May 21, 2001
Dear Member of Congress:
Announcements
that some researchers may attempt human cloning has prompted renewed interest
in this issue by Congress. Hearings have been held in both House and Senate,
and important legislation has been introduced to address this urgent problem.
I am writing to urge your support and sponsorship for this
legislation.
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 (S. 790, H.R.
1644), introduced by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL),
is the most carefully crafted and widely supported bill to be introduced on
this issue. It is endorsed by concerned religious groups with divergent views
on abortion, such as the Catholic bishops' conference and the General Board of
Church and Society of The United Methodist Church, and enjoys broad bipartisan
sponsorship in the House.
This legislation would prohibit use of the
cloning technique used to make "Dolly" the sheep to initiate the development
of a living organism of the human species. Any use of cloning techniques to
produce DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, plants, or animals other
than humans is explicitly excluded from the scope of the ban. The bill also
encourages further study by a government advisory commission, to assess any
impact of the ban on medical research and any future need to revise its
definition of cloning in light of new developments.
Some propose that a
very different kind of bill be passed instead – one that would not ban human
cloning, but prohibit implanting cloned human embryos in a womb for purposes
of live birth. However, May 2 testimony before the Senate Commerce
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space showed that such a ban would be
gravely defective in three ways:
Moral: A mere ban on implantation and live birth
would not affect the bizarre reproductive technique of cloning itself, but
prohibit the natural process of nurturing and delivering a child if the child
was produced by cloning. In effect, by banning live birth, government would
allow unlimited use of cloning to make new human embryos and then
require that they be killed. For the first time, our government would
define a class of members of the human species that it is a crime not
to destroy. In moral terms, then, this approach does not offer a "half a loaf"
or a partial ban on cloning – it offers the worst of the present laissez-faire
situation on cloning itself, combined with the moral wrong of a law coercing
abortion. Morally it is worse than doing nothing at
all.
Legal: Attempts to
enforce a ban on implantation and live birth would have to target women's
bodies, not irresponsible researchers, and involve the government in
reproductive decisions that raise serious constitutional issues. By contrast,
a number of states now prohibit harmful research involving human embryos
outside the womb without raising a constitutional problem, because no one's
body is implicated in such activity except that of the embryo.
Practical: If the law allows unlimited human
cloning for research, it will set the stage for further uses of the technique
in humans and make a ban on cloning for live birth all but unenforceable here
and now. If a fertility clinic does transfer a cloned embryo to a woman's
womb, no one will know until after the fact. At that point the sole remaining
enforcement options -- demanding an abortion, or punishing the woman for
giving birth – cannot be sustained in a civilized society. If human cloning is
to be banned effectively, the ban must apply at the very beginning of the
process.
The only serious argument raised against the Brownback/Weldon
approach is that some biotechnology companies want to pursue cloning as a way
to produce huge numbers of identical embryos for experimental purposes. They
imagine that cloning could produce embryos that are genetically matched to
individual patients in need of cell therapies, so the stem cells obtained by
destroying these embryos would not be rejected by the patients' immune
systems. Some even call this approach "therapeutic cloning," though it lies at
the extreme fringe of morally reprehensible nontherapeutic
experimentation on members of the human species.
We need to recall in
this context that policymakers and legislators on all sides of the embryonic
stem cell debate have rejected the idea of specially creating human
embryos solely for research that will destroy them. Members of Congress who
otherwise oppose the Dickey amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill,
which bars federal support for harmful human embryo research, have always been
careful to explain that they endorse the amendment's policy against creating
embryos for research purposes. Moreover, researchers themselves are already
turning away from "therapeutic cloning" as a wasteful, impractical and
unnecessary road to medical progress.
The chief argument against the
effective and legally sound ban on cloning offered by Senator Brownback and
Congressman Weldon, then, is that this ban fails to protect unethical
experiments that have been condemned even by members of Congress who strongly
support federal funding of abortion and human embryo research. Such a morally
bankrupt argument should not prevent or delay swift federal action to enact a
genuine ban on human cloning.
For these reasons I urge you to
co-sponsor the Brownback/Weldon Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001 and to
help bring this important legislation to a vote as soon as
possible.
Very sincerely,
Cardinal William H.
Keeler
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, Committee for Pro-Life
Activities
National Conference of Catholic Bishops
__________________________
Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211
4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202)
541-3070
June 03, 2003 Copyright © by United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops