Stem Cell Research Information + Impact

Messages In This Digest (1 Message)

1.: DO WE SUE TO PROTECT THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM? From: Stephen Meyer

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Message

1.: DO WE SUE TO PROTECT THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM?

Posted by: "Stephen Meyer" Stephen276@comcast.net stephen_meyer_stemcells

Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:59 am (PDT)

DO WE SUE TO PROTECT THE CALIFORNIA STEM CELL PROGRAM?

We had the Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday, in Sacramento,
and (as expected) we lost, big time. SB 1565 passed without a single
dissenting vote.

Part of it was of course Senator Kuehl's personal charm. As usual,
co-author Senator Runner did not speak at all; his enmity to embryonic
stem cell research and Prop 71 is too well-known to pretend he is there
to help it—but it is impossible to dislike Ms. Kuehl. Even when I
was sitting at the table for the speakers, (and I knew she was there to
legislatively hand me my head on a plate) my emotion was, how nice to
see her!

The Senator had at least half the audience there in support (they wore
t-shirts saying support universal health care, a t-shirt I would
cheerfully wear) of her six bills she presented that day. They roared
their approval when her name was mentioned—the chair of the
committee, Mark Leno, had to remind the audience that they were not
allowed to do that—but the point had been made.

She spoke, briefly.

Bob Klein spoke, explaining things with his usual blend of passion and
rationality.

He said: "We have to keep the faith of this initiative that the
voters gave, expertise to deliver to patients."

I spoke too, my usual bullet points, short and plain, mentioning, for
example, that not one stem cell group supported SB 1565, while opposing
it was the largest collection of stem cell research support groups, the
Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), a group of
more than 80 medical, scientific, and educational groups.

The committee listened politely. Chairman Mark Leno was gracious, gave
us more time than he was required to--

And we did not have a chance in Hell.

I kept thinking, I am missing something. It is right in front of me,
plain as day, and I am missing it.

The committee was just waiting until we were through so they could vote
against us.

Why? The majority definitely supported the research. (With the possible
exception of Assemblymember Sharon Runner, who I believe is Senator
George Runner's wife—can you imagine the shouts of "Conflict
of interest!" if a husband wife team worked together on our stem
cell program?)

So why would they be so eager to pass SB 1565, which would definitely
hurt the California stem cell program?

I knew our side was correct on the issues.

The reason given for the legislation was a non-issue in the first place.
Nobody disagreed that uninsured Californians should have access to
products developed by the CIRM (California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine)—every CIRM-funded organization with a product has to
provide an access plan before any of their stuff hits the market. Even
the legislative analysts of Senator Kuehl's own committee (she is
chair of the Senate Health Committee) agreed with us that the CIRM had
made provisions "similar to 1565".

The request for the Little Hoover Commission (LHC) to study the
governing body of the program? That was also unnecessary. The LHC can
study the program (and recommend legislation to correct whatever faults
it may find) without the need for legislation.

And as for the amendment Senator Runner had inserted into the bill,
removing California's stated preference for embryonic stem cell
research? That was not only counter to the will of the voters, but may
also be illegal.

I base that argument on two points. First, the Runner Amendment goes
against specific language in Prop. 71, which states:

"Sec. 3 Purpose and intent:

"It is the intent of the people of California in enacting this
measure to…. Maximize the use of research funds by giving priority
to stem cell research…opportunities that cannot, or are unlikely to,
receive timely or sufficient federal funding, unencumbered by
limitations that would impede the research."(emphasis added). That
is embryonic, or SCNT stem cell research, because adult/alternative stem
cell research is enthusiastically funded by the Federal government.

The California program gives preference to embryonic stem cell research
precisely because of the opposition of political ideologues in
Washington. The Bush Administration prefers adult or alternative stem
cell research—and funds it more than 7 times as much as
embryonic—so the California program is an attempt to balance that
great unfairness.

Make no mistake, adult or alternative stem cell research can be (and has
been) funded under Prop 71: it just takes a serious vote by the
scientific committee, a 2/3 majority: that is also in the law, under a
provision called a "vital research opportunity", described in
Section 5, article 3, letter y:

"Vital research opportunity" means … any stem cell
research… vital to advance medical science as determined by at least
a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the members of the Scientific and
Medical Research Funding Working Group and recommended as such by that
working group to the ICOC." (emphasis added)

The Runner Amendment would remove that 2/3 preference, and substitute a
simple majority. This is an attack on embryonic stem cell research, pure
and simple.

Senator Kuehl stated this does not mean a change in California's
preference for embryonic stem cell research.

With all respect, how is that possible?

If a 2/3 vote is changed to a simple majority, that is a huge change.
Common sense applies: suppose you have to win a vote from a group of 100
people. What would be easier: to convince 51 people, or 67?

Secondly, look at the language of the law, Prop 71, which is now an
official part of the California Constitution:

"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…programs…" (emphasis added)."

Will someone explain to me how defying the clearly stated will of the
California voters, and going against the law of Prop 71 itself, can
possibly "further the purposes of the…programs"--?

So-- why did we lose the committee hearing—and why have we lost
every committee hearing so far?

Here is part of a newspiece, ABC-TV reporter David Louie did on the
issue, titled:

"Who should oversee stem cell research funding?

"San Francisco (KGO) "It's your money-- $3 billion
earmarked for stem cell research with the passage of Proposition 71 four
years ago. Now there's a new battle brewing concerning oversight of
that money.

"Sacramento lawmakers already have their hands full, working on the
state budget. But they're having little difficulty putting handcuffs
on a $3 billion pot of money they would like to control.

"The bill that appears to be sailing through the state senate will
give them a big say in stem cell research.

"The bill has been making its way through legislative committees,
winning approval by wide margins.

"Critics say this is just the first step in trying to tighten the
reins on the state stem cell agency…."—David Louie, KGO-TV/DT,
7/17/08

Bingo.

When I heard the words "putting handcuffs on a (program) they would
like to control…",

I felt that click and shock of recognition, when you hear something that
is exactly right.

This is a power struggle, pure and simple.

Who is going to control the state stem cell program?

Will it be run as the voters intended, by a committee of experts, people
who understand the issues intimately because it is their life work, and
who were chosen (by elected officials) precisely because they are at the
very top of their field?

Or will it be run by politicians, who may have to start from scratch
learning the issues?

Not to mention if the bill is re-written, it may become subject to
budget cuts—and there may also be new opportunities for the
opposition to sue and shut program down. California is now the number
one source of embryonic stem cell research funding in the
world—protected only by the careful legal structure of Prop 71.
Remove that protection, and the program becomes vulnerable all over
again to fresh lawsuits.

So—have we lost? Is the CIRM doomed?

Not even close.

Three possibilities of victory remain.

One: to take effect, SB 1565 must "be signed by the Governor"
(see Sec. 8. Amendments.)

As far as I can tell, there is no provision for a veto override.

If Governor Schwarzenegger says "no" to SB 1565, that's it.

California wins, and our stem cell program is protected.

And if the worst happens, and the Governor signs it?

We will have to consider legal action: challenging the legality of SB
1565.

We all remember how California was so massively sued by the opponents of
stem cell research. Until they were found without merit, those lawsuits
held up the research for almost two years.

Now California may need to sue to protect the research so dearly won.

Option number three: if the Little Hoover Commission goes forward, we
patient advocates get involved. We attend the hearings, participate as
much as is allowed, report back to our friends, and educate everyone.

Let no one doubt: if the LHC suggests a new law to "put reins"
on the California stem cell program, the patient advocacy community will
defend what we worked so hard to build.

I talked to the leader of the Little Hoover Commission, Executive
Director Stuart Drown, and he told me that if the LHC did take on the
case, the legislative remedy might be another state-wide initiative.

At first I thought, okay, that is no problem—it was exhaustingly
difficult to gather 1.2 million signatures for Prop 71—surely there
is not that much negative energy to try and weaken our glorious stem
cell program.

BUT-- the legislature can put an initiative on the ballot without any
signatures at all… It is easy for them to do, and will need a great
deal of hard work to defeat.

So, here is the question: who will run our stem cell program:

The patient advocate, education, and medical experts currently on the
board, as was decided by the voters?

Or the politicians, who may know nothing about stem cell
research—but who definitely do control state government?

Politicians, patients, and power: that is what this fight is all about.

P.S. If you would like to write a letter to the Governor, and express
your opposition to Senate Bill 1565, that could be the most important
political action you will ever take to defend stem cell research.

Please send hardcopy letters to:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)