The Senators and their supporters insist that this is necessary to advance medical research, but few, if any, successful animal models of embryonic stem cell research exist.  Instead, the pharmaceutical industry is investing heavily in proven adult stem cell research models that do not lead to the loss of human life.

Western medicine and law has always previously required successful animal disease modeling before experimenting on human subjects.  In addition, the international medical code of conduct prohibits all hazardous non-therapeutic research on human subjects.  The Feinstein-Hatch bill would legitimate a dangerous departure from this model that has served us well since Nuremberg, based solely on unfounded speculation about the utility of the research.

“The Feinstein-Hatch bill would accomplish nothing short of a revolution in medical law by overcoming the natural legal principles that have for decades protected human subjects from harmful experimentation,” said CLS chief trial counsel Nathan Adams.  “It vindicates the worst form of utilitarianism because no proven remedies - only speculation -- is juxtaposed against the cost in human lives this research demands.”

“Americans need to begin wrestling with three indisputable, scientifically verifiable facts:  (1) the subject of  research cloning would be living and genetically unique; (2) the embryo would be human and capable of developing into an adult; and (3) derivation of a human embryo’s stem cells and various other components necessarily terminates the life of the human embryo.”

Living human embryos, referred to disparagingly by some in the Congress and the research community as “dots” or “goldfish,” are today the subject of adoption by such agencies as Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency.   Parents have appeared before Congress carrying their young children that they adopted when these children were frozen human embryos otherwise headed for abandonment or destruction.  The demand for embryo adoption services is exploding, because of the earnest and understandable desire of infertile couples to adopt, birth and raise children

“Call the human embryo what you want, whether it is created through a cloning or a reproductive  technology, no matter what Senator Hatch may opine, in fact it is living, human, and capable of becoming a child if it is simply treated like any living human being should be treated,” said Nathan Adams, “Therefore, it deserves some legal rights and special respect beyond that of mere property.”

“Moreover, simply banning the birth of cloned babies, but not their creation as the Feinstein-Hatch bill proposes, is unconstitutional and, as a practical matter, unenforceable.  Criminalizing only the birth of cloned  babies, but  not also banning their creation,  targets women and, thus, challenges existing reproductive rights precedent and other aspects of our liberal democratic compromise.  On the other hand, banning the creation of human clones altogether as recommended by the President’s Bioethics Commission is constitutional because it merely targets unethical researchers.”

“Whether or not you agree that the embryo merits the same protection as a `person’ under our 14^th Amendment, surely this great country will not stand by idly while living human beings are patented, priced, packaged, and purchased.  Nor should we consent to the instrumentalization of women’s reproductive capacities.  Both of these are beneath us as a moral society.”

Accordingly, Christian Legal Society again calls on the U.S. Senate to defeat the Feinstein-Hatch Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003, and instead enact the Landrieu-Brownback Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (S. 245) and its companion bill in the House (H.R.234 ) sponsored by Congressman David Weldon that was also enacted in the last Congress.   

With the prospect of human genetic engineering, creating human-animal chimeric beings, and other technologies capable of modifying humanity itself not long in the future, this vote may very well be the most important of the U.S. Senate’s this year.  We are confident this nation will rise to the challenge and, once again, set  a moral standard other nations will follow. 

Christian Legal Society, founded in 1961, is a national membership organization of nearly 3600 Christian attorneys, judges, law professors and law students, as well as supportive laypeople with members in all fifty states and more than 1100 cities, organized into more than 90 attorney chapters and 165 law student chapters throughout the United States. Through its Human Life Advocates affiliate, CLS has previously been involved in the legal battles to maintain the existing federal ban on the funding of destructive human embryo research and extend this ban to all forms of human cloning under federal law.

WHY CLS OPPOSES THE FEINSTEIN-HATCH HUMAN CLONING BAN AND STEM CELL RESEARCH PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

• It encourages the creation of living human beings for the sole purpose of dissecting and killing them.  Research cloning necessarily leads to the creation of (1) subjects that are living and genetically unique, (2) subjects that are human and capable of developing into an adult, and (3) subjects that will necessarily be terminated when dissected for the purpose of experimentation.
• It represents a dangerous departure from traditional medical ethics.  Western medicine has always required successful animal disease modeling before experimenting on human subjects.  It has prohibited all hazardous non-therapeutic experimentation on human subjects, particularly when the subject cannot consent and no legally authorized fiduciary for the subject exists.
• There are better alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.  Few, if any, successful animal models of embryonic stem cell research exist.  In contrast, the pharmaceutical industry is investing heavily in proven adult stem cell research models that do not lead to the loss of human life and are successful at treating all of the diseases research cloners would target.
• The Act violates existing reproductive rights by criminalizing the ability of women to bear cloned human embryos.  In contrast, banning the creation of cloned living human embryos penalizes unethical researchers and is likely constitutional.
• Living human beings merit special respect.  Whether or not we can agree that living human embryos merit protection as juridical persons, they should not be the subject of property, contract, and patent law to be patented, priced, packaged and purchased. 
• The only enforceable way of preventing the birth of human clones is to prevent their creation.  The Department of Justice has testified that it would be unable effectively to prevent the birth of human clones without also preventing their creation.
• Embryonic stem cell research demeans and discriminates against women.  It turns the reproductive capacities of women into mere “egg factories” used to supply the necessary subjects for embryonic stem research.
• Living human embryos are wanted for adoption.  The Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency has facilitated the adoption of many embryos who are now vibrant young children.  Demand for embryo adoption is exploding because of the earnest and understandable desire of infertile women to bear children