S. 1520, whose text is here, is entitled The Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005. Sounds good, huh? It's not.
By reading the language of the "cloning ban" you can easily see that it doesn't ban human cloning at all. It merely bans and provides penalties for the implantation of a human clone in a uterus or a uterus like device.
How do they get around calling a piece of legislation a "human cloning ban" when it doesn't ban human cloning? That's easy. Just create a new and completely inaccurate definition for the term "human cloning."
The term `human cloning' means implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.
Isn't it interesting how that language is eerily familiar to the language that Illinois governor Rod Blagoveich used in his executive order to allow tax dollars to pay for human cloning research. More on that here.
As used in this Executive Order, "cloning of a human being" means asexual human reproduction by implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a woman's uterus to initiate a human pregnancy.
What's next? Why not define "human cloning" as the "human gestation of a product of nuclear transplantation past 6 months" or the "live birth of an unfertilized fetus via a human uterus."
S. 1520 bill is also nearly identical to another bill, S. 876, that is also co-sponsored by Feinstein and Hatch and was introduced in April. The old bill S. 876 contained "ethical requirements" for "nuclear transplantation" (human cloning) research including rules against maintaining embryos more than 14 days after their first cell division. This new bill does not. This bill would claim to ban human cloning while allowing human cloning to take place without any kind of guidelines except that a human clone can't be implanted.