Analysis: State of Louisiana "Total Bans" on Human Cloning: Beard HB-803 and Lentini SB-873

Dianne Irving Comments
Copyright June 3, 2004
Reproduced with Permission

I. Introduction

Things are moving fast and furiously - and confusedly - in the State Capitol of Louisiana these days. The last two weeks have seen all manner of "different" Bills proposed that would appear to be "total bans" on human cloning. When one version of a Bill didn't work, then the next version was worked up and re-proposed with truly miraculous speed. The version now going to the Governor for her signature is the combined Beard/Lentini "total cloning ban" - House Bill 803 (Beard) and Senate Bill 873 (Lentini).

But upon closer inspection, what has actually been done is essentially the mixing together and rearranging of only two basic Bill "templates", unfortunately, neither of which would ban any human cloning - not even the SCNT technique - regardless of which Bill "parts" were used. The devil's in the definitions - and the correct definitions are easily found in the library, and in on-line scientific search engines (e.g., PubMed).

The bottom line is that, sadly, none of these Bills are "total bans" as advertised. The following analysis will demonstrate that they are not even "partial bans". They ban nothing. Yet they are popularly pitted against the proposed Bills of the opponents that would supposedly "ban" only "reproductive cloning and allow "therapeutic" cloning. Or so the debates have been framed. Additionally, a great deal of human genetic engineering research is also allowed to slip through the loopholes in these Bills.

II. Shortest Summary on Earth

The final Bills that passed in the House (Beard HB-803) and in the Senate (Lentini SB-873) can be found below. Because they are "virtually genetically identical", it is only necessary to give a detailed analysis of one of them. However, a brief partial summary of the history of some of the previous versions of these Bills and their problems is provided first:

For an analysis of the original State of Louisiana human cloning "ban" (2003), please see D. N. Irving, at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_07louisianabill.html.
For an analysis of the two Bills proposed last week --HB-557 (Beard), and HB-803: (Beard) - please see Irving, at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_31louisianagenetic.html. The version that passed the Senate last week (May 17) was SB-782, sponsored by Lentini, and it essentially contains the same errors as Beard's HB-557.
For scientific references documenting comments on the current Bills below, please see D. N. Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning", (October 4, 2003), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html; at http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf; and at http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvplayinggo.pdf and http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvplayinggoappen.pdf.
For examples and suggestions of accurate scientific definitions that could be used in this and related Bills, please see D. N. Irving, "How to build a better human cloning bill or treaty" (March 18, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_24buildcloningbill.html.
For extensive explanations of how such deficient language in these cloning and related Bills can consequently promote much unethical human genetic engineering research, please see D. N. Irving, "State of Delaware human cloning 'ban': Loopholes Form Blueprints for Human Genetic Engineering" (April 14, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_30delawarecloningban1.html.
For an extensive scientific bibliography on human genetic engineering - precisely what is usually allowed to slip through the loopholes in these "bans" please see: Irving, "Scientific references, human genetic engineering (including cloning): Artificial human embryos, oocytes, sperms, chromosomes and genes" (May 25, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html.

III. Analysis of the "Total Ban" on Human cloning: State of Louisiana House Bill 803 (and Senate Bill 873)

Please note especially the formal scientific definitions used in these Bills, and why they are so objectively deficient. The result is that neither of these Bills ban ANY human cloning - not even cloning by means of the SCNT technique. Therefore, every place any of these problematic terms are used in the subsequent parts of the Bills, they will carry the same erroneous definitions - and consequences. (Such terms are "bolded" throughout the Bills below).

Note also that these Bills specifically do not prohibit "IVF research", yet such research often involves cloning by "twinning" (called "embryo multiplication"), by nuclear and pronuclear transfer, as well as most of the common human genetic engineering research currently being performed in the field of "artificial reproductive technology research". Without more strict clarification, this "exception" would provide a huge loophole for extensive human cloning and human genetic engineering to take place - but it would just go under the innocuous name of "IVF research".

These Bills would seem to prohibit human cloning using both private and public funds, but that is not clear from one part of the Bill to another. If only state funds are prohibited from being used, then these Bills are automatically not "total bans" on human cloning. [Please scroll down to the formal definitions to get to the "heart" of the problems].

http://www.legis.state.la.us/leg_docs/04RS/CVT3/OUT/0000LHPQ.PDF
[Taken off official Louisiana government website June 3, 2004.]

HLS 04-1658 ENGROSSED
Regular Session, 2004
HOUSE BILL NO. 803
BY REPRESENTATIVE BEARD
CRIME: Criminalizes human cloning

An Act

To enact Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to be comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.8, and R.S. 37:1285(A)(32), all relative to human cloning; to provide for definitions; to provide for exceptions; to prohibit the expenditure of state funds for the purpose of human cloning; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1. Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to be comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.8 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

Part XIX. Human Cloning

§1299.36. Title

This Act may be known and cited as the "Human Cloning Ban and Adult Stem Cell Research Promotion Act".

§1299.36.1. Legislative intent; findings

A. In order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of this state, it is the intent of the legislature to promote adult stem cell research that offers real cures and not illusory promises, and to ban the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of producing children as well as cloning for research, which always results in the destruction of human embryos when their stem cells are harvested.

B. The legislature finds that:

The state has a compelling interest in promoting research that offers real cures and not illusory promises.
The state also has a compelling interest in ensuring that human beings, at whatever stage of life, are not created for use as raw materials. Cloning for any purpose will compromise women's health, turn their eggs and wombs into commodities and factories and will lead to production of experimental human beings.
Researchers in at least one country have announced the cloning of a human being at the embryonic stage of life by the process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
A cloned human embryo, if implanted in the uterus of a female of reproductive age, can theoretically grow into a newborn baby. The outcome or purpose of cloning in this circumstance is cloning for reproduction. Conversely, a cloned human embryo may be allowed to develop only to the blastocyst stage and then harvested for its stem cells, resulting in the destruction of the cloned human embryo. The outcome or purpose of cloning in this circumstance is cloning for research.
There is no scientific difference between cloning for reproduction and cloning for research. The only difference is the stated purpose for which the cloned human embryo is created. Thus, there are not two distinct scientific processes. There is only one process, human cloning, with two possible outcomes or purposes. Those outcomes or purposes are reproduction or destructive research.
Cloning for research has not produced a single cure or treatment in animal models for any disease, nor has it produced any cures or treatments in human beings.
Adult islet cells have already helped hundreds of patients with juvenile diabetes; this and other avenues that pose no moral problem hold enormous promise for the future.
Promoting research using adult stem cells that have shown real benefits can be achieved by prohibiting cloning of human beings at the embryonic stage of life for both reproduction and destructive research. This safeguards the State's interest in protecting human life and promotes legitimate cure producing research.

§1299.36.2. Definitions

As used in this Part, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) "Asexual production" means human reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.

Note that the term "asexual production" encompasses dozens of scientific techniques that could asexually reproduce new living human embryos, e.g.: nuclear transfer (including somatic and germ line cell), "twinning" (i.e., blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.), parthenogenesis,pronuclei transfer, mitochondrial transfer, DNA-recombinant gene transfer, the use of artificially constructed chromosomes, sperms, oocytes, embryos, etc. Most of these techniques have been used in animal work for the last 25 years, and in human work for the last 10 years. All of them are currently being used in research around the world (see Irving, "Scientific references, human genetic engineering (including cloning): Artificial human embryos, oocytes, sperms, chromosomes and genes" (May 25, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html.) This bill does not cover any of them.

(2) "Human cloning" means human asexual production, by somatic cell nuclear transfer, to produce a living embryo with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution.

Defines "human cloning" ONLY in terms of the SCNT cloning technique. There are dozens of other human cloning techniques. Since the bill does not address them, then they are not banned.
Human cloning by means of nuclear transfer can be accomplished using either diploid somatic cells or diploid germ line cells. Since this bill defines only the use of diploid somatic cells, cloning by means of the nuclear transfer of germ line cells is not banned by this bill. And because this bill defines "cloning" only in terms of the SCNT method, then cloning totipotent primitive germ line cells to reproduced a human embryo would not be banned.
No where is the term "predominantly human" defined in this bill. Therefore, it will be rejected in the courts on the basis of "vagueness".

Note that scientifically the "genome" is not properly defined just in terms of the nuclear DNA, but also in terms of the mitochondrial and other DNA in the cytoplasm (outside the nucleus). That is, the "human genome" is properly defined in terms of the TOTAL DNA in the human cell. Therefore, the "genetic constitution" referred to here would have to be defined in terms of both nuclear DNA and cytoplasmic DNA (including mitochondrial DNA). Thus if either the nuclear or the cytoplasmic DNA is not fully human, then that would also contradict definition (4) below, allow extensive human cloning, and be rejected by the courts due to "vagueness".

(3) "Oocyte" means the human female germ cell (the ovum). Somatic cell means a diploid cell (having a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a living or deceased human being at any stage of development.

It is not clear why two different major definitions are combined into one definition here.

Note also, for purposes below: (1) there is no such thing scientifically as an "ovum"; (2) mature oocytes are DIPLOID - until and unless they are fertilized by a sperm -- and therefore they too can be cloned by nuclear transfer (GLCNT); (3) primitive germ line cells are also DIPLOID, and therefore they too can be cloned by GLCNT; they are also TOTIPOTENT, and therefore can be cloned by "twinning"; (4) once the mature oocyte is fertilized, it is no longer an oocyte, it is AN EMBRYO.

There are two kinds of DIPLOID cells in a human being: somatic and germ line. Because diploid germ line cells are not addressed, then cloning them by nuclear transfer or by "twinning"is not banned by this bill.
Since human chromosomes, pronuclei, nuclei, sperm and oocytes could be (and many already are) artificially constructed, they would not have been "derived from a living or deceased human being", and therefore cloning by means of artificially constructed human molecules and cells would not be banned by this bill. Nor would cloning human/non-human, or human/human chimeras by pronuclei transfer be banned by this bill.
Since the first "stage of development" inferred in the definition of "embryo" below is not clearly at the moment of the penetration of the oocyte by the sperm, then the use of all human embryos (and their parts) existing from penetration until the end of syngamy for all kinds of cloning would not be covered by this bill.

(4) "Somatic cell nuclear transfer" means introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (ovum) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, yielding a product that has a human genetic constitution virtually identical to the donor of the somatic cell.

Defines "human cloning" ONLY in terms of the "SCNT" technique. There are dozens of other human cloning techniques. Since the bill does not address them, then they are not banned.
There is no such thing in human embryology as an "ovum".
Does not specifically address introducing a non-human somatic or germ line cell nucleus into a human or non-human oocyte, and thus it does not ban the use of any cloning techniques to produce human/non-human chimeras.
Human cloning by means of nuclear transfer can be accomplished by transferring the nucleus of either a diploid somatic cell or of a diploid germ line cell. Since this bill defines only the use of diploid somatic cells, cloning by means of using germ line cells is not banned by this bill.
The phrase "virtually identical" contradicts definition (2) above (which refers to a product with a "predominantly human genetic constitution"). Therefore it will be rejected by the courts for "vagueness".
Misdefines the SCNT cloning technique. (1) Because of differences in mitochondrial DNA, the product is NOT "virtually identical"; (2) Because the product is genetically UNIQUE, it is NOT identical to ANY "currently existing or previously existing human being" or donor. Since the bill misdefines SCNT, only that mis-defined cloning technique is prohibited. The real SCNT cloning technique is not banned.

(5) "Embryo" means an organism of the species homo sapiens from the single cell stageto eight weeks development.

The real debate consists of when during the formation of "the single cell stage" (i.e., during the process of fertilization OR of cloning) a new human being begins to exist. If one argues that the embryo begins at syngamy, then almost none of the aforementioned asexual human reproductive techniques are banned by this bill. If one argues that the embryo begins to exist with the mingling of the chromosomes from the pronuclei before syngamy, then some but not all such research is banned by this bill. If one argues that the embryo begins with the penetration of the oocyte by the sperm (or, in cloning, with the activation of the "reconstructed oocyte" after nuclear transfer), then none of the aforementioned asexually human reproductive techniques are banned by this bill.
Misdefines the end of the "embryonic period", which is accurately designated to be at the END of 8 weeks. Therefore, the use of human embryos during their entire 8th week of development are NOT covered by this bill. This observation needs to be understood in the context of many efforts to change the definitions of both the embryonic period and the fetal period in order to squeeze more research time through the cracks. Indeed, the current OHRP federal regulations define "fetus" as beginning at implantation (5-7 days post fertilization/cloning) - which is absurd. The fetal period begins at the beginning of 9 weeks. By such a definition, there is NO EMBRYO or EMBRYONIC PERIOD - period. Similarly, the Delaware bill attempts to redefine the "fetus" as beginning to exist well back into the embryonic period. From the other end of development, false scientific terms such as "pre-embryo" (formally rejected by the International Nomina Embryologica Committee) hold that before implantation there is no "embryo" there, simply a "pre-embryo" or, the latest substitute -- just "stem cells". Another effort (scientifically rejected for over 50 years) appeals to the defunct "biogenetics law", which claims that there is actually no HUMAN BEING there at all until some point late in fetal development. All such efforts at redefinitions in bills - which would have the legal effect of allowing all sorts of unethical research - need to be kept in mind when wondering why such simple well-established embryological definitions are so deceptively worded in these bills.

(6) "Fetus" means an organism of the species homo sapiens from eight weeks development until complete expulsion or extraction from a woman's body, or removal from an artificial womb or other similar environment designed to nurture the development of such organism.

Scientifically misdefines the "fetal period" (see above definition of "embryo"). The fetal period does not begin until the beginning of 9 weeks. Note too the admission of the use of artificial wombs. Hopefully "other similar environments" would include gestation in the wombs (or bodies) of non-human animals (e.g., monkeys, apes, orangutans, etc.), but since these are not "artificially constructed", they probably would not be covered by this bill.

§1299.36.3. Cloning of human beings; purchase or sale of ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning human beings, prohibited.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, to intentionally or knowingly do any of the following:

Perform or attempt to perform human cloning.
Participate in an attempt to perform human cloning.
Transfer, ship, or receive for any purpose a human embryo produced by human cloning, or any product derived from such human embryo.
Import for any purpose a human embryo produced by human cloning, or any product derived from such human embryo.

B. No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus with the intent to perform or attempt to perform human cloning.

C. Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than ten million dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or both.

§1299.36.4. Adult stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and other cell-based therapies not prohibited.

Nothing in this statute shall restrict areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this statute, including in vitro fertilization, the administration of fertility enhancing drugs, research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans, or cells other than human embryos.

This is often seemingly the most innocuous part of these bills, yet allows extensive human cloning and human genetic engineering to go forward unencumbered. As it states, this section makes it clear that if research is not specifically articulated by this bill then the bill does not apply to it - hence, it is allowed.
Note that extensive human genetic engineering and cloning is being performed in IVF facilities using private funds. "IVF research" IS human embryo research (as is cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell research, etc.). "IVF research" was inadvertently allowed with the passage of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, as was "fetal tissue transplant research" - note that totipotent and/or diploid germ line cells are considered "fetal tissue", and thus these cells can be used in both human cloning and human genetic engineering research. This "exception" thus allows extensive human cloning and human genetic engineering research.
Much of the research involving human genetic research involves human cloning. Such research does not involve whole human cells, but rather PARTS of human cells, or "molecules" - either natural or artificially reproduced. DNA is, precisely, a "molecule", and a cell nucleus is a "part" of a cell. Thus the phrase "to produce molecules," DNA, tissues, organs" can be used to sanction such research. (See Irving, "Scientific references: Human genetic engineering; Artificial embryos, oocytes, sperms, chromosomes and genes", cited above).
This section would not apply to the production of human/non-human chimeras, human/human chimeras, or to the production of transgenic animals (one kind of human/non-human chimeras). Thus such research is not banned by this bill.

§1299.36.5. Administrative penalties

A. For a violation of R. S. 40:1299.36.3, the secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals may, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, R.S. 49:950, et seq., order the levy of an administrative penalty as follows:

If the violator is a legal entity, including but not limited to a corporation, firm, clinic, hospital, laboratory, or research facility, a penalty of not more than ten million dollars or the application amount under Subsection B of this Section, whichever is greater.
If the violator is an individual, a penalty of not more than five million dollars or the applicable amount under Subsection B of this Section, whichever is greater.

B. If any person derives pecuniary gain from a violation of R.S. 40:1299.36.3, the person shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than an amount equal to the amount of gross gain multiplied by two.

§1299.36.6. Violation constitutes unprofessional conduct; employment restrictions

A. A violation of this Part, relating to human cloning, constitutes unprofessional conduct and shall result in the permanent revocation of each license and permit issued pursuant to R.S. 37:1261, et seq.

B. A violation of this Part shall provide, in addition to Subsection (A) of this Section, the basis for disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to R.S. 37:1261, et seq.

C. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a violation of this Part shall be the basis for denying an application for, or an application for the renewal of any license, permit, or certificate required by this state, or the granting of a conditional license, permit, or certificate required by this state, or any department, office, agency, or board of the state in order to practice or engage in a trade, occupation, or profession.

§1299.36.7. Use of state funds prohibited

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, state funds shall not be used to perform or attempt to perform human cloning.

B. Subsection A of this Section does not prohibit the use of state funds for scientific research or cell-based therapies not specifically prohibited by this Part as designated in R.S. 40:1299.36.4.

C. A person who violates this Section shall be subject to a fine of ten million dollars.

§1299.36.8. Use of health facility or agency for human cloning prohibited; penalties

A. A health facility or agency shall not allow any individual to perform or attempt to perform human cloning in a facility owned or operated by the health facility or agency.

B. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a health facility or agency from allowing an individual from engaging in scientific research or a cell-based therapy not specifically prohibited by this Part as designated in R.S. 40:1299.36.4.

C. A health facility or agency that violates this Section shall be subject to administrative penalties provided by law for that facility or agency and to a fine of ten million dollars and loss of each license granted by law to the facility or agency.

Section 2. R.S. 37:1285(A)(32) is hereby enacted to read as follows:

§1285. Causes for nonissuance; suspension; revocation; or the imposition of restrictions; fines, reinstatement; publication of action; stays

A. The board may refuse to issue, or may suspend or revoke any license or permit, or impose probationary or other restrictions on any license or permit issued under this Part for the following causes:

(32) A violation of Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.8.

Section 3. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.

IV. State of Louisiana Senate Bill 873 (Lentini)

Note: Because this Senate bill on human cloning is "virtually genetically identical" to the House bill addressed above, there is no need to detail the same errors. This bill too will ban no human cloning - and, it will allow extensive human genetic engineering research as well. - DNI.

[Taken off official Louisiana government website June 3, 2004.] http://www.legis.state.la.us/leg_docs/04RS/CVT1/OUT/0000LLZ2.PDF

SLS 04-1416 REENGROSSED
Regular Session, 2004
SENATE BILL NO. 873 (Substitute for Senate Bill No. 782 by Senator Lentini)
BY SENATOR LENTINI
CRIME/PUNISHMENT. Criminalizes human cloning. (gov sig)

An Act

To enact Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to be comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.7, and R.S. 37:1285(A)(32), all relative to human cloning; to provide for definitions; to prohibit the expenditure of state funds for the purpose of human cloning; to provide for penalties; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1. Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to be comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.7 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

Part VXIX. Human Cloning

This Act may be known and cited as the "Human Cloning Ban and Adult Stem Cell Research Promotion Act."

§1299.36.1. Definitions

As used in this Part, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) "Asexual production" means human reproduction not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.

(2) "Human cloning" means human asexual production, by somatic cell nuclear transfer, to produce a living embryo with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution.

(5) "Embryo" means an organism of the species homo sapiens from the single cell stage to eight weeks development.

§1299.36.2. Cloning of human beings; purchase or sale of ovum, zygote, embryo or fetus for the purpose of cloning human beings, prohibited

A. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, to intentionally or knowingly do any of the following:

Perform or attempt to perform human cloning.
Participate in an attempt to perform human cloning.
Transfer, ship, or receive for any purpose a human embryo produced by human cloning, or any product derived from such human embryo.
Import for any purpose a human embryo produced by human cloning, or any product derived from such human embryo.

B. No person shall purchase or sell an ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus with the intent to perform or attempt to perform human cloning.

C. Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than ten million dollars or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years, or both.

§1299.36.3. Adult stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and other cell-based therapies not prohibited

§1299.36.4. Administrative penalties

A. For a violation of R. S. 40:1299.36.2, the secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals may, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, R.S. 49:950, et seq., order the levy of an administrative penalty as follows:

If the violator is a legal entity other than an individual, including but not limited to a corporation, firm, clinic, hospital, laboratory, or research facility, a penalty of not more than ten million dollars or the applicable amount under Subsection B of this Section, whichever is greater.
If the violator is an individual, a penalty of not more than five million dollars or the applicable amount under Subsection B of this Section, whichever is greater.

B. If any person derives pecuniary gain from a violation of R.S. 40:1299.36.2, the person shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than an amount equal to the amount of gross gain multiplied by two.

§1299.36.5. Violation constitutes unprofessional conduct; employment restrictions

B. A violation of this Part shall provide, in addition to Subsection A of this Section, the basis for disciplinary action deemed appropriate by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to R.S. 37:1261, et seq.

§1299.36.6. Use of state funds prohibited

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, state funds shall not be used to perform or attempt to perform human cloning.

B. Subsection A of this Section does not prohibit the use of state funds for scientific research or cell-based therapies not specifically prohibited by this Part as designated in R.S. 40:1299.36.3.

C. A person who violates this Section shall be subject to a fine of ten million dollars.

§1299.36.7. Use of health facility or agency for human cloning prohibited; penalties

A. A health facility or agency shall not allow any individual to perform or attempt to perform human cloning in a facility owned or operated by the health facility or agency.

Section 2. R.S. 37:1285(A)(32) is hereby enacted to read as follows:

§1285. Causes for nonissuance; suspension; revocation; or the imposition of restrictions; fines, reinstatement; publication of action; stays

(32) A violation of Part XIX of Chapter 5 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 40:1299.36 through 1299.36.7.

Section 3. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.

Top