To read the stem cell proposals before the Legislature, go here.
What other states have done
Minnesota has plenty of models as it moves to set a policy on stem cell research and cloning, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
States that have enacted statutes encouraging embryonic stem cell research include California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Those states also have set guidelines similar to those proposed in Minnesota for consent requirements and review processes.
On the other side of the debate, South Dakota strictly forbids all research on embryos regardless of the source. Illinois and Michigan prohibit research on live embryos. States that prohibit research on cloned embryos include Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Many states that encourage embryonic stem cell research also fund it. In 2004, New Jersey appropriated $23 million for adult and embryonic stem cell research. Later that year California voters approved funding up to $3 billion for the research. In 2006, Wisconsin's governor dedicated $1 million for creating blood products from embryonic stem cells. Last year New York appropriated $500 million over 10 years while Maryland budgeted $15 million. Connecticut and Illinois each have provided $10 million.
But Nebraska and some other states have limited the use of state funds for embryonic stem cell research. Virginia and Indiana have moved to fund adult stem cell research but not embryonic.
Finally, many states have made it illegal to create a cloned person – which the bill before the Minnesota Legislature also would do. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island have statutes that prohibit cloning only for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy, but allow cloning for research.
Missouri law forbids using state funds for reproductive cloning but not for cloning research. Arizona prohibits the use of public monies for any form of cloning.
— Sharon Schmickle
Why did Minnesota United's owners even bother asking for a property tax exemption for a new stadium?44 comments