Tricky Dickey

Stem Cell Research — By on August 10, 2004 at 2:08 am

John Kerry thinks you�re ignorant. He thinks that the average voter is so completely uninformed that he can make outlandish and ridiculous promises and many voters will simply nod in agreement. He is, of course, absolutely right. Most Americans are so completely uninterested in details that they will not even know when they are being duped.
Take, for example, Kerry�s recent promise to lift the partial ban put on embryonic stem cell research that President Bush initiated with an executive order three years ago:

This not the way we do things in America,” Kerry said in the Democrats’ weekly radio address. “Here in America we don’t sacrifice science for ideology. We are a land of discovery, a place where innovators and optimists are free to dream and explore.”
To those who pray each day for cures that are now beyond our reach,” he said, “I want you to know that help is on the way.”

The Democrats believe that with ESC research they have hit on lucrative �wedge issue� and have been pressing the theme since their recent convention. According to Slate.com writer Timothy Noah, the speakers at the convention used the term stem-cell 20 times � twice the number of times that they used the term �unemployment� and ten times as often as they mentioned the phrase “woman’s right to choose.” Hillary Clinton, in a typical Clintonesque manner, even went so far as to claim that �We need to lift the ban on stem cell research�� even though there is no such ban.
But the Democratic leadership knows that most voters aren�t likely to bother learning the facts. Even otherwise smart people like Noah and Glenn Reynolds fall for the canard that Kerry passes off on ESC research. But it wouldn�t take much effort for them to discover that Kerry is lying. After all, the executive branch doesn�t control the ban on funding � that responsibility belongs to Congress.


Since the average American voter believes the President controls the economy, it�s not a surprise they would believe that he would control federal funding for ESC also. But Bush�s executive order didn�t really initiate a ban at all. In fact, all it did was clarify what the executive branch is supposed to do � enforce the law. The ban had already been put in place by former Arkansas congressman Jay Dickey.
In 1996, Dickey attached an amendment to the Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill that prohibits the use of federal funds for research that destroys or seriously endangers human embryos. The Dickey Amendment, which has been reimplemented every year since �96, reads:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for�
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).iii
(b) For purposes of this section, the term �human embryo or embryos� includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

While the law is rather straightforward, the Clinton Administration was able to find a way around it. They reasoned that if private funds were used to destroy the embryo then it would clear the way for government funding. They would allow the private sector do the dirty work and then slip them funding for their efforts. Although this violates the clear intent and spirit of the law, it was nevertheless ruled to be a �legally valid interpretation.�
The Clinton Administration adopted this stance as their policy but was unable to implement it before Bush took office. Unlike his predecessor, Bush came in with the intent to obey the law as it was written. But by the time he made his decision, a number of embryonic stem cell lines had already been derived and were in various stages of development, growth, and characterization. Since the damage had already been done to the embryos, Bush agreed to a compromise which allowed federal funding to be used for these specific lines. Funding of ESC research would be allowed without having the government be complicit in the destruction of more human embryos.
Kerry’s expressed policy is a reversal of this position. By �lifting the ban� he means that he’ll take the position of former President Clinton and ignore the law as it is written in order to find a way around its limitations. Since both he and Sen. Clinton were unable to override the Dickey amendment in the legislature, he is attempting to do it by fiat.
In essence, Kerry is promising to ignore the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. But if he really wants to make laws rather than simply enforce them then he is running for the wrong office. He doesn�t want to sit in the Oval Office. He wants to sit on the Supreme Court.



  • asshat

    Joe,
    I agree that Kerry is being slippery on this issue. But I think that Bush’s statement itself it misleading as well. Granted, he doesn’t support embryonic stem cell research on lines after a certain date because it’s killing life, but why not an outright ban?

  • asshat

    Joe,
    I agree that Kerry is being slippery on this issue. But I think that Bush’s statement itself it misleading as well. Granted, he doesn’t support embryonic stem cell research on lines after a certain date because it’s killing life, but why not an outright ban?

  • Mr. Moderate

    Funny, I don’t remember Bush talking about his obligation to uphold an existing law and having the issue be out of his hands. Kerry opening up the embryonic lines is just a first step, but it is still more than the Bush administration is doing. The next will be to get congress to get off their duff and reverse the above law, if it wasn’t already overridden by a rider bill of some sort. With the religious right controlled GOP leadership I doubt it would ever happen though. They care more about paying lip service to the protection of a clump of ten cells used for medical research than for the actual “saving” of embryos. I’ll buy their sincerity when they pass a bill stopping in vitro fertilization. Many of the research embryos would come from the ones that fertilization clinics would throw away. In other words, they were embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway. Talk about being slippery on an issue.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Funny, I don’t remember Bush talking about his obligation to uphold an existing law and having the issue be out of his hands. Kerry opening up the embryonic lines is just a first step, but it is still more than the Bush administration is doing. The next will be to get congress to get off their duff and reverse the above law, if it wasn’t already overridden by a rider bill of some sort. With the religious right controlled GOP leadership I doubt it would ever happen though. They care more about paying lip service to the protection of a clump of ten cells used for medical research than for the actual “saving” of embryos. I’ll buy their sincerity when they pass a bill stopping in vitro fertilization. Many of the research embryos would come from the ones that fertilization clinics would throw away. In other words, they were embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway. Talk about being slippery on an issue.

  • http://beyondtherim.meisheid.com/ William Meisheid

    >they were embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway.
    The old two wrongs do not make it right.
    Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    This argument is a red herring.

  • http://beyondtherim.meisheid.com William Meisheid

    >they were embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway.
    The old two wrongs do not make it right.
    Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    This argument is a red herring.

  • asshat

    >The old two wrongs do not make it right.
    Neither does the wrong in not condemning invitro, or an outright ban on ESC research, or a ban on trading with countries that support abortions. But let’s not think about those things.
    >Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    What sources can you use to support this statement? If you do a little serious reading, you’d find you are wrong.

  • asshat

    >The old two wrongs do not make it right.
    Neither does the wrong in not condemning invitro, or an outright ban on ESC research, or a ban on trading with countries that support abortions. But let’s not think about those things.
    >Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    What sources can you use to support this statement? If you do a little serious reading, you’d find you are wrong.

  • ~DS~

    You have to expect Kerry to hit the GOP where they’re divided. The GOP will do the same thing. Both parties will, as a matter of course, slice into the soft underbelly of their opponent whenever they get a chance.
    Bush’s ESC decision was politically motivated of course. If it were a moral issue he would, as asshat mentioned, ban not only all ESC research, but IVF as well.

  • ~DS~

    You have to expect Kerry to hit the GOP where they’re divided. The GOP will do the same thing. Both parties will, as a matter of course, slice into the soft underbelly of their opponent whenever they get a chance.
    Bush’s ESC decision was politically motivated of course. If it were a moral issue he would, as asshat mentioned, ban not only all ESC research, but IVF as well.

  • ~DS~

    William the issue you’re alluding to is called plasticity. It means, how much can an ASC be tweaked? ASC’s reside in all the organs of your body. When you’re injured for example, ASC’s are activated and help regenerate the tissues. Alot of work has been done with ASC’s and one of the most immediate potential treatments using ASC/ESC combination therapy is in regenerating new, complete, skin tissue for burn victums. huis has been done successfully in mice.
    The therapy provides a drastic reduction in scarring and decreased healing time with fewer compicatiosn. Cosmetically and theoretically, one could have one’s face burned completely off and have it replaced.
    But ASC’s are only half the equation and are thus limited in what they can produce, whereas ESC’s have a much higher degree of plasticity. It’s combining the two which currently promises to produce the potential miracle treatments.
    One possible treatment would be to take an ASC nucleus, or a base pair sequence from the ASC nucleus, and insert it into an ESC cell or into the ESC genome to increase plasticity while retaining the unique genetic code of the indiviudal being treated. There may be applications going the other way.
    IOW, we need both ASC’s and ESC’s to know what is going to work best. The potential treatments using SC’s are not in the unforseeable future. They could be available in five years if we get on the ball. Being limited only to ASC’s slows down that learning curve and ties the hands of researchers. That it was done for political purposes to bolster support among the religious right is somewhat revolting from both a humane and scientific standpoint. You folks have been played like a harp on this.

  • ~DS~

    William the issue you’re alluding to is called plasticity. It means, how much can an ASC be tweaked? ASC’s reside in all the organs of your body. When you’re injured for example, ASC’s are activated and help regenerate the tissues. Alot of work has been done with ASC’s and one of the most immediate potential treatments using ASC/ESC combination therapy is in regenerating new, complete, skin tissue for burn victums. huis has been done successfully in mice.
    The therapy provides a drastic reduction in scarring and decreased healing time with fewer compicatiosn. Cosmetically and theoretically, one could have one’s face burned completely off and have it replaced.
    But ASC’s are only half the equation and are thus limited in what they can produce, whereas ESC’s have a much higher degree of plasticity. It’s combining the two which currently promises to produce the potential miracle treatments.
    One possible treatment would be to take an ASC nucleus, or a base pair sequence from the ASC nucleus, and insert it into an ESC cell or into the ESC genome to increase plasticity while retaining the unique genetic code of the indiviudal being treated. There may be applications going the other way.
    IOW, we need both ASC’s and ESC’s to know what is going to work best. The potential treatments using SC’s are not in the unforseeable future. They could be available in five years if we get on the ball. Being limited only to ASC’s slows down that learning curve and ties the hands of researchers. That it was done for political purposes to bolster support among the religious right is somewhat revolting from both a humane and scientific standpoint. You folks have been played like a harp on this.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    All I’ll say is that I have first hand experience with the cancelling of an ESC study that was very effective in treating Parkinson’s and Huntington’s patients. It was producing truly miraculous results and was cancelled because the research organization would lose funding for other programs if they continued with it. ESC may not hold much promise for Alzheimers (yet) but it has proven much more effective in the treatment of diseases than adult stem cells. And once again, the religious right will have to push for the shutting down of in vitro fertilization before I give credence to their straw man argument on stem cell research.
    Incidently many in the religious right want all of stem cell research shut down since it is tantamount to cloning, and all cloning is reproductive and thus is the destruction of life.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Besides if you do a little serious reading, embryonic stem cell research is not even needed for the proposed uses, since adult stem cells seem to be meeting the needs and are the only research actually showing results.
    All I’ll say is that I have first hand experience with the cancelling of an ESC study that was very effective in treating Parkinson’s and Huntington’s patients. It was producing truly miraculous results and was cancelled because the research organization would lose funding for other programs if they continued with it. ESC may not hold much promise for Alzheimers (yet) but it has proven much more effective in the treatment of diseases than adult stem cells. And once again, the religious right will have to push for the shutting down of in vitro fertilization before I give credence to their straw man argument on stem cell research.
    Incidently many in the religious right want all of stem cell research shut down since it is tantamount to cloning, and all cloning is reproductive and thus is the destruction of life.

  • ~DS~

    Mod one the more hysterially ironic consequences of successful ASC reaserach would only come about if the plasticity of ASC’s were tweaked to the point that they could reproduce a Human being…IOW, for ASC’s to substitute for ESC’s, they would have to be functional ESC’s. Kinda funny huh? Of course the fundies don’t appreciate that distinction and guys like William are unowingly demanding

  • ~DS~

    Mod one the more hysterially ironic consequences of successful ASC reaserach would only come about if the plasticity of ASC’s were tweaked to the point that they could reproduce a Human being…IOW, for ASC’s to substitute for ESC’s, they would have to be functional ESC’s. Kinda funny huh? Of course the fundies don’t appreciate that distinction and guys like William are unowingly demanding

  • ~DS~

    that blastocyte be created from ASC’s to save … blastocytes.

  • ~DS~

    that blastocyte be created from ASC’s to save … blastocytes.

  • http://bevets.com/News.htm bevets
  • http://bevets.com/News.htm bevets
  • Mr. Moderate

    bevets,
    Try this too:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/002025.html
    No one is saying that adult stem cell research is worthless. On the contrary, those of us supporting ESC also support ASC. Once again those on the religious right choose to pretend that ESC holds no benefits over ASC. This is a position point held from religious-based wishful thinking than scientific scrutiny. We won’t even get into the subject of fetal stem cells which have also shown very promising results:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040727084605.htm

  • Mr. Moderate

    bevets,
    Try this too:
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/002025.html
    No one is saying that adult stem cell research is worthless. On the contrary, those of us supporting ESC also support ASC. Once again those on the religious right choose to pretend that ESC holds no benefits over ASC. This is a position point held from religious-based wishful thinking than scientific scrutiny. We won’t even get into the subject of fetal stem cells which have also shown very promising results:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040727084605.htm

  • Erin, PhD ChE

    The idea that “science should trump ideology or politics” when it comes to questions of the ethical boundaries of research and technology is ludicrous. Science can only address questions of physical reality; engineering, questions of feasibilities. Questions of what “ought” to be legal, allowed methods of research are wholly the domain of ideology, philosophy, politics. It is the same issue that plagued Galileo and his contemporaries: the areas where science and religion or philosophy do not, cannot overlap.
    Everyone, just about, agrees that religious authorities were mistaken when they proclaimed that the movement of planets was the proper domain of religion. Many folks, though not all I admit, agree that religious authorities are today mistaken when they proclaim a literal interpretation of Scripture to be the only reliable source of information on the origin of species. So why is it suddenly the domain of science to declare actions moral or immoral?
    Embryologists, neurologists, oncology experts have, indeed, an important role to play in this discussion. Their expertise is necessary to determine (or at least to make an educated guess at) the potential benefits of embryonic stem-cell research (for while Christians know that taking new human life is not justified by those benefits, the discussion of whether use of the existing stem cell lines is justified is more ambiguous). They and their specialized expertise function as advisers to this decision. Not only that, but as human beings, voters, philosophers, with a particular perspective born of their expertise and experience, they can indeed make a judgment on the morality of the various research techniques, which they bring to the table and to the voting booth.
    But the authority on ethics and morality is never science itself. It’s philosophy, politics, religion: it is ideology. Always has been, always will be. The ones who are doing the worst mixing of science and ideology are the ones who are arguing that scientists, because they are scientists (and not because they are particularly wise, good, or representative of he views of the American public) ought to decide what is right and what is wrong.

  • Erin, PhD ChE

    The idea that “science should trump ideology or politics” when it comes to questions of the ethical boundaries of research and technology is ludicrous. Science can only address questions of physical reality; engineering, questions of feasibilities. Questions of what “ought” to be legal, allowed methods of research are wholly the domain of ideology, philosophy, politics. It is the same issue that plagued Galileo and his contemporaries: the areas where science and religion or philosophy do not, cannot overlap.
    Everyone, just about, agrees that religious authorities were mistaken when they proclaimed that the movement of planets was the proper domain of religion. Many folks, though not all I admit, agree that religious authorities are today mistaken when they proclaim a literal interpretation of Scripture to be the only reliable source of information on the origin of species. So why is it suddenly the domain of science to declare actions moral or immoral?
    Embryologists, neurologists, oncology experts have, indeed, an important role to play in this discussion. Their expertise is necessary to determine (or at least to make an educated guess at) the potential benefits of embryonic stem-cell research (for while Christians know that taking new human life is not justified by those benefits, the discussion of whether use of the existing stem cell lines is justified is more ambiguous). They and their specialized expertise function as advisers to this decision. Not only that, but as human beings, voters, philosophers, with a particular perspective born of their expertise and experience, they can indeed make a judgment on the morality of the various research techniques, which they bring to the table and to the voting booth.
    But the authority on ethics and morality is never science itself. It’s philosophy, politics, religion: it is ideology. Always has been, always will be. The ones who are doing the worst mixing of science and ideology are the ones who are arguing that scientists, because they are scientists (and not because they are particularly wise, good, or representative of he views of the American public) ought to decide what is right and what is wrong.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Erin,
    I don’t think anyone was saying that it was the job of science to determine the ethics of the issue. The question is if we should be making policy based on one groups interpretation of their religious texts. I don’t think there is anything illegal with doing so. I just don’t care to vote in the people with those opinions.
    The scientists doing the research are voting with their feet and taking their research overseas. We are setting ourselves up for being behind the technology curve for the first time in over 60 years. That’s a dangerous trend I don’t care to enter.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Erin,
    I don’t think anyone was saying that it was the job of science to determine the ethics of the issue. The question is if we should be making policy based on one groups interpretation of their religious texts. I don’t think there is anything illegal with doing so. I just don’t care to vote in the people with those opinions.
    The scientists doing the research are voting with their feet and taking their research overseas. We are setting ourselves up for being behind the technology curve for the first time in over 60 years. That’s a dangerous trend I don’t care to enter.

  • asshat

    Erin,
    Nobody is trying to play the trump card here. This discussion, in part, is about exposing some of the more egregious myths that both sides of the aisle use to support their cause. Open dialogue helps to educate everybody. It helps to refocus the debate sometimes (though most of the time, things are just rehashed to death).

  • asshat

    Erin,
    Nobody is trying to play the trump card here. This discussion, in part, is about exposing some of the more egregious myths that both sides of the aisle use to support their cause. Open dialogue helps to educate everybody. It helps to refocus the debate sometimes (though most of the time, things are just rehashed to death).

  • http://www.blindmindseye.com/ Mike

    This issue could be useful for harming the abortion industry in this country. It could be quite easy to use ESC research to impose high cost of operations on abortion clinics around the country.
    I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t simply waste embryos that were going to be discarded. I have never heard of anyone who buries a 2 month old embryo. If anything, they just got tossed into a dumpster and are disposed of like trash. At least, by mandating that they be turned over to clinics, they can be used for some positive, life-affirming purposes.

  • http://www.blindmindseye.com Mike

    This issue could be useful for harming the abortion industry in this country. It could be quite easy to use ESC research to impose high cost of operations on abortion clinics around the country.
    I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t simply waste embryos that were going to be discarded. I have never heard of anyone who buries a 2 month old embryo. If anything, they just got tossed into a dumpster and are disposed of like trash. At least, by mandating that they be turned over to clinics, they can be used for some positive, life-affirming purposes.

  • Mr. Moderate

    I have never heard of anyone who buries a 2 month old embryo.
    I think at two months you are talking about fetal stem cells. The embryos in question for creating these cell lines are less than 7 days old.

  • Mr. Moderate

    I have never heard of anyone who buries a 2 month old embryo.
    I think at two months you are talking about fetal stem cells. The embryos in question for creating these cell lines are less than 7 days old.

  • Erin

    Mike:
    “I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t simply waste embryos that were going to be discarded…”
    If that’s the case, why waste any human corpse? Why not default to picking up cadavers from nursing homes and hospitals and transport them directly to medical schools to be dissected, or to research institutions? Surely there are many elderly people and accident victims who never bother to express a clear wish to the contrary. Surely some of their family members either won’t mind or would be easily sold on the idea of putting Grandma to good use.
    Consent is a pretty tricky business—if you believe the embryo to be a human being, that is. (Those who don’t believe that get a free ride, I guess.)

  • Erin

    Mike:
    “I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t simply waste embryos that were going to be discarded…”
    If that’s the case, why waste any human corpse? Why not default to picking up cadavers from nursing homes and hospitals and transport them directly to medical schools to be dissected, or to research institutions? Surely there are many elderly people and accident victims who never bother to express a clear wish to the contrary. Surely some of their family members either won’t mind or would be easily sold on the idea of putting Grandma to good use.
    Consent is a pretty tricky business—if you believe the embryo to be a human being, that is. (Those who don’t believe that get a free ride, I guess.)

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    You know, Joe continues to give tons of attention to the comparatively tiny ESC research issue, and continues to ignore the comparatively huge (and underlying) IVF issue. I wonder why? Oh yes, because one is politically convenient, and one isn’t.
    Never mind. Carry on, please…

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    You know, Joe continues to give tons of attention to the comparatively tiny ESC research issue, and continues to ignore the comparatively huge (and underlying) IVF issue. I wonder why? Oh yes, because one is politically convenient, and one isn’t.
    Never mind. Carry on, please…

  • Mr. Moderate

    Why not default to picking up cadavers from nursing homes and hospitals and transport them directly to medical schools to be dissected, or to research institutions?
    Ever hear of organ donor programs or donating bodies to science? Tell me, if a 6 month old dies in a crash and their heart can go to a young child in need of it, do you try and determine if the 6 month old would want to be on the organ donor program or do you ask the parent? If you said that we should ask the parent, you’ll have to show me where the consent of the baby was involved.
    Wouldn’t this be the same thing? The potential parents put embryos on cold storage for potential future use and then decided they don’t want them anymore. They have then decided to donate them to science to help cure millions of people of debilitating diseases. Those monsters. It’s almost as disgusting as those parents who didn’t try and determine the will of their now dead infant before cavalierly giving its heart to someone to save their life.

  • Mr. Moderate

    Why not default to picking up cadavers from nursing homes and hospitals and transport them directly to medical schools to be dissected, or to research institutions?
    Ever hear of organ donor programs or donating bodies to science? Tell me, if a 6 month old dies in a crash and their heart can go to a young child in need of it, do you try and determine if the 6 month old would want to be on the organ donor program or do you ask the parent? If you said that we should ask the parent, you’ll have to show me where the consent of the baby was involved.
    Wouldn’t this be the same thing? The potential parents put embryos on cold storage for potential future use and then decided they don’t want them anymore. They have then decided to donate them to science to help cure millions of people of debilitating diseases. Those monsters. It’s almost as disgusting as those parents who didn’t try and determine the will of their now dead infant before cavalierly giving its heart to someone to save their life.

  • http://www.blindmindseye.com/ Mike

    I’m conducting a little comment survey to try to get a feel for what specific things people expect of Bush and what would cause them to not support him. The post on my blog is here and the comment section is open. Any input would be appreciated.

  • http://www.blindmindseye.com Mike

    I’m conducting a little comment survey to try to get a feel for what specific things people expect of Bush and what would cause them to not support him. The post on my blog is here and the comment section is open. Any input would be appreciated.

  • Larry Lord

    “Surely some of their family members either won’t mind or would be easily sold on the idea of putting Grandma to good use.”
    Just for the record, I think the state has every right to take a person’s dead body and do whatever it wants with it. Preferably, dead bodies should be donated to hospitals and medical schools for research and training. Otherwise, dead bodies should be cremated. Cemetaries are an utter waste of space.

  • Larry Lord

    “Surely some of their family members either won’t mind or would be easily sold on the idea of putting Grandma to good use.”
    Just for the record, I think the state has every right to take a person’s dead body and do whatever it wants with it. Preferably, dead bodies should be donated to hospitals and medical schools for research and training. Otherwise, dead bodies should be cremated. Cemetaries are an utter waste of space.

  • Steve_in_Corona

    Everyone here does realize there is absolutely no ban on ESC research in the USA…right?
    Harvard and other institutions are presently doing this research with private funds as we type…right?
    Kerry sounds confused on the issue, and some of the comments seem so as well.
    By the way, as of 3/14/2001, the ban on federal funding for IVF was still in force, going back to 1980. Unless something new was passed since 2001 to allow it…it seems the comparison of hypocrisy on the issue is way off base.
    Do you people really think the President has the authority in America to unilaterally ban IVF or ESC research? Especially given the current Supreme Court rulings of the day? This is a FUNDING issue..nothing more.
    I know I posted this in detail last time around, but I see the same commentators with the same comments this time around..which tells me something about Bush-hatred, but little about the desire to educate oneself on the issues of the day.
    I will gladly stand corrected if the federal government has started funding IVF since 2001, but in my limited research I don’t see it.
    Carry on.

  • Steve_in_Corona

    Everyone here does realize there is absolutely no ban on ESC research in the USA…right?
    Harvard and other institutions are presently doing this research with private funds as we type…right?
    Kerry sounds confused on the issue, and some of the comments seem so as well.
    By the way, as of 3/14/2001, the ban on federal funding for IVF was still in force, going back to 1980. Unless something new was passed since 2001 to allow it…it seems the comparison of hypocrisy on the issue is way off base.
    Do you people really think the President has the authority in America to unilaterally ban IVF or ESC research? Especially given the current Supreme Court rulings of the day? This is a FUNDING issue..nothing more.
    I know I posted this in detail last time around, but I see the same commentators with the same comments this time around..which tells me something about Bush-hatred, but little about the desire to educate oneself on the issues of the day.
    I will gladly stand corrected if the federal government has started funding IVF since 2001, but in my limited research I don’t see it.
    Carry on.

  • Larry Lord

    If a researcher obtains an ESC line and propogates the cells, allowing them to differentiate into a tissue of interest or maintaining them in an undifferentiated state (but allowing them to divide), that wouldn’t seem to violate section (2) of the law as I understand it.
    So all that’s left is the ban on providing funding for the creation of NEW cell lines (part 1).
    Which means that Bush’s executive order BANNING the use of any NON-APPROVED ESC lines for (there are quite a few other ESC lines available in the world) studies using federal funds goes FURTHER than section (2) above.
    And that is the ban which Kerry will left when he is elected in November.

  • Larry Lord

    If a researcher obtains an ESC line and propogates the cells, allowing them to differentiate into a tissue of interest or maintaining them in an undifferentiated state (but allowing them to divide), that wouldn’t seem to violate section (2) of the law as I understand it.
    So all that’s left is the ban on providing funding for the creation of NEW cell lines (part 1).
    Which means that Bush’s executive order BANNING the use of any NON-APPROVED ESC lines for (there are quite a few other ESC lines available in the world) studies using federal funds goes FURTHER than section (2) above.
    And that is the ban which Kerry will left when he is elected in November.

  • Larry Lord

    “And that is the ban which Kerry will left when he is elected in November.”
    That should be “lift,” not “left.” ;)

  • Larry Lord

    “And that is the ban which Kerry will left when he is elected in November.”
    That should be “lift,” not “left.” ;)

  • ~DS~

    In my view Bush has sold the pro-lifers out, after first collecting their votes of course. The President appears to share the prolife views that blastocytes are human beings, yet he has allowed ongoing murder of those human beings and even sanctions government subsidy of murdering the human children already in

  • ~DS~

    In my view Bush has sold the pro-lifers out, after first collecting their votes of course. The President appears to share the prolife views that blastocytes are human beings, yet he has allowed ongoing murder of those human beings and even sanctions government subsidy of murdering the human children already in

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    DS:

    I guess using Joe’s logic on Kerry, expressed on an earlier thread, how could any of you even consider voting for an admitted facilitator of mass infanticide? How could you support someone who chooses not to do everything in their power to prevent thousands of IVF infant murders each year, and does so for mere for political convenience? For shame.

    Bloody brilliant!

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ tgirsch

    DS:

    I guess using Joe’s logic on Kerry, expressed on an earlier thread, how could any of you even consider voting for an admitted facilitator of mass infanticide? How could you support someone who chooses not to do everything in their power to prevent thousands of IVF infant murders each year, and does so for mere for political convenience? For shame.

    Bloody brilliant!

  • ~DS~

    TY Tgirsch and let me say that the entire Lean Left Crew are some of the most gifted writers currently burning on the blogosphere. It’s now one of my daily stops.
    I can’t take any credit for the judo though; there is no genuis required in tripping up extremists with their own hatred, especially when they’re stupid enough to try and pass it off as logic. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it days ago.
    I can only plead that their ‘logic’ on the war criminal angle was so fatally flawed and utterly alien it took me awhile to counter adjust.

  • ~DS~

    TY Tgirsch and let me say that the entire Lean Left Crew are some of the most gifted writers currently burning on the blogosphere. It’s now one of my daily stops.
    I can’t take any credit for the judo though; there is no genuis required in tripping up extremists with their own hatred, especially when they’re stupid enough to try and pass it off as logic. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it days ago.
    I can only plead that their ‘logic’ on the war criminal angle was so fatally flawed and utterly alien it took me awhile to counter adjust.

  • Steve_in_Corona

    DS…quite transparent argument you float there. You used the phrase “in his power”..what power exactly does a President have in this area?
    One power he has is in appointing judges, which of course the Senate seeks to filibuster. But we can thank the Supreme Court of the past (and somewhat of the present) for the current status of life in this nation. Bush has done more for the pro-life crowd than any President including Reagan. Do you really want the list?
    I sense panic – whenever I see those on the left make the effort to convince those on the right that Bush has duped us, and argue why we should not continue to support him…Sorry, it does not wash.
    Now if you want to explain to me why a Dean supporter or Michael Moore follower should support Kerry….

  • Steve_in_Corona

    DS…quite transparent argument you float there. You used the phrase “in his power”..what power exactly does a President have in this area?
    One power he has is in appointing judges, which of course the Senate seeks to filibuster. But we can thank the Supreme Court of the past (and somewhat of the present) for the current status of life in this nation. Bush has done more for the pro-life crowd than any President including Reagan. Do you really want the list?
    I sense panic – whenever I see those on the left make the effort to convince those on the right that Bush has duped us, and argue why we should not continue to support him…Sorry, it does not wash.
    Now if you want to explain to me why a Dean supporter or Michael Moore follower should support Kerry….

  • asshat

    Does that explain why life-loving Bush didn’t support a ban on ESC or IVF? He coulda made an effort, like the effort he made with FMA. I know he has been busy liberating Iraq as of late, but could he not have taken a few momemts to at least announce his intention for the ban?

  • asshat

    Does that explain why life-loving Bush didn’t support a ban on ESC or IVF? He coulda made an effort, like the effort he made with FMA. I know he has been busy liberating Iraq as of late, but could he not have taken a few momemts to at least announce his intention for the ban?

  • Larry Lord

    “But we can thank the Supreme Court of the past (and somewhat of the present) for the current status of life in this nation.”
    Thank you, Supreme Court.

  • Larry Lord

    “But we can thank the Supreme Court of the past (and somewhat of the present) for the current status of life in this nation.”
    Thank you, Supreme Court.

  • ~DS~

    Steve my goodness. Are you stating that it’s not within Bush’s power or the GOP controlled Congress to enforce the Constitutional Mandate to Life by proposing legislation to outlaw the murder of children? You are kidding right? If it’s not the government’s job to stop mass murder, whose job is it?
    But in the meantime, how could you possibly even consider supporting a man who holds more power than any other person on the face of the earth, who agrees with you that that inncoent American baby boys and baby girls are being viciously murdered by the thousands, yet does not even speak out about it, let alone take action to halt it!

  • ~DS~

    Steve my goodness. Are you stating that it’s not within Bush’s power or the GOP controlled Congress to enforce the Constitutional Mandate to Life by proposing legislation to outlaw the murder of children? You are kidding right? If it’s not the government’s job to stop mass murder, whose job is it?
    But in the meantime, how could you possibly even consider supporting a man who holds more power than any other person on the face of the earth, who agrees with you that that inncoent American baby boys and baby girls are being viciously murdered by the thousands, yet does not even speak out about it, let alone take action to halt it!

  • BR

    I think most Christians think abortion is murder only after “viability” and that before then it is killing (equivalent to manslaughter perhaps). The biblical commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.”

  • BR

    I think most Christians think abortion is murder only after “viability” and that before then it is killing (equivalent to manslaughter perhaps). The biblical commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.”

  • Larry Lord

    “I think most Christians think abortion is murder only after “viability” and that before then it is killing (equivalent to manslaughter perhaps). ”
    Question 1: did you see a poll to this effect?
    Question 2: do “most” Christians also believe that if I pull the plug on my grandma’s iron lung, that’s also manslaughter?

  • Larry Lord

    “I think most Christians think abortion is murder only after “viability” and that before then it is killing (equivalent to manslaughter perhaps). ”
    Question 1: did you see a poll to this effect?
    Question 2: do “most” Christians also believe that if I pull the plug on my grandma’s iron lung, that’s also manslaughter?

  • Steve_in_Corona

    Steve my goodness. Are you stating that it’s not within Bush’s power or the GOP controlled Congress to enforce the Constitutional Mandate to Life by proposing legislation to outlaw the murder of children

  • Steve_in_Corona

    Steve my goodness. Are you stating that it’s not within Bush’s power or the GOP controlled Congress to enforce the Constitutional Mandate to Life by proposing legislation to outlaw the murder of children