FROM THE DOME
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to ban all forms of human cloning last week. The bill, H.R. 534 would ban cloning in all its forms including “therapeutic” cloning which allows for cloning of embryos to harvest stem cells to be used in research. The bill moves on to the Senate where a similar bill (S.245) sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). All of the Kansas delegation voted for the bill with the exception of Dennis Moore from the Third District. Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios stated upon passage of the bill, “It is a good day when reason prevails. Despite the overwhelming onslaught of propaganda to convince Americans that cloning is necessary to restore the broken body of Christopher Reeve, the House has determined to rule based on truth and not false promises…If this utilitarian method (therapeutic cloning) of research proceeds, where the weak are sacrificed for the good of the strong, a quadriplegic like Reeve would be in great danger. In addition, there is no evidence to support his hope that embryonic stem cells will offer the cure he so desires. On the contrary, adult stem cells and umbilical-cord blood have show marvelous potential in treating and even curing certain diseases. Cloning is unnecessary, dangerous and evil. Than God one body of our Congress understands that!”
S.151 is a bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that attempts to criminalize virtual child pornography while complying with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech. The Supreme Court affirmed a position by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that called the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996(CPPA) invalid. By a vote of 6-3 the Court struck down a section that dealt with computer-generated images of children that appear to be engaging in sexual acts. CWA strongly agrees with the position that child pornography of any sort is wrong, but disagrees with the language of some of these bills. S.151 criminalizes “a computer image, computer generated image, or digital image that is of, or is virtually indistinguishable from that of, an actual minor.” CWA and other family groups believe that the language of the bill actually enacts into law it will codify a defense for people creating virtual pornographic images of children. In other words, S.151 permits the defendant to have the charge dismissed if he proves the material wasn’t made by using a real child---that it was generated by a computer---the very thing the bill is supposed to prohibit. According to Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for CWA, “The only way to eliminate virtual child porn and unburden prosecution of real child porn is to make virtual child porn truly illegal by deleting this affirmative defense (the part of the bill that is causing concern). Congress should simply narrow the definition of “virtual child porn” to make it expressly clear that it doesn’t include such things as Shakespeare’s writings, renaissance paintings, cartoons, drawings and movies such as Titanic. We now have evidence to show the Court that child porn cases are being dismissed if the government can’t identify the child depicted in the image, which is virtually impossible to do with foreign children.” CWA is urging the Senate and House Conference Committee to eliminate the affirmative defense in the final version of the bill. Click here for a complete report.
The filibuster of President Bush’s nominee for the Circuit Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada is continuing. In addition the House Judiciary Committee attempted to do the same thing on three more of Bush’s nominees but those names were passed out of committee. If you have not done so already, call the Capitol Switchboard and contact your senators: 877-762-8762.
Two victories in the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court ruled recently that the application of federal RICO laws did not apply to pro-life demonstrators or any other protesters. They ruled that this type of activity does not constitute extortion This case stemmed from a 1986 arrest of pro-life demonstrators. The case ended up in the Supreme Court because the prosecutors in the case were allowed to link various violent acts committed by other pro-life demonstrators to the demonstrations conducted by Pro Life Action Network and Operation Rescue. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “Even with their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of ‘shutting down’ clinics that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion.” Click here for a complete review. CWA wrote an amicus (friend of the Court) brief in support of the petitioners.
The Supreme Court turned down an appeal by abortion clinics who felt that an Indiana state law that places severe restrictions on abortion, including requirements that a woman be counseled face-to-face about the risks and given pictures of what her fetus might look like at its particular stage of gestation was unconstitutional and interfered with women’s reproductive rights. The Court did not comment on the ruling. The Court in the past has allowed a variety of restrictions; so long as they do not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s obtaining an abortion.