FaxNotes relied on an analysis that appeared in the May 11th issue of Human Events written by Jaydee Hanson and Patrick F. Fagan, who is a highly respected pro-life leader of long-standing, and an article written for the May 7th edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, along with the Act itself. Senator Santorum has asked that we "set the record straight," because he feels the information in both of those articles was misleading. In accordance with his request, we re-print his clarifying statements below:

"The bill will fund pluripotent stem cell research only if the cells are NOT obtained from a human embryo. That is clearly stated in the text of the bill. In order to ensure that no human embryos are harmed, the bill references the Dickey-Wicker definition found in the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill. This definition has prevented all expenditure of federal funds for destruction of human embryos in research for the last nine years. Should any of the techniques create an embryo (healthy or unhealthy, disabled or 'perfect'), funding for that technique is clearly forbidden by the bill."

". . . it is implied that my opposition to the killing of human embryos has changed. Again, this is completely wrong. That is why the bill I introduced (S. 2754) clearly states that it would not fund any research that would derive cells from a human embryo. My defense of all human life is well-known and consistent, and I am offended by the allegations to the contrary."

". . . nowhere does the bill say that research on the ANT-OAR technique would be funded. Like other research, it must first be performed using animal cells to ensure that an embryo, whether healthy or not, is not created. If it was to create an embryo, S. 2754 would clearly prohibit funding for it."

"As noted above, S. 2754 maintains the Dickey-Wicker definition of embryo that has been included in the yearly Labor-HHS appropriations bills. This definition has prevented all expenditure of federal funds for destruction of human embryos in research for the last nine years. To imply that the Santorum-Specter bill introduces some new looser definition of 'embryo,' when it clearly does just the opposite is simply incorrect."

"This legislation clearly prohibits the destruction of human embryos, whether they are disabled or not."

The subject of human embryonic stem cell research is highly complex. The ANT-OAR (Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming) techniques advanced by members of the President's Council on Bioethics, involve a cloning process designed to produce pluripotent (embryo-like) stem cells without actually engendering a human embryo. Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, describes the process in his article entitled "Stem Cells Without Embryos" (http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_1.asp): ". . . OAR would propose to directly make pluripotent stem cells through the same series of steps as cloning. The big difference would happen at the very beginning of the process, when special genetic changes would be made in the DNA . . ." The ANT technique involves altering the nucleus (DNA) prior to the cloning process.

Cloning requires a female egg from which the nucleus has been removed. It is replaced with the nucleus containing the DNA from an adult cell taken from the entity (animal or human) to be cloned. Words like "reprogramming" and "alteration" of DNA are troubling to pro-lifers and others who question the wisdom of legislation such as that co-sponsored by Senators Santorum and Specter, that encourages scientific tampering, albeit with animals, with the beginnings of life.