Right to Life of Michigan responds to erroneous stem cell editorial

In response to a recent editorial by the Grand Rapids Press on prolife legislation, Right to Life of Michigan legislative director Ed Rivet submitted the following editorial to respond to some of false claims in the Press editorial. The response editorial, which was published on November 27, is below.

When the voters passed Proposal 2 more than one year ago, they approved an amendment to the Michigan Constitution allowing embryos remaining from fertility treatments to be destroyed for their stem cells. The amendment does not allow buying or selling embryos, the embryos must be less than two weeks into development and the parents donating their embryonic children must give their written consent. The problem with the amendment is that it has no enforcement mechanisms, no definitions and no penalties for anyone caught violating these provisions.

In nearly every instance when voters approve a broad amendment to the Constitution, the Legislature must subsequently enact a framework of laws to implement it. Prior to 1996, California had no laws governing embryo research. When some UC-Irvine researchers were caught transferring embryos without proper consent, they had to be charged with mail fraud and tax evasion because there were not appropriate laws in place to charge them. The legislation being offered in Lansing to implement Proposal 2 will avoid this type of legal blunder.

Nothing in the proposed legislation prevents couples from donating embryos or researchers from using them. Researchers would be required to fill out a half-page form once a year that lists from where they received embryos, how many they used, and how many are retained in storage – That's it! No inspections of their facilities, no limits on what they can do with the embryos, no bureaucratic licensing process, just a half-page form once a year.

The Press' editorial against this legislation included several erroneous claims. First, it misleads readers about what Proposal 2 did. It did not “allow research using stem cells from human embryos.” That was already legal and occurring in Michigan prior to Proposal 2. Proposal 2 allowed researchers in Michigan to experiment on and kill human embryos for their stem cells.

Second, if research directors at Michigan's big three universities claim Proposal 2 is “working as intended,” they are grossly misstating the case. As a November 7 Press article indicated, the University of Michigan, the state's leading stem cell research university, “has not started projects to derive human embryonic stem cell lines” a year after Proposal 2 passed. If a year later they haven't even done what Proposal 2 legalized, how necessary was Proposal 2 after all?

Which is why the Press' claim that Proposal 2 is responsible for the $7 million in stem cell research grants is all the more misleading. Only one grant is for research using human embryonic stem cells. All the rest of the research projects are using adult stem cells, cancer stem cells or animal stem cells. The University of Michigan's own press release on the grants notes that the one embryonic stem cell study would have been legal before Proposal 2 because it doesn't require researchers to kill any embryos.

Press editorial writers are entitled to their own opinions on this research and legislation, but they're not entitled to their own facts.

Nothing in the proposed legislation will reverse or undermine Proposal 2 nor will it hinder any embryonic stem cell research. The bills simply provide the framework for Proposal 2 to be properly carried out and its provisions enforced. Voters expect that anyone caught violating Proposal 2 will be punished. But without this legislation, there are no defined penalties, no oversight or enforcement agency in charge, no accountability.