2012 Candidates for President

Ron Paul

Summary

Congressman Paul has stated that Stem Cell research is not an area that the federal government should be involved in and that it should be left to the states. He has argued that while some believe that it is moral stance to support certain types of research for the benefit of others or to oppose that same research based on moral grounds surrounding life, but the true moral question is whether or not it is moral to use government to force people in a nation to pay for medical research.

Congressman Paul has voted against every stem cell research bill that has come to a vote while in office, noting that the federal government is not granted this power in the Constitution.

Missing the Point

In May of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address stem cell research. 

Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research
May 30, 2005

Medical and scientific ethics issues are in the news again, as Congress narrowly passed a bill last week that funds controversial embryonic stem cell research. While I certainly sympathize with those who understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos is immoral to pay for it.

Congressional Republicans, eager to appease pro-life voters while still appearing suitably compassionate, supported a second bill that provides nearly $80 million for umbilical cord stem cell research. But it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit. The issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal government should fund stem cell research at all.

Clearly there is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means individual states and private citizens should decide whether to permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint is never considered.

Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research.

The debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious, and ethical question-- questions Congress is particularly ill equipped to resolve. The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious. When we insist on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington, we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local, decentralized decision-making.

This approach is not perfect, but it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter. Decentralized decisions and privatized funding would eliminate much of the ill will between supporters and opponents of stem cell research. Government cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary, rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

What's Missing in the Stem Cell Debate

In June of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the rights of tax payers in the stem cell debate.

Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate
June 25, 2007

The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all. On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.

In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers. Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research.

When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards. Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban.

These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks. If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point. Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.

Markets or States Deal With It

In a debate for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Congressman Paul stated that the problem was that the government feels it should with prohibit it or subsidize it, and that is not the case. He states that the States should address the issue.

Voting Record

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

The bill came back up for another vote in roll call 443 where it passed 247-146 before it was vetoed by President Bush. Ron Paul voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

In January 2007, the Senate passed S 5 - the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with wide support from Democrats and moderate support from Republicans. The Act required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Specific limitations were put in place to ensure that the embryos would not have been used for other purposes and were not created specifically for research. The bill passed both the house and senate, but was vetoed by President Bush. Ron Paul voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005

In 2006, an initial effort to pass a stem cell research bill through congress was also vetoed by President Bush. The veto override failed to achieve the necessary 2/3 majority.. Ron Paul voted against overturning the veto on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.

The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act

In 2006, the Senate passed the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. Although it was widely supported in the Senate, it did not reach the 2/3 necessary to pass the House without objection in a 273-154 vote. Ron Paul voted against the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.

Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005

In 2005, Congress passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. The bill set up requirements for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to contract with qualified cord blood stem cell banks to assist in the '); echo('collection and maintenance of 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The bill passed almost unanimously in roll call 205. Ron Paul voted against the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act

In May of 2005, the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation would have allowed research on human embryonic stem cells created after President Bush's 2001 deadline. The measure passed the House and Senate, but was vetoed. It passed the House 238-194. Ron Paul voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

Michele Bachmann

Summary

Congresswoman Bachmann supports stem cell research, but is opposed to government funding for embryonic stem cell research. She twice voted against the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007, which would have allowed the government funding of embryonic stem cell research.

When President Obama issued an executive order making funding for embryonic stem cell research legal, Congresswoman Bachmann called the procedure unnecessary, immoral, and unethical. She noted that recent breakthroughs have allowed the same research to proceed without the destruction of human embryos. 

Human Stem Cell Research is Unethical

In March of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann released a press statement noting her opposition to President Obama's executive order on stem cell research. She also spoke on the House floor about her opposition to the research and to the cloning of humans.

Bachmann: Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Unnecessary and Unethical

Washington, Mar 9, 2009 -

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) today issued the following statement after President Obama issued an executive order to allow taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research:

“I am disappointed with the President’s decision to use taxpayer funds to promote unnecessary and unethical scientific procedures. It is exciting to witness the discoveries that science has brought us, but science does not require us to enter this brave new world. In fact, science has given us options that permit progress with ethics.

“Not only is it immoral to destroy human embryos, but it is even worse to place women in a position where their health is at risk to do unethical research—especially in light of the recent discoveries that iPS, or adult stem cells, can reprogram cells without the use of potentially cancer-causing viruses. This is a marvelous breakthrough.

“I am thrilled with the advances that science has made. But in the process of protecting some lives, it is essential that we do not harm others, impact women’s infertility, and endanger women’s lives—all at the taxpayer’s expense.”

It's exciting to see what science has wrought just in the last few days, the discoveries that have come about. But the bottom line in all of it is this: Cloning will lead to the exploitation of women. That's harmful and that's not good, especially for poor women in the United States and around the world.

Women's eggs are required in the process of cloning, and the extraction technique exposes otherwise healthy women to the risk of infertility and, sadly, tragically, even of death.

The recent cloning scandal that we've witnessed in South Korea should serve as a warning here to those of us in the United States. Many Korean women were coerced into donating their eggs for Professor Hwang's fraudulent research . Not only is it wrong, really wrong to destroy human embryos, but it's even worse to put women in a position where their health is at risk to do unethical research , especially now, when we find science has taught us we don't have to.

The use of the iPS cells, or the adult stem cells, make it unnecessary to use women's eggs, while researchers who have been pushing human cloning have been seeking them.

We all know that November 20, 2007, a Wisconsin researcher and a Japanese scientist discovered, they independently announced their ability to derive pluripotent stem cells through the reprogramming of regular stem cells. This is a marvelous breakthrough.

And then just days ago, on March 1, 2009, two research teams demonstrated they could reprogram cells without the use of potentially cancer-causing viruses. This is marvelous.

iPS can produce a large number of both patient-specific as well as disease-specific stem cell lines because, according to the Telegraph newspaper, tests on the reprogrammed cell lines showed they behave exactly, exactly like embryonic stem cells. These cells have already been used to make heart muscle, brain neurons, motor neurons, blood, insulin secreting cells.

We are thrilled at the advances that science has made. Let's use these advances to make sure that we can further do more research that will protect people's lives.

But, at the same time, let's not hurt women, let's not destroy their lives, and let's not destroy their fertility; and certainly we shouldn't do anything that should lead to women's death.

And I thank you so much to the gentleman from New Jersey for leading this important hour. Thank you so much.

Voting Record

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

The bill came back up for another vote in roll call 443 where it passed 247-146 before it was vetoed by President Bush. Michele Bachmann voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

In January 2007, the Senate passed S 5 - the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with wide support from Democrats and moderate support from Republicans. The Act required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Specific limitations were put in place to ensure that the embryos would not have been used for other purposes and were not created specifically for research. The bill passed both the house and senate, but was vetoed by President Bush. Michele Bachmann voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

Rick Santorum

No data available for this representative.

Voting Record

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act

In July of 2006, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation would have allowed research on human embryonic stem cells created after President Bush's 2001 deadline. The measure passed the House and Senate, but was vetoed. It passed the Senate 63-37. Rick Santorum voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act

In July of 2006, the Senate voted unanimously to pass the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act S 2754. The bill required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do the following three tasks: provide guidance concerning the next steps required for additional research; prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit; and take into account techniques outlined by the President\'s Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate techniques and research. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

Newt Gingrich

No data available for this representative.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

This representative has not been identified as sponsoring or cosponsoring significant legislation related to this title.

Mitt Romney

Summary

Governor Romney supports stem cell research, as long as no life is created or destroyed for the purposes of that research. For this reason, he opposes embryonic stem cell research unless a line already in existence is used or the stem cells are donated from the result of in vitro fertilization.

In July of 2005, Governor Romney vetoed Massachusetts legislation that allowed cloning of embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer, embryo cloning, or the farming of embryos, and creating new embryos. Prior to that veto, Governor Romney stated that while he supported research on adult stem cells and research using already existing embryonic stem cells, ethical boundaries must be maintained.

In 2007, Governor Romney cited this legislation as one of the principal motivators to encourage his move to a pro-life stance. He notes that the cavalier attitude taken by researchers to create and then destroy life after 14 days caused him to belief that those ethical boundaries were being overstepped. 

Later in 2007, Governor Romney noted that scientific advancements were allowing stem cells to be produced without the need to create new life. He noted that these scientific advancements were negating the need for a moral problem in this area and that Congressional Democrats should stop pushing ahead with legislation to allow embryonic research.

Ethical Boundaries

On March 8, 2005 Governor Romney gave a brief press conference and was asked about the upcoming stem cell legislation. He stated that he supported stem cell research but that ethical lines needed to be drawn.

Surplus Embryos

On May 27, 2005 Governor Romney stated in a press conference that he was proposing the use of surplus embryonic stem cells, but that he opposed the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cells purely for research purposes.

Hugh Hewitt Appearance

In July of 2005, Governor Romney appeared on the Hugh Hewitt program and discussed a number of issued. One of those issues was stem cell research.

HH: Okay, and stem cell research. Are you with the president? Or would you expand stem cell research?

MR: I am in favor of stem cell research, as I know the president is as well. And I would add one line that he does not favor at this point. I would add to stem cell research the surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, if the parents wish to donate the embryo in that manner. I'd also create adoption procedures so that that could be a course that's taken as well. What I would not allow is the cloning of embryos, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, and embryo cloning, or the farming of embryos, which is taking sperm and egg, and putting it togther, and creating new embryos. Those things were both allowed in my state this last year by specific legislation. I vetoed it. But it was overridden, of course, and I'm committed that embryo farming and embryo cloning are wrong, and should not be extended.

National Review Institute

In January of 2007, Governor Romney spoke at the National Review Institute and stated that he opposed the destruction of human life at 14 days for the purposes of stem cell research.

There's one key social issue where I do not count as a social conservative, at least one, and that was with regards to abortion. I said that I would protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. And I've changed my view on that as you probably know.

... On abortion, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative, and neither was Ronald Reagan by the way. But like him, I learned with experience. In my experience, the point where that has come most to bear was with regards to learning about stem cell research. Let me tell you, there are so many ways to get stem cells, and you know that so we don't have to go into that. So my legislature was proposing legislation to redefine when life began. I think it's interesting that legislation thinks it has the capacity to make that determination. Our state had always said that life began at conception, but now they were gonna redefine when life began.

And so I spent some time going through and learning, by the with some of the people in this room who helped, about of the different types of sources of stem cells. Adult stem cells, umbilical stem cells, and stem cells for existing lines, but also embryos from in vitro fertilization. And I supported, by the way, those, all of those.

But for me there was a bright line when we started creating new life for the purpose of destruction and experimentation. And so cell transfer, cloning, and also what's known as embryo farming. And at one point, I was sitting down with the head of the stem cell research department at Harvard, and the Provost at Harvard university. And they were explaining these techniques to me and I somehow imagined in my mind this embryo farming. Embryo farming is taking donor eggs and donor sperm and putting them together in a laboratory and creating a new embryo. If that's not creating life, I don't know what is. I imagined this row after row after row of these racks where embryos were created either by this cloning process or this farming process, and at that point one of the two gentlemen said "Governor, there's really not a moral issue at stake here." And he said "because we destroy the embryo at 14 days." I have to tell you that that comment and that perspective hit me very hard.

As he left the room with his colleague, I turned Harriet Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and said "I wanna make it real clear. We have so cheapened the value and sanctity of human life in our society that someone can think that there's not a moral issue because we kill an human embryo at 14 days.

From that day thereafter, I announced that I was firmly pro-life. You don't have to take my word for it by the way. The nice thing about looking at a Governor is that you don't have to just look at what they say, you can look at what they've done. Over my term, I had about four or five different measures that came to my desk, and on every single one of them I came down on the side of respect for human life.

By the way, that didn't make me real popular in the state, remember in Massachusetts Ted Kennedy is considered a moderate.

A Stem Cell Solution

On June 15, 2007 Governor Romney issued an op-ed in the National Review Online discussing stem cells. He notes the advancements in research methods that negate the need to destroy life.

Late last week, two developments involving stem-cell research offered a sharp contrast between the great strengths of American biomedical science and the terrible weakness of Washington politics.

First, on Wednesday, we learned that researchers in Massachusetts, building on prior accomplishments by colleagues in Japan, had managed to transform regular skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells in mice. Their work points to a way to produce cells with the qualities scientists value about embryonic stem cells, but without the need to create, harm, or destroy human embryos, and therefore without ethical or political controversy.

But then, on Thursday, the Congress passed a bill that would for the first time use taxpayer dollars to encourage the destruction of embryos for research. Just as it is becoming increasingly clear that scientific ingenuity could offer a way around the divisive controversies of the stem-cell debate, congressional Democrats are working to stoke those very controversies. They have opted to exacerbate what they see as a political debate that works in their favor, rather than encourage a scientific solution that would work in America’s favor.

When I was governor of Massachusetts, my state wrestled with the stem-cell debate and I confronted many of the same issues now being debated in Washington. I carefully listened to all sides, and came to reject the idea that the exploration of stem cells had to come into conflict with America’s commitment to the dignity of human life.

Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life. Opposing advocates told me that the pluripotency of stem cells — their ability to become a very wide variety of different cell types — would not be of great therapeutic value, and that other sources of tissues and cells could serve the same purpose. But they ignored the unique role pluripotent cells could play in basic science.

Couldn’t the strongest part of each side’s argument — the utility of pluripotent cells on the one hand and the importance of protecting human life on the other — be brought together? I studied the issue for many months, and entered into conversation with experts from across the nation who were looking for consensus solutions, like Stanford’s Dr. William Hurlbut. In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise, and that the way through it was around it: by the use of scientific techniques that could produce the equivalent of embryonic stem cells but without cloning, creating, harming, or destroying developing human lives.

A number of such techniques have begun to emerge in recent years, and as last week’s exciting scientific publications showed, some of the world’s best stem-cell scientists are hard at work bringing them to fruition. Moreover, two of these techniques, Altered Nuclear Transfer and Direct Reprogramming could produce patient-specific stem-cell lines for the study of diseases. Our government should encourage and support these scientific developments, rather than undermine the effort to find a solution. Finding cures to diseases using methods that uphold ethical principles and sustain social consensus should be the objective of America’s approach to stem-cell research.

Rather than looking for such solutions, however, the Democrats in Congress have decided to turn back the clock and pass a bill that only sets research and ethics at odds, a bill they know will be vetoed by President Bush. This familiar Washington approach to controversial issues is just wrong. On matters of such significance, we should try to bring the country together, not further divide it.

Support for ethical biomedical research should be part of our collective identity as a noble society. Instead of turning the quest for cures into a partisan battle, Congress should embrace the exciting emerging lines of research that could meet the goals of all sides in the stem-cell debate. A bill to support just such a positive approach to stem cell research passed the Senate in April by a whopping margin of 70 to 28. But the House Democratic leadership, choosing politics over the prospect of consensus on science, appears to be unwilling even to allow a vote on that hopeful legislation.

It is time to move beyond typical Washington politics, and offer support for stem-cell research techniques that bring science and ethics together to promote life, protect life, and save lives.

Rick Perry

Summary

Governor Perry supports adult stem cell research, but opposes embryonic stem cell research and any efforts that could lead to cloning.

In January of 2009 Governor Perry noted during the State of the State address that Texas should invest in companies starting adult stem cell research. In July of that year, Governor Perry moved on those beliefs by awarding $2.5 million from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund to America Stem Cell for the purpose of developing its breakthrough enzyme technology on adult stem cells.

At a February 2009 rally, Governor Perry spoke against embryonic stem cell research by stating that as long as he was governor, he would oppose taxpayers dollars from being used on research that ends human life. In June of that year, Governor Perry opposed President Obama's decision to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research by stating that such a move turned the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material. He stated that  the Obama administration was ignoring the overriding responsibility of every government — that is to protect citizens at every stage of their lives, especially those who cannot protect themselves. On his campaign website, Governor Perry vows to veto any legislation that provides state dollars for embryonic stem cell research.

State of the State

In the January 2009 State of the State address, Governor Perry stated that the state of Texas should be covering the start up costs of companies that are participating in adult stem cell research.

Now it’s time to take the next step by covering the Institute’s startup costs so researchers can get to work , move us closer to a cure, and accelerate our state’s ascendance as a leader in biotechnology.

This rapidly-growing field is of particular interest to Texans, both economically and in terms of discoveries that improve and save lives. Biotech innovations in our state include discoveries in the area of adult stem cell research that are showing great promise. For example, the folks at the Texas A&M; Health Science Center will begin trials on diabetes treatments later this year in Waco.

Let’s get Texas in on the ground floor and invest in adult stem cell research, the one area of that field that is actually proven to expedite cures. Expertise in this emerging and increasingly promising field will not only bring healing to the suffering and create jobs for Texans, it will also establish an appropriate firewall protecting the unborn from exploitation.

Anti-Abortion Rally

At an anti-abortion rally in Dallas in February of 2009, Governor Perry spoke about his opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells for research.

As long as I am governor of the great state of Texas, I will oppose our taxpayers’ dollars from being spent on research that ends human life

America Stem Cell

In July of 2009, the state of Texas announced that America Stem Cell had been awarded $2.5 million from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. The purpose of this investment was to allow the stem cell research company to develop its breakthrough enzyme technology to enhance the homing and engraftment of cord blood stem cells and achieve improved clinical outcomes for cancer patients receiving these stem cell transplants.

Texas is the best state in the nation to live, work and do business, and the ETF is helping supercharge our technology environment by bringing Texans’ good ideas and hard work to the marketplace. This investment demonstrates our commitment to improving the lives of cancer patients by developing innovative cord blood stem cell technology, while protecting the unborn from exploitation.

United for Life

In June of 2011, Governor Perry spoke at a United for Life rally and spoke against President Obama's decision to overturn President Bush's policy against embryonic stem cell research.

turning the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material. ... (The Obama administration is ignoring) the overriding responsibility of every government — that is to protect citizens at every stage of their lives, especially those who cannot protect themselves.

Campaign Website Statements

Banning Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Gov. Perry supports a ban on human cloning and has vowed to veto any legislation that provides state dollars for embryonic stem cell research. He has been a strong advocate of utilizing adult stem cells in their place. Adult stem cell research can provide much-needed solutions for Texans suffering from various tissue and organ disorders while protecting the unborn from exploitation. They are also proven more effective in research than embryonic stem cells.

Herman Cain

No data available for this representative.

Jon Huntsman

No data available for this representative.

No data available for this representative.