ChristiansUnite Forums

Stem-cell bill passes parliament
December 6, 2006

Parliament has voted to overturn a ban on therapeutic cloning.

The majority of MPs in the House of Representatives supported Liberal senator Kay Patterson's private member's bill to overturn the ban in a conscience vote.

In the second reading, members voted 82-62 to pass the bill.

And in the third and final reading, it was passed by voice vote with no formal recording of the division.

The Senate had passed the same bill by only two votes.

Australian scientists will now be able to create cloned human embryos, thus giving  hope to thousands of Australians living with debilitating diseases.

The bill succeeded despite Prime Minister John Howard and new Labor leader Kevin Rudd speaking against it at the 11th hour.

The House of Representatives also voted down an amendment that had threatened to scuttle the legislation.

The change would have prevented stem cells being extracted from the eggs of aborted late term female foetuses, but this procedure will remain acceptable under the bill.

Liberal MP Michael Ferguson's amendment would have sent the bill back to the Senate, where it passed by only two votes last month.

Many MPs expressed fears it would not have survived a second review.

Speaking after the vote, Senator Patterson, a former health minister, thanked Mr Howard for giving MPs a free vote and congratulated the members on the debate.

Earlier, during a passionate debate  in parliament  ahead of the conscience vote, Mr Howard said he would not support the bill.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd also said he would vote against the bill.

"I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life,'' he said.

Treasurer Peter Costello and Nationals leader Mark Vaile had already indicated they would vote no.

Mr Howard said as a mainstream protestant Christian he recognised Christian people of good conscience could reach different conclusions on the legislation.

"It has been a difficult issue, I've indicated publicly in the past I was unresolved in my own mind how to vote," Mr Howard said.

"I don't think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view (since the 2002 vote to ban therapeutic cloning)."

Mr Rudd also expressed concerns about parliament crossing a moral boundary.

He described himself as one of the most reluctant supporters of the 2002 bill that allowed research on embryonic stem cells extracted from spare IVF embryos.

His mother, a Catholic and Parkinson's disease sufferer, told him during the last debate she could accept experimentation on the surplus embryos.

"Mum died two years ago, so she's not here to ask for this one,'' he said.
Mr Rudd said he had spent a long time wrestling with the bill.

"This is a debate where no side should be arguing any absolute moral position as if they have a monopoly on moral conscience,'' he said.

He said his principles were based on the equal worth of all humanity, the protection of the weak from the strong and the minimisation of suffering.

The bill would allow scientists to create embryos through therapeutic cloning and extract their stem cells for use in medical research.

Stem-cell bill passes parliament (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-rudd-say-no-to-stem-cell-bill/2006/12/06/1165081010657.html)