Tough Cell: House Passes Controversial Stem Cell Bill

On May 24, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed two measures on stem cell research, the controversial investigation that could lead to valuable treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases.

The bill HR 810 would overturn President Bush’s 2001 executive order that prohibits federal funding for the creation of new stem cell lines. In response, President Bush has promised a legislative veto, a power that he has never exercised.

The House also passed HR 2520, which is far less contentious. This bill authorizes $79 million for the collection of stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, this practice does not require the destruction of human embryos.

In the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nevada) has called for a vote, but Republican leader Bill Frist (Tennessee) is hesitant to bring the matter to the floor since his more conservative constituents are already fuming about the recent deal over judicial nominations.

But what is stem cell research?

Stem cell research is relatively new; only since 1998 have scientists been able to grow and isolate stem cells, which have the unique potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. When a stem cell divides, each "daughter" cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function. Stem cells, therefore, could serve as a repair system for tissues and organs, replenishing damaged or diseased cells, including red blood cells, brain cells, or muscle cells.

Stem cells often come from leftover frozen embryos in fertilization clinics. Harvesting the cells always kills the days-old embryo; so many Americans are opposed to the practice. The argument over stem cell research often mimics the abortion debate, centering on the religious debate over when human life begins.

But not all stem cells are derived from embryos. Umbilical cord cells are adult cells that originate in the mother, but these cells are less adaptable.

What would the legislation do?

At the center of controversy is HR 810, proposed by Michael N. Castle (R- Delaware). Castle’s bill would ban cloning but allow scientists to utilize leftover embryos that would otherwise be discarded. Proponents argue that the life or death of the embryo has already been settled, and with the consent of the parents, its cells could be used in the pursuit of preserving life.

But opponents say that it’s unethical to use embryos for scientific research. They consider frozen embryos to be individuals who need protection. Further, they say it’s unfair to require taxpayers to support such a debatable practice.

Legislators on both sides of the argument consider themselves pro-life, and the term takes on a new meaning within the context of the stem cell debate. For example, both Senator Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) and Senator Rick Santorum (R- Pennsylvania) are strongly opposed to abortion, but since stem cell research may save lives, Hatch believes that it follows pro-life principles, while Santorum sees no difference between stem cell research and abortion.

President Bush agrees with Santorum, and is sharply opposed to the bill. If he vetoes it, Congress has a chance to overturn or override the veto. A two-thirds vote or greater is needed in both the House and the Senate to override the President's veto and allow the bill to become a law. But if the House and Senate do not override the veto, the bill "dies."

The bill passed 238 to 194, far from the 290 votes needed to override a veto in the House.

A multi-dimensional issue

The issue intersects disciplines as well as parties. To come to an opinion on the matter, one must consider her religious or spiritual beliefs along with the purpose of scientific research, the origins of life and the role of the government. The subject also begs more concrete questions: If an embryo is going to be discarded, should it be used for research instead? Should taxpayer money go to scientific endeavors? Should the president’s religious beliefs affect public policy?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.