Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life protects and defends human life from conception to natural death through vigorous legislative, judicial, and educational leadership.

Bioethics

Americans United for Life calls on Trump administration for policy change on use of human fetal tissue



,

Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, has joined with Susan B. Anthony List and other national pro-life leadership in calling on the Trump administration asking for a policy change on the issue of taxpayer funding for research using fetal tissue from induced abortions.

The letter to the President reads, in part:

“During your first two years in office your administration has been dedicated to, and widely successful in, making policy to protect vulnerable unborn children and women. No doubt these policies have already saved babies and their mothers in the U.S. and abroad from the pain of abortion.  We applaud your commitment, and the millions of pro-life Americans that we represent continue to stand with you in your determination to defend life at all stages.

“We write to you today with great concern about National Institutes of Health (NIH) spending over $100 million taxpayer dollars in FY18 for research that involves the body parts of children derived from induced abortions. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responded appropriately to this disturbing discovery by ending one contract with a fetal tissue procurer and conducting an ongoing audit of this research. We commend Secretary Azar for initiating the audit and for announcing new grants to pursue ethical alternatives to aborted fetal tissue research. Pro-life voters across America reject the use of their tax dollars to purchase the body parts of children and expect a comprehensive pro-life policy change at the end of this process.

“The hearts, eyes, livers, and brains being purchased on the taxpayer’s dime to be used in laboratory experiments belong to fellow members of the human family. These organs are “harvested” after abortions that deprive these children of their right to life. There is absolutely no moral or ethical justification for treating children and their organs like commodities.”

Court: U.S. can fund embryo research, as long as researchers kill the embryos first



, ,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion late last week in Sherley v. Sebelius allowing the Obama administration to continue funding destructive embryo research. 

At issue was President Obama’s March 9, 2009 executive order directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to issue new stem cell guidelines to include the funding of research on stem cell lines derived from human embryos. 

The plaintiffs in the case—researchers who perform ethical adult stem cell research—argued that the funding violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (renewed annually since 1996).  Specifically, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment expressly prohibits NIH from funding research in which human embryos “are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”  The researchers argued that because performing research on stem cell lines from human embryos means that human embryos must first be destroyed to obtain the stem cell lines, funding research on stem cell lines violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Unfortunately, the Court rejected this logical argument.  On its face the Court’s decision is technical in nature; the Court simply states that it had already concluded in a previous appeal that funding research on stem cell lines from destroyed human embryos does not violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

But the reasoning used in that previous appeal was flawed.  The Court made the atrocious distinction that research on stem cell lines does not actually kill or harm embryos because the stem cell lines are no longer embryos.  Of course, that is because the embryos have already been destroyed in order to obtain the stem cell lines.  The Court stated, “Dickey-Wicker permits federal funding of research projects that utilize already-derived [embryonic stem cells]—which are not themselves embryos—because no ‘human embryos or embryos are destroyed’ in such projects” (emphasis in original).

In other words, the government will fund any research using human embryos, as long as the researchers kill or harm the embryos before getting the money.  This is a clear distortion of the intent and spirit of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

The plaintiff researchers also argued that NIH violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Section 553 of the APA requires government agencies to provide the public with notice of a proposed rulemaking, an opportunity to comment, and a concise general statement of the rule’s basis and purposes after considering the relevant comments.

When NIH opened comment on its proposed funding guidelines, the plaintiff researchers and many other individuals and organizations—including AUL—filed comments demonstrating that funding research on embryonic stem cell lines violates Dickey-Wicker and is unnecessary in light of the significant breakthroughs in adult stem cell research. 

The plaintiff researchers filed comments advocating that the government not fund research on embryonic stem cell lines.  But the Court declared that the plaintiffs’ comments “did not address any factor relevant to implementing” Obama’s executive order, and thus NIH did not have to respond to them and the APA was not violated.

As such, explaining that there are better, more ethical, and more successful avenues of research was deemed irrelevant information.  The government does not have to consider such “irrelevant” things as whether there are more promising forms of research when deciding which research to fund.  This makes no sense from either an economic or medical perspective—and it is not at all comforting that such information does not factor into budgetary decision-making.

This means that funds are diverted away from adult stem cell research—which has yielded successful treatments and cures of over 70 diseases and conditions—and toward embryonic stem cell research, which has never helped a single human patient.  In fact, in 2011, Geron—the company that received the first government approval for human clinical trials using human embryo stem cells—announced it is discontinuing “further stem cell work.”

Of course, this seems to be a theme with the current administration.  Disregard the sanctity of human life.  Ignore the pro-life community.  And just throw American’s money away.

Embryo research yields no results—or money



, ,

USA Today is reporting today that Geron—the company that received the first government approval for human clinical trials using human embryo stem cells—is discontinuing “further stem cell work.”

This decision hardly comes as a surprise.  There simply is no money in research that yields no results.

Geron says that the decision came “after a strategic review of the costs… timelines and clinical, manufacturing and regulatory complexities associated with the company’s research and clinical-stage assets.”  Reportedly, Geron has been trying to find financial partners, “and people have said, ‘Show us later-stage results.’”

Clearly, investors don’t want to put money into research that will not pay off.  There are no “later-stage results” showing any real-life positive uses of embryonic stem cells.

USA Today editorializes that Geron’s decision is “a move with stark implications for a field offering hope of future medications for conditions with inadequate or no current treatments.”

We can hope it is the bell toll for unethical and unproductive embryo stem cell research.  But it will not have a devastating impact on the field of “stem cell research” as a whole.

As AUL has stated repeatedly, stem cells from human embryos have never successfully treated human patients.  On the other hand, treatments from adult stem cells (which do not result in the destruction of human life) have yielded treatments or cures for over 70 conditions. 

Apparently, Geron’s investors (or potential investors) understand this basic fact.  Investing in a failed research strategy does not pay—either financially or medically.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration lacks this basic understanding, as it continues to push for government funding of embryo research to the detriment of research rendering true medical advances.

In addition to healthcare reform, U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the implications of assisted reproductive technologies



, , ,

The current U.S. Supreme Court session is proving to be an exciting one.  In addition to granting review of healthcare reform cases today, the Court also granted review in Capato v. Astrue—a case involving the rights of posthumously-conceived children.

In this world of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), the facts of this case are all too common.  Mr. Capato, facing chemotherapy for esophageal cancer that could render him sterile, deposited semen in a sperm bank, where it was frozen and stored.  Shortly after his death in 2002, Mrs. Capato began in vitro fertilization (IVF) using the sperm of her late husband.  She conceived, and gave birth to twins 18 months after his death.

While the facts of the case are fascinating, the bottom line is that the Social Security Administration denied Mrs. Capato’s application for surviving child’s insurance benefits on behalf of the twins.  The case has moved through the federal courts, and will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At least two other cases involving the rights of posthumously-conceived children—one out of Iowa (Beeler v. Astrue) and one out of Virginia (Schafer v. Astrue)—are also moving through the federal courts.  The various Circuits have reached conflicting results, making the issue prime for Supreme Court review.

AUL has not taken a stance on whether posthumously-conceived children are entitled to social security benefits, and the issue involves analyses of state inheritance rights and insurance benefits.  But these cases demonstrate yet another area where technology has vastly outpaced the law.

These cases also highlight the fact that parents, when considering IVF, are not informed of all of the potential implications of their decisions.  What happens to embryos if the parents separate?  If one parent dies? Or if the parents no longer want to use the embryos?  Do posthumously-conceived children have inheritance rights in the state?  Are IVF-created embryos considered “persons” or “property” by the state?

Most of these questions (and many others) are unanswered—indeed, are unasked—when parents undergo IVF or other forms of ART.  Sadly, only four states require any kind of informed consent before parents undergo the IVF process.  As such, we can only expect more cases like Capato v. Astrue to be filed in state and federal courts.

To assist states in regulating the IVF process and ensuring the health and welfare of both the parents and children involved, AUL has drafted the “Assisted Reproductive Technology Disclosure and Risk Reduction Act,” which is available here.

Court Strikes Down Obama Administration Embryonic Stem Cell Policy



, , ,

Washington, D.C.—A U.S. District Court today halted the Obama Administration’s illegal and unethical policy of funding research that necessarily entails the destruction of human embryos. Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction against the Administration’s policy in the case Sherley v. Sebelius.

“Since 1996, Congress has been clear that no federal funds are to be used in research that destroys, or even harms, embryos,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. “The Obama Administration has attempted to skirt the law by arguing that they are only funding research after the embryos are destroyed. Today’s sensible ruling reconfirms what we already knew, that Administration policy is in violation of  the law.”

On March 9, 2009, President Obama, by executive order, directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to issue new stem cell guidelines to include the funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

Since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos “are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”[1] The amendment has been renewed every year by Congress.

Attorneys defending the Obama Administration’s policy argued that since the federal government is only funding research on stem cells after being extracted from the embryos, and not the actual destruction of the embryos, the NIH guidelines are not violating the law.

However, that interpretation would require a strained reading of the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The Obama Administration policy of funding human embryonic stem cell research incentivizes the destruction of human embryos. Further, it is common sense that destroying embryos and using them in research are part of a common project.

Judge Lamberth held the policy violated the clear language of the law:

“The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed. It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the ‘piece of research’ in which an embryo is destroyed. … Despite defendants’ attempt to separate the derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from research on [embryonic stem cells], the two cannot be separated. Derivation of [embryonic stem cells] from an embryo is an integral step in conducting [embryonic stem cell] research.”

Since the Obama Administration policy violates the law, Judge Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction to stop funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

[1] Public Law 104-99, sec. 128, U.S. Statutes at Large 110 (January 26, 1996): 34, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL104.99.pdf.