Applause of the Week House of Representatives Approves Ban on All Human Cloning February 27, 2003 Washington, DC -- Turning back a phony ban offered by those who favor killing human embryos to obtain their stem cells for scientific research, the House of Representatives voted 241-155 in favor of a pro-life ban on all forms of human cloning. The measure passed the House 265-162 during the last legislative session. The bill, sponsored by pro-life Reps. Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Bart Stupak (R-MI), bans all forms of human cloning -- both to create new human beings and for use in life-destructive scientific research. The debate now returns to the Senate, where a similar bill put forward by pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) competes against a similar phony ban backed by several senators. President Bush supports the pro-life version and has told members of Congress he will veto any phony ban. The House voted against the phony ban 231-174. As it did last time, the debate volleyed between pro-cloning legislators who claimed medical science and the chance to find cures for diseases would be set back and pro-life legislators who pointed out that embryonic stem cells have not saved any lives and adult stem cell research offers more ethical and more effective alternative. "Our bill allows animal cloning, tissue cloning, and current adult stem cell research ... How is this seen as stifling research," pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), asked. "Opponents of our bill have said embryonic research is the Holy Grail of science, and holds the key to untold medical wonders. I say to these opponents, show me your miracles. Show me the wondrous advances done on animal embryonic cloning. But these opponents cannot show me these advances because they do not exist." Opponents of the complete ban claimed the Weldon-Stupak bill would halt scientific research. "This is a question about whether or not we are going to go forward with the most promising medicine of our time," said pro-cloning Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA), who sponsored the phony ban. "Embryonic stem cell research has failed to find any cures in any clinical trials," Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) countered. On the other hand, "adult stem cells have produced promising medical results." Pro-life organizations applauded the House vote. John F. Kilner, Ph.D., president of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity commented, "The passage of the cloning ban by the House is a wonderful statement of our country's determination not to let the lure of scientific achievement or financial gain run roughshod over ethics. If news events of the last year have shown us anything, it is that cutting ethical corners in the pursuit of prosperity is not a wise long-term approach. May the Senate have the courage to chart a similar course." Pro-life lawmakers speaking in favor of the Weldon-Stupak bill included: Dave Weldon (R-FL), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), Bart Stupak (D-MI), Lee Terry (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Todd Akin (R-MO), Mike Pence (R-IN), Howard Coble (R-NC), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), John Sullivan (R-OK), Richard Baker (R-LA), David Wu (D-OR), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Chris Smith (R-NJ). Lawmakers speaking against the pro-life bill included: Jim McGovern (D-MA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Lois Capps (D-CA), Chris Bell (D-TX), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Diana Degette (D-CO), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Mel Watt (D-NC), Anna Eschoo (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Ron Kind (D-WI), Gene Green (D-TX), Jim Greenwood (R-PA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Adam Schiff (D-CA), David Price (D-NC), Jim Moran (D-VA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Dutch Ruppersburger (D-MD), Peter Deutsch (D-FL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and Darlene Hooley (D-OR). ACTION: Find out how your Representative voted on the human cloning ban by clicking here. Supreme Court Rules RICO Law Doesn't Apply to Pro-Life Protesters Source: Cybercast News Service, Associated Press; February 26, 2003 Washington, DC -- Pro-life groups Wednesday cheered a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the use of federal anti-racketeering law to be used in the prosecution of pro-life protesters or any other protesters. The 8-to-1 ruling is considered a victory for protesters of all stripes, although the case involved members of the Pro Life Action Network and Operation Rescue who were convicted in 1998 under a racketeering law known as RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). The Supreme Court ruled that pro-lifers' political activity could not be considered the type of extortion that RICO prohibits. The original case dated all the way back to 1986. The 1998 convictions occurred after numerous delays. Writing for the majority of the high court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed that the pro-life protesters interfered with abortion facility operations. "But," he wrote, "Even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of 'shutting down' a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion." The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) provided legal services in the case. The RICO law was "designed to combat drug dealers and organized crime," the center stated in a news release, and "was wrongly used against the pro-life movement." "The decision removes a cloud that has been hanging over the pro-life movement for 15 years," according to the ACLJ. The Rutherford Institute, which also argued in favor of the pro-life movement in its friend of the court brief, called it "the most significant pro-life protest case to come before the court in years." "The Supreme Court's near-unanimous decision gives breathing room for the First Amendment-protected speech of many political groups that have been virtually shut out of public debate because of threats of huge fines like those imposed on these protesters," according to institute president John W. Whitehead. Pro-life groups were unanimous in their approval of the decision. Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios also praised the high court's ruling, declaring that, "pro-life activists are not mobsters." "The Supreme Court has set the record straight on the time-honored American tradition of the right to protest," Rios said. Family Research Council president Ken Connor said "acts of violence directed at abortion clinics, abortionists or women seeking abortions are wrong and already against the law." As a result, Connor said, the RICO law should not be targeted at pro-lifers. "What NOW (National Organization for Women) and other pro-abortion groups want to do is threaten pro-lifers with financial ruin in order to silence debate," he added. Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, expressed disappointment at the verdict, but vowed to "not allow it to be a green light for anti-choice terrorists." "Planned Parenthood will use the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) and every other legal tool to protect our patients, staff and volunteers from harassment and terrorism," Feldt stated. "We remain steadfast in our commitment to every woman's human and civil right to make her own decisions about childbearing." Pro-life activists should not read more into the Supreme Court verdict than what exists, according to National Abortion Federation president Vicki Saporta. "This decision does not give anti-choice protesters and extremists the right to commit illegal or criminal activity outside reproductive health care clinics," Saporta said. Pro-life protester Joseph Scheidler predicted renewed activism at abortion facilities, but said the protests will be peaceful. "They will be mostly prayer vigils and counseling," said Scheidler, who appealed the case to the Supreme Court. "The old days of Operation Rescue, I think, are pretty well finished. I don't see any reason to resurrect that - the arrests and so forth." The opinion can be found online. Just click here. Supreme Court Upholds Right to Know Law Source: Associated Press, Pro-Life Infonet; February 24, 2003 Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an Indiana state law that places some of the nation's best limitations on abortions, including requirements that a woman be counseled face-to-face about abortion risks and offered pictures of what her unborn child might look like. The high court turned down an appeal from Indiana abortion businesses claiming the in-person counseling sessions would force some women to forgo abortions or to have an abortion further into pregnancy. "This is an outrageous law that leaves many women without access to abortions, or certainly places a heavy burden, an undue burden, on a woman's right to choose," said Kate Michelman, president of the pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This is a great victory for Indiana women," says Indiana Right to Life executive director Mike Fichter. "For the first time Indiana abortion providers will be required to give women full, factual information on the risks associated with abortion, the alternatives to abortion, and information on fetal development." The high court action means that Indiana may begin fully enforcing a law passed eight years ago that requires in-person counseling and an 18-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion. Similar "Right to Know" laws in other states have proven effective in significantly reducing the number of abortions and encouraging women to choose alternatives. In practice, the Indiana law and similar measures on the books in four other states require women to make two trips to an abortion facility. Opponents of the Indiana law said research showed that similar laws in Mississippi and Utah forced women to not have abortions. Louisiana and Wisconsin also have similar in-person counseling requirements. "This is just a good, common sense law," notes Fichter. "A woman considering any other type of surgery in Indiana will be told about all of her medical risks and alternatives. But up until now that's been a standard Indiana abortion clinics have failed to live up to. It just makes sense to give women all of the facts before making life-changing decisions." The Supreme Court did not comment in rejecting the case, which could have offered a new opportunity to review when state restrictions on abortion become unconstitutional. Nearly every state places some restriction on the availability of abortion, including requirements that women wait a day or so after requesting an abortion and that they receive certain medical or legal information beforehand. The high court has allowed a variety of restrictions, so long as they do not place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to get an abortion. Waiting periods and laws requiring women to get information ahead of time are not new, but Indiana's law goes further than most states in combining the two. Abortion rights supporters claim such restrictions are meant to chip away at the right to an abortion secured by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade ruling 30 years ago. Abortion opponents generally support such restrictions as reasonable ways to make sure the procedure is performed responsibly, although for many they do not go far enough. In Indiana, a 1995 law required that women give what the state called "informed consent" before getting an abortion. That means abortion facilities must tell women about alternatives to abortion and about the availability of child support if the pregnancy goes forward. Abortion practitioners also must describe the fetus at its current stage of development and offer to show the woman pictures of a fetus at the same stage. The state Legislature said it intended to inform women about abortions and to try to persuade fewer women to have them. Seven abortion businesses and an abortion practitioner challenged the law in federal court, and the requirement for an in-person interview has never taken effect. Until Monday, women who sought abortions could avoid making two trips by agreeing to hear the state-mandated information over the telephone. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the in-person counseling rule constitutional last year. A majority of a three-judge appeals court panel said the law does not create too great a burden for women, in part because it would waive the counseling requirement in a medical emergency. The case is A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 02-935.
|
President Bush Declares Sanctity of Human Life Day
Source: Associated Press; January 14, 2003 |
