Abortion foes seek to restrict research allowed in bioscience bill

? Abortion opponents Tuesday asked lawmakers to ensure there would be no cloning nor “destructive embryonic research” done in conjunction with a proposed bioscience bill.

The proposal would spur bioscience research in Kansas and provide $500 million over 10 years in captured taxes from bioscience firms. The money would then be plowed back into more research and development.

Kathy Ostrowski, state legislative director for Kansans for Life, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee, which is conducting hearings on a proposal that would increase bioscience research in Kansas.

“Kansas should not create some authority through which our tiniest children could be destroyed for patents and profits,” Ostrowski said.

Supporters say the bill will create thousands of jobs, lure top researchers to the area and put Kansas on the map in scientific breakthroughs. The legislation was approved by the House, 119-6.

But recently, the measure has been caught up in the debate over methods of research.

Higher education officials have said there already were restrictions on fetal tissue research in the Kansas Bioscience Initiative that could reduce the state’s ability to attract world-class researchers.

But Ostrowski said lawmakers should make the measure more restrictive.

She said the bill should be amended to prohibit the use of cells or tissues that were derived by destroying live human embryos.

Highlights of Tuesday’s activities at the Kansas Legislature:¢ Grandparents who are raising their grandchildren could receive financial help from the state under a bill passed by the Senate.¢ The House sent the Senate a bill to establish the Horse Thief Reservoir benefit district for what could become the largest lake in southwest Kansas.– The Associated Press

“Unborn, unused embryos are alive, and we oppose experimenting with them,” she said.

Commerce Committee Chairwoman Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, said the current restrictions in the bill may be the compromise position.

“It could be where we are at now is a good place to be,” she said. “Obviously, there are differences of opinion that can stray further in each direction.”

The committee could vote on House Bill 2647 as early as today. If approved, it would go to the full Senate for consideration.