Brownback's idea

Joyce Comments: More embryos should not be allowed to be formed than the number of children each couple, on a case-by-case basis, is willing and able to parent. That is, if an infertile couple feels that they can honestly parent up to six children, then they can reasonably allow up to six embryos to be formed. More oversight of American fertility clinics sounds great. It makes no sense to create 15, 20, or more embryos-far more children than any single couple can realistically parent. To cap the maximum number of embyros the clinics can create in the first place for the couples wanting to be parents, is realistic and sensible. Although this doesn't end the controversial research going on, it curbs the number of available human embryos that otherwise would have been flushed, given up for adoption to other couples, frozen, and or willed for research purposes to be disected for stem cells to a more reasonable number that would be enough for even the most unsuccessful and ambitous couples trying to have children. So write to your local members of Congress in the House, Senate and your state government and push for more oversight of fertility clinics.

Source: The Washington Times - Inside Politics by Greg Pierce - May 30, 2005

Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, yesterday called for restrictions on the number of embryos that could be created during fertility treatments, hoping to lessen the number of unwanted embryos left over when the procedures end.
"In a number of countries, they limit the number of these in vitro fertilizations from outside the womb," Mr. Brownback said on ABC's "This Week."
"They say you can do this, but you have to do these one or two at a time, so that they're implanted in that basis. And that might be the better way to look at this.
"That's a way that you can look at that, instead of going on this massive scale of what we've done here," Mr. Brownback said.
His remarks came after the House last week passed a bill to loosen federal funding restrictions on medical research using stem cells from the unwanted embryos.

Stem-cell research: Perils and promise Destroy an embryo, waste a life

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150921020719/http://articles.philly.com/2001-07-15/news/25315990_1_stem-cell-human-embryos-federal-taxpayer-dollars

By U.S. Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Posted: July 15, 2001

The debate over stem-cell research has a face and a name.

Hannah Strege is a happy 2 1/2-year-old girl. By all accounts, she is a normal, healthy toddler discovering the joy of life. In a few days I hope to meet Hannah, and when I do, I will reassure her that there is no such thing as a spare or leftover person.

Although she may not yet understand what that means, her parents sure do. They understand perfectly because Hannah used to be a frozen embryo in an In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) clinic. She was what those who support embryonic stem-cell research - research that destroys such human embryos - callously call spare and leftover.

But Hannah is neither spare nor leftover, even though she spent a considerable time in a deep-freeze tank that served as her frozen orphanage. She could have been fodder for researchers, but instead today she is talking a blue streak. And according to the Snowflakes program (www.snowflakes.org), which arranged for Hannah to be adopted as an embryo, there are between 11,000 and 22,000 similar children today who could be placed for adoption with any one of the 2 million infertile couples waiting to begin families of their own.

The story of Hannah and other adopted embryos underscores why we should not spend federal taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos to steal their precious stem cells. These cells are not ours to take. And given the breathtaking discoveries from adult stem-cell research, which does not rely on destroying human embryos, arguments for federally funding embryonic stem-cell research are less persuasive than ever.

In just the past few months, several dramatic breakthroughs have been reported by the New England Journal of Medicine and others validating the promise of adult stem-cell research. Donald Orlic of the National Human Genome Research Institute recently said that "we are currently finding that these adult stem cells can function as well, perhaps even better than, embryonic stem cells."

Unlike embryonic stem cells, which have never been used in any clinical applications, adult stem cells are today helping to treat numerous conditions, including brain tumors, ovarian cancer, leukemia, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, autoimmune diseases, stroke, anemia, blood and liver disease. I have introduced legislation to expand federal funding for adult stem-cell research because it already holds the promise of saving lives without destroying lives.

Recent studies have shown, furthermore, that adult stem cells have the exciting potential to treat diabetes, spinal cord injuries, muscular dystrophy, blindness, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and glaucoma, as well as to repair or replace organs and tissues.

In view of this growing body of evidence supporting adult stem-cell research, the only way to justify federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research is to take the position that a human embryo has no value - none, zero, less than the dot above the i on this piece of paper. Now that medical advances have clearly demonstrated that adult stem cells are a legitimate alternative to research that destroys human embryos, the only way to justify embryo-destructive work is to assert that Hannah has no value at all.

For all of our sakes, I hope that ethics do matter in this debate. I hope that we can all agree that human embryos have innate value. Once we determine that any human life can be destroyed in the name of science, all life is devalued.

Too many cultures and societies have believed it acceptable to sacrifice the few, the weak, and the vulnerable for the benefit of the strong and the many. But experience and ethics dictate that it is unacceptable to destroy one life for the potential benefit of others, particularly when there are legitimate alternatives.

Adult stem-cell research is scientifically justified, ethically responsible and morally acceptable. Embryonic stem cell research is not.

No child is spare or leftover, and the weak and the vulnerable will always need someone to speak for them. We must speak for them, and for Hannah.

U.S. Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R., Fourth District) represents central New Jersey.