218 
Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
experiment and treatment does not provide doctors with 
constructive notice, nor does it provide police, prosecutors, juries, 
and judges with standards for application."^ 
Specific bans on embryo stem cell research are unlikely to 
raise the same constitutional concerns. Part of the constitutioned 
deficiency in the Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, and Utah cases was that 
physicians offering health care services for their patients (such as 
embryo donation from an infertile woman, preimplantation genetic 
screening on an embryo, or treatment of a pregnant woman for 
diabetes) would not know if the activity would be considered by 
prosecutors to be experimental with respect to the embryo or fetus. 
Moreover, the female patient’s reproductive freedom was implicated 
in the previous cases, providing another reason for overturning the 
statute. Stem cell researchers do not have those potential legal 
arguments. There is a slight possibility, however, a reproductive 
liberty challenge could be raised against a law banning reproductive 
cloning."® 
Conclusion 
Bills on cloning and stem cell research are the subjects of 
vast media attention and public debate. As technologies develop 
that focus increasingly on the human embryo, lawmakers are having 
difficulty coming to agreement on legislative policy in the absence of 
societal accord about the moral and legal status of the embryo. 
[PLEASE SEE THE ACCOMPANYING CHARTS DETAILING STATE 
LAWS AND BILLS RELEVANT TO THIS AREA. ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON THE COUNCIL’S WEBSITE AT 
WWW.BIOETHICS.GOV IN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS 
REPORT AS WELL AS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE AUTHOR’S 
PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 24, 2003 
MEETING.] 
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 38596, *12 (2000). 
Andrews, Lori B., “Is There A Right to Clone? Constitutional Challenges 
to Bans on Human Cloning," 11(3) Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 
643 (1998). 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
