Cloning Laws in the United States 2020
State Rep. Karilyn Brown sponsored the bill, saying that while state laws already prohibit this type of research, it fills a loophole in state dollars used outside the state. California. Cloning to produce children is illegal in California, while cloning for biomedical research purposes is protected by the state constitution and funded by a state agency. The state initially passed a cloning law in 1997 that amended its health and safety code to make “human cloning” illegal.  The Law defines cloning as “the practice of creating a human being or attempting to create a human being by transferring the nucleus of a human cell from any source into a human egg whose nucleus has been removed in order to implant or implant the resulting product to initiate pregnancy, which could lead to the birth of a human being.”  The 1997 Act contained a sunset clause under which the Act would expire on January 1, 2003.  A state law enacted in 2001 prohibits human cloning, which defines it as “the creation or attempt to create a human being by transferring the nucleus of a human cell from any source to an egg whose nucleus has been removed.”  According to this definition, the law appears to prohibit all forms of human cloning. Is cloning a thing of the past, its moment in the spotlight, does it come and go? If so, why? There are precedents under the commercial clause for national regulation of reproductive activities. In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which restricts activists` ability to protest near abortion clinics.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the law, rejecting the argument that “Congress did not have the power to regulate activities involving reproductive health services” and concluded that “the finding that reproductive health facilities operate in interstate commerce is rational,” since these clinics “obviously purchase property from other states, use and distribute”.
 This justification would also apply to human cloning. Another relevant precedent is the Ban on Abortion at Partial Birth Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003.  New York. New York law does not directly prohibit cloning to produce children or cloning for biomedical research. In 2007, the state created the Empire State Stem Cell Board, an agency that controls state spending on stem cell research. The council is prohibited from funding research on “reproductive cloning”.  In 2009, the Council decided to authorize funding for stem cell line research from embryos produced with eggs paid for by researchers.  Indiana`s cloning law is somewhat ambiguous, as it is primarily directed against state hospitals and educational institutions. Researchers at a private university, biotechnology company or assisted reproduction clinic who are not licensed as a hospital cannot have legal consequences for cloning for biomedical research purposes or cloning to produce children.
How about some kind of procreative star wars cloning? What kind of cloning do real people do? A dozen of them prohibit reproductive cloning, but most do not. Another mechanism that could implement a national ban on cloning would be for the federal government to withhold certain forms of funding from states that operate or do not prohibit human cloning. Congress has used its purchasing power in this way to achieve a wide range of policy goals, the most famous being to create a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour  and a national minimum age for buying or possessing alcohol.  Such restrictions must serve the common good, must be unambiguous, must be constitutional, must not be coercive, and must be reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure.  And then there`s CRISPR, the new kid on the block. After Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier and their colleagues exposed the potential use of CRISPR as a TOOL for DNA editing in June 2012, visions of processed embryos and superbabys danced in their heads. The revelation in late November 2018 that Chinese scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR to successfully edit embryos that led to the birth of two babies (a third was added a few months later) diverted attention from cloning. Why settle for a simple genetic copy of a living person when you could try to create a new and improved version? During the first wave of debate on cloning in the late 1990s, Senator Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa) argued that there were no “adequate limits to human knowledge.” .