6-20-2007: President Bush vetoes federal human embryonic stem cell measure

[hellokeith]

Link

Summary to hopefully quell some of the knee-jerk lib reactions:

* States can fund it, up to them. Bad idea, but I support states rights until we get an admendment protecting unborn children / overturn Roe v. Wade.
* Existing lines are not affected, Bush allowed research on those in 2001. I disagreed with him on that, but at least he's doing the right thing now.
* Actual real-life results have come from other stem cell research, so the "promise" of embryonic stem cell research is purely theoretical.
* Scientists have recently done experiments in mice which yeilded the undifferentiated cells, without having to tamper with embryonic cells.

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president's decision.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

To blunt criticism, the White House said Bush is issuing an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that ? like human embryonic stem cells ? also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.

"This is, certainly not an attempt to muzzle science," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "It is an attempt, I think, to respect people's conscience on such an issue."

If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history ? to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. Snow said Bush's executive order will encourage scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines ? that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos ? to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.

"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Opponents of the latest stem cell measure insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds ? and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically. These opponents, who applaud Bush's veto, cite breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.

This was the third veto of Bush's presidency. His first occurred last year when he rejected legislation to allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells ? a measure that passed over the objections of Republicans then in control. The second legislation he vetoed would have set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

My only real comment is that the two conservative supreme court nominations + 2 vetoes on human embryonic stem cell federal funding = worth the 2 votes I gave to Bush. He really let us down on the sanctity of marriage, but I'll take the better with the bad.

 

[zinfamous]

10 years later, The US is lagging in 4th place in international research funding and development, 5th in quality healthcare...while certain sections are even lobbyin gto re-declare that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our planet.

Thanks for your worthless vote (and all those like you). While this mentality is that of Mideval serf, you simply won't be able to stop progress. His vetos do nothing but delay progress, and hurt this contry economically and intellectualy.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
sanctity of marriage

Whenever I hear this line I can't help but laugh my ass off.:laugh:

 

[teiresias]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
[He really let us down on the sanctity of marriage, but I'll take the better with the bad.

Yeah, he really should have pushed harder on that Constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce.

 

[Kwaipie]

Sanctity of marriage.

That is such a moronic idea. You obviously have no clue regarding the historical basis of marriage. What idiot taught you about the sanctity of marriage?

I'm also impressed with brain dead people trying to address science's failings by referring to ideas as "theoretical" I'll tell you what, get an education, then you'll be allowed to post ridicule-free.

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link

Summary to hopefully quell some of the knee-jerk lib reactions:

* States can fund it, up to them. Bad idea, but I support states rights until we get an admendment protecting unborn children / overturn Roe v. Wade.
* Existing lines are not affected, Bush allowed research on those in 2001. I disagreed with him on that, but at least he's doing the right thing now.
* Actual real-life results have come from other stem cell research, so the "promise" of embryonic stem cell research is purely theoretical.
* Scientists have recently done experiments in mice which yeilded the undifferentiated cells, without having to tamper with embryonic cells.

My only real comment is that the two conservative supreme court nominations + 2 vetoes on human embryonic stem cell federal funding = worth the 2 votes I gave to Bush. He really let us down on the sanctity of marriage, but I'll take the better with the bad.

Wow.

There's this place called the middle ground. I suggest you visit it sometime.

 

[fskimospy]

This has always seemed like a strange line of argument for me. I can't see how people can possibly make a credible claim that they view embryos as full human life because their actions don't support these claims. Denying federal funding for something stands up for the sanctity of human life? So it's okay to hang someone in my garage as long as the government didn't buy the noose?

It just seems that if people truly regarded this as the murder they claim they would not be willing to stand around and watch it happen so long as it doesn't use their money. Does this mean that they lack the courage of their convictions in order to really rise up and stop millions upon millions of murders? Or does it mean that they don't actually believe these embryos are quite as human as they claim they are?

I personally have zero care for embryos myself, and would love to see them experimented on all day long though, so maybe I just don't get it.

 

[Ryan]

Why care about the unborn when we don't even care about the living in this country? Personhood arguments are will never decide this issue, as the debate on whether a clump of cells is a person, or when that transition happens is too vague to be defined.

For me, the only logical step is to evaluate the concerns of the mother - she endures the burden of childbirth - she makes the choice. As much as I may not agree with the decision, I will not allow my moral considerations to affect her choice. Act by your own principles, and allow others to do just the same.

 

[First]

Ignoring the topic of this thread for a second, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It won't even come close. It has been 34 years since Roe, you'll just have to move on.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
10 years later, The US is lagging in 4th place in international research funding and development, 5th in quality healthcare...while certain sections are even lobbyin gto re-declare that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our planet.

Are you trying to out-stupid the OP?

 

[senseamp]

Why let the overwhelming will of the American people to support such research get in the way of personal religious views?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ignoring the topic of this thread for a second, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It won't even come close. It has been 34 years since Roe, you'll just have to move on.

Overturning Roe v Wade by amendment is every super-hardcore Christian's wet dream. They'll never let go.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ignoring the topic of this thread for a second, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It won't even come close. It has been 34 years since Roe, you'll just have to move on.

Overturning Roe v Wade by amendment is every super-hardcore Christian's wet dream. They'll never let go.

Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned at the federal level, it would return to the states, granted, Alabama and Mississippi would outlaw abortion, hell, you can't even buy a dildo in Alabama but the vast majority of other states would still allow it.

 

[senseamp]

It's nice to know that the discarded embryos will now be flushed down the toilet in peace and unmolested by those pesky stem cell researchers.
Why should perfectly good fish food be used to cure diseases?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: zinfamous
10 years later, The US is lagging in 4th place in international research funding and development, 5th in quality healthcare...while certain sections are even lobbyin gto re-declare that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our planet.

Are you trying to out-stupid the OP?

in fairness, the idea of a round earth is just a theory

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
10 years later, The US is lagging in 4th place in international research funding and development, 5th in quality healthcare...while certain sections are even lobbyin gto re-declare that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our planet.

Thanks for your worthless vote (and all those like you). While this mentality is that of Mideval serf, you simply won't be able to stop progress. His vetos do nothing but delay progress, and hurt this contry economically and intellectualy.

Some clarification and linkage on the 4th place R&D would be nice

As to clarification, is 4th in stem cell research, or overall medical R&D?

As for me, look it ain't outlawed like many make out, a company can do what they want. Just no Federal funds.

I'd like the proponents of spending our tax dollars to tell me how it would work if we did so - Is the tech gonna be free to all med/pharm companies so the, umm, "product" is cheaper?

Or, is some private company gonna benefit from my tax $'s?

If you don't know, you shouldn't be promoting it IMO.

I'd rather spend tax $'s on alt energy tech, which the gov would own (the patent) and charge zero licensing fees. For example, there are several promising methods for making silicon for use in solar power, but no funds AFAIK for pilot plants etc to further develop the concepts. These methodologies could dramatially reduce the cost of turning silica into highly purified silicon. Silica is one of the most abundant and readily available things on earth. And a solar panel has a life of 30+ years (no one really knows how long they can be used, many of the first ones are still operational and traded on the "used market").

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ignoring the topic of this thread for a second, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It won't even come close. It has been 34 years since Roe, you'll just have to move on.

Overturning Roe v Wade by amendment is every super-hardcore Christian's wet dream. They'll never let go.

Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned at the federal level, it would return to the states, granted, Alabama and Mississippi would outlaw abortion, hell, you can't even buy a dildo in Alabama but the vast majority of other states would still allow it.

You don't really believe that the rightwingers would leave it up to the states? Just like they left late term abortion up to the states. They won't rest until abortion is banned by the federal government.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Ignoring the topic of this thread for a second, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It won't even come close. It has been 34 years since Roe, you'll just have to move on.

Overturning Roe v Wade by amendment is every super-hardcore Christian's wet dream. They'll never let go.

Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned at the federal level, it would return to the states, granted, Alabama and Mississippi would outlaw abortion, hell, you can't even buy a dildo in Alabama but the vast majority of other states would still allow it.

I was assuming that a general ban on abortion would be included in such an amendment and the SC would be packed in order to hand them down a favorable ruling when a case would come forward.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: zinfamous
10 years later, The US is lagging in 4th place in international research funding and development, 5th in quality healthcare...while certain sections are even lobbyin gto re-declare that the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our planet.

Are you trying to out-stupid the OP?

i really do not think that is possible. just remember, every day we are a day closer to the worst president in US history being replaced.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

He really let us down on the sanctity of marriage

HA! So the gov't telling you what marriage is is upholding sanctity?

So tell me, how does the gov't uphold the sanctity of marriage? Because if/when I get married , I don't give a flying fvck what the gov't says about it. I thought marriage is about love?

So it's really about what the gov't says it is? Is your self-worth (and your spouse's) really that fragile?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: hellokeith

He really let us down on the sanctity of marriage

HA! So the gov't telling you what marriage is is upholding sanctity?

So tell me, how does the gov't uphold the sanctity of marriage? Because if/when I get married , I don't give a flying fvck what the gov't says about it. I thought marriage is about love?

So it's really about what the gov't says it is? Is your self-worth (and your spouse's) really that fragile?

I'm not sure what your point is (supposed to be).

But that's one of the better arguments against gay marriage I've seen in a while.

Fern

 

[HomerJS]

Here's how to frame the bill so it will pass...

Allow funding on all "existing embryos", in particular the almost 1/2 million frozen in invitro clinics (assuming the permission of the donor male/female).

Do not allow the creation of new embryos for research. There are so many available embryos in IF clinics the supply is practically endless.

If Bush vetos this the next logical step woudl be to ban IF clinics since they "create life" that is ultimately destroyed of becomes unviable. He'll never do that.

 

[techs]

The Bushman standing up for the sanctity of human life?
Apparently he cares more for some cells in a petri dish than he does for living ,breathing Americans.
How do I know?
Where's universal health care?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hellokeith
sanctity of marriage

Whenever I hear this line I can't help but laugh my ass off.:laugh:

I would also laugh, but I'm too confused. I'm still waiting for a definition of what "sanctity of marriage" means and how a same-sex marriage reduces "sanctity."

But maybe hellokeith can help me out: The fact that same-sex marriages are occurring in Massachusetts, does that mean that everyone else's marriages have been de-sanctified? Are straight couples arguing more, loving each other and their kids less, and generally less happy with marriage now that there are legal, same-sex marriages in Massachusetts?

And how about straight couples in Canada? What does it feel like to lose sanctity?

Edit: Oh, and here's a really interesting (to me) question:

If same-sex marriage were legal and it turned out that the overall divorce rate among same-sex couples were lower than among straights - thus lowering the overall divorce rate - would that represent an increase or decrease in marital sanctity?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hellokeith
sanctity of marriage

Whenever I hear this line I can't help but laugh my ass off.:laugh:

I would also laugh, but I'm too confused. I'm still waiting for a definition of what "sanctity of marriage" means and how a same-sex marriage reduces "sanctity."

But maybe hellokeith can help me out: The fact that same-sex marriages are occurring in Massachusetts, does that mean that everyone else's marriages have been de-sanctified? Are straight couples arguing more, loving each other and their kids less, and generally less happy with marriage now that there are legal, same-sex marriages in Massachusetts?

And how about straight couples in Canada? What does it feel like to lose sanctity?

In the op's case he is undoubtedly referring to the rather lukewarm support GWB gave for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Congratulations conservative fundies, you got punk'd by Karl Rove.

Whenever someone drags out the term it really addresses the fact that they are opposed to same-sex marriage on personal religious grounds and that they desire to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Divorce rates in the US hover round 50% to give you an idea of how "sacred" marriage is to straight couples.