With elected officeholders and candidates divided over the issue and feeling intense pressure from both sides, the debate is spilling outside legislative chambers.
DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:00 pm
Politics is almost certain to be in the fallout
when belief systems collide.
Churn science and religion into the
mix and you have a combustible combination.
Then, toss in fundamental
disagreements over how to determine the definition of human life
and differing opinions over how to best value, secure and protect
life.
No wonder embryonic stem cell
research has entered the political arena and is likely to play an
increasing role at the ballot box.
With elected officeholders and
candidates divided over the issue and feeling intense pressure from
both sides, the debate is spilling outside legislative chambers
into the hands of the people.
That’s where it’s being settled -
or, at least, addressed - in some states.
Not in
Nebraska.
Not yet.
In 2004, California voters decided
to authorize nearly $3 billion in funding for stem cell research -
including embryonic-based research - over the next 10
years.
An initiative proposal amending the
state constitution was approved by 59 percent of the
voters.
Last year, Missouri voters spoke in
a more constrained manner.
They approved a constitutional
amendment guaranteeing that any federally approved stem cell
research and treatment can take place in
Missouri.
That initiative, prompted by
legislative proposals to criminalize the procedure, was supported
by a narrow 51 percent majority of voters.
The vote totals in Missouri serve as
dramatic evidence of the sharp split over the volatile issue — For:
1,085,396. Against: 1,034,596.
In Nebraska, embryonic stem cell
research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is narrowly
limited to the small number of dated cell lines approved for
federal funding support by President Bush in 2001. Two scientists
at the Med Center are pursuing embryonic stem cell research,
seeking new ways to treat liver and lung
disease.
What would Julie Schmit-Albin
do?
“Our priority is a ban on unethical
medical research,” said Schmit-Albin, executive director of
Nebraska Right to Life.
“Our ultimate preference is that the
Legislature draw a line in the sand.”
For Schmit-Albin and her
organization, that would mean no expansion in research beyond the
Bush limits.
Hers may be the highest-profile
voice in the state opposing expanded embryonic stem cell research.
Her pro-life, anti-abortion organization has compiled a database of
58,000 identified pro-life households, and it plays an active role
in state politics.
Although pro-life forces have had
mixed success in dealing with the Legislature — a proposed ban on
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or so-called therapeutic cloning,
was bottled up in committee this year — Schmit-Albin believes
taking the issue to the people is not a viable
option.
“We’ve talked about an initiative
petition drive” to propose a constitutional ban on expanded
embryonic stem cell research, she said.
“But when an issue can be framed by
dollars, as it was in Missouri, pro-life comes out on the short end
of the stick. Our adversaries have beaucoup
bucks.”
In January, at the annual Walk for
Life march in Lincoln, Schmit-Albin drew her own line in the
snow.
“Unethical research,” she said, “is
the new Roe v. Wade.”
Sandy Goodman, a board member and
spokesman for Nebraskans for Research, said expanded embryonic stem
cell research holds the promise of “saving lives, alleviating
suffering and bettering the human condition.”
That, he said, has been the record
of medical research for centuries.
And it has been “achieved often
against the same objections being raised today,” he
said.
Goodman said he’s not aware of any
consideration of a proposal to seek a vote of the people on an
initiative to protect or expand embryonic stem cell
research.
The Nebraska Democratic Party spoke
clearly in favor of expanded embryonic stem cell research in its
2006 platform.
The party urged “expanded federal
funding for all lifesaving stem cell research,” with the “all”
capitalized.
“Stem cell therapy offers hope to
more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses — from
Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile disease to Parkinson’s,”
the Democrats said.
Nebraska Republicans have not
addressed the issue of embryonic stem cell research
head-on.
Their 2004 party platform states:
“We oppose human cloning and research that destroys human embryos
or uses fetal tissue from elective abortion.”
Medical researchers work with stem
cell lines derived from embryos previously discarded at in vitro
fertilization centers.
All five members of Nebraska’s
congressional delegation have voted against expanded federal
funding for embryonic stem cell research beyond the narrow limits
established by Bush.
Earlier this year, the House
approved such legislation on a 253-174 vote and the Senate passed a
similar measure on a 63-34 vote. Neither vote commanded the
two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto.
Bush vetoed similar legislation in
2006.
A 2006 national Gallup poll found
that 61 percent of respondents believed embryonic stem cell
research is morally acceptable.
But only 11 percent supported
unfettered government funding, and 19 percent wanted no government
funding at all.
Thus far, the Legislature has been
content to rely on a University of Nebraska Board of Regents policy
restricting embryonic stem cell research at the Medical Center to
the limited cell lines approved by the president six years ago.
Last year, former regent Drew Miller
said research proponents need to consider a petition drive to place
a constitutional amendment on the ballot ensuring the continued use
of embryonic stem cells in medical research.
Miller, who retired from the board
at the end of the year, said failure to enact such a protection
risks the Medical Center’s research future.
Reach Don Walton at 473-7248 or dwalton@journalstar.com.