LEAVE NO BLASTOCYST BEHIND by David Corn

[Guest guest]

LEAVE NO BLASTOCYST BEHIND

David Corn (corn king!)

www.tompaine.com

June 09, 2005

 

http://www.davidcorn.com/

 

I recently asked Matt Dowd, Bush's chief campaign strategist in 2004, if he

worried about the stem cells issue hurting the Republicans in the 2006

elections or beyond. Nah, he said, it has yet to have the emotional bite of,

say, gay marriage. A strong majority of Americans tell pollsters they favor

federal support of stem cells research, while George W. Bush, Tom DeLay,

Bill Frist and their theocon comrades oppose it. But Dowd could be right:

Finding a cure for Little Timmy's juvenile diabetes may be more distant an

issue for some voters than Bob-and-Bob moving next door and posting a

marriage license in their foyer. But there is a problem for GOPers and

social conservatives who oppose expanding stem cells research: what to do

with all those frozen blastocysts (or, if you like, early embryos of 100 or

so cells) that are sitting in fertility clinics across the country. There

are an estimated 400,000 orphaned blastocysts. They were created for couples

using in vitro fertilization and then no longer needed. (Usually a fertility

clinic produces several fertilized eggs for a couple seeking a child.) These

blastocysts are the main source for stem cells. But to extract the stem

cells from such cell clusters, scientists have to destroy the blastocyst

(though a new method may get around this). And for Bush, DeLay and the

others, this process is the same,Äîor close to,Äîdestroying life. Bush calls

it unethical. DeLay--no surprise--goes further: He describes stem cells

research as the " dismemberment of living, distinct human beings. " The human

beings he has in mind are those chilled blastocysts in Petri dishes.

 

If DeLay considers stem cells research equivalent to " human dismemberment, "

then shouldn't he favor criminalizing it? (My parents taught me that human

dismemberment is almost always wrong.) But DeLay has not proposed

legislation banning stem cells research. And if Bush truly believes this is

an unethical practice, shouldn't he be doing more than he has to end it? But

one does not have to push Bush and DeLay too far to the logical extreme to

ask a rather practical though difficult question: Well, guys, what should be

done with these blastocysts?

 

There is no law that prohibits fertility clinics from tossing the

no-longer-needed blastocysts into the trash. Should such a practice be

declared murder and outlawed? At the least, Bush and DeLay ought to come out

and oppose in vitro fertilization that produces extra blastocysts. (How

popular would that position be with moderate suburban voters?) Even so, such

an action would not solve the problem of what to do with the 400,000

blastocysts now waiting for a home (or a womb). DeLay has said that the

" next step " in the stem cells debate is to consider the future of these

frozen embryos. But he has offered no specifics for preserving the unwanted

blastocysts. Bush has celebrated parents who " adopted " blastocysts and gave

birth to so-called " snowflake " babies. But there are only a few dozen

couples who have taken such steps (and George and Laura are not among them),

and hundreds of thousands of blastocysts continue to go undesired. What to

do?

 

Always on the lookout for ways to assist Bush and his theocon pals, I put on

my thinking cap and came up with options. Some of these ideas may not be

fully baked. But I present them as notions that can jump--tart a national

debate that is most needed.

 

The Yucca Mountain Option. The federal government is trying to build a

storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for the spent fuel from nuclear

reactors. This material will have to be safeguarded for tens of thousands of

years. The goal is to gather all that radioactive waste here until a better

idea on what to do with the stuff comes along. So let's build a wing at

Yucca Mountain that would house a Federal Depository of Unessential

Blastocysts. (Okay, maybe the name needs a little tweaking.) The blastocysts

would be maintained in frozen animation until a better arrangement could be

found--even if that takes decades or centuries. In the meantime, they will

be protected by the federal government. Sure, this will entail a cost. But

remember how Bush asked American schoolchildren to donate money to help kids

in Afghanistan? Perhaps he could encourage Americans to make a¬? small

contribution to the FDUB and adopt (figuratively) a blastocyst. The adopting

person could give the blastocyst a name--question: can you tell the sex of a

blastocyst?--and maybe receive a token like a bracelet. Admittedly, this is

not a permanent solution, but figuring out tough ethical matters is, as Bush

might say, hard work.

 

Amnesty for You,Ķand Your Blastocyst. There are millions of illegal aliens

in the United States. Many of them wish to become legal residents.

Conservative politicians tend to decry the idea of granting amnesty to

immigrants who have broken U.S. law. ¬? But what if this large group of

people could help us with a knotty problem? As I noted above, the numbers of

couples willing to claim a leftover blastocyst as their own kin is

minuscule. So let's make a deal: if an illegal immigrant couple takes one of

these blastocysts, implants it in a womb, and then gives birth to a child,

this couple will receive American citizenship. There might be some details

to work out. Would a single mother qualify? (Social conservatives might howl

about that.) How about a lesbian illegal alien couple? (I say why not--since

there are so many blastocysts out there.) What if there are problems with

the pregnancy and the birth does not occur? Would program participants have

to start all over? Would they be deported? I'm sure smart minds can work out

the wrinkles.

 

Leave No Blastocyst Behind. It's simple: A tax cut. Ten thousand dollars for

couples that turn a redundant blastocyst into a child. There will be a $4

billion price tag for this. But to make this initiative revenue-neutral, a

tax could be applied on in vitro fertilization. One fiscal upside: If the

program works,¬?in about two decades there will be hundreds of thousands

more Americans who will be paying taxes to cover Social Security and

Medicare.

 

Some folks may read this and complain that such brainstorming mocks a sacred

matter: the protection of life. But I make no apologies. Someone has to be

practical about all this. Espousing high-falutin' principles about life is

fine. But who's willing to do something--really do something--about this

tricky topic. At a recent press conference, Bush was asked what he should be

done with leftover blastocysts. He said, " The stem cell issue is really one

of federal funding. " That is, he dodged the dilemma. I am not willing to

play such games with life. If Bush or DeLay have better ideas than these,

I'm willing to consider other alternatives. Anything for the blastocysts.

 

Posted by David Corn at 11:27 AM | Comments (213