Thank You Mr. Speaker

The Speaker and Senator Shafer are working to move Sen. Shafer’s important bill forward while making sure living embryos are not destroyed in the process.

Richardson said he wants to see some version of the cord blood bank bill move forward in the waning days of this session of the Georgia General Assembly. It’s too important not to, he said. If he and Shafer can agree on new language, Richardson said, “we’ll have a special committee meeting just for that bill” if that’s what it takes to push it through.


  1. StevePerkins says:

    I’m not 100% sure what the “controversy” is here. Originally, I thought that the House wanted to ADD some language condemning embryonic stem cell research… with the view that Sen. Shafer’s notes about its lack of success thus far were not strong enough. However, now I’m gathering that House really wants to REDUCE that language… and simply not mention embryonic stem cell research at all.

    Why on earth is that a problem? For a rare change of pace, I actually agree with the House over the Senate on something. If somebody wants to make a social “statement” on top of passing some legislation, the right thing to do is issuing a press release rather than embedding it in the bill itself. I like Sen. Shafer, but Richardson is correct on this point.

  2. Frog says:

    The fuss does not make sense to me either, but I do not think it is solely or even primarily over the “factual findings” in the bill. It has to do with what is allowed and not allowed in terms of funding. Shafer wants to fund all stem cell research except embryo destruction. I am not sure if Richardson wants to expand the funding to include embryo destruction or use different words to accomplish Shafer’s more limited goal.

    The committee chairman Amos Amerson is a backer of embryo destruction and he cancelled the vote when he realized that he was about to lose it.

    These jokers need to get their act together and pass the bill, and they need to do it fast.

  3. Chris says:

    I didn’t see anywhere in the bill where it calls for funding of stem cell research. Any kind of funding would have to be included in either budget.

    All SB148 does establish a commission to oversee a stem cell bank.

  4. StevePerkins says:

    After looking into things a little more, it might be a little too soon for thanks. From the Macon Telegraph article, I was initially under the impression that the House simply wanted to remove the legislative findings in SB 148’s preface. That wouldn’t be a big deal for me.

    However, it seems like the REAL controversy is whether or not to remove the “nondestructive” qualifiers from the main text of the bill itself. This would essentially open up the purview of the new commission to include embryonic stem cell research as well as adult stem cells.

    I really don’t see a bill in that form surviving the General Assembly, so such a change would basically have the effect of killing the legislation. Here’s hoping that the House will keep a level head and not tamper with the bill to the point of destroying it.

Comments are closed.