WASHINGTON (January 31, 2007) – Only a week after taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, Democratic leaders fast-tracked legislation that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos.

The legislation would overturn a policy adopted by President Bush in 2001, which prohibits federal funding of stem cell research that requires harming human embryos. 

After Democrats took control of the House on January 4, one of their first legislative priorities was the bill to fund such research, authored by Representatives Diana DeGette (D-Co.) and Mike Castle (R-De.) (H.R. 3), which was brought to the House floor on January 11.  The bill contains the same language as a bill that President Bush vetoed in July 2006 – a veto that was sustained by the House. 

The bill would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells. The embryos would be those authorized by the parents to be "donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, [and that] were created for the purposes of fertility treatment."

Despite a promised veto from President Bush, and over objections from NRLC and other pro-life groups, the House passed the bill, 253-174.  That represented a margin of passage 18 votes greater than the same legislation had garnered in 2006, due almost entirely to support from most of the newly elected Democrats – but it was still 32 votes short of the two-thirds margin that would be required to override a veto.

The bill was supported by 37 Republicans and 216 Democrats.  It was opposed by 158 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

The House Democratic leadership brought the bill to the floor under a "closed rule," which meant that the pro-life side was only allowed to offer only a single proposed modification.  The single amendment (technically called a "motion to recommit with instructions") would have added language to the bill to prohibit any of the funds authorized by the bill from being given to labs or other entities that do research on stem cells obtained from human embryos created by cloning. 

NRLC supported this anti-human-cloning motion/amendment, but it failed, 189-238.  Therefore, H.R. 3 was sent to the Senate without any modifications.

(To see the House roll calls on the anti-cloning amendment and on final passage of H.R. 3, click here.)

During the floor debate, pro-life Rep. Mike Pence (R-In.) said, "This debate is about who we are as a nation. . . . will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this nation who find the destruction of human embryos for scientific research to be morally wrong? . . . This debate is about who pays for it."

Rep. Bart Stupak (Mi.), one of only 16 Democrats to oppose the bill, said, "We are entrusted to determine the ethical and moral bounds of scientific research and to determine what value America places on human life. I believe our work today must reflect America's belief that all life has value, from the human embryo to those in the twilight of their life. We must not legislate shortcuts for one life over another."

In a statement issued by NRLC following the House vote, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said, "Every lawmaker who voted against this bill supports stem cell research, but not the kind that requires killing human embryos, and we commend them for that.  Today the key lawmakers pushing this bill rejected an anti-human-cloning amendment, which was one more proof that the biotech industry is determined to use human cloning to create human embryo farms."

White House Activity

Two days before the House vote, the White House Domestic Policy Council released a detailed report, "Advancing Stem Cell Science Without Destroying Human Life," highlighting advances in the types of stem cell research that do not require killing human embryos.  (The report is posted on the White House website here.)

In a statement sent to the House on the day of the vote, the White House said, "The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the President's policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction.  If H.R. 3 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."  (The entire White House policy statement is posted here.)

What next?

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nv.) and other Democratic leaders have indicated that they intend to bring an identical bill (S. 5) to the floor soon, and some observers believe that this is likely to occur in late February.  [Update: As of March 3, 2007, the Senate had not yet taken up S. 5, but Senator Reid had indicated his desire to do so sometime during March.]

The lead sponsor of S. 5, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Ia.), said, "I look forward to the Senate quickly taking action on this legislation, passing it with strong bipartisan support, and sending a bill to the President."

NRLC's Johnson said, "Amendments might be offered in the Senate, but even if some pro-life amendments are adopted, they would be dropped in a Senate-House conference committee controlled by two pro-abortion Democratic chairmen.  Therefore, the final bill that will be sent to President Bush probably will be the same as the bill the House passed, which identical to the bill he vetoed last year."

In order to override a veto, a two-thirds vote in each chamber would be required.  After the President vetoes the bill, it will be sent back first to the Senate. 

"With the changes in the Senate resulting from the election, the anti-embryo side is now within one vote of the two-thirds margin, so it is definitely possible that the Senate will vote to override," Johnson said.  "However, the House will sustain the veto."

If that happens, Harkin and Rep. DeGette have vowed that they will attach similar language to other, broader bills later in the year – so-called "must pass" bills.

But Johnson commented, "There are some bills that Senator Harkin or others may consider ‘must pass,' but there are no bills that a President must sign, until they are modified to his satisfaction."

Following the January 11 House vote, Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "Congress should now turn its attention to stem cell research that poses no moral problem – constructive research that is already beginning to help patients with dozens of conditions in clinical trials.  Unlike embryonic stem cell research, research using stem cells from adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and other sources is showing enormous promise and is likely to produce new treatments for patients now living.  Most Americans support stem cell research, and most greatly prefer that this research advance without harming or destroying human life at any stage."

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics for Focus on the Family, commented, "In the history of medical experiments, some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions. If a medical experiment purposefully threatens or destroys a human life, something is wrong with the experiment. In a civilized society, we must demand more. And thankfully, in the case of stem-cell research, we have ethical alternatives that are just as good – perhaps better -- than the unethical ones."

Taking Action

To view additional information on this legislation, including NRLC's January 5 letter to U.S. House members opposing H.R. 3, click here.

For additional information on human embryo research and human cloning, visit http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

For guidance on how to call the offices of your U.S. senators, or to send them e-mails or faxes, to communicate your opposition to S. 5, go to the Legislative Action Center on the NRLC website at http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/home/ and click on "Issues and Legislation."