The law the Free Press was likely referring to is Michigan's law which prohibits the use of living human embryos, human fetuses, and human neonates in research which isn't therapeutic for them. This law prohibits researchers from killing human embryos for their stem cells but doesn't prohibit researchers from importing embryonic stem cells from other state and experimenting on them in Michigan.
Or the Free Press might have been referring to Michigan's ban on human cloning. Of course, a ban on human cloning is much different than a ban on embryonic stem cell research especially since attempts at human cloning for research have yet to even get embryonic stem cells from a cloned human embryo. If the Free Press editorial board is opposed to Michigan's ban on human cloning then they should provide arguments for why the ban on human cloning should be removed instead of arguing against a ban which doesn't exist.
One might wonder if the Free Press staff is just not very familiar with Michigan's laws on these complex issues except this editorial is one editorial in a long line of editorials and news stories in which the Free Press has inaccurately described Michigan laws relating to bio-ethical issues. Numerous times, Right to Life of Michigan staff have contacted the Free Press and Free Press reporters to correct these errors. Unfortunately, the Free Press has continued to persist in providing its readers with information which is intentionally misleading.
Tags:
