This bill would prohibit human cloning in the state of Maryland.

Currently, the law does not ban the creation of embryos through cloning, nor does it ban the implantation of cloned embryos. Instead, it mandates the killing of cloned human embryos by the 8th week of development.

MDRTL supports this bill and urges citizens to take action. See the MDRTL Action Alert

The talking points for this bill are many so please click here for a detailed set of talking points for citizen lobbying.

This bill would limit the taxpayer funding of Maryland abortions.

Each time a human clone is created, the use of an oocyte (female germ cell, or egg) is necessary. DNA obtained from the person "to-be-cloned" is fused with a woman's germ cell, and the clone is then created. This bill would prohibit the donation of oocytes for research purposes. This bill is complementary to SB362, since it will prohibit obtaining half of the means for human cloning.

MDRTL supports this bill because it would make human cloning more difficult in Maryland and it would protect women from exploitation. The safety of egg retrieval, however, is not entirely known, and the drugs used to stimulate egg production may affect women's health negatively. Research should not come at the price of women's health.

NOTE: This bill would not prohibit donating oocytes for reproductive purposes (i.e., for in-vitro fertilization), only for research purposes.

This law would make human cloning more difficult in Maryland, and of equal importance, it would protect women from exploitation. Currently, women are often financially compensated for donating their eggs for research. The safety of egg retreival, however, is not entirely known. The effects of drugs used to isolate the eggs are still being tracked, but there is evidence that the drugs affect women's health negatively. This bill would not prohibit donating oocytes for reproductive purposes (i.e., for in-vitro fertilization), but it would prohibit egg donation for research purposes. Research should not come at the price of women's health.

This bill would prohibit women who donate oocytes (eggs) from receiving compensation beyond direct expenses incurred for the donation. This bill would also require that the medical history of an oocyte donor be made available to both the child created by the oocyte and the legal parents of the child created by the oocyte.

MDRTL support this bill, which is intended to safeguard women’s health and prevent exploitation of vulnerable women who may be tempted to place their economic needs above their physical welfare. (At present, women are receiving an average of $5,000 for egg donation.) Additionally, the bill provides for egg donors' medical records to be made available to their offspring.

Since the oocyte donation process poses risks to women's health, this bill is designed to remove incentives for women to place their economic needs above their physical welfare. At present, women are receiving thousands of dollars in compensation for egg donation (on average $5,000), a process which may affect their future fertility. If we remove incentives, we will remove the exploitation of low-income women and place a safeguard on their reproductive health. Additionally, the bill has a provision that mandates the availability of donors' medical records to their offspring. This will ensure that women who donate are healthy, and that offspring will have a way to monitor their genetic background for health purposes.

This bill would deny paternal rights to sexual offenders if a child is conceived at the time of the sexual offense, but would require the sexual offender to pay child support for a child who is the product of the rape, should a woman choose parenthood.

MDRTL supports this bill because it would remove traumatic paternity obstacles that women who conceive as the result of rape currently face. Under current Maryland law, rapists retain full paternal rights (i.e., visitation) of children conceived in rape and their victims must endure grueling legal battles if they wish to terminate these rights. A rape victim must obtain consent from her rapist for example, to place a child conceived at the time of the rape up for adoption. This bill would provide support to pregnant rape victims who choose childbirth by removing a rapist’s parental rights. This bill will remove a significant burden that might compel a victim to choose abortion against her own wishes for fear of her rapist. No woman should feel forced to choose abortion for fear of her safety or that of her child.

Women who choose childbirth when rape results in a pregnancy should be able to do so without fearing the rapist’s involvement in decisions regarding the child’s welfare. These women need care and support, not the additional stress and burden of a rapist’s paternity rights.

This bill would require that abstracts of all funding proposals considered by the Stem Cell Research Commission be made public prior to the announcement of grant recipients.

Currently, the public does not have access to any information regarding the research proposals placed before the commission. Information about successful proposals will only be released after awards are made. This bill would change this policy. MDRTL supports this bill because we believe the needs of the public are best served if funding decisions are made objectively. The public has the right to know general details of proposals under consideration before the awards are made.

Public interest groups such as MDRTL need to be able to monitor the proposals placed before the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission and to scrutinize funding decisions. The needs of the public are best served if funding decisions are made objectively. The Stem Cell Research Commission serves the public good and should not operate in secret. In any case, the the public has the right to know the details of proposals under consideration prior to the time awards are made.

This bill would make it a crime to create a "hybrid" that is genetically part human, and part non-human. MDRTL supports this bill. The creation of a being who is part human and part non-human is both unethical and dangerous, but it is scientifically possible. In this age of emerging biotechnologies, it is crucial that we set ethical boundaries before science gets ahead of us.

In this age of emerging biotechnologies, it is crucial that we set ethical boundaries before science gets ahead of us. The creation of a being who is part human and part non-human is scientifically possible NOW, therefore it is vital that this legislation be enacted into law as soon as possible.