Senate O.K.s embryonic stem cell funds, but lacks two-thirds majority for veto override

By staff - Jul 18, 2006

WASHINGTON (BP)—The Senate approved legislation July 18 to fund destructive embryonic stem cell research but failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

After two days of debate, senators voted 63-37 for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which left the bill four votes short of a veto-proof majority. The White House had reiterated July 17 President Bush’s intention to veto the legislation. If Bush follows through on his pledge, it will be the first veto of his presidency.

The passage of the controversial stem cell measure came after the Senate voted 100-0 for two other bills that had been brought to the floor as part of the same package:

  • The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which would bar the acceptance of tissue from an embryo implanted or developed in a woman or animal for research purposes.
  • The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which would promote the development of embryo-like stem cells without creating or knowingly harming embryos.

The House of Representatives was expected to pass both of the unanimously approved Senate proposals later July 18.

The House had approved last year the controversial stem cell funding bill, H.R. 810, in a 238-194 vote, about 50 votes short of a two-thirds majority. Therefore, neither chamber has the votes required to overcome a veto.

Though the Senate passed H.R. 810 with a comfortable majority, the vote total was a disappointment for backers of the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., the leading advocate of H.R. 810 in the Senate, had said at one time his side had the votes for a veto override.

Each bill needed 60 votes to pass in the 100-seat chamber, according to the agreement by which the package was brought to the floor. That agreement also barred any amendments from being offered.

Because the extraction of stem cells from embryos requires the destruction of the tiny human beings, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other pro-life organizations worked ardently against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. In a July 17 letter to a Senate pro-life leader, ERLC President Richard Land said the entity opposes the bill in the “strongest possible terms.” Land endorsed the other two measures.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would underwrite research that uses embryos stored at in vitro fertilization clinics, is designed to liberalize a Bush policy prohibiting federal funds for stem cell research that results in the destruction of human embryos. Bush’s rule allows funds for research only on embryonic stem cell lines already in existence when his policy was announced in 2001.

All of the senators support some form of stem cell research. The debate July 17 and 18 was between advocates for granting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research and opponents of such funding.

Unlike research on embryos, extracting stem cells from non-embryonic sources -– such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow -– does not harm the donor and has produced treatments that have been peer-reviewed for at least 72 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. These include spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia.

Embryonic research has yet to treat any diseases in human beings and has been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals.

Supporters and foes of funding embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) argued the ethics of the practice and how history would judge them during debate on the Senate floor.

“When we see in our everyday existence the enormous suffering from so many maladies, there is just no sensible, logical reason why we should not make use of stem cell research,” Specter said. “A century from now, people will look back at this debate on stem cell research and wonder how we cannot possibly utilize all of the benefits of science to stop people from dying, to stop people from suffering, when we have these embryos which are either going to be thrown away or used.”

Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., a leading Senate pro-lifer, said, “It is immoral. We shouldn’t use a weaker person for the benefit of a stronger person.

“Let’s not check our morals at the door — our values,” Brownback said. “Let’s treat every single human as a sacred, beautiful child of the living God, and we are going to be here 10 years from now with amazing stories of things that have happened and a happy heart and a clear conscience at the same time — that we did it, we did it the right way, that more people are alive today, not dead, we didn’t sacrifice other human beings in the process, and people are cured.”

Sen. Jim Bunning, R.-Ky., said, “Some have said that these excess embryos which would be used for research would be destroyed anyway. However, I do not think this makes ethical sense. Just because these budding lives will not survive does not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them.”

In addition, ESCR is unnecessary, some senators said.

“In many respects, the science has passed this debate by,” Brownback said. “The science is saying: Do the adult, do the cord blood. The embryonic is not working, and you have enormous ethical problems with doing that, and we don’t need to go that way.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee continued to say he is pro-life while promoting funds for ESCR. He said such research should be federally funded “only if those stem cell lines were derived from [embryos] that, with 100 percent certainty, are not going to be frozen forever, are not going to be adopted but with 100 percent certainty and with appropriate consent would be discarded, would be thrown away.”

Yet, Frist admitted there were weaknesses with the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

“First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism,” he said. “Second, the bill does not prohibit financial or other incentives between scientists and fertility clinics. Third, the bill does not specify whether the patients or clinic staff or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be implanted or will be discarded.”

Brownback held a news conference July 17 with three people who have been aided by stem cells derived from non-embryonic stem cells, as well as three “snowflake” babies who were created through in vitro fertilization, stored at fertility clinics and donated to couples for pregnancy and birth.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Stem-Cell Research, Citizenship, Legislation, National, Social Issues, Science