Spring Break
Georgia House to withhold stem cell bill, legislators weigh in
MARIANNE ENGLISH
Issue date: 4/9/09 Section: News
The Georgia House of Representatives plans to withhold a bill that would make it unlawful to create human embryos for any purpose besides clinical fertilization.
The bill - SB 169 - was passed by the state Senate on March 12. The House is unlikely to review the bill before next fall, a representative said.
"We want to hear both sides of the issue rather than rush the bill through," said Amos Amerson, (R-Dahlonega). "At this time, I do not believe we should move forward on such a controversial issue."
Amerson serves as the chairman for the state legislature's House Committee for Science and Technology. He said he received an "ear-full" from both sides of the issue in more than 500 e-mails, faxes and telephone calls.
The bill will most likely be reviewed in September or October 2009, Amerson said. At that time, those in favor of or against the bill can testify before the Committee and present new research, he said.
Sen. Ralph Hudgens (R-Hull), who introduced SB 169, said his original intention with the bill was to limit the number of embryos that could be implanted in a woman during a single pregnancy period. He said California resident and "Octomom" Nadya Suleman - who is known nationally for birthing in vitro octuplets in January - provoked the creation of the bill.
He said his proposal was removed from the bill and altered by the Health and Human Services Committee. The final version sought to ban the creation of embryos for research purposes and prohibit human cloning in Georgia, Hudgens said.
"I view both the first and current versions of the bill as an effort to value and protect human life," Hudgens said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "This bill would not limit the use of adult stem cell lines nor would it limit existing embryonic lines."
Some scientists say the language in the bill does not specify whether embryos could be donated for research purposes.
"Some say the language of the bill is the most dangerous part because it does not clearly state what it prohibits and what it doesn't," said Steven Stice, director of the University's Regenerative Bioscience Center. He said the bill does not address whether couples can choose to donate unhealthy embryos that would otherwise be discarded.
The bill - SB 169 - was passed by the state Senate on March 12. The House is unlikely to review the bill before next fall, a representative said.
"We want to hear both sides of the issue rather than rush the bill through," said Amos Amerson, (R-Dahlonega). "At this time, I do not believe we should move forward on such a controversial issue."
Amerson serves as the chairman for the state legislature's House Committee for Science and Technology. He said he received an "ear-full" from both sides of the issue in more than 500 e-mails, faxes and telephone calls.
The bill will most likely be reviewed in September or October 2009, Amerson said. At that time, those in favor of or against the bill can testify before the Committee and present new research, he said.
Sen. Ralph Hudgens (R-Hull), who introduced SB 169, said his original intention with the bill was to limit the number of embryos that could be implanted in a woman during a single pregnancy period. He said California resident and "Octomom" Nadya Suleman - who is known nationally for birthing in vitro octuplets in January - provoked the creation of the bill.
He said his proposal was removed from the bill and altered by the Health and Human Services Committee. The final version sought to ban the creation of embryos for research purposes and prohibit human cloning in Georgia, Hudgens said.
"I view both the first and current versions of the bill as an effort to value and protect human life," Hudgens said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "This bill would not limit the use of adult stem cell lines nor would it limit existing embryonic lines."
Some scientists say the language in the bill does not specify whether embryos could be donated for research purposes.
"Some say the language of the bill is the most dangerous part because it does not clearly state what it prohibits and what it doesn't," said Steven Stice, director of the University's Regenerative Bioscience Center. He said the bill does not address whether couples can choose to donate unhealthy embryos that would otherwise be discarded.
Be the first to comment on this story