Stem Cell Showdown

[Superman]

You guys can be boring at times.

Dubya the Brave has signaled his inclination to draw a line in the sand on stem cell research. It's another one of those divisive issues on which the conservatives are divided, or at least one which divides the conservatives against the majority of voters in America. So to begin with, it's an unfortunate issue to become intractable on, if you are a savvy politician.

And it's even more interesting now that we know the initial Senate vote was not more than four votes away from over-ride level.

It sounds as if Dubya has noticed a spot on his face that lacks an egg coating. This might be amusing to track. As many of you can correctly guess, I'm not so interested in the issue as I am interested in continuing to demonstrate to the world that we don't really trust cowardly, ignorant, warmongering dolts to run our nation.

Does anyone have a comment to share?

[cmccuist]

There are no limitations on stem cell researth. What are you talking about?

There are restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. The US government writes a lot of checks for a lot of stupid projects, but this fantasy is not one of them.

You are free to cure cancer, baldness, the common cold and post nasal drip. You just can't do it on the governments dime.

[Superman]

BTW, did I hear someone opine that stem cell research is theoretical? That would be someone who has not been reading about SCR. That technology is being used today, with incredible results. The real problem is the potential this technology has for the deliberate "harvesting" of embryonic humans as a source of stem cells.

Does anybody read?

Well anyway, back to my thought. I think Dubya is good at picking losers. I wonder if there is any goal he has adopted and then achieved. If he vetoes this bill, there is an excellent chance he will get his ass kicked.

[legion]

Have you read that this is really just a bailout for some venture capitalists who invested in the technology years ago, realized it is going nowhere, and now are looking for the federal government to foot the bill while they withdraw their capital?

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by Superman
Well anyway, back to my thought. I think Dubya is good at picking losers. I wonder if there is any goal he has adopted and then achieved. If he vetoes this bill, there is an excellent chance he will get his ass kicked.

He cut taxes and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. As far as getting his ass kicked, if he vetoes this bill, I predict he wont get reelected.

That's what second termers do! They go after "unpopular" issues because they don't have to worry about getting reelected. That's why Clinton pardoned all the criminals.

Also, the only loser he picked was Norman Mineta, who ranks right up there with Gore, Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis and Hillarycare in the pantheon of great losers.

[Moneyguy1]

Am I correct in stating that this will be his first use of the veto?

If so, this is interesting in itself. At least it is better than declaring that a law will be enacted and enforced "only if I feel like it". (or something like that, to appease the nitpickers who make a big deal about precise wording such as "mission accomplished" being a banner rather than uttered)

[kang]

Yes, it’s his first veto. He calls it immoral.

The thing is, this bill specifically states that you must use embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. I don’t see anything immoral with this. In fact, it could be called immoral to waste them when they could be used to further the research that could help others.

[RoninLB]

this is another social issue like gun control, gay marriage, and abortions. There is no bottom line hard answer that satisfies everyone.

It's another political loser as politicians seek 100% appeasement.

[Superman]

Originally posted by RoninLB
this is another social issue like gun control, gay marriage, and abortions. There is no bottom line hard answer that satisfies everyone.

It's another political loser as politicians seek 100% appeasement.

Yup. Once again, Dubya has picked a sure loser. Brilliant tactician.

Oh, and it looks like we have another person who gets their news only from certain sources, and who things it's all gubmit's fault. Consider expanding your reading on Stem Cell Research if someone has convinced you that technology is not promising.

[RallyJon]

It is an issue like gun control, gay marriage, and abortions. But the key characteristic is that you lose a very small number of votes if you take one position, but a critical group of hard-core zealots will vote for you if you take the other position. Politicians--and especially Republicans--love these types of asymmetrical issues.

The fact is, that the people who support abortion rights, stem cell research, etc. are intelligent enough to realize that they are minor issues in the overall picture of choosing for whom to vote.

Those who oppose these issues are far narrower minded--far more likely to make voting decisions based on one or two simple positions.

Easy choice for a conservative Republican. Yes, brilliant tactician.

[Moneyguy1]

A statement that Stem Sell research is not promising is another sound byte from partisan sources.

If all life is so precious, why do we develop sera and vaccines that kill microbial life or why do we swat flies and kill cockroaches?

Just trying to get a handle on what is precious, who declares that it is, and how do we categorize?

[RoninLB]

you can't win a national election without firm support of the party's base.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by cmccuist
There are no limitations on stem cell researth. What are you talking about?

There are restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. The US government writes a lot of checks for a lot of stupid projects, but this fantasy is not one of them.

You are free to cure cancer, baldness, the common cold and post nasal drip. You just can't do it on the governments dime.

You have to understand the liberal mindset to answer your questions, Craig. In their curious little world, limits on Federal funding = limits on stem cell research. If they cannot get the taxpayer to fund their pet programs, they have little hope of funding them whatsoever. In the past many have been so dubious as to simply not be able to attract private funding, even from the wealthy within their own ranks. So their Pavlov dog-like reaction is to run to the Federal teat, and strong-arm the public into paying.

I'm not saying stem cell research falls into this catagory. It does merit further study. Many of us, however, have become leary of the latest science de jour. This may very well turn out to be the real deal, but we have been led down so many blind alleys by these folks that many of us would like to see more solid evidence before committing Federal dollars down another rat hole.

Dubya, like any last term President, does not have to impress the political pundits, the press, or anyone else. He has the luxury of being able to simply ignore the shrill (and clueless) cries for money. Unlike his predecessor, he appears to want to use his immunity for the greater good, even if it is unpopular among the sheep. While the clowns in the Congress have made their own bed on this, and need to now sleep in it to get re-elected, Dubya stands appart as the one man in Washington that can still apply reason to his decision. And he will. He is not bound by the emotion-driven sentiments of his opposition. An opposition, by the way, that bases many of its positions on the position taken by Dubya. They simply take note of what he supports or opposes, and take the opposing position. They often put no more thought into it than that. This is one of those times.

[RoninLB]

If any research project was justifiable to current reality gov't spending is not necessary as the capital markets creates winners and losers.

[cmccuist]

You know, I'm not even against embryonic stem cell research. But why should the government fund it? If it was that promising, wouldn't the pharmiceutical companies get on board. Government funded programs are never as efficient as the private sector because once the program is funded, the congressman who's district is benefitting will try to keep those votes by continuing the flow of cash.

It's such a ridiculous situation with this embryonic stem cell funding. If you're not for government funding, you must be a religious zealot. What nonsense!

Hey, I don't want to spend any more government money on naming museums after the Grand Wizard Robert Byrd. Does that mean I hate hillbillies?!?

I don't think so.

[kang]

Originally posted by RoninLB
If any research project was justifiable to current reality gov't spending is not necessary as the capital markets creates winners and losers.

I’m not sure I agree with this, although I see your point. The problem is that the capital markets want instant results. They need to show a profit relatively quickly. This is why the government needs to fund longer term projects. One example would be the space program. Countless advances have come out of the space program, but you don’t see them, nor do you see the profit potential, at the beginning of the project. The government is the only entity that can fund such projects.

[Nathans_Dad]

I'm not against stem cell research, but I think it is important to talk about the facts of this bill vs the hyperbole. This bill was to increase federal funding for stem cell research. The veto of this bill does not outlaw stem cell research or restrict it. What it does is not increase federal funding for the research. Private entities and states are still more than welcome to fund stem cell research (as California has done already).

Interesting that we all bash Bush for his runaway spending and then bash him when he vetoes a bill that would increase spending...

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by cmccuist
You know, I'm not even against embryonic stem cell research. But why should the government fund it? If it was that promising, wouldn't the pharmaceutical companies get on board. Government funded programs are never as efficient as the private sector because once the program is funded, the congressman who's district is benefiting will try to keep those votes by continuing the flow of cash.

The pharmaceutical companies don't give a rats a$$ about healing people only making money. If they had the cure for cancer but there was more money to be made treating cancer the cure would never be released.

[Moneyguy1]

I think of people like Jonas Salk. He did help eradicate a fearful disease and the pharm companies profited, but the point is the good that was done.

If cures were found thru embryonic research, the companies would make them available, but the cost for the patient would be high. Perhaps for those with no other hope, the cost would be acceptable.

Whether public or private research, the following must be considered: Some are deciding when "human life" begins and have no rational basis upon which to make this decision. No Holy Book defines human existence as beginning prior to fertilization. Is a human complete without contribution from two parents? I do not know the answer. The puzzle becomes more confusing re: the so-called sanctity of life. Whose life is more important? The mother or the developing embryo? Who makes that decision? What would be done with these unwanted embryos anyway? Are they not scheduled to be destroyed? If so, what is the point of the veto? And, when it comes to cost, wouldn't it be better to spend some government funds on medical research rather than a huge bridge in Alaska?

I do not have the answers either. It is a polarizing subject like most other recent issues, based on emotion rather than thoughtful analysis. If this approach to government based on emotion,belief and calculated cynicism rather than what the majority wants, then we, as a society, are doomed.

[Scooter]

At least Bush holds strong to his principles.

From CNN today:

"Bush vetoes embryonic stem-cell bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday used his veto power for the first time since taking office 5 1/2 years ago, saying that a embryonic stem-cell research bill "crossed a moral boundary."

The bill, which the Senate passed Tuesday, 63-37, would have loosened the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research.

House Republican leaders have said they would try for an override vote on the measure, but it's unlikely to pass, lacking the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

Attending the White House event were a group of families with children who were born from "adopted" frozen embryos that had been left unused at fertility clinics.

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said of the children in the audience. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells."

The measure, which the House of Representatives passed in May 2005, allows couples who have had embryos frozen for fertility treatments to donate them to researchers rather than let them be destroyed.

Bush said, "If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I'm not going to allow it."

In August 2001, Bush announced that his administration would allow federal funding only for research on about 60 stem-cell lines that existed at the time. Researchers have since found that many of those lines are contaminated and unusable for research.

Scientists say stem cells could be a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, strokes, burns and more.

The issue has split the Republican Party, with Bush siding with the Catholic Church and social conservatives against the GOP's more moderate voices. (Watch how the issue pits Bush against some Republicans -- 1:30)

The Senate bill's principal sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who recently survived a brush with cancer, was joined by Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a physician who argued that Bush's policy is too restrictive.

"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," Frist said in a statement. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

Also in a statement, Lawrence T. Smith, chairman of the American Diabetes Association, called the veto "a devastating setback for the 20.8 million American children and adults with diabetes -- and those who love and care for them."

Opponents argue that other alternatives, such as adult stem cells, are available. Two companion bills -- one to promote alternative means of developing stem-cell lines from sources such as placental blood and another to ban the commercial production of human fetal tissue, also known as "fetal farming" -- passed the Senate in 100-0 votes.

On Tuesday evening, the House approved the "fetal farming" bill 425-0 but didn't pass the measure promoting alternative stem-cell sources when backers failed to achieve the two-thirds majority that House rules required. The vote on the alternative-sources bill was 273-154.

Bush signed the "fetal farming" legislation and urged Congress to fund alternative research.

"I'm disappointed that the House failed to authorize funding for this vital and ethical research," he said. "It makes no sense to say that you're in favor of finding cures for terrible diseases as quickly as possible and then block a bill that would authorize funding for promising and ethical stem-cell research."

A House GOP aide said that the leadership would bring the funding bill back to the floor at another time under a different set of rules that would require a simple majority to pass the measure."