"Ain't Gonna Study War No More"

My Photo
Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States

Right-To-Life Party, Christian, Anti-War, Pro-Life, Bible Fundamentalist, Egalitarian, Libertarian Left

Wednesday, July 05, 2006


(Senate - June 29, 2006)

From Grassfire.org Alliance

Dear Felix,

Late last week, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) welcomed a
bipartisan Senate agreement that paves the way for
an up-or-down vote perhaps as early as July 10, for
three stem cell and bioethics bills. He also
addressed the Senate in an eloquent, heart-felt
speech that you can read:

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I stand to deliver some good news today to
the Senate and hopefully contribute to the debate we are going to have
probably in July on the overall issue of stem cells, embryonic stem cells,
human cloning, adult stem cells, and cord blood.

I wish to start by saying I think everybody is of good heart and good
mind in this body and that they want to try to do something to help people
in this country. While we have some differences of opinion on embryonic stem
cells and on human cloning, there is strong bipartisan support in the adult
stem cell and cord blood area.

The differences come down to the basic view of the youngest of human
life. This is a long debate. It has been going on for some time. We have
differences of opinion. I view human life as sacred at all of its stages and
all of its places. Period. It is unique, it is beautiful, it is a child of
the living God. It deserves our respect and protection under law at the very
earliest stages of life and at the very latest stages in life. It is life in
this country and a life in other countries. It is life seeking to come to
this country in whatever form it may be. This life is unique and sacred.

We can try to divide it under law. We can say it is property at this
stage of life; it is not worth living at that stage of life. All of those, I
think, are false distinctions. Life is sacred, period, per se because it is
human and it is sacred, period, because it is human. That is the point of
view from which I come. That is the point of view from which I think a lot
of Americans come.

When people think about it, when they look at this issue they say: How
else would you divide a baby? It is pretty hard to do unless you start where
life begins and you end where life ends and you don't draw distinctions in

Others are willing to draw that distinction in between and say a human
life is not sacred, per se, at certain early stages, or if it is so decrepit
at other stages of life. I think those are false distinctions. I don't think
they stand the test of science. I don't think

they will stand the test of time. I don't think they will stand the test of
reason if one really thinks it through.

That is really where we get to the point of distinction on this debate,
on human embryonic stem cells, on cloning humans for stem cells.
Scientifically, it may be doable. Ethically, is it moral? Is this human life
a person or a piece of property? In our jurisprudence system, they are one
of the two: They are either a person or a piece of property. Everything in
this room--the Presiding Officer is a person; what he has on is property.
People in this

room are people, everything else is property.

What is the youngest of human life? Is it person or property? We have had
this debate before in this country. We have looked at it; we have drawn
distinctions. At points in time, even in our Constitution, we have said a
person was only three-fifths of a person, and yet we knew at that time: How
can you be three-fifths of a person? That didn't stand the test of time and
reason then, and it doesn't stand the test in this country now.

Some will say that the youngest of human life is property and at some
point in development it becomes a person. Yet in our jurisprudence system,
we don't recognize the transition that you can go from property to
personhood and, if so, where on Earth would you draw that line? When would
it happen?

The biology is quite clear on this point. If you start out a person, you
end up a person. If you start out a human being, you don't become a plant.
If you start out a human being, you don't become a desk. If you start out a
human, you end up a human. The biology on this is clear. If you are a human
embryo and you are given nurture, you end up, by anybody's definition, a
full-scale human being. You don't transition. You don't start out as a piece
of property or an egg that is going to become an eagle and end up a person.
It is one person.

At one point in time, we have all started out as an embryo. Whether you
are SAM BROWNBACK, the Presiding Officer, or anybody in this room, we all
started out being a human embryo. We didn't start another way. If you
destroy us at the earliest stage, you never end up with us at this stage.
That is a basic fundamental of the argument.

It is an old, old, old debate for human societies. We have had this
debate. Typically, in fighting around the world, people try to dehumanize
the other side.

I remember watching a film on Rwanda, ``Hotel Rwanda,'' about the Rwandan
genocide. I was just in Rwanda last year and in the Holocaust Museum. The
one side persecuting the other side, killing nearly 800,000 in 3 weeks, in
the very typical fashion of human beings demonizing the other side and
calling them less than human, they were subhuman--they were roaches is what
they actually referred to them as.

One can look at old war propaganda and typically one side tries to
demonize the other side, calling them something less than human, they are
subhuman. That is a very old human debate about whether this is really a

The truth is, the debate never stands up under any examination. Of
course, the Hutus and Tutsis are humans. Of course, in our earliest
Constitution, a slave was treated as three-fifths of a person; they are a
full person. They are entitled to personhood. They are entitled to legal
status in this Nation.

Of course, any time in the history of mankind when we have deemed
somebody less than a full person, we have always lived to regret it, and we
always said later on: Wasn't that a horrific episode in human history where
somebody was treated less than a human?

Now we are back at that old debate. People are of different minds. They
are not of ill will toward anybody. Many are seeking cures to very difficult
diseases, to very difficult problems and human maladies and saying: If we
can only go here, if we can only research on human embryos that are just
frozen; they are not going to come out of the Cryovac; they are going to
stay frozen; if we can only do that, if we can just take an egg and fuse it
with a cell from my body and create a clone just for a little period of
time, we are going to be able to solve all these human maladies; we are
going to solve cancer, and we are going to fix Parkinson's disease, and we
are going to solve spinal cord injuries.

Then, it comes back, back, back to the same old debate: What is the human
embryo that is frozen? Is this a human embryo created by the cloning
process? Is it a person or piece of property?

People of good will differ on that division. It is an old debate, and I
think the only place to stand is that this is a person and deserves our

That debate is renewed in this bioethics issue. We have been going at it
about 6 years now. In August of 2001, the President articulated a strategy
of funding both embryonic stem cell research and adult and cord blood
research, funding both of them. We have since that time funded embryonic
stem cell research to the tune of half a billion dollars, $500 million. So
this isn't something people can say we haven't done. We have. Those are
Federal funds. No private or State money is included in that money. This is
just Federal money, half a billion dollars.

When we started this debate 6 years ago, I stated that for us to research
on young human beings is illegal under our law, immoral under our rationale,
under our legal system and, really, the law we know in our hearts and
unnecessary because we have another way. We can go through adult stem cell
work, we can go through cord blood work, and we can come at conclusions that
will be successful in treating these human maladies.

The illegal and immoral remain today. We do not allow people to research
on the youngest of human beings. It is immoral how you treat the youngest of
human beings because if you destroy me at that stage of embryo, I never get
to become a full-scale human and realize the potential I have or other
people have.

Today, I want to emphasize the unnecessary part of this debate. When we
started this debate in 2000, they said there was a lot of promise with adult
cord blood, but we don't know if you are right. We actually think we are
going to be able to come up with conclusions and solutions using embryonic
stem cells or cloning, but you can't come up with them using adult stem
cells. There is not enough malleability. They are not what they call in the
terminology, pluripotent. In other words, if it is a nerve adult stem cell,
it can't make bone. It can't make fat tissue.

It turns out there is a lot more pluripotency or plasticity to these
adult stem cells than originally thought, to the point where we have 70
peer-reviewed publications, treating 70--we just celebrated this 2 weeks
ago--70 different human maladies with adult stem cells or cord blood.

My good news today is on the illegal, immoral, and unnecessary, we now
have a lot of information on the unnecessary side of this debate so that we
can go forward full scale in saying we are going to successfully treat these
human maladies, and we have 70 treatment areas. Some of these are nothing
short of miraculous.

I have a very busy chart here, but that is because this is very busy
subject. This is a chart indicating 70 current human--these are not
animals--human clinical applications using adult stem cells today. These are
the various areas: anemias, autoimmune diseases, bladder diseases. We now
have people growing bladders from their own stem cells, taking them out of
the body--I believe this is a Florida researcher--putting them on a skeleton
and then growing artificial bladders so that people, instead of having
pouches on their side, can now have their own bladder grown. This is really
taking place.

Cancers, cardiovascular: I want to talk about a group having their hearts
regenerated by their own stem cells, but will save that for another day.

Immune deficiencies, liver diseases, neural degenerative diseases,
including spinal cord injuries--I will talk about a specific example today:
a young lady walking again with the use of braces.

Ocular, wounds and injuries, and metabolic disorders: Those are the
general categories that I want to put forward to show the unnecessary side
of embryonic stem cells. This is a good news topic with which we can move

I have been challenged by some of my colleagues about the scientists who
oppose embryonic stem cell research. I have submitted a list of 57
scientists and doctors for the RECORD in a previous speech who oppose
destructive human embryonic stem cell research--oppose it. Embryonic stem
cell research is not the right way to go, as a moral issue, for a number of
reasons, but there are also a number of reasons why it is unnecessary for us
to move forward in this particular category.

There is also the problem--and we saw this on the use of tissues from
aborted fetuses, the fetal tissue debate, and, unfortunately, when you use
these young stem cells, embryonic stem cells, they tend to form tumors.
Embryonic stem cells are very fast-growing, and they form tumors instead of
the type of tissue we want. They too frequently are uncontrollable, and they
will form tumors. That continues to be the problem in that particular area.

I want to point out this chart to my colleagues regarding this issue. It
is not necessary. It is unnecessary for us to do embryonic or cloning
research. On the moral issue, it is illegal. But it is also unnecessary
because we are getting human treatments to the very things my colleagues
said that we needed to do embryonic stem cell research for and that they say
we needed to do human cloning to get all of these cures. I am saying it is
not necessary. We don't have to go that route, because we are getting the
treatments using this ethical route.

So we have this big ethical debate and quagmire, and we have a legitimate
route with adult stem cells where we are getting successful treatments for
people. Why would we engage in and go the unethical route when we have this
big debate and divide? Why would we not just go very aggressively where we
are getting human clinical trials with adult stem cells, especially when we
are not getting any in the embryonic area? Why wouldn't you fully engage
that and say, Well, OK, then we don't have to engage the moral debate. We
don't have to say somebody is subhuman and to get to a point in our
research. We can say we have a legitimate route to go.

Now I want to talk about the good news highlights here. I want to put up
some real patient stories for my colleagues. We had a press conference last
week where we had five individuals independently treated with adult stem
cells or with their cord blood. This is umbilical cord blood from
mother-child that has been saved and preserved and people are being treated
successfully in these areas.

I want to put up a picture of Ryan Schneider from Batavia, IL. This is a
miraculous story. A beautiful Christmas picture you can see here. It is a
picture of him last Christmas, taken just 10 weeks after Ryan's stem cell
treatment. There is already a noticeable improvement that he has. This is a
young man who has an incredible story. I met him last week and his parents,
and I want to say God bless him to him and his parents who really fought
through a tough problem of cerebral palsy with him.

His medical problems began at birth. His parents, Mary and Steve, noticed
that he was having difficulty with feedings. He was falling behind in his
motor skills. His mother is a very sensible woman. She heard the usual
arguments of, ``Well, every kid is different, let's wait and see.'' But
based on her experience, including raising Ryan's older sister, Katie, his
mother knew that something wasn't right.

By the age of 2 he only had two words and he was not gaining weight at
all. She writes:

Pointing, whining, and screaming were his only method of communication. I
had him evaluated through the early intervention program and he started
speech therapy. So she starts working.

Nine months later he had only gained 1 pound, and after he started speech
therapy he spoke only 40 words with no sentence structure, and only close
family understood the words.

His upper body strength was weakening. His hands were in fists most of
the time. It hurt him to straighten out his hands and arms. It is the little
things that only a parent would notice that set the bells off ringing. I
presented these concerns to Ryan's pediatrician who referred us to a

Having five children, I can just see this developing, and I can see a
mother looking at this child and knowing something is not quite right here.

On July 21, 2005, we got the diagnosis of cerebral palsy. My husband and
I felt like we had been punched in the stomach. Who wouldn't, as a parent.
Ryan Schneider was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, a disease that affects
close to half a million Americans.

Mayoclinic.com describes cerebral palsy as:

a general term describing a general group of disorders which affects the
child's ability to coordinate body and movement. These disorders are caused
by damage to a child's brain early in the course of development. Damage can
occur during fetal development, during the birth process, or during the
first few months after birth.

The group of disorders range from mild to severe. Physical signs of
cerebral palsy includes weakness and floppiness of muscles, flaccidity, and
rigidity. In some cases neurological disorders such as mental retardation or
seizures also occur in children with cerebral palsy.

This doesn't sound like something you would want to confront in your
family. Mayoclinic.com also cites that it is not curable--is not curable.

Well, the Schneider family has a story to tell today. Thanks to their
persistence and the work of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg at Duke University, young
Ryan has a new outlook on life. Thanks to the amazing work of cord blood
adult stem cells. Ryan's mother, on the birth of Ryan, saved the cord blood.
That is something I would urge anybody who is watching or thinking about it,
to save the cord blood. This is a valuable asset.

Ms. Schneider continues about what she did:

The light went on the morning following Ryan's diagnosis. I sat up in
bed, looked at my husband and said, the doctor said brain injury. We saved
his cord blood. I wonder if they are using it to treat cerebral palsy.

This is the day after. The mother sits up in bed: We saved it. What can
we do?

After days of net researching and many phone calls to leading researchers
in stem cell therapy, I found very little hope or information and a lot of,
``No, I won't do the transfusion.'' No one would give my son his own cord
blood. You can get donated blood products from strangers in time for surgery
or trauma. This is absurd. I called Dr. Harris at the cord blood bank where
Ryan's stem cells were banked. He suggested I get in touch with Dr.
Kurtzberg at Duke University.

I have had Dr. Kurtzberg in to testify--an amazing lady, great stories,
and she works with these impossible cases. Remember, cerebral palsy was
incurable. Was--was incurable.

She agreed to do the transfusion, and the transfusion took place on
October 11, 2005. Given this opportunity, I set up a protocol system of my
own. Pre- and post-infusion evaluations and progress monitoring is being
done by Easter Seals. I requested extensive metabolic and chromosomal blood
work to be done to rule out any other possibilities with his pediatrician.

So this is a mother working with this doctor saying, OK, we are going to
really measure it and see if this is what is happening. Ryan's mother

My thought was if this works for Ryan, it could change his life and the
lives of many other children in the future. Although my efforts were
applauded, this should not be the job of a parent, but of the medical
community and the Federal Government to allocate research dollars. Until
this is a proven treatment, insurance companies typically will deny
benefits, leaving a huge financial burden on the family and precious few
places to receive hope.

Six months post-infusion, the progress Ryan has made is more than
remarkable; it is phenomenal. He is no longer in need of any physical or
observational therapy, as his dexterity in his hands and arms has returned.
His feeding issues are gone--were gone within 30 days. He is now at a normal
rate of growth. He speaks clearly for a 3 year old, and he does so in
sentences. His vocabulary is on target and age appropriate, and he is
totally engaged in his surroundings. His pediatrician, neurologist,
behavioral psychologist, Easter Seals OT, physical therapist and the feeding
clinic are in agreement that these changes have occurred post cord blood
transfusion. They can offer us no other explanation, yet we must all err on
the side of caution, preventing false hope until proper research is

So you basically see a mother looking for any researcher in the country
who will do this. When I talked to the mother last week, she said Dr.
Kurtzberg said to her, Yes, I will do the transfusion. The worst thing that
can happen here is nothing. This is his own cord blood. The worst thing that
can happen is nothing. But without it, he is going the wrong way. Let's try

The OB-GYN that delivered Ryan and collected his cord blood asked me,
``What in the world made you think of that? It is wonderful and very
exciting news.'' I got that kind of reaction from the other doctors in
Ryan's case and thought, ``How could I not think of it?'' When your child is
in trouble, you use all available resources to fix the situation to the best
of your ability.

All of Ryan's doctors are given updates and progress reports as they
come. I have come in contact with Dr. Mindy Lipson-Aisen, the National
Director of the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation. She would like to see a
study begin with this treatment and has offered a grant to make that happen.
The Easter Seals Dupage have been very accommodating with Ryan's needs.
Based on conversation with them, I am sure that additional funding would be

Clearly, more adult stem cell work in this area is something that we need
to do, with half a million CP patients in the country and more coming all
the time. Why not head this off?

We owe our thanks to the mice and men that helped us get this far, but it
is not about them, it is the children and others that may benefit. The
resource and treatment accessibility needs to be changed. Funding research
for children in need who have access to their cord blood in either a private
or public bank will be a low-risk, high-yield and ethical place to start.
Ryan and others should not be referred to as an anecdotal response as a
society. We all deserve better than that.

Part of my point in mentioning Ryan's story is that as we divert
resources from these areas that are working in adult cord blood research and
putting half a billion dollars in very speculative, embryonic stem cell
research that is still producing tumors, or even in more speculative cloning
research, kids like Ryan don't get the treatment from a protocol that has
been developed and is actually working. So why do we take a half a billion
dollars from Ryan to put it over here in this speculative area that has
moral questions as well, and kids like Ryan don't get treatment or we don't
develop a protocol or we don't expand it across the country? What sense does
that make that we would do that? For the sake of research?

I am for research, but I am more for treating kids like Ryan and getting
more of them cured from CP and other diseases. Funding adult stem cells
which are working is more important than saying, OK, we are going to prove
that something doesn't work over here. We are going to prove that this
doesn't work with embryonic stem cells or we are going to prove that this
doesn't work with cloning when I could instead be really treating a bunch of
kids like Ryan. Why would we do that?

Ryan was on the cover of The Hill newspaper last week flexing his
muscles. His mother said his arms used to retract. Now he is on the front
cover of The Hill, he has his arms outstretched, and he is showing his
muscles like a good 3-year-old. His sister complains that he bugs her all
the time, which to a parent is usually a very healthy sign that this is
working. These are real people getting real treatments and real cures.

I want to go now to an example that is another miraculous example of a
treatment area. I am only giving you two stories of the five that were in
last week, and these are only two areas in the 70 that are getting treated
with adult cord blood.

This is Jacki Rabon, a paraplegic, an amazing case and amazing young
lady. She lives in central Illinois. I have a picture of Jacki here. This is
a picture after her adult stem cell treatment. I want to give you the
background on her.

Jacki Rabon is an 18-year-old paraplegic. She was on Capitol Hill last
week with her mother and sister touting adult stem cell advances in the area
of spinal cord injuries. Three years ago, Jacki was a very active
16-year-old who played volleyball in school, and was an outstanding player.
In fact, she had hopes of going to college on a volleyball scholarship. All
that changed.

She was riding in an SUV on a gravel road when it flipped multiple times.
She landed on her back on that country road. She spent the next month in the
hospital. Jacki writes:

That day changed my outlook. I was living a nightmare after this tragedy.
I really thought my life was over. I couldn't imagine not playing volleyball
anymore, jumping on my trampoline with my young nephew, chasing after my
niece, or just taking a walk around my small community. Not only does
something like this change the victim, but it also seriously disrupts and
affects your family. I am a paraplegic with no feeling below the belly
button. I had to learn to become independent again; to dress, bathe,
transfer from place to place, and take care of my personal hygiene and
toiletry issues. It was so difficult, and I struggled with these once simple
tasks. After I accomplished these, I was released and allowed to come home.
I was simply told, You will never walk again. That was my prognosis.

A 16-year-old paraplegic, an accident, ``You will never walk again.''

Jacki continues:

I got back to school a few months later and that was another adjustment.
Everything looks and works differently when you are sitting in a wheelchair.
I had to deal with a lot of depression and sadness, but I tried to continue
with my life the best that I could. I truly believe that my faith got me
through. If it wasn't for this amazing love of God, my strong will and
determination, I don't know if I could have proceeded with what my life had
become. But I have great determination along with the comforting faith and I
didn't intend on giving up that easily. I wanted to give life another
opportunity with my new ``lifestyle.''

I would like to pause in the telling of Jacki's story for just a moment.
I have asked my colleagues to imagine what goes through the mind of a
16-year-old in this predicament. Beyond the physical pain, try to imagine
the mental anguish. You have your life in front of you--endless
opportunities in America--and it is taken up in a snap, in an
accident--gone. You wake up one morning; all is normal. You get up and you
brush your teeth, put on your clothes; you go for a jog and continue on with
the day. The next morning you wake up and you cannot move, cannot brush your
teeth, cannot put on your clothes or go for a jog. Your entire life has

You desperately long for a cure. You would follow almost anyone or
believe almost any story if it seemed credible, if it might produce a cure,
if the person had the right credentials and respect.

Unfortunately, some people are putting forward stories and saying we are
going to cure this with embryonic stem cells or human cloning, but these
areas are not working. You hear, ``If only we have more Federal research
money it will work.'' But I want to point out here, in Jacki's particular
case, that she had a place to go and an area to try. I want to point out
this work was done by a Portuguese doctor, Dr. Lima, and talk to you about
Jacki finding Dr. Lima in Portugal and what happened.

Jacki continued, after going through this despair and depression. She
writes this.

My world changed again in the fall of 2004. My pastor was watching a PBS
show when the special called ``The Miracle Cell'' was aired. It was about a
procedure called ``Olfactory Mucosa Transplantation'', being done in
Portugal by Dr. Carlos Lima. It involved removing tissue from a patient's
olfactory sinus area and transplanting it into the spinal cord at the
initial injury site. My pastor called the house and urged us to turn on the
show. We did and were glued to the story. I listened to amazing recovery of
returned sensation and even the ability to walk again with continued rehab
from others after having this surgery. I remember thinking, ``There's my
chance!'' I knew I wanted to pursue this possibility for me.

My mom and I started researching this procedure on the Internet and
collected as much information as we could. We discovered a Spinal Cord
Injury Institute getting ready to open in Detroit, Michigan that summer.
This institute was closely associated with Dr. Lima. We called to see if we
could get an appointment to go and meet Dr. Steve Hinderer and asked about
the procedure in depth and inquire about my chances of getting it done.

I did go to Detroit and was told that I could well be a good candidate. I
was given the guidelines and criteria for having this done. After many
months of additional testing, x-rays, etc. I was accepted.

This was very exhilarating for me. I had read about the success stories
of the individuals that have gone before me. Their various success stories
gave me so much hope!!

I had so much support from my family, friends, church, community and
surrounding areas to raise the $50,000.00, needed to have this surgery.
Without this overwhelming support I could not have gone forward with this
incredible opportunity.

I went to Portugal in October 2005. I had the procedure done on October
29th. My experience in Portugal was not all pleasant. My mom and I had to
deal with the language barrier and the unfamiliar culture. I returned to the
states on November 5th. I rested at home for a few weeks, then went to
Detroit to the Institute for aggressive rehab. Rehab was very tiring and
indeed very aggressive. It was an exhausting experience but a very rewarding
one. It was there that I took my first steps on the parallel bars. I was

My progress since undergoing this surgery has been amazing!! I have a lot
of hip movement, some tingling and heaviness in my legs. I have continued
with my rehab regimen at home. I have leg braces that were fitted to me. I
can walk on parallel bars and have begun walking with a walker. I am up on
my feet again!!!! That's the most satisfying feeling. Unless you have been
confined in a wheelchair for an extended amount of time, you can't really
know how rewarding it is to be standing again.

This brings me to the ongoing debate over adult stem cell research. I did
not think a lot about this issue before the accident but now it has sparked
a great interest within me. First, I am very much against embryonic stem
cell research and advancement. I do not support this aspect at all. The
killing of human life is appalling to me. But with adult stem cell and
non-embryonic stem cell research I have become an advocate. My personal
experience with adult stem cell transplantation should awaken the United
States to the unlimited possibilities. This technique is simply ``your body
healing itself''. Medical research in the United States has always been
respected and admired for the advances toward cure for cancer, arthritis
treatments and medication, heart disease and other well-known diseases and
ailments. But when it comes to spinal cord injuries, the U.S. is very much
in the negative category. We as taxpayers pay more money in the daily care
of a spinal cord injury victim than we do on a cure. Now why is that???? The
medical society treats the injury at the onset, then teaches the individual
to live in a wheelchair and function accordingly. Then they are sent home
and told, ``You will never walk again''. I experienced that first hand.

But I am walking again. I have goals of walking by the end of the year
with my braces and crutches. This was made possible by the procedure in
Portugal and aggressive rehab. But I had to leave the comfort of my home and
country and travel to a foreign area to get this done. Now that is sad,
isn't it?

This tragedy that happened to me can happen to anyone. It could be your
wife, husband, son, daughter or friend. What would you want for them? Simply
a statement, ``You'll never walk again'' or ``Never give up hope--there is a
better option for you.''

Wake up, United States!!!! We are missing out. Let's look at the issue in
a more personal level--I can walk again.


Jacki Rabon,
Waverly, IL.

Jacki was up last week. She now has feeling in her hips. She is out of
the wheelchair. She can walk with braces. She needs more of these

My point in saying this, why are we sending her to Portugal to do this
procedure when this should be done in the United States and researched in
the United States? She is probably going to need more of these treatments to
get the spinal cord to fully fuse. They take these cells out of the base of
the nose, grow them, put them right in the spinal cord area where it has
broken, and they start to knit the spinal cord back together. But it is
probably not going to be just one treatment. It is probably going be
multiple treatments.

She had to do fundraising to raise $50,000 to go overseas to do this. It
was not covered by an insurance company. Why wouldn't we develop protocols
here to get this done with adult stem cells instead of diverting research
money into speculative areas like embryonic stem cells and human cloning? We
should put funding into areas to help people like Jacki.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair for this time. I also note to my
colleagues we are going to have, I hope, a full-scale debate on this in
July, and I hope my colleagues would look at where the science is taking us.
The moral questions I think are clear. To others they are not. This is
illegal and immoral.

The bigger question in front of us now is, is embryonic fully
unnecessary? Why would we proceed on this route?

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Under the agreement, there will be 12 hours of debate,
equally divided between the Majority and Minority
Leaders on the three bills, immediately followed by
three consecutive votes in the following order and
without intervening action.

The three bills are:

++Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006 (S. 3504)

++Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies
Enhancement Act (S. 2754)

++Taxpayer Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
(H.R. 810)

Grassfire strongly supports the Fetus Farming Prohibition
Act of 2006--a bill that would end the gruesome practice
of initiating human pregnancies in either women or animal
uteruses for the purpose of obtaining human tissues for

On the surface, The Specter-Santorum Alternative Pluripotent
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act appears to hold the
ethical line as far as human experimentation goes, and
would not use federal funding to create and destroy human
embryos. However, key facts are still surfacing about this

While there are questions about the Specter-Santorum bill,
there are no questions about the need to defeat Taxpayer
Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (H.R. 810)--a bill
that would require taxpayers to fund the destruction of
human life.

That is why next week Grassfire will be in Washington,
D.C. to present more than half-a-million petitions
from citizens who are opposed to using taxpayer
money being used to destroy life.

Felix, if you haven't yet signed our "Petition
for Life" petition, but would like to have a voice in this
unfolding ethical debate, please click here:


On behalf of the unborn in our nation who at risk,
thank you for taking immediate action!

Grassfire.org Alliance

P.S: If you are unclear as to the facts of this debate,
please read our Special Report: The truth about Stem Cell
Research by clicking here:


+ + To sign our "Petition For Life" petition:



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just Some Facts About

Alan Turing Alan Mathison Turing, OBE (June 23, 1912 ? June 7, 1954), was an English mathematician, logician, and cryptographer. Turing is often considered to be the father of modern computer science. - - With the Turing test, Turing made a significant and characteristically provocative contribution to the debate regarding artificial intelligence: whether it will ever be possible to say that a machine is conscious and can think. He provided an influential formalisation of the concept of the algorithm and computation with the Turing machine, formulating the now widely accepted "Turing" version of the Church?Turing thesis, namely that any practical computing model has either the equivalent or a subset of the capabilities of a Turing machine

10:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home