Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
CNS News ^ | March 13, 2009 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Posted on 03/13/2009 8:12:20 PM PDT by Between the Lines

On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.

The amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.

“For the purposes of this section,” says the law, “the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism … that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” (The entire verbatim text of Section 509 of the omnibus spending law is reprinted at the bottom of this article.)

At a widely publicized White House ceremony on Monday, President Obama signed his own executive order lifting an executive order that President Bush had signed in 2001. While allowing federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created from embryos that had already been destroyed, Bush's 2001 order denied federal funding to research that required the killing of any additional embryos.

“For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions,” said the order that President Obama signed Monday. “The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.”

The order went on to say: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

"Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."

Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”

In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.

“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society,” said Obama.

A bill sponsored in the last Congress by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) would specifically permit federal funding of research using human embryos that are created by cloning and kept alive for no more than 14 days so that their stem cells can be extracted. Federal funding of this type of research is prohibited by Dickey-Wicker.

Researchers are interested in cloning human embryos for prospective stem cell therapies because it might help overcome the problem posed by a patient's immune system, which rejects stem cells derived from another person but might accept stem cells if they are taken from an embryo cloned from the patient himself.

On Tuesday morning, The New York Times carried an editorial calling on Congress to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment,” The Times editorialized. “The amendment, which is regularly attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.”

“Congress should follow Mr. Obama's lead and lift this prohibition so such important work can benefit from an infusion of federal dollars,” The Times said.

The next day, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” which includes the Dickey-Wicker language. Unless Congress passes and President Obama signs new legislation to repeal Dickey-Wicker, it will now be the law of the land at least through September 30, when this fiscal year ends.

The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhoflipflops; bhostemcells; bioethics; clueless; first100days; obama; stemcell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-211 next last
To: Between the Lines

That is why I can’t figure him out. People scream that he is the worst liberal in history (I think it is Carter) but then he goes and does this. This is not liberal behavior...


81 posted on 03/14/2009 3:39:29 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

I think this was another, “I screwed up.”


82 posted on 03/14/2009 3:42:47 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
"It’s the revolving door of ‘CHANGE’!"

It's CHANGE I belive in!

83 posted on 03/14/2009 3:54:51 AM PDT by liberateUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
It looks like the headline is misleading because "The amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for..." It apparently does not prohibit anything other than direct federal funding from this Act. If I'm reading this correctly, universities receiving federal funds can still do the research with other federal funds, state funds or other funds.
84 posted on 03/14/2009 3:55:46 AM PDT by elfman2 (TheRightReasons.net - Reasoning CONSERVATIVES without the kooks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Obviously our new Presidente is not doing his job, he is just faking it. What use is his signature if he does not even read the bills?

The local homeless bum will provide the same service for much cheaper than Obama.


85 posted on 03/14/2009 4:13:52 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I am sure it was just a technical mistake. His teleprompter must have been down.


86 posted on 03/14/2009 4:15:33 AM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

We all know that hussein didn’t read the bill.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the feds are going to enfore this?


87 posted on 03/14/2009 4:18:07 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manic4organic

88 posted on 03/14/2009 4:27:01 AM PDT by Daffynition ("Beauty is in the sty of the beholder." ~ Joe 6-pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: toast

Hang on:

The amendment says, in part: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”

I think it just prevents use of the money from this appropriation bill. Not necessarily from another bill.


If it sounds too good to be true, it is.


89 posted on 03/14/2009 4:37:48 AM PDT by CommieCutter (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3013_08.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The Big 0 did the right thing on this. Our country shouldn’t be run via executive order. Sending it to the legislative branch was right.


90 posted on 03/14/2009 4:39:35 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: calex59

He didn’t re-instate the ban alone. Congress did.


91 posted on 03/14/2009 4:41:10 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

Right.


92 posted on 03/14/2009 4:42:09 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.

It also looks as if this bill gives a definition as to when life begins?

93 posted on 03/14/2009 4:51:53 AM PDT by DYngbld (I have read the back of the Book and we WIN!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

The Section 509 just refers to "the funds made available in" that "Act". I think unfortunately it doesn't exclude that embryonic stem cell research can be funded by means of other acts or by the decision taken by President Obama.
94 posted on 03/14/2009 4:53:51 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
It's obvious this assclown did not read what he was signing.

It's like those professors that graded a paper without reading it, proven by students who would add absurd statements in the middle of it to see if the professor would catch them.

Kudos for the legislators that slipped this in under the radar.

95 posted on 03/14/2009 4:55:51 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (The Stimulus Package: Preamble to the Democrat's new Declaration of In Dependence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Domandred

Not only is your idea too complicated for the Zero, any state senator that can argue THREE TIMES from the floor to allow doctors to wheel a baby still alive after a botched abortion into a closet to allow it to die, would NOT intentionally allow this amendment to slip through.

He didn’t read it.


96 posted on 03/14/2009 4:57:29 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (The Stimulus Package: Preamble to the Democrat's new Declaration of In Dependence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Danae
They are talking about federally funding research that has failed to show ANY promise of success. They are trying to fund failure! (Why am I still surprised at this??)

They [The Federal Government] spend ALL tax dollars as efficiently as drunken sailors, 'tis what's been done for more than 60 years as democrat act after act costs trillions in 'unintended consequenses' on top of the thousands well spent! This simple reason alone is why the States should disband the federal government (now that China is the World Cop-in-chief), reinstate militias (other states may vote to fund core military units required to be larger than one state's budget for National Security), and stop sending Washington DC the pork dollars that are returned as pennies! Other than the 1994 Republican Contract With America, the 12 years Repubs were 'in charge' were essentially wasted due to Enron and WorldCom (and other) knee-jerk legislation. Return the federal gov't to a Constitutional Federal Gov't, with a Senate representing States' interests (treaties, etc), and the House can continue to play the Kangaroo Kongress game they've been playing, but with Monopoly money instead of the real thing! America would be much better off, and Pelosi would then fit the role!

97 posted on 03/14/2009 5:29:21 AM PDT by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Oh, I see. He voted present. He threw it into Congress’ court.


98 posted on 03/14/2009 5:31:13 AM PDT by ichabod1 (I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet (GOP Poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

See, nobody knows what’s in those bills.


99 posted on 03/14/2009 5:53:13 AM PDT by popdonnelly (I don't live my life to make liberals and leftists happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Did it ever occur to themthat you should read what you sign?

Reading bills is so passe- doncha know this the change we've been waiting for? /s
100 posted on 03/14/2009 5:53:36 AM PDT by Canedawg (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-211 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson