Patrick McConnell Blog

NY Times, CNN reported Bush signed “fetal farming” ban, failed to note there is no such thing as “fetal farming”

In their coverage of President Bush’s July 19 vetoof legislation that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cellresearch, The New York Times andCNN reported that Bush also signed a bill thatday banning “fetal farming” — creating embryos or fetusesspecifically for use as sources of cells or tissue. But neither the Times nor CNN noted that “fetalfarming” is a nonexistent practice — it is neither being carried out, nor is it”under serious scientific consideration,” as National Public Radiohealth policy correspondent JulieRovner reportedon the July 19 broadcast of Morning Edition.While the Chicago Tribune alsoreported Bush’s expected signing of the “fetal farming” billwithout noting the strictly hypothetical nature of the practice, a separatearticle by the same reporter noted that “fetal farming” is notactually taking place.

Rovner reported that the “Fetus FarmingProhibition Act of 2006” — proposed by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and co-sponsoredby Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) –was motivated by “politics,” as opposed to any purported need toban an actual scientific practice. According to Rovner, “Republican leaders knew” that Bushwould veto the embryonic stem cell bill, “[s]o they came up with two other bills hecould sign, allowing him to claim to be pro-stem cell research.”The first bill –proposed by Santorum and passed by the Senate — encouragedresearch using stem cells not derived from human embryos. But a motion tosuspend the House rules andpass the bill failed toachieve the two-thirds majority required in a July 18 vote. (On a Monday or Tuesday,a motion may be filed to suspend the rules of the Houseand pass a bill without amendments, allowing only 40 minutes of debate. Thistype of motion requires a two-thirds majority to pass and is typically usedonly for swift consideration of non-controversial legislation.) The second bill banned “fetal farming”and was signed by Bush July 19.

The Times and CNN reportedBush’s signing of the “fetal farming” ban without noting thestrictly hypothetical nature of “fetal farming.” A July 20 New York Times articleby staff writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported that Bush had “signed a’fetal farming’ measure, barring trafficking in embryos and fetuseswith the intent of harvesting body parts.” The article did not note,however, that “fetal farming” is not actually being carried out,nor is it being seriously considered by the scientificcommunity:

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would haveallowed taxpayer-financed research on lines derived from embryos slated fordestruction by fertility clinics. Mr. Bushalso signed a ”fetalfarming” measure, barring trafficking in embryos and fetuseswith the intent of harvesting body parts.

”These boys and girls are not spareparts,” the president said in a speech that was interrupted repeatedly byhoots of applause, and twice by standing ovations. ”They remind us of what islost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”

Similarly, a July 20 CNN.com articlereported that Bush had “signed the ‘fetal farming’legislation,” which would “ban the commercial production of humanfetal tissue”:

Opponents argue that otheralternatives, such as adult stem cells, are available. Two companion bills — one to promote alternative meansof developing stem-cell lines from sources such as placental blood and anotherto ban the commercial production of human fetal tissue, also known as “fetalfarming” — passed the Senate in 100-0 votes.

On Tuesday evening,the House approved the “fetalfarming” bill 425-0 but didn’t passthe measure promoting alternative stem-cell sources when backers failed toachieve the two-thirds majority that House rules required. The vote on thealternative-sources bill was 273-154.

Bush signed the “fetalfarming” legislation and urged Congress to fund alternativeresearch.

Additionally, a July 19 ChicagoTribune articleby correspondent Jill Zuckman reported Bush’s expected signing of the”fetal farming” ban, but failed to note that “fetalfarming” is not actually being conducted. However, in a subsequent July20 articlereporting Bush’s signing of the “fetal farming” ban, Zuckmannoted that “scientists say ["fetal farming"] is nothappening.”

From the Chicago Tribune’sJuly 19 article:

The Senate also passed a bill topromote research that does not include creation or destruction of embryos,something already allowed under current law. Andit passed a bill to prohibit “fetalfarming,” or growing embryos for the sole purpose of harvestingtissue. The votes were 100-0 in both cases.

The House passed the fetalfarming bill Tuesday night but did not get the necessarytwo-thirds vote for the other measure. Bushis expected to sign the fetalfarming bill as early as Wednesday. Another House vote ispossible on the bill to promote research that doesn’t include creation ordestruction of embryos.

From the Chicago Tribune’sJuly 20 article:

At the White House, Bush issued hisveto in private, without cameras present. Healso signed a bill into law to prohibit “fetalfarming,” growing fetuses for the sole purpose of harvestingtissue, which is something that scientists say is not happening.

From the July 19 broadcast of NPR’s Morning Edition:

ROVNER: But politics is playing a major role in this debate. Republican leaders knew President Bush would veto thebill expanding funding of embryonic stem cell research, putting him at oddswith most of the public. So,they came up with two other bills he could sign, allowing him to claim to bepro-stem cell research.

Kansas RepublicanSenator Sam Brownback is sponsor of one of those bills. It would ban so-called fetusfarming, in which embryos are gestated in women or animals beforebeing harvested for their stem cells or other tissues. He says his measure represents an important step evenif the practice isn’t under serious scientific consideration.

BROWNBACK: Somebody was saying,well, we weren’t going to do it anyway, but that’s what they said about humancloning when we started out on this debate; so you’re going to ban “fetal farming.”

ROVNER: But the other supposedly noncontroversial bill failed to pass when it reached the House last night. Itwould encourage research into alternative ways to find stem-cells that show asmuch promise as those derived from human embryos. The attack on the bill waslaunched by sponsors of the bill facing the veto. Colorado Democrat DianaDeGette insisted she has substantive concerns about the bill, but she alsoadmitted the effort was partly to deprive the president of some politicalcover.

REP. DIANA DeGETTE (D-CO): No onewill be fooled by this fig leaf. The tens of millions of people who suffer fromdiseases like Parkinson’s, diabetes, paralysis, cancer, they know that thisresearch holds hope and they know that 72 percent of Americans support this.

ROVNER: This snag is apparently atemporary one. The House, later today, is expected to bring the bill up for asecond vote it will likely win. And any attempt to override the promised vetowill almost certainly fail.