There is also this little piece here in the Detroit Free press from February of this year: http://www.genpol.org/news124.pdf
Or this piece from a March issue of the Free Press. I'm just glad if anyone types Meisner and cloning in Google - I've got the first two slots.
Jivin J,
I know you live in Michigan and are up on the legal aspects of ESCR and cloning so I wanted to ask you a few questions. I read your posts regarding Meisner’s bill (http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/2006/01/
governor-granholm-wants-human-cloning.html and http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot...-his-
teeth.html and http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot...egalizing.html)
and came away with the following questions:
1. What was the original purpose of Michigan’s 1978 PA 369 law that Meisner wants to amend (HB 4900)? It looks as though the original bill (199
was intended to outlaw embryonic stem cell research and cloning, and yet as you have pointed out, UofM is receiving federal dollars to engage in such research. How are they doing that? In http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot...an-
cloning.html you wrote, “[T]he only ‘limit’ on embryonic stem cell research is that you can't use a human embryo for non-therapeutic research in the state of Michigan. That means that researchers can't extract stem cells from human embryos (which kills the embryo) while in Michigan but researcher could import embryonic stem cell from another state or kill human embryos in another state and then bring their stem cells into Michigan and experiment on the stem cells in Michigan. And this is exactly what researchers from the University of Michigan are already doing.” I’ve read Meisner’s bill but I don’t see where it restricts its prohibitions to embryos killed in the state of Michigan, allowing for the importation of embryos killed for research in other states. Can you tell me where you got that from?
2. In your Aug 2nd post you said Meisner was claiming somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning, and yet in his (amended) bill he seems to acknowledge that it is by leaving untouched key parts in a sentence that identified the two as one and the same. The bill states, “ ‘Human cloning’ means creating or attempting to create a human being by using the somatic cell nuclear transfer procedure for the purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.” How can he try to say they are not the same when he identifies them as the same in his bill?
3. What is the status of his bill? I see it was proposed in June 2005. I see there was another version in November 2004 (HB 6354). I didn’t compare the two in detail side-by-side, but they looked pretty similar. Why the change in bill name/date?
In your http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot...an-
cloning.html post you wrote, “It's one of the most deceptive bills on human cloning that I've ever read.” I agree that it is deceptive, but I think it pales in comparison to Missouri’s bill and the U.S. Senate’s. They were far more deceptive. Do you know of any other states that have (or are trying to)
continued...
enacted legislation that would enshrine cloning into law all the while claiming to ban cloning?
Thanks!
Jason
Hi Jason,
1. The intent of the original bill in 1978 was to prevent people using/killing embryos for research in Michigan. However, it doesn't outlaw using stem cells which came from human embryos. So researchers can't kill human embryos in Michigan but they can import stem cells from out of state and then perform research on those stem cells. The 1998 law was designed to ban human cloning both human cloning for research and human cloning to bring a child to birth.
Meisner's bill scratches off the term "embryo" and only uses the term "fetus" which I believe is defined as an unborn child which has implanted in the womb so experimenting on/killing human embryos would no longer be illegal.
2. Good question. He's being intentionally deceptive. He knows SCNT is cloning yet he wants the public to believe cloning doesn't take place until the clone (or as proponents of cloning like to say product of nuclear transplantation) is implanted.
3. The bill is basically going nowhere. Republicans control the state house and senate and both house have fairly strong majorities of prolifers. The bill had a hearing in committee but there was no vote. I probably said one of the most deceptive because Meisner adds on 5 years to the punishment for cloning in an attempt to claim his bill strengthens the human cloning law while at the same time completely dismantling the definition of cloning. But you're correct in asserting that the U.S. Senate bill and Missouri bill are both deceptive as well.
I'm not aware of other states off the top of my head (maybe Wisconsin?) but I would guess there are a decent number of states with this same kind of legislation.
Commenting by HaloScan
