July 31, 2008 AGAINST THE LAW? The Fatal Flaw of Calif. SB 1565
When a submarine goes under, it groans. The ocean squeezes in with a pressure of tons, and the sub's metal walls grind and strain-- and the life of every sailor aboard is at risk.
What if a submarine was built with a structural weakness? Cruising across the surface, the vessel makes a great appearance. Nothing seems wrong. But there is a design flaw, a faulty joining of the metal plates, and when the submarine dives to its working depth, 200 feet down, the cumulative pressure of tons of sea will burst through the walls.
Senate Bill 1565 (Kuehl, Runner) has a fatal flaw, and to let it go forward would be as wrong as sending sailors out in a sub with a hole in it.
SB 1565 would make fundamental changes in the California stem cell program, over-riding the wishes of the voters.
This is only one legal reason way this can be done: to further the purpose of the program. If it does not, and is accordingly illegal, SB 1565 can and should be challenged in court.
Here is the relevant language.
"Sec. 8. Amendments.
"The statutory provisions of this measure…may be amended to enhance the ability of the institute to further the purposes of…the measure…"
Does Senate Bill 1565 "further the purposes" of the California stem cell program?
The purpose of Prop 71 is crystal clear: to fund pluripotent and progenitor stem cell research unlikely to be funded by the Bush Administration.
To accomplish this, Prop 71 established a priority and a prohibition: the priority in favor of pluripotent stem cell research, and a prohibition against spending California's limited funds on other forms of stem cell research already eligible for federal funding.
Article XXXV of the California Constitution: Section 5, Chapter 3. California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act, Article 1. 125290.60
"(C) In order to ensure that institute funding does not duplicate or supplant existing funding, a high priority shall be placed on funding pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell research that cannot, or is unlikely to, receive timely or sufficient federal funding, unencumbered by limitations that would impede the research. In this regard, other research categories funded by the National Institutes of Health shall not be funded by the institute."
Notice two points:
1. a priority: preference for research "unlikely to be funded" by the Federal government:
2. a prohibition: "other research categories… shall not be funded by the institute."
SB 1565 would overturn the prohibition, and throw out the priority.
Such enormous changes do not "further the purposes" of the program.
But don't take my word for it.
Here is the actual changed paragraph in SB 1565:
"(D) "Notwithstanding paragraph (C), any other scientific and medical research and technologies and/or any stem cell research proposal not actually funded by the institute under subparagraph (C) may be funded by the institute if at least a simple majority of a quorum of the members of the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group recommend to the ICOC that the research proposal is a vital research opportunity.
Word changes matter. Buried in that legalese is an enormous change: important to stem cell research as the small print on a real estate contract is important to the buyer. The original language of "Shall not be funded" has become "may be funded".
Imagine the Biblical Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." What if "shalt not" had been changed to "may"?
Granted, almost every law requires an exception—the soldier in war must sometimes kill.
The writers of Prop 71 left room for an exception. Anticipating there might be advances that would not be embryonic, they required a 2/3 majority support of the Scientific working group to recommend non-embryonic stem cell research (heavily favored by the Bush Administration)
Such changes plainly do not "further the purpose" of Prop 71.
How could the California Senate vote to approve such a bill? They didn't. The Senate has not yet been told about this change in SB 1565. It was added by Senator George Runner after the bill left the Senate. Senator George Runner, of course, is the man called "the virulently anti-embryonic stem cell Republican George Runner"—he opposes embryonic stem cell research in general and Proposition 71 in particular-- this is his amendment, and it was added after the bill left the Senate.
The Senate Concurrence Committee will meet to consider these changes.
It is to be hoped they will take notice of this bill's fatal flaw, and vote NO! on SB 1565.
Please send letters to opposing SB 1565 to Senator Tom Torlakson, Senate Concurrence Committee, Capitol Office, Room 5050, Sacramento, CA 95814
Or Email (less effective, but definitely worth doing) to:
http://legplcms01.
Don C. Reed
Sponsor, Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act
co-chair, Californians for Cures
Vice President, Public Policy, Americans for Cures
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
