In case you missed it, one of the feel-good stories in the news last week was about a “miracle baby” born in New Orleans – Noah Markham was one of the frozen embryos rescued from a fertility clinic during Hurricane Katrina by 10 policemen in boats.
Describing the event as “something to celebrate,” ABC News referred to the “risky rescue mission” in which “Noah and hundreds of other frozen embryos were saved.”
Rescued? Saved? Five days earlier, Democrats in the House of Representatives had cast themselves as heroes for passing a measure expanding the number of frozen embryos that could be destroyed for stem cell research. Preening with moral vanity, they denounced as Luddites those who voted to protect potential Baby Noahs.
Are Americans about to engage in another bitter debate on the value of unborn life? The battle lines are drawn between those who consider a human embryo an incipient person and those who view a four-to-five-day-old embryo as mere blastocyst, a clump of undifferentiated cells.
In truth, one could argue both ways. Obviously, a human embryo allowed to develop will become a human infant. On the other hand, it isn’t quite true that a unique individual is formed at the moment of conception because, at that early stage, the cells can divide and form identical twins or triplets.
Unfortunately, like some proponents of abortion, some supporters of embryonic stem cell research are trying to blur the facts of the issue, giving voters the impression that the choice is between conducting the research or not.
In fact, federal funding for research involving adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells in mice is available and unrestricted. Moreover, there are no restrictions on conducting embryonic cell research with private funds. The debate in Congress is whether it’s appropriate for the federal government to spend more money to destroy more human embryos for research.
There is no national consensus. A poll conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University last month found that 54 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and 37 percent oppose it. Those are close enough margins to create another Great Divide if steps aren’t taken to prevent it.
For starters, we could learn from the main mistake made regarding abortion and leave the matter largely to states. If seven activist judges on the Supreme Court had not overturned the laws of 50 states by declaring abortion a constitutional right, we would have been spared a national convulsion. Several states have already taken up the issue of embryonic stem cell research and made very different decisions.
In 2004, Californians voted to outspend the federal government on stem cell research, passing a $3 billion initiative that created the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.
Residents of Connecticut voted to spend $100 million to fund adult and embryonic stem cell research in theirs state. Eight others have either passed or are considering similar legislation.
Yet residents in Arizona, Louisiana, Michigan, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota passed statutes specifically prohibiting or limiting embryonic stem cell research. Why should their federal tax dollars fund a practice they find morally repugnant? After all, abortions cannot be paid for withfederal funds except in certain cases.
Even if there were a national consensus that embryonic stem cell research is desirable, that still wouldn’t mean that the federal government should be the principal source of funding.
According to Forbes, the 400 richest Americans now have a combined net worth of $1 trillion. Surely some of them support embryonic stem cell research and would be willing to donate funding.
Three entertainment moguls in Beverly Hills — Sumner Redstone, George Lucas, and Kirk Kirkorian — have combined assets greater than Virginia’s annual budget. Why doesn’t Michael J. Fox & Co. knock on their doors and ask for donations? Aren’t celebrities ever embarrassed to insist that their pet projects be funded by secretaries and bus drivers?
Deciding whether to preserve or destroy unborn human life isn’t merely a determination of policy; it’s a determination of ethics. People in Utah do not have the same collective outlook as people in Massachusetts.
If individual states can decide whether to support and fund embryonic stem cell research, we may be able to avoid another national fissure. One thing is certain: Democrats’ insistence on imposing their will on the nation will not stem a potential divide.
Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
