-Hatch-Kennedy plan. The fact that Senator Frist did a poll on an issue so fundamental has led some to speculate that his support for a total ban may be conditional, especially in light of his previously stated endorsement of human embryonic stem cell research. The question arises: Does Senator Frist consider the human embryo to have an inviolable moral status?
David Freddoso, in the 1/13/03 edition of Human Events pointed out that, according to the Dec. 24, 2002 Boston Globe, Senator Frist met recently with officials from Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) a Massachusetts-based research company that has already cloned human embryos. The meeting was, according to the Globe, arranged by wealthy ACT investors friendly with Frist, who were worried that the companys cloning work would soon be outlawed.
Mr. Fredossos report mentions the fact that last March, Frist expressed discomfort with a provision in the Weldon and Brownback bills that forbade importation into the United States of therapies produced from human clones. Senator Brownback (R-KS) argued at that time that such a provision was necessary in order to prevent an easy end-run around the law, a reasonable assumption for someone who wants a cloning ban to stick.
However, the prohibition is missing from the new cloning ban bills, S. 245 and H.R. 234. Its absence raises the concern that even if a ban were to be enacted, the U.S. biotech industry might still profit from the manufacture of human clones off-shore and the importation and sale of products made from them. The importation provision should be restored to the bills immediately in order to discourage off-shore cloning efforts.
In August of 2001, President Bush failed to stop stem cell experimentation on human embryos, instead allowing research to continue on cell lines derived from human embryos who had already been killed in privately funded research laboratories. At the same time, he formed The Presidents Council on Bioethics and appointed Dr. Leon Kass, M.D., Ph.D, a University of Chicago professor, as its chairman. Reportedly, it was Dr. Kass who advised the president to allow embryonic stem cell research to continue, albeit in a limited way.
Linda K. Bevington, MA, Director of Research at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, described a meeting she had with Dr. Kass and fellow bioethicist Dr. Kevin FitzGerald, Ph.D, S.J. in an article published in the Winter 2001 issue of Dignity. She pointed out that Dr. Kass stated in his Congressional testimony on June 20, 2001 that, Anyone truly serious about preventing human reproductive cloning must seek to stop the process from the beginning, at the stage where the human somatic cell nucleus is introduced into the egg. In answer to her questions, Ms. Bevington says that, Kass defended the necessity of a comprehensive ban by asserting that it would be the only ban that would effectively prevent reproductive human cloning. He also asserted that a comprehensive cloning ban would place the burden of proof on cloning advocates to offer a convincing argument as to why we should endorse something that would transform humanity.
In October of 2002 at the American Enterprise Institute Book Forum featuring Human Cloning and Human Dignity, the report on human cloning by The Presidents Council on Bioethics, Diana Schaub, associate professor of political science at Loyola College in Maryland and a participant in the forum made the following statement: Cloning is an evil; and cloning for the purpose of research actually exacerbates the evil by countenancing the willful destruction of nascent human life. Moreover, it proposes doing this on a mass scale, as an institutionalized and routinized undertaking to extract medical benefits for those who have greater power. It is slavery plus abortion.
Dr. Kass, in his remarks, made this troubling comment: Yes, new lives would be created, and on a mass scale, purely to serve other peoples purposes. And, yes, such innocent, nascent lives would be willfully exploited and destroyed. But, I am not sufficiently confident about the ontological or moral status of a five-day-old embryo to speak in such abolitionist terms.
Today, even though the President and the vast majority of Americans demanding a ban on human cloning, Dr. Kass along with the majority on The Presidents Council on Bioethics, is supporting a total ban on so-called reproductive cloning but only a four-year moratorium on cloning for biomedical research. This is unacceptable. All cloning is reproductive. And it must be banned.
Many European countries have already banned human cloning. On February 3, 2003, the French Senate passed a comprehensive ban on human cloning as a crime against the human species and imposes a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for transgressors. It now goes to the Assembly and could become law by the end of June.
The United States must act, and quickly! The state of New Jersey is poised to enact a law allowing the cloning of human embryos and their implantation as long as they are killed for bio-medical research prior to the newborn stage! Stanford University announced in December that an anonymous donor had provided $12 million to establish a center devoted entirely to the study of human cloning and stem cell research. California Governor Gray Davis recently signed a bill that encourages scientists to pursue methods that generate embryonic stem cells. (Washington Update, 12/13/02)
The cloning ban bills with the importation prohibition restored should be passed and signed by the President without delay! Please convey that message to your representatives in Congress. 202-224-3121.
What difference does it make how old they are when they're knocked off?
Hello, New Jersey. As most of you know, it's not about real estate tax rebates and car insurance. The current morally bankrupt bozos need to be voted out of office and this obscene law needs to be repealed.
Not that freepers need reminding about such things, but I was shocked last weekend that my family members (not the best-informed New Jersey-ites in the world, admittedly) were unaware of the reach of this law and its horrific implications. They remembered something about embryos without realizing that fetuses up to full term can be experimented on in any way the scientists choose.
Ramesh Ponnuru points out in his new book, The Party of Death, that the big donors in the Republican Party tend to be more pro-abortion than the rank and file. That makes sense, since they are rich, and therefore tend to be Republicans more for fiscal-restraint and tax reasons than for social-issue reasons. This fact had escaped me, for some reason, but it follows, of course, that donations to pro-life candidates are extremely important.
Thanks again, Coleus, for putting this thread together and for all your wonderful threads on the life issue.
Our current government supports and funds the research of aborted babies and supports and funds abortions through the federal Medicaid system and from funding through Title X (a program started in 1969 by Geo. H.W. Bush) by funding Planned Parenthood (the USA's largest abortion provider).
Also, when writing their articles, the press appears to be touting non-embryonic stem cell research when reporting on new stem-cell research only to mention the word "embryonic" near the end of the article knowing that "most" people do NOT read an entire article. Or the press will use the term "fetal cells" or "fetal tissue" and not use the term "embryonic" at all.
Another problem is that most religions like reformed Judaism, mainstream protestantism don't come out against fetal farming and embryonic stem cell research and the Catholic Church while, although against it on paper, does not make sure that their flock completely understands the issue and does not come out against the catholic politicians who have pushed this since day ONE like governors McGreevey and Codey, Senate President Codey, Assembly Speaker Siries, etc. A number of catholics, some are in the K of C, in the legislature have voted YES to embryonic stem cell research, YES to cloning and fetal farming and YES to fund these initiatives. And fund it they do, all politically, there are 3 separate facilities one in the South, one in the Central and another one in the North part of the state all strategically located to keep everyone in the legislature happy.
FYI, "republican" Sen. Thomas H. Kean, Jr., candidate for US Senate, was the only republican senator in committee to vote YES to fund the Stem Cell Institute.
Presently, mind you at present, the plan isn't to grow a cloned baby to the full nine months then harvest the organs, etc. The plan is to clone an individual, give life support in vitro to the newly conceived human being, then harvest tissues to be used at cellular level for the planned 'experimental' procedures. It is cannibalism, shrinker's snide comments not withstanding. It is also an evil so pernicious and so well hidden from public perceptions that it hints of demonic influence.
Thanks for the ping. I have to admit, I really don't know much about this issue, either. This is an informative thread. This is the first time I've heard of the NJ "ban" on cloning.