Sad. Fanatics don't stop.

Kathleen



2009/4/5 [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>

> These news articles are very discouraging. We lobbied for 8 years, trying
> to  get Congress to overide Pres. Bush's veto of the stem cell bills passed
> by Congress. The number of votes fell short. Hope was renewed with the
> election of Pres. Obama and his executive order lifting Bush's limits on
> federal funding for ESCR. Obama has said he would like to ohave positive
> stem cell legislation passsed as well . Scientists felt their hands were
> finally untied to move the research forward. Some talked for the first time
> about how much time had been lost during the Bush years.
> But new state bills are once again limiting funding and the ability of
> scientists to use ESCs in their research. They build new roadblocks to
> medical progress.
> If federal bills are passed allowing ESCR,can state bills override them? It
> may depend on the wording of each.
> On the Michael J Fox interview on Oprah last week, I was surprised to hear
> Dr. Oz state "The stem cell debate is over." Seems like it is far from
> over.....
>
>
> Linda
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: States move to ban ESCR
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:26:35 -0700
>
> Update on what states are doing.  I read somewhere that for the past couple
> of decades, religioius conservatives have made big strides in getting
> control of state legislatures, local school boards, etc.
>
> Ray
>
> States Move to Restrict Stem Cell Research After Obama lifts Federal
> Restriction
>
> Last month, President Barack Obama lifted 8-year-old restrictions on
> federal
> funding for most embryonic stem cell research.
>
> But researchers in Texas, Oklahoma and other states may not be able to take
> part in what many expect to be a boom in stem cell science, as several
> state
> legislatures have moved to ban or restrict the research on the heels of the
> policy shift.
>
> This week, the Texas senate passed a budget bill that included an amendment
> to ban the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Earlier in
> March, the Oklahoma House passed a more restrictive bill -- one that would
> make it a criminal misdemeanor for scientists to work with embryonic stem
> cells in the state.
>
> "I absolutely believe that if the federal government messes things up,
> states have a right to straighten it out," Oklahoma Rep. Mike Reynolds, who
> introduced that bill, told Reuters. "My motivation is to protect unborn
> children."
>
> The Texas House and the Oklahoma Senate have yet to vote on the bills. If
> the legislation passes, Texas and Oklahoma will join several other states,
> including South Dakota, Louisiana and Arizona, that already have laws
> restricting or banning embryonic stem cell research.
>
> "Certainly these bills send a statement," says Erin Heath, a senior program
> associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's
> Center for Science, Technology and Congress, who has been tracking the
> bills. "It's hard to tell right now what kind of broad impact they'll have.
> And it's hard to even tell which bills will go all the way."
>
> Indeed, the Georgia Senate passed similar legislation in mid-March -- it
> would have banned therapeutic cloning in the state and the creation of
> embryos for any purpose other than procreation. But on Tuesday, state Rep.
> Amos Amerson, the Republican chairman of the House Science and Technology
> Committee, said that he was going to table any discussion of the bill and
> that the House would not vote on it this session.
>
> The efforts have pitted religious conservatives against scientists as well
> as business leaders who worry that the restrictions could drive away
> scientific investment.
>
> Former presidential science advisor Neal Lane, now a professor at Rice
> University in Houston, joined 17 other Texas scientists in writing a letter
> to the legislature opposing the bill.
>
> "Going down this road puts Texas, which ought to continue to be a world
> center for medical research, well behind the curve," Lane says.
> In Georgia, Rep. Amerson cited economic concerns as part of his reason for
> tabling that state's legislation, telling the Gainesville Times that he
> didn't want to hurt the state economically by angering participants in a
> national bioscience conference that will bring 20,000 people to Atlanta in
> May.
>
> Irving Weissman, the director of Stanford University's Institute for Stem
> Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine, says the states that ban stem cell
> research will hurt themselves economically and scientifically. When
> California decided to fund stem cell research during the eight years of
> federal funding restrictions, he was able to attract more money and
> researchers to Stanford's institute.
>
> "The new industries that spring up from successful research will be in
> California," he says. "[States] may choose to opt out of this kind of
> research because they have some moral or religious sense guiding them
> rather
> than scientific merit, and it will hurt them."
>
> Even Texas's less restrictive bill, which bans using state funds for the
> research but does not prohibit it altogether, will have a "dramatic
> chilling
> effect," according to Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the
> American Society of Reproductive Medicine. That's because "state funds" can
> be interpreted very broadly -- perhaps even cutting out federally- or
> privately-funded research done in buildings owned by state universities,
> for
> example.
>
> "Research institutions just don't want to risk being on the wrong side of
> the legislation," Tipton says, "So they tend to make the most broad
> interpretation possible of these kinds of restrictions."
>
> Conservative groups, meanwhile, say they plan to continue supporting
> state-level legislation.
>
> "I don't know that we'll have a very big voice [on the federal level],"
> David Prentice, the senior fellow for life sciences at the conservative
> Family Research Council, told the New York Times. "The states tend to be a
> little more fluid."
>
> ---- By Lea Winerman, Online NewsHour
>
> Rayilyn Brown
> Director AZNPF
> Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:
> [log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:
> [log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn