Fiscal Note & Local Impact Statement
127 th General Assembly of Ohio
|
BILL: |
DATE: |
|||||
|
STATUS: |
SPONSOR: |
|||||
|
LOCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT REQUIRED: |
|
|||||
|
STATE FUND |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
General Revenue Fund (GRF) |
|||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
Potential minimal increase |
|
Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 4020) |
|||
|
Revenues |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
Potential negligible gain |
|
Expenditures |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
- 0 - |
Note: The state
fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
For example, FY 2008 is July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008.
·
As
of this writing, it appears, that the number of alleged violations of the
bill's prohibition that would be investigated and prosecuted annually will be
relatively small. Assuming that were
true, then the number of offenders that might be sentenced to prison annually
for such a violation will likely be extremely small, which means that any
related increase in the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's GRF-funded
incarceration costs would be minimal at most.
·
It
also is possible that the state will gain locally collected state court costs
that are deposited to the credit of the GRF and the Victims of
Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 4020). If,
as previously suggested, the number of violators of the bill's prohibition
annually statewide will likely be extremely small, then the amount of court
cost revenue that would be gained by either state fund is likely to be
negligible per year.
|
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
FY 2008 |
FY 2009 |
FUTURE YEARS |
|
|
Counties |
||||
|
Revenues |
Potential gain |
Potential gain |
Potential gain |
|
|
Expenditures |
Potential increase |
Potential increase |
Potential increase |
|
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
·
If
one assumes that investigations and subsequent prosecutions of alleged
violations of the bill's prohibition will generally be rare, then the
associated costs for most county criminal justice systems would not be
significant. There is always, however,
the possibility that a given case could be quite complex and expensive, but
these cannot be predicted with any reliability. It is also difficult to predict if and when a given county might
actually collect a pecuniary gain-based fine of $250,000 or more.
|
|
The bill defines "human
cloning" as the creation of a human zygote, human blastocyst, or human
embryo by any means other than the fertilization of a human egg by human
sperm. With one exception, the bill
prohibits any person or governmental entity from knowingly performing or
attempting to perform human cloning, participating in the performance or
attempted performance of human cloning, or sending or receiving an embryo that
is produced by human cloning or any product derived from that embryo. This prohibition does not restrict the areas
of scientific research that do not involve the creation or use of a human
embryo produced by human cloning or any product derived from a human embryo
produced by human cloning. The areas of
research that are not restricted by this prohibition include, but are not
limited to, the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce
molecules, DNA, tissues, organs, plants, animals other than humans, or cells
other than human embryos.
A violation of the cloning
prohibition could result in a term of imprisonment of not more than two
years. If pecuniary gains are derived,
the violator could be subject to a fine of not less than $250,000, or if the
pecuniary gain is more than $250,000, not more than twice the amount of the
gross pecuniary gain.
As of this writing, it
appears, that the number of alleged violations of the bill's prohibition that
would be investigated and prosecuted annually will be relatively small. Assuming that were true, then the number of
offenders that might be sentenced to prison annually for such a violation will
likely be extremely small, which means that any related increase in the
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's GRF-funded incarceration costs
would be minimal at most.
It also is possible that the
state will gain locally collected state court costs that are deposited to the
credit of the GRF and the Victims of Crime/Reparations Fund (Fund 4020). If, as previously suggested, the number of
violators of the bill's prohibition annually statewide will likely be extremely
small, then the amount of court cost revenue that would be gained by either
state fund is likely to be negligible per year.
If one assumes that
investigations and subsequent prosecutions of alleged violations of the bill's
prohibition will generally be rare, then the associated costs for most county
criminal justice systems would not be significant. There is always, however, the possibility that a given case could
be quite complex and expensive, but these cannot be predicted with any
reliability. It is also difficult to
predict if and when a given county might actually collect a pecuniary
gain-based fine of $250,000 or more.
It is unclear at this time
how the investigative process would proceed.
The very nature of the offense would appear to create certain
difficulties for local criminal justice officials charged with the
responsibility of conducting the investigation and subsequent prosecution. If these local criminal justice officials
received a complaint concerning human cloning, it is uncertain whether those
officials would have the resources, including the requisite specialized
expertise, needed to handle such matters.
Lastly,
according to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) web site,
"the FDA has the authority to regulate medical products, including
biological products, drugs, and devices.
The use of cloning technology to clone a human being would be subject to
both the biologics provisions of the Public Health Service Act and the drug and
device provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." As such, human cloning is subject to FDA
regulation. Researchers would be forced
to submit an investigational new drug application to the FDA before research
would be allowed to proceed. Since
there are still questions regarding the safety of human cloning, it is unlikely that the FDA would allow any
human cloning research to be conducted at this time.[1] If human cloning research was conducted in
Ohio, it is likely that the FDA would become involved in the investigation.
LSC fiscal staff: Wendy Risner, Senior Budget Analyst
Joe Rogers, Senior Budget Analyst