State funding of embryonic stem cell research

Richard Guerra, States Take the Initiative to Regulate And Resolve the Stem
Cell Debate, 7 Fl. Coastal L. Rev. 35 (2005)

the legislature's best approach is to permit the industry to grow
with a minimal amount of regulation and allow semi-theoretical
controversies, such as the stem cell debate, to fall into the hands of an able
judiciary. Otherwise, if the Florida legislature feels compelled to regulate
embryonic stem cell research, the likely result of such regulation will be to
discourage the propagation of one the most promising and lucrative industries known to date.

Wesley J. Smith, INVESTIGATING THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS OF
MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY: THERAPEUTIC CLONING: IT'S ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, 20 St. John's J.L. Comm. 29

Recall that this controversy started with the argument that, "All we want to use are
leftover embryos that are going to be tossed out anyway." Remember that? That
was in 2001 - a mere four years ago. It was President Bush's first big public
policy dilemma, which also had nothing to do with cloning. The controversy was
limited to whether the federal government would fund embryonic stem cell
research, which, actually, the government probably could not do legally because
of the Dickey Amendment n15 (which predates embryonic stem cell research) that
prevents the federal government from funding destructive embryo research.

(...)
Take, for example, California's Proposition 71, n20 which was sold to voters as permitting embryonic stem cell research from leftover embryos. However, California's Proposition 71 did much more: It also created a state constitutional right to engage in human somatic cell nuclear transfer. Thus, human cloning is constitutionally
protected by the state constitution of California.

(...)
Repeatedly, we see bills that purportedly outlaw human cloning, but
which actually authorize it. For another example of this approach, we need
only look at a law enacted in New Jersey in 2004 that authorizes human cloning, implantation, and gestation through the ninth month. n27 The wording of
the law is sneaky. First, it authorizes human somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Then, it doesn't outlaw implantation of cloned embryos into a uterus. That which
is not illegal, is by definition, legal. Finally, the statute makes it a
felony to "clone a human being" and establishes punishments for violations,
including "a civil penalty of not more than $ 50,000, or imprisonment for a term of
not more than five years, or both, for each such incident."

MICHAEL J. MALINOWSKI, Legal Limitations on Genetic Research and the Commercialization of its Results, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 45 (2006)

Given its deep commitment, the impact of biotechnology
on the U.S., both economically and in terms of delivery of health care,
will become significantly greater over the next several years and well into
the foreseeable future.

Joanna K. Sax, The States "Race" with the Federal Government for Stem Cell
Research, 15 Ann. Health L. 1 (2006)

Conclusion: In recognition of the practical federal ban on stem
cell research, private investors and states took initiative to promote
the scientific, medical, and economic potential of stem cell research. This
dissent against federal policy may lead to state competition for researchers
and industry, but more likely, it will induce a federal reaction. It is
unclear at this time whether the federal government will enact policy to support
the ethical promotion of therapeutic research or ban stem cell research,
thus stifling progress in this country for years to come.