The stem cell debate and when life begins

Late this morning, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed out, on a 7-6 vote, a bill that would declare an embryo to be a human being — and would prohibit the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from eggs fertilized in Georgia, or at least while they remain in Georgia.

Critics declared that passage of S.B. 169 would shatter the foundation of science and biotech development in Georgia, and that the legislation was purposely timed to answer President Barack Obama’s lifting of federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Proponents of the legislation called the timing “providential,” and declared it a good first step.

(Read a CQ transcript of Obama’s remarks on the topic here.)

With little warning, state Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome) late Friday removed much of the bill’s contents — all dealing with restrictions on the number of fertilized eggs a clinic could create during the invitro process. The measure was originally intended as an answer to the California “octuplet” mom.

The committee room was packed. Here’s a summary of some fascinating arguments that were on display:

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Ralph Hudgens (R-Hull) declared that he had no problems with the last-minute changes, and welcomed legislation to emphasize that the bill would not ban the “cryopreservation” of embryos in Georgia.

Said Hudgens:

“The only thing that this bill, regarding stem cell research, is going to impede or prohibit would be the taking of human, viable embryos — an egg plus a sperm that in the proper condition would become a child — and prevent that from being killed or destroyed, I guess would be a better way of saying it, and turning that into embryonic stem cells.

“Now, there’s no prohibition here of any existing stem cell line — you can continue that research with that existing stem cell line. And it’s like, I’m told, a starter solution for sourdough bread. You just keep feeding it and it keeps growing.”

Hudgens also said he spoke to Steve Stice, the University of Georgia’s leading researcher in the field, and made some other changes as a result. He quoted Stice as saying he didn’t like the bill, but could live with it. More on this later.

State Sen. Nan Orrock (D-Atlanta) wondered what kind of new ground the state might be plowing by declaring a fertilized egg to be a human being. If embryos are their own legal entities, can parents determine what to do with them?

Said Smith:

“The provision that limits what you can do via contract, depends upon your view of what the embryo is. If you view it as property, then you would view it more rightly controlled by contract.

“If you view it as a person, at whatever stage of development it is, then you would not necessarily agree that we have the right to contract, anymore than you can contract the sale of your son or daughter. That contract would be void as against public policy.”

State Sen. Johnny Grant (R-Milledgeville), who eventually voted against the bill, raised this question:

“If the husband abandons this embryo, if the wife abandons the embryo, is this going to become a liability of the state? Because [the legislation] says the invitro human embryo shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose. Are these embryos that are abandoned going to become wards of the state?”

Replied Smith:

“I think it’s a very good question. And I have raised that issue and others to the proponents of the bill. I don’t think we have an answer to that question. There are implications of defining something as a person at the moment of conception. That’s one of them.”

Back to Stice, the UGA researcher. Tom Daniel, a spokesman for the university, declared Stice to be an eminent scholar and the institution’s best researcher. But emphasized that he doesn’t speak for the university — and they wanted to see the legislation tabled.

“We feel that this bill will inhibit what we’re doing at the present time. It’s our understanding that the bill would not continue to do stem cell research at our four universities,” Daniel said.

Smith took issue with Daniel. “[The bill] does not limit the ability to study and research existing stem cell lines or stem cell lines that were created in another state and brought in…..So as far as limiting your research, that is incorrect.”

Opponents and proponents were given only a few minutes to offer summary arguments.

Dan Becker, leader of Georgia Right to Life, was the chief advocate. “We do not demolish a building when the question has been asked, is there human life in the building? If the answer is we don’t know, then we stop the destructive element until we do know,” he said.

Gerald Harris, editor of the Christian Index, the official newspaper of the Georgia Baptist Convention, offered a warning: “I do not believe that any God-fearing person would want to vote for something that God hates. No one’s need for a cure supercedes an individual’s right to life.”

A representative of the Georgia Catholic Conference spoke out against both embryonic stem cell research and invitro fertilization.

Dr. Andrew Toledo, with Reproductive Biology Associates, warned that the legislation could subject fertility clinic operators to prosecution. “If embryos are full humans, then anything that puts an embryo at risk could be construed as a criminal violation,” Toledo said. The physician also noted that a large convention of 5,000 specialists in invitro fertilization is scheduled for this fall.

“If this kind of legislation passes, you will not see that meeting come to Atlanta,” Toledo assured the committee.

Dr. Russell Medford, the immediate past chairman of GeorgiaBio, an organization representing academic and research interests, delivered a similar message.

“In May of this year, we’re going to have 20,000 members of the world’s community for biotechnology here in Georgia to highlight the advances we’ve made in this state,” Medford said. “Make no mistake, this bill as constructed — with all the best intentions — will prohibit embryonic stem cell research in the state. It will have the effect of branding Georgia, potentially, the anti-technology state. And it will undermine, we believe, our state’s governor’s efforts to advance our state’s economy in very challenging times.”

Rusty Kidd is a former state lawmaker who is now a lobbyist. He was rendered a paraplegic as the result of a car accident. He was among the last to address the committee.

“If you shuck the corn and get down to what this bill really does, if you go through all the minutiae, what you’re basically doing is defining when life starts and when it doesn’t start. All the other words mean nothing,” he said. Kidd said he’s been assured that embryonic stem cell research could help him walk again.

Becker, the head of GRTL, said he did not disagree with Kidd when it came to the real meaning of the bill. I asked him what the restrictions on research accomplished, given that a couple could — for instance — donate an embryo to a South Carolina firm to create a stem cell line, which then could be used for research in Georgia.

Said Becker:

“It’s the law of intended consequences. We’re not deliberately taking life here in Georgia. It’s South Carolina that is now responsible for their actions. If we can curtail the destruction of innocent human life then we can ethically raise the question of when life begins.

“We’re dealing with the ethical issue of when life begins, and when it should be protected by law.”

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.