Chapters 6 and 7 explained that federal and state lawmakers believe human reproductive cloning should be banned. However, anticloning laws do far more than ban the use of a disfavored technology. The laws also reflect a policy of existential segregation; that is, they are intended to prevent the birth and existence of human clones. Four factors lead me to this conclusion.

First, consider the language and impact of anticloning laws. The 2003 Weldon and Hatch bills did not become law, but they merit close examination; both will serve as templates for the next round of proposals to ban cloning at the federal level.

The 2003 Weldon bill made it a crime for any person to perform or participate in human cloning. The bill defined “human cloning” as human asexual reproduction accomplished by introducing nuclear material from a somatic cell into an egg “so as to produce a living organism (at any stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.” This language was broad enough to prevent scientists from creating and experimenting on cloned human embryos. More importantly for our purposes, however, the language made it a crime to produce a living organism at any stage of development. Thus, it is logical to infer that this language was designed to deter and prevent the birth of human clones.

As noted in Chapter 6, the 2003 Weldon bill also made it a crime to import the “product” of cloned embryos.