Senators Debate, Fail to Vote on Cloning Ban

After a contentious five-hour debate the Senate failed to take action on legislation to ban all human cloning and to fund research using non-embryonic sources of stem cells. SB 160, sponsored by Sen. Matt Bartle (R-Lee’s Summit), was debated throughout the day on Wednesday, April 6, but the Senate did not amend, approve, or disapprove of the bill. During the debate, various senators elected on pro-life platforms threatened to take action to ensure that the legislation was not approved.

Sen. Bartle pointed out that the legislature has been immersed in the cloning issue for several months. Hours of testimony had been heard from both sides on the issue. Sen. Bartle told senators that “If you don’t have enough information now, you’ll never have enough to make a decision.” Sen. Bartle disputed the notion that SB 160 reflects a division between the enlightened scientific community and unenlightened religious fanatics or social conservatives, stating that SB 160 was about protecting human life.

Sen. Bartle addressed opponents claim that the state will incur economic loss should SB 160 pass. Sen. Bartle pointed out that Germany has a thriving life science industry even after the country passed a ban on all human cloning. Michigan, which passed a cloning ban, has also seen growth in their life science industry. Sen. Bartle listed countries that ban all forms of human cloning including Germany, France, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and South Africa.

Sen. Chris Koster (R-Harrisonville) stated that hearing about the other countries that ban human cloning had little impact on his decision making, and what affected him more was that the United States did not ban human cloning. Sen. Koster stated that if the United States had not banned human cloning then Missouri should not ban human cloning.

Sen. Koster also stated that the human embryo created through human cloning was a human being at the blastocyst stage of human embryo development. Sen. Koster stated his belief that life created through human cloning was not present until the blastocyst was implanted in a woman’s womb and attached itself to the uterine wall. Sen. Koster stated that he would be willing to ban implantation of the blastocyst in a woman’s womb but not the creation of the blastocyst through human cloning for destruction in research.

Sen. Gary Nodler (R-Joplin) challenged Sen. Koster’s statement that a human blastocyst created through cloning is not a human being at it’s earliest developmental stage. He pointed out that Dolly the sheep was created through cloning and that he had traveled to the Rosin Institute where Dolly was preserved and read the data showing all the genetic anomalies present in Dolly as a result of the cloning. Quoting Mao Tse-Tung, Sen. Nodler stated “If a chicken egg were to be given the right conditions, nourishment and time it will develop into a chicken. However, a rock, no matter the conditions, how much time or nourishment you give it, will never become a chicken. It will always be a rock.” Sen. Nodler pointed out to Sen. Koster that the blastocyst created through cloning given the time, conditions, and nourishment will develop into a human being. Sen. Nodler stated that when science destroys a developing human embryo at the blastocyst stage, regardless of how that blastocyst was created, then science was destroying human life.

Sen. Jon Dolan (R-Lake St. Louis) argued that the Senate needed to consider the political calculations surrounding SB 160. He pointed out that Governor Blunt and the scientific community do not want the bill to pass. Sen. Dolan stated that SB 160 calls into question the sincerity of all pro-life Republicans and compromises the “entire pro-life agenda”. He said that if senators were to vote against SB 160 then they would be seen as betraying their pro-life constituents who helped get them elected. Sen. Dolan then questioned whether pro-life groups should have such control over the Senate, stating that, “Political calculations are made every day. It is not just science or morality. The governor doesn’t like this bill.”

Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons (R-Kirkwood) said it was his belief that life only began when the embryo was implanted in the womb. He stated that SB 160 was “forcing us to rethink where life begins.” Sen. Gibbons questioned societies inconsistency in determining which life is protected and how punishment is determined. He expressed concern that if society prohibits human cloning then would it also have to prohibit in vitro-fertilization.

Sen. David Klindt (R-Bethany) claimed that he was pro-life but opposed to SB 160. He said he felt SB 160 changed the definition of when life began, and that life in fact begins when the embryo was implanted in the womb. Sen. Klindt discussed with Sen. Chuck Graham (D-Columbia) his belief that “therapeutic” cloning could lead to life saving cures. Sen. Graham claimed that the pro-life community obviously did not want SB 160 to pass as there was no grassroots outrage over SB 160 as there was over banning partial birth abortion. Sen. Graham stated, “If this is the pro-life bill, where are the people?” Sen. Klindt agreed with Sen. Graham and said that he would “…stand here all night. I am not going to let this bill pass.”

Sen. John Greisheimer (R-Washington) stated “I’ve dreaded this day since the day I signed onto the bill. I thought everything was okay until I found out the governor opposed this bill.” He said that he had been lobbied by staff of Governor Matt Blunt to oppose SB 160. Sen. Greisheimer said that if SB 160 came to a vote in the Senate that he would have no choice but to vote in favor of it because he had, “unfortunately”, co-sponsored the bill. Sen. Greisheimer expressed concern that if SB 160 were put to a vote, “We’re going to get rated by the pro-life people.” He also stated that SB 160 had divided the pro-life people in Missouri and would tear apart the pro-life community leading to the election of a pro-choice governor. Sen. Greisheimer also expressed visions of “black helicopters and conspiracy” by supporters of SB 160, wondering aloud whether advocates of the cloning ban sought election of abortion supporters in future elections.

Sen. Greisheimer noted that although a cloning ban had long been a priority of the Missouri Catholic Conference, that Missouri Right to Life had historically not supported enactment of a ban, claiming that it was not a priority. He expressed frustration that Missouri Right to Life identified passage of the cloning ban as a legislative priority for the first time only during the 2005 legislative session.

As a result of the heated division within the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields (R-St. Joseph) asked Sen. Bartle to end debate on SB 160 until such time as a compromise could be made. Sen. Bartle insisted that he had made compromises but that opponents of the bill were not acting in good faith.

However, Sen. Bartle reluctantly agreed, pleading with Sen. Shields that SB 160 be allowed to come up again for debate if opponents of the bill did negotiate in good faith. Sen. Shields agreed and debate ended on SB 160.

Deacon Larry Weber, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Missouri Catholic Conference, stated in response to the debate that “Now it is more important than ever for Catholic citizens to make their voices heard. Some legislators are putting political support from business and the research industry ahead of protection of human life. Citizens should contact their state senators immediately and make their voices heard.” The legislature has until May 13 to take up and pass the cloning ban this year.