Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on June 29, 2006, to place into statute definitions related to the statewide network of (umbilical) cord blood stem cell banks proposed by Senate Bill 1355 and House Bill 6291

The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 754 at Senate Journal 90)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Toy's statement is as follows: I rise just to ask members to oppose this amendment. I think that the member from East Lansing needs to bring forward her legislation in a timely manner. I appreciate her comments, and I agree with some of her comments. In fact, I happen to be diabetic and there is nothing better I'd like to do than to get rid of this disease. But right now today, this is a starting point as I see it, and as we do legislation in this body, there are a lot of times we start with various bills and it could lead to other bills. I think that openness does exist on this issue. I think today we have a great starting point. It is called the cord blood and that is today what we are dealing with. We can work on other bills. We can work on other things, but for now, I think when you got the votes, you can put them down the middle of the street as we all know. So let's put our votes down the middle of the street, make this our starting point, and then move on from there.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows: You know, it's very interesting when you start talking about stem cell research and adult stem cell versus embryonic stem cell. People want diseases cured. I mean, it's just very pragmatic they want diseases cured. At this point, 70 diseases are now treatable or cured through adult stem cells. Not one is done by embryonic stem cell. The fact is when they are doing this type of research on the few lines they are able to do it on, they keep finding that there are horrific problems that keep coming up. Usually, you try and have the money go--you try and have the research done on the areas that are most promising. The adult stem cells are not anything in which you have moral or ethical problems with--that I know that anybody has problems with that. Obviously, that is where we are finding the cures coming from--is from the adult stem cells. And why people keep harping on the embryonic stem cells when we haven't had one cure and where we have terrific moral and ethical problems is just beyond me. And I don't know why an amendment would be offered to this legislation trying to kill this legislation when this legislation obviously needs to go forward. I think the Senator from the 6th District had it right. Don't adopt this amendment that adds all these controversies that is trying to inject into this argument of embryonic stem cells when they have not had shown. They've tried to say, oh, there's a huge promise out there. It's one thing to have a promise out there; it's another thing to show results. There haven't been any results from that. Why don't we just keep it like it is? Pass this legislation and go from here and not try to kill this legislation with a poison pill amendment.

Senator Goschka's first statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe very strongly, as do most people from the state of Michigan, that human life begins at the very moment of conception. It is a tragedy when any embryo is thrown to the trash heap. It is a shame that any embryo has its life taken. Human life begins at conception, and with the best of intentions, it is wrong to kill human life to try to protect others. It is absolutely wrong. Stem cell research is vital. It is important. It is something whose time has come, but embryonic cell research in and of itself is always, always wrong and inappropriate. It is the taking of human life, and who are we to be so selfish to put our own needs and concerns above that of any other human being. This is a very bad amendment, and I would urge that we reject it. Senator Goschka's second statement is as follows: Again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the sincere intentions of the author. However, I do not believe it to be meaningful, and I do not believe it to be ethical. It is the taking of human life. I heard earlier a previous speaker regarding people who are suffering and dying. That's exactly what we would be doing to innocent, unborn human life in the embryonic stem cell research debate. We must, at some point, demonstrate that we truly do believe in human life from the very moment of conception. If we truly believe in helping people, then we could not support this amendment because we would be taking inherently the lives of people to do this research. It would be wrong.

Senator Whitmer asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: Because the sponsors and proponents of this bill, when they introduced it, applauded themselves as stem cell advocates, I propose that we should tie-bar this bill, this legislation to some real stem cell reform in the state of Michigan--the type of research that the public, overwhelmingly supports--embryonic stem cell research. Now, I remember when the House Republicans had their big press conference and they patted everyone on the back and passed out misleading press releases and proclaimed that this was pro-stem cell research. I remember that, but the truth is that this is only a portion of the type of research that is going on in the world and that we should be doing in the state of Michigan. It's only part of the story. In reaction to the vast public support of embryonic stem cell research, 73 percent of the people in Michigan support embryonic stem cell research; 72 percent of Catholics support embryonic stem cell research; and 56 percent of the people in our stat, who identify themselves as pro-life support embryonic stem cell research. If you doubt the truth of those words, look at what happened in the election in November. Both chambers of the Congress changed, and in many of those races, this was the No.1 issue that changed the face of Congress because the people of our country has embraced this technology and we should as well. Now, I want to be very clear I support this package of bills. Cord blood research is very helpful. I banked core blood of both of my daughters, my 4-year-old and my 3-year-old; But people need to know that this cord blood is not the type of research that is going to cure Parkinson's or treat diabetes or cure Alzheimer's. Is this good public policy? Yes. Is this enough? Absolutely not. Stem cell research is not all alike. Cord blood is adult stem cells. It has a very good medical purpose and it can be used to do a lot of good, but it is very limited--limited only to blood diseases. Now, if we are truly embracing stem cell research, if we are truly pro-stem cell research, we need to tie-bar these bills to a package of bills that were introduced. It was a bipartisan package, and it was modeled after legislation proposed by United States Senator Orrin Hatch. It would lift the ban in the state of Michigan on embryonic stem cell research. Now, when Dolly the sheep was cloned, we in Michigan--I use the term "we" loosely because very few of us were even here. We said no cloning. We are going to ban it altogether. It was a knee-jerk reaction and it was bad public policy. We are one of five states in the country that bans this altogether. What the law in Michigan is that it's okay to throw away embryos in the garbage. It is just not okay to do research on those embryos. This package of bills also increases the penalties on cloning, which we all think is a good idea. Cloning is a bad thing. Now, let me tell you a little about embryonic stem cell research. That is where the biggest hope is and all the promise. From an embryonic stem cell, you can develop any type. The potential is to develop any type of adult stem cell. Right now, diabetics' only hope is in this type of this research because there is no such thing as an adult stem cell that has been retrieved from the pancreas. Brain cells, spinal cells the promise is huge and the vast majority of the public understands that better than we do. Now, policymakers on both sides of the aisle have championed this. Orrin Hatch, Nancy Reagan, public figures like Muhammad Ali, and Michael J. Fox have been very active on this. Every one of us knows someone who is related to someone or perhaps ourselves who may eventually suffer from something like Alzheimer's or diabetes or Parkinson's disease, among many other diseases that could be benefited from this research. Now, if you are not personally motivated by the medical promise of this, think about the economic reality. We are all so proud to proclaim that we are a life-sciences state. But how can you be a true life-sciences state when you have the most extreme backwards law in the country. In California, the taxpayers are investing $3 billion in the next 10 years to encourage this type of research. We outlaw it in Michigan. Eli Broad, a benefactor at Michigan State University, gave $30 million to a school in California to further this research. Michigan State University might have been in line for that if we would let them do this kind of research. We are losing our top researchers who are leaving the University of Michigan, like Sean Morrison, who has been forced to incorporate in California to have a stem cell research company. Those are the kinds of jobs that we talk about bringing to Michigan, that we say we want to bring to Michigan. These are the types of people we are talking about. Now, finally, if the biggest holdback--the biggest issue that is holding any of you back--is your Right-to-Life position on this issue, please go out in the hallway and ask them. How on God's green earth does it better promote a culture of life to throw embryos in the garbage than to permit lifesaving research on those embryos? We are talking about the very same thing. We are not talking about creating something for the purpose of research. These are embryos that exist, that are being washed down the drain or thrown in the garbage can. How does it better promote life to throw them away than to promote research? It doesn't, and that is why I ask for your support on my amendment.