Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on April 19, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

This bill will allow scientific research in Michigan the opportunity to help millions who suffer with disease and injury.

This bill will give medical research the opportunity to help millions who suffer with disease and injury.

Embryonic stem cells have cured nothing. Adult stem cells have done alot of good. If there is so much promise in this the drug companies would not need OUR MONEY. They would be dumping r & d dollars by the truckload into it. You know not of what you speak.

The big pharma has soooo much money, why do they need ours? And will we get any of the investment back?? No it is big pharma that keeps any income from their research. Why do we need to fund them!

I think this was the wrong thing to do

you no what you guys dont know what you are saying it is so wrong for them to veto it

Michigan is for life. The people of this state do not agree that the unborn can be used for the purpose of human cloning. You sound like adolf Hitler when he attempted to create the Arian nation. This is not Nazi Germany!

in england that wants to cross animal and human dna now. This is just a first step toward insanity.

The destruction of innocent human life for research purposes is monstrous, regardless of the desires of it's parents and regardless of any potential "good" that may result.

To destroy a life to save another is wrong, to destroy a life for experimentation and cloning is sickening.

if you learned you had a life threatening disease or one of your kids had a degenerative disease, but since you don't it is okay for you to try to make decisions for other people's lives huh? People in this state are so hypocritical, this research could potentially bring cures for diseases that could one day save our children or their children, but noone wants it until they are faced with a sick child or need it for themselves. If the parents who's embryo's are in question wish to donate them for the purpose of research which could save me, or my children, or grandchildren, or anyone else who needs it, who are you, the pres, or anyone else to tell them they can't. The embryo came from THEM not YOU and what they decide is best for that EMBRYO should be THEIR choice not YOURS. It's people like you who are going to cripple this nation by prohibiting research for diseases that threaten our society, wake up and get off your judgemental horse and realize that if it can find cures for the most debilitating of diseases, it needs to be done. People make me sick feeling as they have a right to tell a parent who is not going to use the embryo, that they may not approve for it to be used for research, next thing you know you'll be telling us that we can't use other people's organs for transplanting, its sickening at the level of stupidity in some postings.

you have hit an all time low with your comparison to nazi germany. This is also not the 1500's either pal, when there was no way to find cures for sickness that caused early death and crippling condtions. We already take people off of life support and use their organs in transplants to try and save lives, if you agree with that and not this you are what we call a hypocrite. That person is still alive, their body is still functioning, even if they will never regain consciousness. If the parents want to donate embryo's in the hopes of one day finding a cure for a disease it should be their choice, as the components that created the embryo came from them and not you, do anything you wish with yours but let those who want to help find cures for sickness do so. People kill me thinking that just because it isn't right for you it can't be right at all. At this point i am emmbarrassed even looking at some of these postings seeing how we just continue to regress back to the point where in a minute there will be no testing for anything and people will start dying from such things as colds and simple flu again, I would much rather live somewhere where people cared enough about each other to want to do necessary things in order to one day find a cure for MS, Cancer, AIDS, etc. This will set our country back, but hey thats been happening alot lately under our current administration.

The embryos are not being created for htis purpose, they are being disposed of anyway, so why not use what is useful? I oppose abortion, but if it is legal, and happening every day, can't we find something that is life giving from it? Stem cells can save lives and diminish human suffering. That's wrong, how?

we don't have to use fetal stem cells. we can use the stem cells we have growing under our fingernails. same stem cells, no killing. why use the stem cells that are in fetal stem cells when we have a CONSTANTLY RENEWABLE SOURCE of the VERY SAME STEM CELLS, and every human being on this planet has TWENTY SOURCES OF THEM? is it because there are those who would rather kill the innocent?

If you are truthful, you will understand that embryonic stem cell research is no more than experimentation on the tiniest humans. This experimentation will only make human life a commodity. Embryonic stem cell research belittles women, transforming them from life-givers into human factories. Women have fought hard for their rights as full citizens and for the right to vote. This will turn the clock backwards. Adult stem cell research is the only stem cell research that is promising cures without the destruction of human life. If Andy do you think a good can come from an evil? The real reason embryonic stem cell is so desirous is that the cell lines can be patented. Therefore, is it the cure or is it the almighty dollar at the expense of the innocence.

like i said it is also takiing a life (technically) when you pull the plug on someone and then donate their organs. The whole point is, it is not your embryo to decide upon pal. It should be a matter left up to the parents who made the embryo in the first place as to whether or not it can be used for research. You donate your fingernails to whatever cause you want to, but it has also been said that embryonic stem cells have different stuff and could help with disease what part of that don't you get? So instead of possibly curing a disease that one day you or your loved one might face, you would rather them throw away the embryo's because that is what happens to them when they are no longer going to be used by the donors. That whole thought is just idiotic, at least it might help save lives instead of ending up in the garbage dump. How ever you want to look at it you are wrong for trying to tell a donor what to do with the embryo that they created-everything is not up to you, you right to lifers are going to far now, in a minute you'll be telling people they can't have protected intercourse because the "life" is wasted give me a break.

6-27-2007 Umbilical Cord Blood Helps Kids with Type 1 Diabetes A group of children newly diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes appears to have benefited from receiving a transfusion of their own stored umbilical cord blood. That's according to a study presented Tuesday at the American Diabetes Association's 67th Annual Scientific Sessions. It's another example of the potential of adult stem cells to help heal the body. "After only six months, it is too early to tell how long the children will benefit from this therapy, but early signs indicate that it may have helped enhance blood glucose control and management," Dr. Michael J. Haller, a University of Florida professor and lead author of the study, told Medical News TODAY. "Millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes should be encouraged that new treatments might be just around the corner," said Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "It should also be a wake-up call to advocates of destructive embryonic stem-cell research: We can protect innocent human life and find successful treatments for diseases like diabetes."

Two Stanford medical bioethicists say women who donate eggs for stem-cell research are not being adequately informed of potential health risks, including infertility and death. In a paper published in the May 20 issue of Science, ethicists Mildred Cho, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics and David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, wrote that women donating eggs for stem-cell research fall between the cracks of normal protections for people involved in medical research. As a result, they are neither adequately informed about the risks of the procedure, nor told the risk they take may not ever benefit anyone or cure a disease. Treated similarly to tissue donors, this group of women faces risks unlike blood or sperm donors, and a different protocol should be in order, they said. Cho looked at the consent forms for women used in South Korean stem-cell research published in the same issue of Science, and found the forms lacked crucial information about the risks of egg collection. “They were never told about the risk of infertility or death,” she said. There is a 1 to 5 percent risk of hospitalization from complications of egg follicle stimulation and extraction, including acute respiratory distress syndrome and kidney failure and a .2 percent risk of ovarian torsion – a dangerous twisting of the ovaries, according to Magnus. The chief culprit of the infertility and complications is a condition caused by the hormones given to egg donors. These hormones stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple eggs for extraction. Some ovaries respond “exuberantly,” creating a condition called ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The ovaries enlarge and leak fluid, which can collect in the lungs. Blood clots and kidney impairment can occur in moderate cases. Stroke, kidney failure, heart attack and even death can result in severe cases, although these consequences are rare with adequate treatment, according to the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Magnus and Cho want to create a new category called “research donors” for the egg donors. Institutional review boards routinely review research involving human subjects. But when researchers use tissues donated anonymously, as egg donors do, it isn’t considered research on human subjects; the review boards haven’t been obligated to review the consent forms, they said. Three weeks ago, however, the National Research Council guidelines for the National Institutes of Medicine addressed the loophole, and will now mandate that egg and sperm donors get a full review, including informed consent. Those protections may be in place in the United States, but women in countries without such safeguards are still left at risk, Cho said. Journals publishing stem-cell research should therefore also verify that research they publish conforms to those guidelines. In order for egg collection to be ethical, the current terminology some researchers use, “therapeutic cloning,” should be changed. “Therapeutic cloning” is a misnomer that may mislead donors because although that is a goal, there are currently no stem-cell therapies, the two bioethicists said. Until such therapies exist, Magnus and Cho suggest researchers refer to their work as “stem-cell research” so that donors don’t assume their donation and its attendant risks have a benefit.

Sorry to be so point blank about it but you people are ridiculous. Stem cell research will set back the female movement back? This had to be one of the funniest lines of all times. First of all I am a woman with that said if I had embryo's that I was not going to use for myself, that would be throwm away, I would want it to go to possibly one day finding a cure for a disease, you should have no say over that. Noone is saying for women to go out and start freezing embryo's like crazy to donate for science, what they are saying is that the embryo's that are not going to be used COULD AND SHOULD be used if there is ANY chance in finding cures. I wouldn't care if this man patented 8 different cures, as long as it was available to help me, my kids, their kids, or the next citizen to live a long healthy life. Get a clue, stop being so melodramatic, we also worked hard as woman to be able to make decisions about our bodies without being told what to do by men, but that also has been set back by your current administration.

FRC's Director of Life and Women's Issues Pia de Solenni, Ph.D. gave the following testimony before the Massachusetts State Legislature's Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies regarding adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research on February 16, 2005. I am Dr. Pia de Solenni, director of life and women's issues at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. I speak to you today as an ethicist who has researched adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research from many perspectives. Let's take a moment to examine where we're at in the cloning debate. While reproductive cloning has been removed from center stage, the focus on so-called therapeutic cloning continues to grow. At the same time, little attention has been given to advances in adult stem cell research. I would ask that these two research binders be included in the record of today's testimony. This one represents a fraction of the advances in human adult stem cell research just for 2004. Over 30 peer-reviewed studies are included. Many more are available. This other binder, you will note, is curiously empty. It contains treatments from human embryonic stem cell research. After more than 20 years, cloning and embryonic stem cell research have not yielded a single cure. The hype is not unlike that surrounding the debates about the rain forest and fetal tissue research during the 1990s. I also include a letter from June 18, 2004, written on behalf of Dr. Elias Zerhouni at the National Institutes of Health. The letter clearly details, "Currently, there are no proven therapies using embryonic stem cells, fetal germ cells or stem cells from cloned embryos to treat human diseases and disorders." The letter also details about 80 successful treatments from adult stem cells. Members of this Committee, the science on embryonic stem cell research speaks for itself. At the same time, private investors have spoken by not investing. That's why the industry needs a push from the government. Now, let us consider some of the ethical implications. The focus on therapeutic cloning has been aimed at our heartstrings, prophesying cures for our loved ones, friends, and even movie stars. But what about the women who will be required even for these apparently noble intentions? Advocates of embryonic stem cell research are poised to create an industry built on the bodies of millions of women. The industry needs women because it needs our eggs. Somatic cell nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from one of the specialized cells in the human body into an egg in which its own nucleus has been removed. No matter whether the clones or embryos are created for research or reproductive purposes, they must be created by using a woman's egg. Dr. David Prentice, formerly a professor of life sciences at Indiana State University, now at the Family Research Council, has crunched the numbers to show how many women would be involved just to cure diabetes. To date, the highest cloning efficiency with animals has been 20-30 percent. This means about 50 eggs per animal treatment are required. In the US, there are 17 million diabetes patients. Given the best successes with animal cloning, scientists would have to obtain a minimum of 850 million eggs, harvested from at least 85 million women. Scientist Peter Membaerts gives an even higher estimate of 100 eggs per treatment. According to the 2000 census, there are about 60 million American women of reproductive age. Where will the other eggs come from? And would all 60 million American women be amenable to this? Women whose eggs are harvested undergo a long, uncomfortable, painful, and potentially dangerous process called ovarian hyperstimulation. Some of the drugs used have never been approved for this use by the FDA. Complications from the procedure include a potential link to ovarian cysts and cancers, severe pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, stroke, possible negative effects on future fertility, and even death. In clinical studies using Pergonal for ovarian hyperstimulation, 2.4-5.5 percent of women developed complications. If we're talking about 80 million women, that means at least 800,000 of them would develop complications. 224,000 would be classified as severe cases. Similarly, the FDA's data on Lupron, another drug used for ovarian hyperstimulation, records a death rate of .5 percent. That means we could expect 400,000 deaths in the group of 80 million women required to treat diabetes - just one disease. Knowing this, most women would not consent to egg harvesting unless they felt they had no choice. Those who would consent would be women needing money, typically poor, ethnic minority women, students, and women from developing countries. Such women are not in a position to give informed consent because their financial need impairs their ability to adequately weigh the risks involved. Calla Papademus was 22 and a Stanford student when in Fall 2000, she answered an ad offering $50,000 for egg donation. She agreed to $15,000. During the process of ovarian hyperstimulation, Calla suffered a stroke. For eight weeks, she slipped in and out of a coma. Eventually, she recovered, only to regret her decision. In February 2003, a 33-year-old Irish woman died from ovarian hyperstimulation. She had hoped to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization. For different reasons, both women underwent ovarian hyperstimulation as a way to attain their dreams and goals. Endorsing any form of legislation supporting embryonic stem cell research means putting even more women at risk of serious illness, disability, or even death. In closing, let me make clear that this debate is not about abortion. This research has drawn opposition from both sides of the abortion debate, including Judy Norsigian, Executive Director of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. Judy and I stand on opposite sides of the abortion debate. But we are united in our conviction that women should not be harmed or put as risk as they would be if we were to promote embryonic stem cell research. The Boston Women's Health Book Collective has articulated its position in a statement supported by 100 signatories, most of whom are considered key supporters of abortion. I have that statement here and ask that it also be entered in the record. As long as profit depends on women's bodies, we can be sure that the most vulnerable women will be aggressively pursued regardless of the risk to their health and happiness. In the name of science, the industry will literally have its hands inside the bodies of hundreds of millions of poor, disadvantaged women. As a woman, I can assure you that I do not want my body, or that of any woman or man, sacrificed on the altar of science. As an ethicist, I assure you that doing so constitutes a grave violation of human rights just as we saw in the Tuskegee experiments here in the United States and in the Nazi experiments of World War II. Thank you.

walking across a street, eating meat, carrying guns, getting any medical procedure, so on and so on. Some people are born infertile, what if these stem cells could reverse that, do you know they can't? What if these cells could cure childhood diabetes, do you know that they can't?

this to Tuskegee? Wow people on here are really sick.

embryo's to decide upon point blank.

embryo's that are not going to be used, that are already out of the body, you are just using it to promote your agenda.

We can protect innocent human life [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2007] 6-27-2007 Umbilical Cord Blood Helps Kids with Type 1 Diabetes A group of children newly diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes appears to have benefited from receiving a transfusion of their own stored umbilical cord blood. That's according to a study presented Tuesday at the American Diabetes Association's 67th Annual Scientific Sessions. It's another example of the potential of adult stem cells to help heal the body. "After only six months, it is too early to tell how long the children will benefit from this therapy, but early signs indicate that it may have helped enhance blood glucose control and management," Dr. Michael J. Haller, a University of Florida professor and lead author of the study, told Medical News TODAY. "Millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes should be encouraged that new treatments might be just around the corner," said Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "It should also be a wake-up call to advocates of destructive embryonic stem-cell research: We can protect innocent human life and find successful treatments for diseases like diabetes."

there is a renewable source of stem cells growing right under your fingernails? why do you REFUSE to use this renewable, easily accessable, painless source of high quality stem cells and INSIST on using cells taken from killed embryos? mabye it's because of YOUR agenda???

Why is it that only SOME may enjoy the same rights? If it you are stroger you can just take the life to do with it as you please. I understand this... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Ethical Stem-Cell Research Breakthrough in Japan Scientists in Japan have announced progress toward what they tout as ethical stem-cell research – research that does not destroy human life, the United Kingdom's Times On Line reported. Professor Shinya Yamanaka said he was able to manipulate the skin cells of mice, forcing them to return to their embryonic state. "It is hard to predict how the science will develop," he said, "but I think we could produce a basic prototype-induced stem cell made from a human adult cell within six months to a year." Yamanaka said within two to three years, scientists should be able to create a stem cell that is "indistinguishable from one taken from an embryo." Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Yamanaka's research is an important illustration of science moving ahead in ways that are not ethically problematic. "This new 'holy grail' of stem-cell research – embryonic-like stem cells – is further evidence that pro-life voices are being heard and have changed the course of the stem-cell debate," Vargo said. "While embryonic stem cells were once the gold standard of research, we now have research being conducted that does not require the destruction of embryonic life."

This will only promote the ability of companies to use women for their own profits. Will they be there to help them from what ever results from these proposed violations?

hindering a type of research that could produce a cure that could one day save the life of your child, or grandchild, and if you don't want that you are sick.

PROMOTING the type of research that will mean that someone will NOT HAVE a grandchild. YOU ARE SICK. other, less destructive means are available to get stem cells WITHOUT destroying embryos. why are you against using them???

From the research, it says that more promise is with adult stem cell research... Embryonic stem cell research has proven to be without merit... Why not go with adult stem cell research it is finding cures?

How sad that you say you oppose abortion, yet you think…oh go ahead and use the aborted baby… perhaps you may want to rethink your position.

... nobody is against using alternative methods... I dont know why anybody would get that idea. Proponents of embryonic SCR want to maximize all forms of progressive research. Using embryos to start stem cell lines will NEVER prevent somebody from having a child. The thousands and thousands of frozen embryos in IVF clinics that will never be implanted because of genetic deformities or because they have been frozen too long will be THROWN AWAY. THEY WILL BE "DYING" ANYWAY. WHY WOULD YOU BE AGAINST USING THOSE?! In a few years, when a technique is perfected (it's been done already) to extract stem cells from a blastocyst without killing the embryo, will you still stand in the way of promising medical research? I hope not. It's mind blowing some of you people still choose to remain ignorant. The only argument that is valid is if you truly believe that the USE of living things for research is wrong. And if you do, you've got alot more to do. SCR is not even close to the only thing that does that.

embryonic SCR has cured nothing. Adult SCR has a track record of success. If embryonic SCR held all the promise you think it does then private companies would be throwing truck loads of money at it. The only thing you libs want is to throw taxpayer dollars at it. "It's mind blowing some of you people still choose to remain ignorant." I think that your are truly the ignorant one. Do some homework and quit believing all the leftist propganda. When it shows promise you can bet the drug companies will be working day and night to perfect this. In a perfect world we could just use the stem cells from ignorant, control freak libs. Until then we should let the private research companies work on it with their own money, not MY MONEY.

Contrary to popular belief, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is "entirely legal" here in Michigan and is currently ongoing RIGHT HERE IN MICHIGAN...with taxpayer and private dollars. Killing live human embryos for research purposes is *not legal in Michigan* however, and therefore scientists are currently obtaining embryonic stem cells from other states. Why do we need to make cloning (a.k.a Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer)and destroying embryos legal in Michigan? Because that IS the goal! A simple Google of “embryonic stem cells patent” reveals the real reason: MONEY. Let’s take a closer look at what researchers "really" want legal in Michigan, and why money seems to be more important than finding actual cures.

In order to conduct embryonic stem cell research on human embryos, the embryo needs to be killed. And, in order to obtain more and more embryos for research...where will the embryos come from? Some people think they’ll come from the "leftover or clearance bin" of embryos at your local infertility clinic. However, even if a parent did allow their frozen babies a.k.a human embryos to be destroyed for science, scientists will run out of embryos in a nano-second. Where then, will they get more embryos? Why, they’ll create them! They’ll create embryos by CLOING the person in need of a cure, and then killing that CLONE, at the human embryo stage, in order to get its stem cells. Not only is this bad science, it is unnecessary since already adult stem cell research, which does not require cloning and killing, is working!

Its not about finding a cure for researchers or advocates of ESCR...its about MONEY relative to ESCR. The "patent rights" to these lines. Follow the money you will soon realize the truth of this great national push for ESCR and its funding via the federal and at state levels. To tap into federal funding is the holy grail for advocates of ESCR. So....if ESCR was to show signs of really working...if onlyl a glimer of success...private money, funds, donations would be pouring into these organizations and there would be NO need for federal funding....however...its not working, and really doesn't show signs of ever working. Hence, and once again, the strong driven desire to gain federal funding. AND differentiate when speaking about Stem Cells...and there is Embryonic Stem Cells (bad) and Adult Stem Cells (good).

“frozen babies a.k.a human embryos” An embryo isn’t a baby, except in political talk for political purposes.