by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 10, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

tepping out of line, Sen. Orin G. Hatch (R-Utah) broke with his party's right wing, supporting a bill that would permit non-reproductive human cloning. A long-time pro-lifer, Hatch worked for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, in effect scuttling Roe v. Wade—the landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. To accomplish this gyration, Hatch insists that life begins at conception only in the human womb. Conception in Petrie dishes or test tubes, at least to Hatch, doesn't count, making human cloning acceptable for scientific research. Embryos implanted in the womb qualify as human beings and are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—at least theoretically, should the embryo be lucky enough to become a fetus and survive childbirth. Cloning for research purposes is "pro-life and pro-family," said Hatch. "It enhances— it does not diminish— human life." Hatch reminded his colleagues that "a critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living," turning pro-life ideas on their heads.

      Limiting embryonic stem cell research to 60 existing lines, President Bush announced his opposition to human cloning last summer. Following suit, the GOP-led House also passed a bill banning all human cloning. Hatch's revelation changes the dynamics in the Senate, now busy weighing legislation to permit cloning for research purposes. Using cloning to make embryonic stem cells offers scientists hope to find cures of dreaded diseases, currently unavailable. Just last month, Bush called for a total ban on human cloning, fearing that it would move America "toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications." Like most pro-lifers, Bush misses the medical applications of human cloning, designed to recreate lifesaving embryonic stem cells and fetal tissue. Supporting human cloning doesn't invalidate Judeo-Christian values, especially, as Hatch says, to improve the plight of the living. Harvesting fetal tissue promises hope for currently incurable diseases.

      While the House slammed the door on human cloning, the Senate tried to keep an open mind. Unlike the House, the Senate isn't ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Conservative senators like Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John B. Breaux (R-La.) all reconsider the medical benefits of human cloning. Getting behind cloning, Hatch lends conservative credentials to the debate, where liberals like former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) oppose the practice. Senators now seem evenly divided over the merits of human cloning, though Sen. Mary Landrieux (D-La.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) believe cloning runs counter to God's law. "My decision came after countless hours of study, reflection, and, yes, prayer," said Hatch. "Once I identified and weighed what I believe to be the relevant factors, the decision itself was not—and I repeat—a close call." For Hatch, cloning boiled down to helping 100 million Americans afflicted with incurable diseases, who might benefit from cloned tissue.

      Hatch, a practicing Mormon, found a new way of hoodwinking himself into believing there's a difference between reproductive and scientific cloning. All cloning involves creating the miracle of life by transferring the nuclei from human skin cells to healthy human eggs. If you believe life begins at conception, it doesn't matter where the embryo grows—inside or outside the womb. Hatch knows that pro-lifers don't make the distinction of where embryos grow because, either way, they still wind up as human beings. Seeing the medical value of cloning, Hatch realized that pro-lifers can't save countless individuals from disabling diseases. Only scientific cloning promises the miracle of tissue re-growth—not faith or the power of prayer. According to Hatch, scientific cloning produces "living cells," not "human beings." Renaming cloning "regenerative medicine" doesn't change the biological fact that cloned embryos would eventually develop into real human beings. Hatch should spend more time convincing his friends that the Senate shouldn't encroach on important medical research.

      Hatch's mental gymnastics prove that Congress has no business policing scientific research. His new definition of pro-life won't change too many minds on Capitol Hill or elsewhere. But why should it? Public servants should refrain from imposing their eccentric beliefs on the scientific community. After all, scientists of all stripes, responsible for engineering better bombs or curing dreaded diseases, don't foist their values on government officials, other than asking for research money. When Vice President Dick Cheney's heart beat out-of-control, he sought cutting edge medical technology to extend his life. Why should it be any different when it comes to cloning, fetal tissue or embryonic stem cells? Most diabetics losing their eyesight or developing gangrene dream of the day when scientists find a cure. Allowing the White House or Congress to pass judgment on medical research sets a dangerous precedent. Hatch should be getting government off the back of the scientific community.

      No government entity should meddle into the work of dedicated scientists trying to advance civilization. Eccentric politicians—or churches for that matter—are not in a position to lecture scientists on how they should conduct scientific research. Modern society owes much to science, especially the remarkable advances in the field of life extension. "The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between men and women, lawfully wedded as husband and wife," wrote Hatch's Mormon Church in 1995, not only taking a stand against cloning but all advances in reproductive medicine enabling otherwise sterile couples to conceive. Hats off to Sen. Orin Hatch for thinking outside the box in the cloning controversy. He doesn't need to concoct convoluted schemes to rationalize using common sense when making medical decisions. As long as new medical techniques pass the rigors of scientific scrutiny—measuring safety and effectiveness—it's not up to politicians to call the shots.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing corporate consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.