1 Judith A. Johnson, Congressional Research Service, Stem Cell Research (2006), http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/59923.pdf [hereinafter Stem Cell Research].

2 Press Release, The White House, President Discusses Stem Cell Research (Aug. 9, 2001), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html [hereinafter President Discusses Stem Cell Research] (in explaining his decision, President Bush noted that these lines were created from “embryos that have already been destroyed . . . where the life or death decision has already been made.”). Subsequently, it became clear that only around nineteen of these lines were actually still viable.

3 See Stem Cell Research, supra note 1, at 14.

4 Spar, Debora, The Business of Stem Cells, 351 New Eng. J. Med., 211, 212-13 (2004)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

5 See Developments in the Law: Medical Technology and the Law, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1519, 1552 n.185 (1990)Google Scholar [hereinafter Developments].

6 President Discusses Stem Cell Research, supra note 2.

7 See Developments, supra note 5.

8 See Jenny Lee, The New Pill: Controversial Birth Control Could Mean the End of Menstrual Cycles, Vancouver Sun, Aug. 18, 2007, at F1.

9 Note, Guiding Regulatory Reform in Reproduction and Genetics, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 574, 582 (2006).Google Scholar

10 Id. at 574.

11 Estimated at $30,000 in 1892. Tone, Andrea, Making Room for Rubber: Gender, Technology, and Birth Control Before the Pill, 18 Hist. & Tech. 51, 60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Act of March 3, 1873, ch. 258, 17 Stat. 598.

13 See Note, Judicial Regulation of Birth Control Under Obscenity Laws, 50 Yale L.J. 682 (1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brooks, Carol Flora, The Early History of the Anti-Contraceptive Laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut, 18 Am. Q. 3, 3 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“The anti-contraceptive laws were not originally passed as a result of controversy over religious doctrine; they were passed as a byproduct of an attempt to give legal support to a widespread attitude about obscenity.”).

14 Act of March 3, 1873, ch. 258, 17 Stat. 598; See also J.E. Leonarz, Annotation, Validity of Regulations as to Contraceptives or the Dissemination of Birth Control Information, 96 A.L.R.2d 955, § 6 (2001).

15 Act of March 3, 1973, ch. 258, 17 Stat. 598.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 See Mary Ware Dennett, Birth Control Laws 7 (Da Capo Press, 1970) (1926); Note, Some Legislative Aspects of the Birth-Control Problem, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 723, 724-26 (1932).Google Scholar

19 Dennett, supra note 18, at 7.

20 Dennett, supra note 18, at 10. Another source indicates twenty-six states. Note, Some Legislative Aspects of the Birth-Control Problem, supra note 18, at 723.

21 Dennett, supra note 18, at 10.

22 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6399 (1878), reprinted in Dennett, supra note 18, at 285.

23 State v. Nelson, 11 A.2d 856 (Conn. 1940).

24 Tileston v. Ullman, 26 A.2d 582, 587 (Conn. 1942), appeal dismissed, 318 U.S. 44 (1943).

25 An Act Concerning Offences Against Chastity, Morality and Decency, 1879 Mass. Acts 512 (codified at Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, § 21 (1992)). The Act stated:

Except as provided in section twenty-one A, whoever sells, lends, gives away, exhibits, or offers to sell, lend or give away an instrument or other article intended to be used for self-abuse, or any drug, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of conception or for causing unlawful abortion, or advertises the same, or writes, prints, or causes to be written or printed a card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement or notice of any kind stating when, where, how, of whom or by what means such article can be purchased or obtained, or manufactures or makes any such article shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

26 Commonwealth v. Allison, 116 N.E. 265, 266 (Mass. 1917).

27 Commonwealth v. Gardner, 15 N.E.2d 222, 224 (Mass. 1938).

28 Act of June 24, 1887, 1887 N.Y. Laws 899 (emphasis added); Carole R. McCann, Birth Control Politics in the United States 1916-1945, at 68-69 (1994). See generally Craig, John M., The Sex Side of Life: The Obscenity Case of Mary Ware Dennett, 15 Frontiers J. Women Stud. 145 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Craig, supra note 28, at 152. The conviction was subsequently reversed on appeal. United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564, 569 (2d. Cir. 1930).

30 McCann, supra note 28, at 68-69.

31 People v. Sanger, 118 N.E. 637, 638 (N.Y. 1918) (citing Webster’s International Dictionary).

32 Bernard Asbell, The Pill: A Biography of A Drug that Changed the World 47 (1995); McCann, supra note 28, at 64.

33 Sanger, 118 N.E. at 638.

34 Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C.I. Lee & Co., 45 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1930).

35 Id. at 107.

36 Id.

37 Id. at 108.

38 Davis v. United States, 62 F.2d 473, 473 (6th Cir. 1933). As the court explained, Section 334, so far as applicable, makes it unlawful for anyone to deposit or cause to be deposited ‘non-mailable matter,’ and defines that phrase to include any printed circular giving information where and how things designed, adapted and intended for indecent or immoral use, or for preventing conception can be obtained. Section 396 makes it unlawful for any one to knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, with any express company or other common carrier for carriage in interstate commerce, any ‘article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception.’

39 Id. at 474.

40 Id. at 475.

41 Id.

42 United States v. One Package, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936).

43 Id. at 739-40.

44 Id. at 738.

45 Id.

46 Id. at 739.

47 Id. at 740.

48 United States v. One Package, 86 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1936).

49 Id.

50 Recent Decision, Comstock Act: Admissibility of Contraceptive Devices, 37 Colum. L. Rev. 854, 856 (1937).Google Scholar

51 Connecticut forbade the use of contraception. Massachusetts and Mississippi prohibited its prescription. Loth, David, Planned Parenthood, 272 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 95, 95-96 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Margaret Sanger, The Status of Birth Control: 1938, New Republic, Apr. 20, 1938, at 324-26.

52 Although a 1936 study by the AMA showed that the laws had no effect on physicians. Report of the Committee to Study Contraceptive Practices and Related Problems appointed by the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, 106 JAMA 1910, 1911 (1936).Google Scholar

53 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965).

54 Id.

55 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454-55 (1972).

56 According to an estimate from India Rubber World, US condom sales were $30,000 in 1892. Debora L. Spar & Briana Huntsberger, Midwives, Witches, and Quacks: The Business of Birth Control in the Pre-Pill Era 15-17 (Harvard Bus. Sch., Working Paper No. 04-049, 2004).

57 Tone, Andrea, Black Market Birth Control: Contraceptive Entrepreneurship and Criminality in the Gilded Age, 87 J. Am. Hist. 435, 447 (2000)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

58 Note, Contraceptives and the Law, 6 U. Chi. L. Rev. 260, 263-64 (1939).Google Scholar

59 The Accident of Birth, Fortune, Feb., 1938, at 83, 108.

60 Norman St. John-Stevas, Life, Death and the Law 69 (1964).

61 Tone, supra note 57, at 439.

62 The Accident of Birth, supra note 59, at 83.

63 Id. at 84.

64 Id.

65 Id. at 85.

66 Note, Contraceptives and the Law, supra note 58, at 265 (citation omitted).

67 Note, Judicial Regulation of Birth Control Under Obscenity Laws, supra note 13, at 686-87.

68 Sanger, supra note 51, at 324.

69 See Loretta McLaughlin, The Pill, John Rock, and the Church 98-99 (1982) (describing that the development of the pill began as early as 1921); Sanger, supra note 51, at 325 (explaining that birth control, even under medical supervision was illegal until 1936).

70 McLaughlin, supra note 69, at 100-01; Barbara Seaman, The Pill and I: 40 Years On, the Relationship Remains Wary, N.Y. Times, June 25, 2000, at 19.

71 McLaughlin, supra note 69, at 101.

72 Id. at 102; See Malcolm Potts & Martha Campbell, History of Contraception, in 6 Gynecology and Obstetrics 1, 17 (John J. Sciarra et al. eds., 2003), available at http://big.berkeley.edu/ifplp.history.pdf.

73 Junod, Suzanne White & Marks, Lara, Women’s Trials: The Approval of the First Oral Contraceptive Pill in the United States and Great Britain, 57 J. Hist. Med. 117, 123 (2002).Google ScholarPubMed

74 McLaughlin, supra note 69, at 115.

75 Id. at 106, 116.

76 Id. at 81-83.

77 Id. at 115.

78 Id. at 118.

79 Id. at 128; Linda Grant, A Laboratory of Women, Indep., Sept. 19, 1993, at 14.

80 Rock, John, Gregory Pincus, & Celso Ramon Garcia, Effects of Certain 19-Nor Steroids on the Normal Human Menstrual Cycle, 124 Science 891, 892 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 McLaughlin, supra note 69, at 135-37.

82 Id.

83 Id. at 135.

84 Asbell, supra note 32, at 163-64, 170; Winter, Irwin C., Industrial Pressure and the Population Problem – The FDA and the Pill, 212 JAMA 1067, 1067-68 (1970).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

85 G.D. Searle Reduces Price of Birth Control Pill to $7 a Month, Wall St. J., Feb. 9, 1961, at 8.

86 Herbert G. Lawson, Birth Control Push, Wall St. J., Nov. 1, 1963, at 1.

87 Sharon Snider, The Pill: 30 Years of Safety Concerns, FDA Consumer, Dec. 1990, available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html.

88 William D. Mosher et. al., Use of Contraception and Use of Family Planning Services in the United States: 1982-2002, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Dec. 10, 2004, at 1, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf.

89 Richard D. Blackburn, Jacqueline A. Cunkelman & Vera M. Zlidar, Oral Contraceptives – An Update, POPULATION REP., Spring 2000, at 1; Drug and Formulary Trends, 39 Formulary 405 (2004), available at http://formulary.adv100.com/formulary/dat a/articlebrief/formulary/412004/126393/article.pdf.

90 Walters, Leroy, Human in Vitro Fertilization: A Review of the Ethical Literature, 9 Hastings Center Rep. 23, 27 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 National Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, § 213, 88 Stat. 342, 353 (1974).

92 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); John C. Fletcher, The Stem Cell Debate in Historical Context, in The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate 27, 27-28 (Suzanne Holland, ed., 2001); The President’s Council on Bioethics, Monitoring Stem Cell Research 23, (2005), available at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/pcbe_final_ver sion_monitoring_stem_cell_research.pdf.

93 National Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, § 213, 88 Stat. 342, 353 (1974).

94 45 C.F.R. § 46.203 (1975).

95 Nat’l Comm’n for the Prot. of Human Subjects of Biomedical & Behavioral Research, Research on the Fetus: Report and Recommendations (1975), reprinted in 40 Fed. Reg. 33,526 (Aug. 8, 1975).

96 Christopher Thomas Scott, Stem Cell Now 206 (2006); Following Year-Long Moratorium, DHEW Will Again Fund Live Fetal Research Projects; New Regulations Approved, 7 Fam. Plan. Persp. 145, 145 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 Victor Cohn, Ethics Board Gives Backing To Test-Tube Baby Research, Wash. Post, Mar. 17, 1979, at. A1.

98 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 24; Victor Cohn, Some Scientists Advocate Creating Human Embryos, Wash. Post, Sept. 17, 1978, at A22.

99 Victor Cohn, Test-Tube Baby Study Wins Approval, Wash. Post, Feb. 4, 1979, at A5.

100 Cohn, supra note 97, at A1.

101 Protection of Human Subjects; HEW Support of Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer: Report of the Ethics Advisory Board, 44 Fed. Reg. 35,033, 35,056 (June 18, 1979).

102 Cameron, Nigel M. de S., Cloning: U.S. and Global Perspectives, 99 S. Med. J. 1429, 1430 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

103 See The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 24.

104 Id.; See also Gina Kolata, Ethics and Fetal Research: Government Begins to Move, N.Y. TIMES, July 31, 1988, § 4 at 7.

105 See Kolata, supra note 104, at 7.

106 As one source explains: “The diffusion is likely to continue during the next 5 years, as judged by the demand of sterile couples and the heightened efficacies reported by established centers.” Grobstein, Clifford et al., External Human Fertilization: An Evaluation of Policy, 222 SCIENCE 127, 127 (1983).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed For earlier history of IVF attempts, See generally, Barry D. Bavister, Early History of In Vitro Fertilization, 124 Reprod. 181 (2002).

107 See Grobstein et al., supra note 106, at 131.

108 See Sandy Rovner, Making Babies; How Science Can Help Infertile Couples, Wash. Post, Aug. 6, 1986, at 13.

109 Id.; See also Paul Clancy, A Special Kind of Mother's Day; ‘In Vitro’ Families Celebrate, USA Today, May 12,1989, at 3A.

110 See Walter Sullivan, ‘Test-Tube’ Baby Born in U.S., Joining Successes Around the World, N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1981, at C1.

111 See Id.

112 See Grobstein et al., supra note 106, at 130. The estimate of $7,500 is for a woman’s first attempt at IVF. Subsequent attempts were less expensive: around $5,000. See Id.

113 See Id. Note that this figure is not adjusted for inflation. Id.

114 See Rovner, supra note 108, at 13.

115 Id.

116 Debora L. Spar, The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception 32 (2006).

117 Rovner, supra note 108, at 16-17.

118 Sandra Blakeslee, Trying to Make Money Making ‘Test-Tube’ Babies, N.Y. Times, May 17, 1987, at 6.

119 See Philip J. Hilts, U.S. Urged to End Ban on In Vitro Birth Research, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 1989, at 37.

120 Ellis, Gary B., Revival of the Ethics Advisory Board, 242 Science 168, 168 (1988).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

121 Hilts, supra note 119, at 37.

122 Id.

123 Clancy, supra note 109, at 3A.

124 Spar, supra note 116, at 32-33.

125 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Serv., Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 2003 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates 13 (2005), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2003/PDF/ART03part1.pdf [hereinafter 2003 A.R.T. Success Rates].

126 Spar, supra note 116, at 34; Grobstein, supra note 106, at 131.

127 Grobstein, supra note 106, at 131.

128 2003 A.R.T. Success Rates, supra note 125, at 489-521.

129 Am. Soc. for Reprod. Med., State Infertility Insurance Laws, (2007), available at http://www.asrm.org/Patients/insur.html; The National Conference of State Legislatures includes the state of Georgia, and thus lists a total of fifteen states. Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., 50 State Summ. of State Laws Related to Ins. Coverage for Infertility Therapy (2006), available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/50infert.htm.

130 ISLAT Working Group, ART into Science: Regulation of Fertility Techniques, 281 Science 651, 651 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

131 See generally In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988).

132 Under the 1992 provisions, all fertility clinics must report their annual pregnancy success rates to the Centers for Disease Control and provide the names of any embryo laboratories used in that year. Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 263a-1(a) (2006).

133 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, First Bush Veto Maintains Limits on Stem Cell Use, N.Y. Times, July 20, 2006, at A1.

134 Id.

135 Id.

136 Fifty-one Republicans, 183 Democrats and one independent comprised the 235 voting in favor of the bill while four Democrats and 179 Republicans voted against. Id.

137 Id.

138 Scott, supra note 96, at 152 (“The 1974 action had surprising staying power. With one short-lived exception, the ‘temporary’ moratorium has passed its thirtieth anniversary – no government funds are allowed for embryo research, a policy that swept essential questions about infertility, reproductive medicine, prenatal diagnosis, and embryonic stem cell research beyond the reach of most American clinicians and scientists.”).

139 Id.

140 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 289g (2006).

141 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 24.

142 Judith A. Johnson, Congressional Research Service, Human Cloning, (2001), available at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7943.pdf#search=%22Executive%2 0Order%20%22December%202%2C%201994%22%22. See generally National Institute of Health, Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel (1994).

143 Johnson, supra note 142, at 4.

144 John Schwartz & Ann Devroy, Clinton to Ban U.S. Funds For Some Embryo Studies, Wash. Post, Dec. 3, 1994, at A1.

145 Id.

146 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-149, § 509, 119 Stat. 2833, 2880 (2005).

147 Id.

148 Id.

149 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 25.

150 Press Release, The White House, Prohibition on Federal Funding for Cloning of Human Beings (Mar. 4, 1997), available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/cloning_direct ive.htm.

151 Id.

152 Nat’l Bioethics Advisory Comm’n, Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission 2 (1997), available at http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning1/cloning.pdf.

153 See, e.g., Prohibition on Cloning of Human Beings Act of 1998, S. 1602, 105th Cong. (1998), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_ bills&docid=f:s1602is.txt.pdf.

154 See Scott, supra note 96, at 152.

155 See generally Thomson, James A. et al., Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts, 282 Science 1145 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

156 Stem Cell Research, supra note 1, at 14; See also Nat’l Bioethics Advisory Comm, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research 7, 18 (1999), available at http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/stemcell.pdf.

157 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 27.

158 Harriet S. Raab, Federal Funding for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, Department of Health and Human Services, The General Counsel, Washington D.C. (Jan. 15, 1999).

159 Id.

160 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 27.

161 Id. at 28.

162 Id.

163 President Discusses Stem Research, supra note 2.

164 Id.

165 The White House, Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Aug. 9, 2001), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html.

166 President Discusses Stem Cell Research, supra note 2.

167 Jerome Groopman, Holding Cell: Why the Cloning Decision was Wrong, New Republic, Aug. 5, 2002, at 14.

168 President Discusses Stem Cell Research, supra note 2.

169 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stem Cell Research is Slowed by Restrictions, Scientists Say, N.Y. Times, Sept. 26, 2002, at A27.

170 Id.

171 Press Release, Juvenile Diabetes Research Found., JDRF Statement on HHS Announcement of Stem Cell Bank, (July 14, 2004), available at http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm ?page_id=101199.

172 Ann B. Parson, The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine 244 (2004).

173 Juvenile Diabetes Research Found., supra note 171.

174 The President’s Council on Bioethics, supra note 92, at 35.

175 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Estimates of Funding for Various Diseases, Conditions, Research Areas, March 10, 2006, http://www.nih.gov/news/fundingresearchareas.htm.2002. Figures from Conversation with Baldwin Wong, Chief, Science, Policy and Planning Branch, NIDCD, NIH, 8/11/2006. Non-embryonic includes adult stem cells as well as umbilical cord, fetal, placental stem cells as well as other, non-embryonic sources.

176 Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, S. 245, 108th Cong. (2003), available at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-245.

177 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, H.R. 810, 109th Cong. (2005), available at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-810.

178 Id.

179 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, In Rare Threat, Bush Vows Veto of Stem Cell Bill, N.Y. Times, May 21, 2005, at A1.

180 Editorial, Stem Cell Showdown, Wash. Post, July 17, 2006, at A14.

181 E.g., CBS News, Poll: Stem Cell Use Gains Support (May 24, 2005), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/opinion/polls/main697546.shtml. According to this source, 58% of Americans approve of stem cell research while 31% do not. Id.

182 E.g., Terri Somers, $151.5 Million for Stem Cell Grants Approved; Board Sets Goals for State Studies, San Diego Union-Trib., Aug. 3, 2006, at C3.

183 Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., State Embryonic and Fetal Research Laws (2006), available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm; Jodi Rudoren, Stem Cell Work Gets States’ Aid After Bush Veto, N.Y. Times, July 25, 2006, at A1; Editorial, The States Confront Stem Cells, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 2006, at A18.

184 Rudoren, supra note 183, at A1.

185 Id.

186 Id.

187 Carl T. Hall, Proposition 71: A New Era for Stem Cell Study, S.F. Chron., Nov. 4, 2004, at B1. For more on Proposition 71, See generally Connie Bruck, Hollywood Science, New Yorker, Oct. 18, 2004, at 62.

188 Hall, supra note 187, at B1.

189 Ceci Conolly, California to Enact Bill Promoting Stem Cell Research, Wash. Post, Sept. 22, 2002, at A12.

190 Paul Elias, Judge Says California Stem Cell Agency Legal, Associated Press, Apr. 22, 2006, http://www.stemcellbattles.com/SF%20Chron%204-22-06.htm; Carl T. Hall, California; Foes of Stem Cell Program Undaunted by Court Defeat, S.F. Chron., Dec. 1, 2005, at B2; Andrew Pollack, Trial Over California Stem Cell Research Ends, N.Y. Times, Mar. 3, 2006, at A19.

191 Elias, supra note 190.

192 Andrew Pollack, $14 Million for Research on Stem Cells, N.Y. Times, Apr. 5, 2006, at C12.

193 Ellen Florian Kratz, How Bush’s Stem Cell Veto Affects U.S. Science, Fortune, Aug. 7, 2006 at 16; Somers, supra note 182, at C-3.

194 Pollack, supra note 193, at C12; Rudoren, supra note 183, at A1.

195 Robert Kolker, The California Stem-Cell Gold Rush, N.Y. Mag., Jan. 3, 2005, at 35, 36, available at http://www.nymetro.com/nymetro/health/features/10755/index.html.

196 Id.

197 Id. at 38.

198 US States Making Stem Cell Policies, BioNews.org.uk, May 17, 2004, http://www.bionews.org.uk/new.lasso?storyid=2091.

199 Battelle Tech. P’ship Practice and SSTI, Growing the Nation’s Bioscience Sector: State Bioscience Initiatives 2006, Apr. 2006, at xix, available at http://www.bio.org/local/battelle2006/battelle2006.pdf [hereinafter Battelle Report]; State of New Jersey Comm’n on Sci. & Tech., Stem Cell Research in New Jersey (2006), available at http://www.state.nj.us/scitech/stemcell/.

200 Battelle Report, supra note 199, at xix; The States Confront Stem Cells, supra note 183, at A18.

201 Rudoren, supra note 183, at A1; The States Confront Stem Cells, supra note 183, at A18.

202 Statement of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Submitted to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hearing Regarding Commercial Development of Pluripotent Stem Cells, (Jan. 12, 1999), available at http://www.bio.org/bioethics/background/stemcell_testimony.asp.

203 Stephen S. Hall, The Recycled Generation, N.Y. Times Mag., Jan. 30, 2000, at 30, 34; Kristen Philipkoski, Bioethics in the Hot Seat, Wired News, Jan. 18, 2001, http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41244,00.html.

204 Matthew Herper & Robert Langreth, Anti-Ban Billionaires, Forbes, Sept. 4, 2006, at 124, 124-25; Holden, Constance, States, Foundations Lead the Way After Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill, 313 Science 420, 420-21 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

205 South Dakota is the only state to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. Arizona bans the use of state funds for both reproductive and therapeutic cloning; and Missouri and Maryland prohibit the use of state funds for reproductive cloning. Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., supra note 129.

206 John C. Fletcher, The Stem Cell Debate in Historical Context, in The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate 30 (Suzanne Holland et al. eds., 2001).

207 Scott Gottlieb, Adult Cells Do It Better, Am. Spectator, June 2001, at 16; Aaron Smith, Adult Stem Cell Biotechs: Better Prospects, Less Controversy, CNNMoney.com, Aug. 9, 2006, http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/news/companies/stemcells/.

208 Steve Mitchell, U.S. Stem Cell Policy Deters Investors, United Press Int’L, Nov. 2, 2002, http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2002/11/02/us_stem_cell_policy_deters_inv estors/6291/.

209 Id.

210 Michael J. Lysaght & Anne L. Hazlehurst, Private Sector Development of Stem Cell Technology and Therapeutic Cloning, 9 Tissue Engineering 555, at 560-61 (2003).

211 Data compiled directly by author, from various data sources.

212 The States Confront Stem Cells, supra note 183, at A18 (“Privately financed research is an option, but the government makes that difficult at sites where other scientists work with federally financed equipment.”); See also Nicholas Wade, Some Scientists See Shift in Stem Cell Hopes, N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2006, at A18.

213 See The States Confront Stem Cells, supra note 183, at A18; Wade, supra note 212, at A18; See also Fletcher, supra note 206, at 30.

214 Wade, supra note 207, at A18.

215 Nicholas Wade, 2 New Efforts to Develop Stem Cell Line for Study, N.Y. Times, June 7, 2006, at A18.

216 Claudia Dreifus, At Harvard's Stem Cell Center, the Barriers Run Deep and Wide, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, 2006, at F2; Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Senate Appears Poised for Showdown with President Over Stem Cell Research, N.Y. Times, July 16, 2006, at 18.

217 Gareth Cook, Stem Cell Center Set at Harvard; Researchers Seek to Bypass US Restrictions, Boston Globe, Feb. 29, 2004, at A1.

218 Irina Oberman, Stem Cell Debate Impacts Stanford, XXXVII STAN. REV. (2006), available at http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVII/Issue_1/News/news2. shtml; Carl Hall, $16 Million Gift for UCSF Research Center, S.F. Chron., May 12, 2006, at B6; Press Release, Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr., Columbia University Medical Center Launches Multi-Year Campaign to Support Stem Cell Research (June 15, 2005), available at http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/stemcell/initiative/press_release_stem_cell.html; See also Robert Lee Holz, Stem Cell Labs Take Private Path, L.A. Times, June 11, 2006, at A4.

219 David Kirkpatrick, Stem Cell Bill Sails Through House, but a Veto is Probable, N.Y. Times, Jan. 12, 2007, at A19; Somers, supra note 193, at C-3.

220 Owen-Smith, Jason & McCormick, Jennifer, An International Gap in Human ES Cell Research, 24 Nature Biotechnology 391, 392 (2006)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (warning that resistance toward an expansion of federal funding suggests a “real danger” for biomedicine).