Washington, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives passed the Stupak, Pitts, Kaptur, Dahlkemper, Smith, Ellsworth and Lipinski amendment to the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962) The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. It clarifies that individuals, both those who receive affordability credits and those who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement concerning the amendment’s passage:

“This is a huge pro-life victory for women, their unborn children, and families. We applaud this House vote which prohibits the abortion industry from further profiting from taxpayers by using government funds to pay for the gruesome act of abortion. I congratulate the bipartisan coalition that for months has worked to ensure that abortion is not covered in the bill.

“Since prior to last year’s election Family Research Council has been working towards true health care reform that protects life, freedom and families. We supported efforts to ensure the legislation will not be paid for by the lives of future generations. We thank Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) for standing with more than 70% of Americans who morally object to funding abortion with their hard earned dollars.

“Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. The Speaker’s bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen’s lives. Speaker Pelosi is using the guise of health care reform to push her version of social engineering onto American taxpayers. Additionally, the legislation would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations.

“FRC will work hard to ensure pro-life provisions remain intact as the bill goes through the legislative process, and will work tirelessly to ensure the legislation is more friendly to families than the current bill.”

-30-

This is a desperate misrepresentation of the facts. The bipartisan pro-life effort to maintain existing federal restrictions on federal funding of abortion is nothing more than an attempt to sustain existing policy. It does nothing to “further restrict” abortion.

Those who advocate for unrestricted access to federally financed abortion on demand are getting more outraged by the minute. By affirming the sanctity of life, the Members of Congress who are standing their ground against federal financing of abortion are saying “yes” to the Creator of natal personhood. For this, they deserve our enduring thanks. And let’s pray for Ms. Schakowsky and her fellow advocates of the culture of death, that the God Who made and loves them will draw them into the light of life itself.

[Click here for a full-size PDF version of the graphic]

Transcript:

ATTORNEY: My sincere condolences upon the passing of your loved one. Upon review of the will, your grandfather has bequeathed to you, this stack of bills!

NARRATOR: Our government’s irresponsible programs will leave our country buried under 9 trilliion dollars in new spending with no plans for payment, shackling our children with an inheritance of debt.

Family Research Council is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Watch our other ad here, and help us air this ad by contributing here.

Participants include:

• Host: Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action
• Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
• Congressman Charles Boustany, M.D. (R-La.)
• Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
• Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life
• Karen Steward, Research Analyst, The Polling Company
• Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association
• Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis, American Family Association
• Richard Scott, Chairman, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Conservatives for Patients Rights
• Phil Kerpen, Policy Director, Americans for Prosperity
• Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President, FRC Action
• David Christensen, Senior Director of Congressional Affairs, Family Research Council
• Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics, Family Research Council
• Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow, Legal Studies, Family Research Council

An archive of the webcast will be available following the event.

But only 4 of the 14 funded grants involve embryonic stem cells, and none involve cloned embryos (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT.) This despite the fact that the primary focus of CIRM and the reason for passage of Prop 71 in 2004 was to be embryonic stem cells, including those from cloned human embryos. Maybe they’re finally taking literally that part of Prop 71 about “stem cell research that has the greatest potential for therapies and cures”:

Maximize the use of research funds by giving priority to stem cell research that has the greatest potential for therapies and cures, specifically focused on pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell research among other vital research opportunities that cannot, or are unlikely to, receive timely or sufficient federal funding, unencumbered by limitations that would impede the research.

The term “vital research opportunities” is their way out in this case, but also means that to fund these adult stem cell research projects, they had to get a two-thirds vote of the committee, according to Prop 71.

As an aside, note how they describe the sources of pluripotent stem cells, from Section 5:

Pluripotent stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer or from surplus products of in vitro fertilization treatments when such products are donated under appropriate informed consent procedures.

By the way, the biologically-accurate term for those “surplus products” is “embryos”, and the only way to derive stem cells from somatic cell nuclear transfer is first to create the cloned embryo, then extract the stem cells.

A list of the grants with links to abstracts, as well as the complete list of applications including those not funded is available.

Here are some of the media’s statements taking notice of the California Dreamin’. Enjoy.

New York Times:

In a tacit acknowledgment that the promise of human embryonic stem cells is still far in the future, California’s stem cell research program on Wednesday awarded grants intended to develop therapies using mainly other, less controversial cells.
But only 4 of the 14 projects involve embryonic stem cells. The others will use so-called adult stem cells or conventional drugs intended to kill cancer stem cells, which are thought to give rise to tumors.
The grants thus represent a departure from the program’s original mission. California voters approved the 10-year, $3 billion effort in 2004 largely to get around restrictions on embryonic stem cell research imposed by the administration of President George W. Bush.
Leaders of the California program say that what voters really care about are treatments for diseases, not what cell type is used. They say that from the outset the program was not restricted to the embryonic cells. The commitment to voters was to “pursue the very best cell type for each disease,” said Robert N. Klein, the chairman of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the agency that runs the program.

San Diego Union-Tribune:

One irony of the latest grants is that much of the work they support does not involve human embryonic stem cells, a contentious area because it requires the destruction of embryos. Bush administration funding restrictions on that work were a big reason the California institute was launched to begin with, but many of the current projects use less-controversial adult stem cells.
Institute Chairman Robert Klein said about a third of the projects involve embryonic stem cells. He said the institute planned all along to support a variety of approaches and was simply funding scientists with the most promising lines of attack in each disease.

Nature

Only a handful will employ human embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that most of the fanfare surrounding the passage of Proposition 71, the ballot measure that created CIRM, concerned the fact that CIRM would fill the gap left by a lack of federal funding for work on these cells. But Bob Klein, architect of Proposition 71 and chair of CIRM’s governing board, said, “Our commitment to the voters was that we would pursue the very best cell type for each disease based on the scientific and clinical evidence.”

San Francisco Chronicle

Most of the projects approved Wednesday do not involve embryonic stem cells, but researchers said that even now, after years of study and under a new administration, funding for all kinds of stem cell research is difficult to secure.
“There is a very serious shortage for all stem cell research,” said Dr. Irving Weissman, director of Stanford University’s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. The state agency “allows us to do research that the federal government won’t fund.”

Knight Science Journalism Tracker

In something of an irony, little of it is going to the reason the institute exists – to work with human embryonic stem cells.

Meanwhile, the obsession with embryonic stem cells has obscured the real hope for patients–ADULT STEM CELLS. Peer-reviewed evidence of adult stem cell success for spinal cord injury patients has already been published by groups in Portugal, in Australia, in Ecuador, and in Brazil.

Of course, Geron’s latest announcement achieved its primary goal–Geron stock rose as much as 12%.

The Geron Prophecies

30 October 2009
Geron expects the data from this study to enable re-initiation of the clinical trial in the third quarter of 2010.

27 January 2009
Geron says that it expects to begin enrolment early this summer at up to seven US medical centres.

20 October 2008
A clinical trial that would test the use of embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury could begin within three months.

17 October 2008
But the FDA is nearing the end of its review process and may lift the hold and allow clinical trials to commence within the next three months, Okarma told The Scientist.

15 May 2008
The Geron Corporation announced Wednesday that its plans to begin the first clinical trial using embryonic stem cells had been delayed by federal regulators. While companies typically do not announce when they submit an application to begin a trial for an investigational new drug, the F.D.A.’s action means Geron must have submitted its application in the last 30 days, Mr. Benjamin said.

12 February 2008
The first experiments using human embryonic stem cells in human subjects could begin within a few months, the chief executive of biotech Geron said Monday. At the annual BIO CEO conference in New York, Dr. Thomas Okarma said Geron plans to start embryonic stem-cell studies in humans with spinal cord injuries toward the end of the second quarter. Okarma said the tests would involve up to 40 human patients, while all prior tests involved rats.

13 November 2007
Geron’s development plan for the product calls for the filing of an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and, pending the agency’s review, initiation of human clinical trials in 2008.

31 October 2007
Geron, based in Menlo Park, Calif., has been using rats in its experiments of a potential treatment for spinal cord injuries. Geron has already met with the FDA and will submit its plans for human testing to the agency by the end of this year, according to Sion.

20 July 2007
“Geron Corporation in Menlo Park, California, expects to start clinical trials of a therapy for spinal cord injury early in 2008, according to spokesperson David Schull.”

9 May 2007
“The first clinical trial of embryonic stem cells is on track to start early next year on patients with spinal cord injury. Geron, the California-based biotechnology company, will carry out the study on accident victims in six trauma centres across the US.”

4 August 2006
One company, in particular, Menlo Park, CA-based Geron, is taking the lead in developing experimental embryonic stem cell therapies and hopes to begin human trials next year.

27 July 2006
The company will apply for approval to start US clinical trials in 2007, using glial cells derived from human embryonic stem cells to treat spinal injuries.

17 June 2006
“I’m confident that we will be in the clinic next year with the first human ESC-derived product,” said Tom Okarma, chief executive of Geron, at a conference in London last week.

29 March 2006
Tom Okarma: We will complete our IND-enabling studies, which are now in process and still on track, and file our IND during the fourth quarter of this year, assuming the preclinical data continue to go well. That starts a 30-day review clock by the FDA, who then has 30 days to either accept our IND and allow us to proceed or, at that point, they have questions that we must answer before we can begin. We are on track for that. So, assuming they bless the IND, we would hope to be in the clinic in the first quarter of (2007).

7 November 2005
“[R]esearchers at Geron of Menlo Park want to take the next step — in people. They hope to get federal permission to inject those cells into damaged spinal cords. The procedure — which Geron intends to do next year — would be the first human tests of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells, the highly versatile body cells that can be coaxed into becoming almost any tissue in the body.”

9 September 2005
“Geron plans to begin clinical trials on acute spinal cord injury treatment in early 2006, according to chief executive officer Tom Okarma.”

19 April 2005
Thomas Okarma, Geron’s CEO, is even less convinced that larger animals are necessary before testing Keirstead’s technique in humans. During an interview at the conference, he said he believes the clinical trial could begin in mid-2006.

5 February 2005
“Next year [Hans Keirstead] and his corporate partner, Geron, plan to try treating people who have recent spinal cord injuries, in what would almost certainly be the first human trial of any therapy derived from such cells.

1 December 2004
According to Geron CEO Thomas Okarma, the company is aiming to file an investigational new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting permission to begin clinical trials using glial cells derived from embryonic stem cells to repair damaged spinal cords in 2005 or early 2006.

22 February 2004
“The company believes it will be cleared to start the first stem-cell therapy in human tests next year, possibly for spinal-cord injury.”

18 March 2002
Keirstead…would ask university officials to seek the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval to test the human embryonic stem cells on human patients with spinal cord injuries. Initially, Keirstead said he might be ready to take this step in about a year.