Response from Senator Durbin
Senator Richard Durbin, my Senator (IL), responded once again to another one of my letters. This time I wrote him, stating my opposition to stem cell research and human cloning. Unlike Senator Barack Obama, who never responds to any of my correspondence, Durbin always has something (usually evasive or offensive) to say. Obama is actually an even stronger supporter of abortion and the "culture of death" legislation, but is not as vocal as Durbin and tries to present a "smoother" image. He is good at pulling the wool over some people's eyes. He made a total fool of himself while debating Alan Keyes in Chicago last fall, consistently contradicting himself -- his foolish responses were laughable. He was (and still is) a mental and a moral midget in comparison to Alan Keyes.
August 5, 2005
Dear Mrs. Heimann:
Thank you for contacting me regarding human cloning. I recognize the many potential health improvements as well as the serious ethical concerns associated with stem cell research and certainly applications of human cloning. I oppose reproductive cloning of humans, and have cosponsored the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (S. 303), which was introduced by Senator Hatch in February 2003.
We should draw a clearline in prohibiting "human cloning" while not eliminating valuable, life-affirming stem cell research opportunities, which can show us how to transform embryonic cells into healthy new adult cells. A "clone" is an exact genetic replica, and "cloning" is the process of producing a duplicate cell, tissue, or organism. Scientists have become increasingly proficient in creating genetically identical human cells, and these improvements in the lab have caused many in the policy arena to carefully evaluate the potential uses for these cloned cells. Cells may be cloned in a variety of ways, and the methodology used can affect the potential of the resulting duplicate cells. In particular, a laboratory technique called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" gives rise to cell copies that can be used for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes.
It is important to distinguish between reproductive cloning to create new humans and therapeutic cloning to develop treatments for existing patients, since the potential benefits and inherent risks that accompany each process are different. Reproductive cloning techniques were used to produce "Dolly" the sheep. By contrast, the aim of therapeutic cloning is not the creation of another human being, but rather the creation of genetically identical cells that could be used to treat individuals suffering from disease.
Therapeutic cloning techniques could lead to treatments that might save and improve the lives of millions of Americans with debilitating diseases, such asParkinson's or diabetes. According to Science magazine, only two percent of reproductive cloning attempts in animals are successful, and animals that are born often do not survive for very long or experience serious developmental problems. Most experts agree that human reproductive cloning attempts are both unethical and unsafe, and I share this view.
There is less agreement, however, regarding therapeutic cloning. Although cloned cells could potentially serve a reproductive ortherapeutic purpose immediately following creation, it is important to note that once these cell copies have actually been transformed to treat patients they can no longer be used to initiate a pregnancy.
Stem cells generated using therapeutic human cloning techniques would be especially useful because they would be genetically identical to patients they might someday be used to treat. This would eliminate the need for a lifetime of immunosuppressive therapy following a transplant. Vigilant oversight of therapeutic cloning activities is necessary to prevent the improper use of this technology. Some believe that such oversight would be impossible and justify a ban on therapeutic human cloning as the only means by which reproductive cloning can be halted. However, it is important to note that society frequently recognizes the benefits of certain technologies with both positive and negative potential uses by choosing to ban only inappropriate applications of them rather than ban them altogether.
I am a cosponsor of the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act for a number of reasons. The measure would impose significant civil and criminal penalties on individuals seeking to engage in reproductive human cloning. However, this legislation would not stifle important areas of biomedical research, including therapeutic research related to stem cells, which would be allowed to proceed with careful safeguards against abuse.Senator Sam Brownback has introduced a bill that would prohibit cloning techniques from being used for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes. He has introduced similar legislation in the past, which I have opposed.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your strong convictions about human cloning research. I will keep your views in mind as Congress grapples with these issues. Thank you once again for your message.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
Senator Richard Durbin, my Senator (IL), responded once again to another one of my letters. This time I wrote him, stating my opposition to stem cell research and human cloning. Unlike Senator Barack Obama, who never responds to any of my correspondence, Durbin always has something (usually evasive or offensive) to say. Obama is actually an even stronger supporter of abortion and the "culture of death" legislation, but is not as vocal as Durbin and tries to present a "smoother" image. He is good at pulling the wool over some people's eyes. He made a total fool of himself while debating Alan Keyes in Chicago last fall, consistently contradicting himself -- his foolish responses were laughable. He was (and still is) a mental and a moral midget in comparison to Alan Keyes.
August 5, 2005
Dear Mrs. Heimann:
Thank you for contacting me regarding human cloning. I recognize the many potential health improvements as well as the serious ethical concerns associated with stem cell research and certainly applications of human cloning. I oppose reproductive cloning of humans, and have cosponsored the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (S. 303), which was introduced by Senator Hatch in February 2003.
We should draw a clearline in prohibiting "human cloning" while not eliminating valuable, life-affirming stem cell research opportunities, which can show us how to transform embryonic cells into healthy new adult cells. A "clone" is an exact genetic replica, and "cloning" is the process of producing a duplicate cell, tissue, or organism. Scientists have become increasingly proficient in creating genetically identical human cells, and these improvements in the lab have caused many in the policy arena to carefully evaluate the potential uses for these cloned cells. Cells may be cloned in a variety of ways, and the methodology used can affect the potential of the resulting duplicate cells. In particular, a laboratory technique called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" gives rise to cell copies that can be used for either reproductive or therapeutic purposes.
It is important to distinguish between reproductive cloning to create new humans and therapeutic cloning to develop treatments for existing patients, since the potential benefits and inherent risks that accompany each process are different. Reproductive cloning techniques were used to produce "Dolly" the sheep. By contrast, the aim of therapeutic cloning is not the creation of another human being, but rather the creation of genetically identical cells that could be used to treat individuals suffering from disease.
Therapeutic cloning techniques could lead to treatments that might save and improve the lives of millions of Americans with debilitating diseases, such asParkinson's or diabetes. According to Science magazine, only two percent of reproductive cloning attempts in animals are successful, and animals that are born often do not survive for very long or experience serious developmental problems. Most experts agree that human reproductive cloning attempts are both unethical and unsafe, and I share this view.
There is less agreement, however, regarding therapeutic cloning. Although cloned cells could potentially serve a reproductive ortherapeutic purpose immediately following creation, it is important to note that once these cell copies have actually been transformed to treat patients they can no longer be used to initiate a pregnancy.
Stem cells generated using therapeutic human cloning techniques would be especially useful because they would be genetically identical to patients they might someday be used to treat. This would eliminate the need for a lifetime of immunosuppressive therapy following a transplant. Vigilant oversight of therapeutic cloning activities is necessary to prevent the improper use of this technology. Some believe that such oversight would be impossible and justify a ban on therapeutic human cloning as the only means by which reproductive cloning can be halted. However, it is important to note that society frequently recognizes the benefits of certain technologies with both positive and negative potential uses by choosing to ban only inappropriate applications of them rather than ban them altogether.
I am a cosponsor of the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act for a number of reasons. The measure would impose significant civil and criminal penalties on individuals seeking to engage in reproductive human cloning. However, this legislation would not stifle important areas of biomedical research, including therapeutic research related to stem cells, which would be allowed to proceed with careful safeguards against abuse.Senator Sam Brownback has introduced a bill that would prohibit cloning techniques from being used for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes. He has introduced similar legislation in the past, which I have opposed.
I appreciate your taking the time to share your strong convictions about human cloning research. I will keep your views in mind as Congress grapples with these issues. Thank you once again for your message.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
I like this phrase:
ReplyDelete"once these cell copies have actually been transformed to treat patients they can no longer be used to initiate a pregnancy."
In other words, once the cloned human embryo has been destroyed by removing their stem cells, that cloned human embryo can no longer be implanted into a woman's womb.
It's sad that these Senators don't have the guts to call a spade a spade and actually argue their position. Instead, they're forced to hide behind a fascade of misleading language.
Good point!
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that these Senators don't have the guts to speak the truth and to be completely honest with us instead of deceiving of us with misleading language, but then they probably wouldn't get to stay in office if they revealed what their true position and the entirety of their real agenda.
A typical politician tells people what they want to hear, soothes them with soft-spoken sounds and deceives them with lofty promises, which reminds me of today's scripture reading from 2 Timothy 4:3-4:" For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."
People like to hear things that "tickle their ears" and not the truth and the politicians play to that tune.
Jean I posted this after reading Jivin Josephat's blog on his web site and am posting this here too for you to see it's important all us pro-lifers know there is an alternative to the Feinstein-Hatch Bill--and it's Brownback's Bill!
ReplyDeleteHere's what I posted:
There are two Cloning Bills opposing each other, and will be hitting the Senate Floor around the same time (I think in Sept.)
I have met and spoke personally with Senator Brownback (Rep. Kansas) just last week about his Cloning Bill, S. 658. (To read a news article about it go to-- http://www.thefactis.org/default.
aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=177
&authid=12
To read the Bill itself go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/
bdquery/z?d109:s.00658:
Senator Brownback made it quite clear that the Feinstein-Hatch Bill is simply a "Clone & Kill" bill. (Allowing for the cloning of a human for 'therapeutic' reasons, but "killing" the viable zygoat (embryo) at it's earlist stages of development, not allowing it to grow to term, but using that clone in it's few days (or week or two) of life for harvesting stem cells from it.
It's astonishing to see the loads of mis-information that is being circulated out there on the Finstein-Hatch Bill, and how the media is pumping it up to be so "wonderful" and then absolutely no media coverage is being donated to the oppsoning Bill of Sen. Brownback's. So typical though of the left-wing media.
Sen. Brownback is in need of much support for his Bill which bans ALL human cloning PERIOD. Not even for stem cells research.
I highly recommend all those who are pro-life to call and e-mail their Senators before September not to support the Finstein- Hatch Bill but to throw all support behind Brownback's Bill (S.658) and to spread the word; Sam can sure use the help and grassroots spreading of this word on this Bill!