Georgia Reps had a Lot to Say About Stem Cell Research
by
Maggie Lee
Georgia Online News Service
Physicians and scientists in the state of Georgia may only create in vitro human embryos for the purpose of treating infertility, not for any scientific research, under the bill recently passed by the Georgia Senate.
Representatives from around the state had a lot to say on both sides of the divide during this emotionally charged debate.
The controversial bill passed only after a rewrite by Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome). His last minute amendments narrowed the bill's language to specify that in vitro human embryos may only be created to treat infertility, not for cloning and not for so-called "chimera" experiments -- mixing human and animal gametes.
The Senate tabled the bill earlier in the day, a move driven by opponent David Adelman (D-Atlanta). But an hour, an amendment, and a round of horse trading later, the Senate reconvened for a suppertime debate on the bill, which passed 34 to 22.
Many supporters argued for the bill on their belief that life begins at conception.
Smith called scientific work on human embryos "destructive research" and compared it to the experiments of Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele and the Tuskegee experiments of the 1930 and '40s, during which doctors withheld penicillin from a group of African American men infected with syphilis in order to watch the progression of the disease.
Sen. Ralph Hudgins (R-Hull) compared scientific use of embryos, including for stem cell research, to the Dred Scott decision, which bans trade in human lives.
Sen. Don Thomas (R-Dalton), a doctor, compared the destruction of an embryo to partial birth abortion.
"It concerns me that if we start with the embryo ... how much further up are we going to go with research?" he asked.
Adelman contended that the bill, even in its amended form, is bad for Georgians who have diseases. And that it goes much further from president George W. Bush's ban on federal funding for stem cell research because such research was still legal. The Georgia Senate bill criminalizes the destruction of a human embryo.
President Obama reversed that Bush policy.
Says Adelman, this "sends a signal to the people of this state who are suffering themselves whether it be Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or spinal cord injuries or cancer. ... It's telling them, 'When it comes to your state, you've got no hope. We're going to close the door on science.'"
Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) suggested the bill was bad for Georgia's bioscience business; several major firms plus the University System of Georgia opposed it. During the debate, she said its passage would be "terrifically damaging" to Georgia's economy and competitiveness.
When the bill appeared for its first Senate Health and Human Services Committee hearing last week, the audience spilled out into the hall. Opponents argued the bill would severely hinder the work IFV infertility clinics because it criminalizes the destruction of human embryos.
But the bill's sponsor seriously disagreed.
"This bill has absolutely nothing -- big letters, underline -- nothing to do with IVF," said Hudgins.
He also denied it will inhibit research. The bill would allow scientists to import embryonic stem cell lines from other states.
But one IVF father from Decatur who followed the bill thinks it is bizarre that anyone would define an embryo as an actual child -- especially since such 'children' could possibly become wards of the state just like children who have been born.
"Should a frozen embryo 'human being' reach school age, is he or she is required to attend?" he asked. He declined to give his name in order to protect his daughter's identity.
"Where is the funding for new orphanages so that the embryo 'children' can be ethically preserved forever as wards of the state of Georgia?" he added.
He says the bill would do better to address the "Kafkaesque" legal hurdles around starting an IVF family.
He knows them well -- at 16 months old, his daughter still has no birth certificate, and he and his wife do not yet have full custody, he says. Not due to conflict with the birth mother, but because of the time and errors they've encountered in the legal system.
The amendments made no such changes.
On the very same day as the Senate debate, the House agreed that people should be able to put embryos up for adoption.
"I think that's an option we need to provide to parents," said bill author Rep. James Mills (R-Gainesville).
The embryos can be given up by their "legal custodian," generally meaning the biological parents.
Critic Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta) said the bill would create open "trafficking" in human life.
"Market competition would encourage the streamlining -- creating certain traits, certain sexes, eye colors, hair color in vitro; and adoption clinics vying for business from a growing population of afflicted with infertility," he said during the House debate.
The only woman who spoke about the bill in the House also opposed the bill, but because it comes close to defining embryos as living people.
"I believe that this leg is dangerous in that it establishes rights to something which we're not even sure what the definition should be," said Rep. Robin Shipp (D-Atlanta). "It is premature, it is unnecessary."
Maggie Lee specializes in quality of life topics, Atlanta's international communities and general reporting. She covers Georgia economic development and the Chinese community as a stringer for China Daily and chronicles life in Georgia's most diverse county for the DeKalb Champion. [full bio]
| 