Here’s a fact: A recent survey shows more than 60% of Americans don’t support spending taxpayer dollars on embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.

And here’s another fact: The Caste-DeGette legislation Congress will vote on today does just that.

It’s not often in politics that you can make everyone happy, but we have a rare chance to do that on the issue of stem cell research.  We can appease the half that wants to fund the most promising stem cell research at any cost, and the half that wants to fund it while also respecting the sanctity of life. We can meet the scientific and medical need for stem cell research and maintain the ethical standards that have always driven American research. 

How you might ask? By passing legislation that funds non-destructive stem cell research.

I hope all my readers understand a few important facts about this debate, facts that are often lost in the political rhetoric that surrounds stem cell research. 

Fact one: promising research – indeed cures – have been developed from adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood.  Neither of these techniques sacrifice life for science.

Fact two: scientists are very close to deriving embryonic and embryonic-like stem cells without destroying human embryos.  I have introduced legislation to fund this ethical research, and you can learn more about that bill by clicking HERE.

Fact three: between state governments and the private sector there is nearly $4 billion committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years.  That’s right: Congress is not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country, but rather whether it should be federally funded.

The bill Congress is debating today is a grave misuse of taxpayer dollars, and the American people should know that science has given us ways to avoid this ethical dilemma all together.  Sadly, it appears science has moved much faster than our government, so we’re debating outdated legislation for destructive research when far better alternatives exist.

As a pro-life OB-GYN physician, I am imploring my colleagues to look at the research, study the facts, and understand that we don’t have to sacrifice human embryos – human life! – to further science.

I’ll post more on this debate throughout the day.

The fight to uphold the sanctity of life is tremendously important.  As a pro-life OB-GYN physician, I know that life is held in each embryo, and I see it as my duty to help protect these most innocent among us.

Three weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Congressionally-passed ban on a gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion. I want to take a moment to recognize a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mr. Henry Hyde of Illinois, as it was his unwavering dedication that is largely responsible for this ban. 

Henry brought an unmatched passion and conviction to the pro-life movement.  Whether preventing U.S. tax dollars from being spent on abortions, or protecting our foreign aid dollars from funding these procedures, his leadership allowed dignity to shine and our government to better support life at every stage. In fact, there are countless lives that have been saved by his tireless efforts.

Chairman Hyde once noted:

 “This is not a debate about religious doctrine or even about public policy options. It is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family, even thought tiny, powerless and unwanted.” 

I hope we all reflect on these words and what they say about humanity.

By now, I’m sure you have heard that yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions. As a pro-life OB-GYN physician, I was very encouraged by this ruling. Partial-birth abortions are gruesome deaths, and I was proud to vote for the legislation upheld by the Supreme Court (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003).  To read my thoughts on this ruling, click HERE, and to watch a video of me discussing my experiences as an OB-GYN regarding this important issue, click HERE (Windows Media Player required).

The Senate today begins its second day of debate over stem cell legislation (S. 5) that would use taxpayer dollars to fund research that destroys human embryos.  Today’s news on a promising, ethical stem cell breakthrough should give our Senators pause. The Wall Street Journal on-line reports:

A potentially breakthrough finding on the treatment of juvenile diabetes with stem-cell transplantation is being reported today… it involves bone-marrow stem cells rather than those harvested from embryos… The study was carried out at the Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit of the School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, in Brazil — because, as co-author Dr. Richard K Burt of Northwestern University’s medical school tells the Associated Press, U.S. doctors weren’t interested in the approach. The team worked with 15 patients aged 14 years to 31 years who had recently been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes.

…Once these patients’ immune systems had been suppressed, the doctors intravenously gave them stem cells from the patients’ own bone marrow, which helped establish new immune systems that, in theory, wouldn’t attack the pancreas. As a result, all but two were able to stop taking the insulin shots that were keeping them healthy, including one who had been insulin-free for nearly three years at the time the study was written up. None of the patients suffered lasting side-effects, but the authors say they don’t know how long the positive effects will last and that more study is needed.

And its not just diabetes patients who can benefit:

Dr. Ricardo Ribeiro dos Santos and fellow doctors “surmise that cells from the injected marrow somehow reduced swelling and stopped more scar tissue from forming, helping [a patient’s] heart pump better,” the Journal reports. “Encouraged by this and other cases, Brazil’s government is undertaking an ambitious study of how a person’s own cells can be used to repair a damaged heart,” which no drug can do today. And a 1,200-patient trial — the world’s largest on the potential use of stem cells – is now taking place there.

But this isn’t the only kind of ethical stem cell research available. Right here in America, researchers are working on techniques to derive pluripoent stem cells (like embryonic stem cells) without harming human embryos.  In fact, I introduced legislation in the House that would fund this promising – and ethical – research.  Scientists are developing techniques to take biopsies from IVF embryos before implanting them in the womb, and, in an idea Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson has brought to the debate, take cells from an embryo that is already dead.

One thing has become clear in this debate: we don’t have to sacrifice life for science. We can find techniques that deliver medical miracles without harming the most basic miracle of life.

This week, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) ran an excellent column by Robert George, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, and Thomas Berg titled “Six Stem Cell Facts.”  The column sets the record straight on embryonic stem cell research. During the heated and emotional debate over this research that destroys human embryos, the facts are not being treated with the intellectual honesty they deserve. These two authors counter some common misconceptions about embryonic research:

There is no “ban” on human embryonic stem cell research in the United States.

This has been arguably the most muddled point in the entire debate. ESC research goes on at labs throughout the country, with no legal barriers to prohibit such research or the private financing of it. The federal government has funded ESC research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the U.S. continues to be the international leader in the field. Out of all peer-reviewed research papers published from 1998 through 2005 on original human ESC research, scientists from the U.S. published by far the most, 125 of the 315.

They also note:

We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells.

James Thomson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: “I don’t want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it’s going to be very hard.” He added, “those transplantation therapies should work but it’s likely to take a long time.” Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: “I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody’s lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.”

There are currently no controlled human clinical trials underway for ESC-derived therapies. By contrast, there are currently some 1200 clinical trials underway associated with human adult stem cells (ASCs). While most treatments derived so far from ASC research apply to blood-related diseases, the broader application of ASCs for a more diverse array of maladies is likely within several more years.

There are non-controversial alternatives worth exploring.

It is increasingly clear that there are non-embryo destructive research alternatives that hold out the promise of providing sources of stem cells with properties equivalent to, or nearly equivalent to, embryonic cells. Such alternatives include, among others, the reprogramming of ordinary somatic (body) cells, the derivation of stem cells from amniotic fluid, and (assuming that it can be shown that the product is not an embryo), altered nuclear transfer.

Finally, the authors comment:

We fervently share the desire for cures, but we believe that biomedical science compromises its own integrity when it destroys human life in the cause of trying to save it.

As a pro-life OB/GYN physician, Phil only supports ethical stem cell research that doesn’t sacrifice human life. To read about legislation he has introduced to support life AND science, click HERE.

Phil participated in a press conference yesterday criticizing the Democrats’ failed First 100 Hours agenda.

“The Democrats’ first 100 hours were spent on watered-down initiatives that at best were ineffective and at worst were detrimental to our economy and citizens,” he said. “The Democrats showed their commitment to raising taxes and expanding the federal government. They also showed their willingness to forgo debate and process for sound bite solutions that do nothing to address the real problems facing our nation.  The American people deserve better. We need sound policy, not sound bites.”

Former Majority Leader Tom Delay weighed in after the press conference on his blog:

I would personally like to congratulate and thank Representatives McHenry (R-NC), King (R-IA) and Gingrey (R-GA) for outlining the ramifications of the Democrat’s legislative push in their press conference today.

Ultimately, all of the Democrat’s gooey words about bipartisanship were rendered meaningless by ramming through a rules package designed to silence the opposition and make it easier to push future tax increases through the House. Six pieces of legislation, which the Democrats claim were so important to the national interest, received no hearings by the subcommittees or committees of jurisdiction nor did these ideas receive any hearing or input from the public. Pelosi and her gang silenced their Republican colleagues by refusing to allow them to offer or consider amendments.

For more on the Democrats’ misguided agenda, click HERE and HERE.

As a leading voice in the stem cell debate, Phil this week called for an ethical alternative to the Democrat bill – an alternative that doesn’t destroy human embryos in the search for medical treatments.

LifeNews.com details legislation Phil and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) introduced to fund ethical research on stem cells:

Republican Reps. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Phil Gingrey of Georgia plan to introduce a bill tomorrow that would serve as an alternative to a measure House Democrats have set up for a vote Thursday.  The Bartlett-Gingrey legislation authorizes federal funding for research to derive pluripotent (embryonic-like) stem cell lines without creating or destroying human embryos.

Gingrey, a medical doctor, added that the bill “allows Congress to side-step the moral questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research.”… “In America, we do things the right way,” he said. “We don’t take organs from death row prisoners because they are ‘going to die anyway.’ Neither should we steal the life of a fertilization clinic embryo just because there’s a chance it won’t be used to impregnate a woman.”

CBS News reports on Phil’s support of alternative ethical techniques – the President is a fan, too:

There are different types of stem cells. Fetal stem cells found floating in amniotic fluid are the latest to make headlines, a finding cited by foes of the embryonic stem cell legislation that is certain to pass the House Thursday.

“We don’t have to split the nation on this if we’ve got an alternative,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., an obstetrician who opposes embryonic stem cell research because culling the cells from 5-day-old embryos destroys them.

“What we hope is that scientists will find ways to unlock the promise of stem cells without having to force people into the choice of claiming a human life in so doing,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday, making clear the president hasn’t changed his stand since vetoing an identical bill to expand embryonic stem cell research just six months ago.

And in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Phil sums up the essence of the debate:

Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Marietta Republican and longtime obstetrician/gynecologist, maintained there are other sources for the cells… “I know we don’t have to sacrifice human life in order to research ways to save it,” he said.

Click HERE to read the text of Phil’s speech before Congress on this important debate.

Phil posted the following thoughts on The Hill’s CongressBlog:

Yesterday’s news that scientists have isolated stem cells in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women that can grow into a variety of tissue and be used to treat diseases should sound a loud warning to the new Democratic majority. On Thursday, the Democrats will bring up H.R. 3, legislation to fund embryonic stem cell research that destroys human embryos. What won’t they bring up for debate? Any alternatives – including amniotic fluid research. In fact, the Democrats have made it clear that on Thursday, the only stem cell research we’ll be funding is the kind that kills embryos. So what about adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and these amniotic stem cells? The Democrats simply aren’t interested.

H.R. 3 (DeGette-Castle) is morally unacceptable. Here in America, we don’t take organs from death row prisoners because they are ‘going to die anyway.’ Neither should we steal the life of a fertilization clinic embryo just because there’s a chance it won’t be used to impregnate a woman. Before we use taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human life, we should take a lesson from yesterday’s scientific findings: we don’t have to sacrifice life in order to research ways to save it.

Today, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and I introduced H.R. 322, an ethical alternative to the DeGette-Castle legislation. H.R. 322 authorizes federal funding for research to derive pluripotent stem cells (long-lived, adaptable stem cells) without creating or destroying human embryos. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership is not willing to discuss stem cell alternatives to H.R. 3, preferring to spend taxpayer dollars on destructive research rather than on finding cures in an ethically responsible manner.

But we don’t have to choose between life and science. The Bartlett-Gingrey legislation allows Congress to side-step the moral questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Last Congress, all 100 senators voted to pass similar legislation, and 273 House members supported the alternative. President Bush has signaled his willingness to sign this ethical stem cell bill into law.

In fact, the only thing standing between the American people and federal funding for promising, ethical stem cell research is the Democrat leadership and its unwillingness to have a fair and open debate.

The Washington Post today reports on an exciting breakthrough in ethical stem cell research:

A type of cell that floats freely in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women has been found to have many of the same traits as embryonic stem cells, including an ability to grow into brain, muscle and other tissues that could be used to treat a variety of diseases, scientists reported yesterday.

So what is the Democrat’s response to this exciting breakthrough? Later this week, they will bring up H.R. 3, the DeGette-Castle bill. This legislation is morally unacceptable, as it uses federal dollars to fund research that destroys human embryos. But as today’s news shows, there are ethical ways to conduct stem cell research that don’t sacrifice life in the name of science.

As a pro-life OB-GYN, Phil is committed to ethical stem cell research. Tomorrow, he will introduce an alternative to the DeGette-Castle bill.  Click HERE to read about Phil’s bill, which would fund research to develop techniques to derive embryonic and embryonic-like stem cells WIHTOUT harming human embryos.  As Phil explained:

I know we don’t have to sacrifice human life in order to research ways to save it.  Our bill allows Congress to side-step the moral questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research. In America, we do things the right way. We don’t take organs from death row prisoners because they are ‘going to die anyway.’ Neither should we steal the life of a fertilization clinic embryo just because there’s a chance it won’t be used to impregnate a woman. The Democrats are unwilling to fund promising ethical alternatives to DeGette-Castle. This is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Today’s news on the amniotic stem cell breakthrough underlines the critical importance of funding alternative research not covered by the DeGette-Castle bill. Yet the new Democrat majority has given no indication they will bring up any alternative to H.R. 3, showing their leadership’s commitment only to stem cell research that destroys human life.

I invite you to check out my December e-Newsletter by clicking HERE.  You can learn about the Iraq Study Group Report, the recently passed tax relief bill, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and my advance directive legislation the House passed this month.

Tomorrow, the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. This legislation would help women make informed choices by educated them about the pain their babies feel during an abortion procedure.  As the Washington Post today notes:

It requires abortion providers to tell a woman whose pregnancy is 20 weeks past fertilization “there is substantial evidence” that the fetus will feel pain during the procedure… The woman would then have to sign a form accepting or declining anesthesia for her fetus.

As a pro-life OB-GYN, Phil believes this legislation is common-sense measure that will help women make informed choices and reduce the suffering of unborn children.  The Post notes:

Backers of the bill have framed it as a common-sense extension of existing state laws that mandate that patients receive information about abortion procedures before giving their consent.

“This is just a compassion piece of legislation to take informed consent to the level it should be at,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an obstetrician and antiabortion conservative.

Indeed, groups across the political spectrum have voiced support for a woman’s right to be informed:

NARAL Pro-Choice America, perhaps the nation’s leading abortion rights group, has stayed neutral.

“Pro-choice Americans have always believed that women deserve access to all the information relevant to their reproductive health decisions. For some women, that includes information related to fetal anesthesia options,” Nancy Keenan, NARAL’s president, has said in a statement on the bill.

Tune in to C-SPAN on Wednesday to hear debate on H.R. 6099.

Tune in to C-SPAN tomorrow and watch Phil lead the debate on the Rules for H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, and S. 403, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

- The Public Expression of Religion Act will help ensure that state and local governments are not coerced into curtailing the free expression of religion.

- The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to have an abortion with the intent of evading parental consent or parental notification laws in the minor’s home state. 

Set your TV to C-SPAN, and check Phil’s homepage throughout the day for transcripts and videos of his speeches before Congress.

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports:

A biotechnology company has developed a new way of creating stem cells without destroying human embryos, billing it as a potential solution to a contentious political and ethical debate. […]

Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology devised a clever means of piggybacking on existing fertility treatments to avoid the creation, manipulation or destruction of embryos specifically for the production of stem cells. The fertility procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, is used when parents want to avoid having a child with a lethal or severely debilitating birth defect. About 1,000 such procedures are performed each year in the U.S.

PGD begins with in vitro fertilization to produce numerous embryos. At a very early stage of development, when the embryos are no more than a ball of eight to 10 cells, a technician extracts a single cell from each one. The extracted cells are tested for genetic disorders, and those free of defect are then implanted in the mother in the hope that they will develop.

The new stem-cell production method takes a cell extracted during PGD and allows it to divide. One of the two resulting cells is genetically tested as in normal PGD; the other is cultured to encourage the development of stem cells. […]

Advanced Cell Technology was able to produce two viable stem-cell lines from a total of 16 embryos. The lines appeared to exhibit the full potential of embryonic stem cells to develop into any type of human tissue, the researchers reported, but additional study is needed to verify that.

Click here for the complete article (requires WSJ subscription).

As a pro-life OB-GYN physician, Phil is a leading advocate of stem cell research that does not harm embryos and destroy human life. To learn more about Phil’s views on stem cell research, click HERE.

Phil opines on ethical stem cell research in today’s Marietta Daily Journal:

President Bush’s veto was not a roadblock to stem cell research; rather, it was a challenge. His veto challenged us to find ethical ways to advance the needs of medicine.

One of the hallmarks of American science is finding better ways to achieve our goals. In the case of stem cells, we have found ways to be both pro-life and pro-science. Currently, research on adult stem cells - gathered harmlessly from human tissue and umbilical cord blood -has achieved preliminary success treating nearly 70 diseases, from leukemia to juvenile diabetes.

Because many scientists also believe embryonic stem cells hold great potential for medicine, I support pluripotent stem cell research - research on embryonic-like cells. Pluripotent and embryonic cells share a crucial criterion: They both have the potential to develop into any kind of cell, from liver to skin to blood. It is this quality that holds value for research - regardless of how we derive the cells.

Scientists are currently researching ways to extract these stem cells without harming embryos. This is a reasonable task, as nature does it all the time when an embryo harmlessly splits to create twins.

Every day, scientists are making advances in these techniques.  And it is these techniques that will lead us to the future of stem cell research - a future where science and life work hand-in-hand.

Click HERE for the complete column.

Today’s Marietta Daily Journal reports on Phil and Senators Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson supporting the President’s veto of unethical stem cell research.

Gingrey, a former obstetrician and gynecologist, voted against HR 810 when it passed in the House in May 2005.

“I was disappointed it passed,” Gingrey said. “What it calls for is the destruction of embryos.”

Gingrey said the Hippocratic oath he took as a doctor calls for him to “do no harm,” and voting for embryonic stem cell research would condone killing the unborn.

“We have a better way,” he said. “If we do the research, we can safely biopsy an embryo with harming it. I am not opposed to this type of embryonic stem cell research. We don’t have to kill babies in the process.”

Gingrey added that he stands behind the president’s veto of the measure 100 percent.

At 2 PM today, President Bush will deliver remarks on stem cell research, live from the White House. Keep a look out for Phil – he’ll be attending the speech as a guest of the President.

The bad: Senate passes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (HR 810).  This research involves the destruction of human embryos.

The good: Bush vows veto.

I participated in a press conference this morning calling on President Bush to veto H.R. 810, legislation that would fund stem cell research on human embryos, research that kills life in the name of science.

Embryonic stem cell research is often preformed on embryos from fertility clinics. Proponents of this kind of research say these embryos are “extra” and are going to be “thrown away” anyway.

Well, at today’s press conference, I was surrounded by snowflake babies – babies from adopted fertility clinic embryos. Looking around at these children, it was clear that fertility clinic embryos are not “throw away.”  They contain life – and these children are the proof.

Below are two snowflake babies who spent the press conference laughing and playing with toys. Thank goodness their lives were not sacrificed in the name of science.

Tomorrow, the Senate will debate three pieces of legislation regarding stem cell research.

One bill is the Castle-DeGette legislation (H.R. 810) that uses our federal dollars to support research that kills human embryos. As a pro-life OB-GYN, I know that life is held in each embryo, and we should not sacrifice this life in the name of research.  Thankfully, President Bush has signaled he will veto this legislation.

However, President Bush’s expected veto of H.R. 810 doesn’t mean we have to stop researching embryonic-like stem cells that could deliver a medical breakthrough.  Instead, we must find an ethical way to conduct this research – one that respects the most fragile of human lives.

S. 2754 is that way.  This legislation funds research to derive “plurioptent” (embryo-like) stem cells without sacrificing human life. I am an enthusiastic supporter of this bill (I co-sponsored the House version) because it lets science save lives without sacrificing life. The Senate will debate S. 2754 (the Santorum/Specter bill) tomorrow, and President Bush has said he will sign it into law.

Here is a little about this legislation:

S.2754 authorizes funds for pluripotent (embryonic-like) stem cell research, a type of research that does not harm human embryos.

Pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cells share two critical traits: (1) both contain the flexible qualities required for a cell to convert into any tissue type, and (2) both are long-lived cells.  It is these two qualities – not the origin of the cells – that hold promise for medical research.

This bill allows the federal government to be both pro-life AND pro-science.

Keep in mind, this legislation only pertains to federally-funded research - it does not limit private funding for other types of stem cell research.

To read more about the different types of ethical stem cell research, click here for the President’s Council on Bio-Ethics’s May 2005 White Paper.  This report examines four alternative approaches to deriving pluripotent (embryo-like) stem cells.

Stay tuned to CSPAN2 tomorrow for the debate.