| A message from His Excellency the Governor His Excellency the Governor |
May 12, 2005
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives:
Pursuant to Article LVI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, as amended by Article XC, Section 3 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I am returning to you for amendment Senate Bill No. 2039, “An Act Enhancing Regenerative Medicine In The Commonwealth.”
I support stem cell research, and like many people I am optimistic about the potential for medical advances that can be obtained through this science. I also support changes to the law that would allow research on stem cells taken from surplus embryos created as part of an in vitro fertilization process if the embryos would otherwise be discarded. I commend the Legislature for its attention to these important issues.
However, like other powers gained through modern science, the power to conduct this research must be bounded by our respect for human life. I am therefore proposing changes to the bill that will allow stem cell research to proceed without crossing ethical boundaries.
I will address each of these amendments in turn, providing specific corrective language in each case:
1. When Human Life Begins. The bill changes the Commonwealth’s long-standing definition of the point at which human life begins, a highly significant change that may not have been known to all of the members voting on this legislation. Since 1974, Massachusetts law has defined "Unborn child" as "the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth." See M.G.L. c. 112, § 12K. Section 8 of the bill would fundamentally change this definition and declares that human life now begins upon "implantation of the embryo in the uterus."
The definition of when life begins is a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence. It implicates a much broader array of issues than the relatively discrete question of whether stem cell research should be permitted.
The bill’s proposed change to this definition is misguided on at least two levels. First, it is completely unnecessary to alter the Commonwealth’s definition of the beginning of life in order to accomplish the objectives of the bill.
In addition, the selection of implantation as the start of life ignores the very real possibility of scientific advancements allowing embryos to grow for days, weeks, or even months before implantation, if implantation indeed remains necessary at all.
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended as follows:
By striking section 8 of the bill, thereby restoring the original definition of “Unborn child.”
* * * * *
2. Human Embryo Farming. Section 8(b) of the proposed Chapter 111L permits “human embryo farming” in the laboratory: the large-scale growing of human embryos by the fertilization of eggs with sperm cells.
Section 8(b) states: “No person shall knowingly create an embryo by the method of fertilization with the sole intent of donating the embryo for research. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the creation of a pre-implantation embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis or other asexual means for research purposes.” (emphasis added).
This language does not expressly prevent scientific laboratories and researchers from creating human embryos through the fertilization of eggs with sperm cells for their own purposes, so long as they do not “donate” the embryos to anyone else. Therefore, under the legislation, a laboratory could obtain donated eggs and donated sperm to create a virtually unlimited supply of human embryos for experimentation.
The creation of embryos by therapeutic cloning, in the rare instances where this procedure has been attempted, has proven exceedingly difficult. In fact, it has never been successfully accomplished in the
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended as follows:
By inserting, in Section 1 of the bill, after the first sentence of section 8(b) in chapter 111L, the following sentence:-
No person shall knowingly create an embryo by the method of fertilization with the sole intent of using said embryo for research.
* * * * *
3. The Exploitation of Women. The high demand for eggs for researchers either to farm human embryos for experimentation or to produce human embryo clones, could unintentionally foster the exploitation of women. Many will be poor women who will choose to donate their eggs in exchange for compensation.
The procedure to obtain eggs uses powerful drugs to suppress and stimulate the ovaries. This procedure has resulted in hospitalization, and even death in some cases. While many women are willing to accept these risks during in vitro fertilization to produce a baby, it is far from clear whether these risks would be willingly borne by women donating eggs for research purposes if not for financial remuneration.
Therefore, in addition to the requirement set out in the legislation that women be made aware of the risks associated with donating eggs for research purposes, the bill should strictly limit any compensation to the donor to reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs actually paid by the donor, for such items as transportation and medical services. Compensation for the donor’s time, discomfort, and/or inconvenience should be prohibited.
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended as follows:
By inserting, in Section 1 of the bill, in the definition of “Valuable Consideration” in section 2 of chapter 111L, the following sentence:-
As applied to consideration to be paid to egg donors, “valuable consideration” is any interest, profit or benefit of value, except for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses actually paid by the donor in connection with the egg donation. Nothing in this definition shall be construed to limit consideration for eggs made available for reproductive purposes.
* * * * *
4. Human Embryo Cloning. Like other powers gained through modern science, the power to clone life presents a challenge not only of intelligence and resourcefulness, but also of character and conscience. As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous new hope, they must also be consistent with appropriate ethical boundaries that preserve the respect for human life.
This bill allows the cloning of genetically complete human embryos solely for the purpose of experimentation. Human cloning for any purpose – whether for research (so-called “therapeutic cloning”) or reproduction (so-called “reproductive cloning”) – is ethically wrong. Once cloning occurs, a human life is set in motion. It is a complete genetic entity with a full complement of human chromosomes.
Accordingly, I propose that the bill be amended as follows:
By inserting, in Section 1 of the bill, the following additional section in chapter 111L:-
Section 11. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, including any provision of this chapter to the contrary, human cloning, by any means, including somatic cell nuclear transfer, is hereby prohibited in the Commonwealth. No person shall knowingly attempt, engage in, or directly or indirectly assist in, human cloning for any purpose. No person shall knowingly purchase, sell, transfer, or otherwise obtain human embryonic, gametic or cadaveric fetal tissue for the purpose of human cloning.
A person who violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years and by a fine of up to one million dollars. In addition, to such penalty, a person who knowingly violates the provision of this section and derives a financial profit from such violations shall be ordered to pay all such profits to the commonwealth as damages.
* * * * *
I urge your favorable consideration of my proposed amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Mitt Romney
Governor