Stem Cell Veto
George Bush used his first executive veto to kill a modest proposal to authorize Federal spending for stem cell research on existing frozen fertilized embryos that are otherwise destined to be destroyed. His press secretary says using the embryos for stem cell research would amount to murder of innocent human life. Bush himself does not go into much detail whenever he mentions the issue, just saying that such use of embryos is an immoral taking of human life. In fact, the veto photo op was very low key, taken with the families of some of the 128 children who had been adopted as embryos, out of an estimated pool of about 400,000.
You may remember that Bush spent considerable time, into August 2001, at “the ranch”, supposedly contemplating what Presidential action to take regarding stem cell research. It was during that time of supposed contemplation, in the month before 9/11, that security concerns about Al Qaeda were ignored. Bush eventually emerged with his Solomon-like decision - Federal funding would be allowed for research on the existing lines created from embryos which had already been destroyed, but not on any lines created from embryos after his oracular pronouncement.
If you read the August, 2001 pronouncement, you will notice the President appointed a Council to supposedly study and report on stem cell research. From what I can tell, that Council has merged into the President’s Council on Bioethics, which was actually created in 1995 by Bill Clinton, and has an expansive list of interests and has in fact issued some reports. Under Bush, two reports have been issued on stem cell matters, one basically just documenting the Bush position, and another exploring alternatives to the use of embryos.
Virtually all Congressional Democrats and many Republicans disagree with Bush on this issue, including enough in the Senate to almost override his veto. The American people also disagree with Bush on this issue, by a 2 to 1 margin. Why did he choose this issue for his first veto? Probably because he thinks it makes him look like a man of religious principle, who is not afraid of unpopularity. As a disgraced lame duck, Bush doesn’t have much to grab at, and if he can keep the religious right happy, he may be able to bank on their financial support in his retirement, giving sermons on how courageous he was to stand up for unwanted embryos. Notice that in his first term it took him a month of mental turmoil to come up with his ethical compromise, which he hoped would keep all his political options open.
Stem cell research has been and will be continuing in spite of Bush. Private funds can be used and States can provide funding, as California voters have done. Other countries are supporting research. The next Congress might include enough new people to pass the legislation again and override a Bush veto. Otherwise, the next President probably would not be inclined to veto such research. Bush knows this, which is part of the reason he has not made a mission of trying to stop stem cell research, other than Federally funded “post-pronouncement” research. He has fallen on his face on every other mission he has undertaken, so I think, for the rest of his term, his mission will be to not have any more missions.
2 Comments:
I find the ethical arguments on either side of this issue to be so weak as to put me to sleep.
The ethical argument for stem cell research is that illnesses will be cured. Finding cures for some illnesses is like counting sands on the seashore. We thought we had bacterial infections stopped. That's no longer true as drug resistant strains become more and more prevalent. I suppose the same will happen when the use of genetics is widespread.
The argument against stem cell research is inane as technology will find ways to create stem cells that have only distant similarity to human embryos and will in no way be viable as humans.
The sentence in Tom's article that really scares me is "Other countries are supporting research." America has a history of exporting technology jobs when the technology matures. This has not hurt our economy in the past because America has always been in the forefront of new technologies producing replacements for the exported jobs.
Now we are at the dawn of an exciting new technology that promises a large number of high paid jobs and the trickle down effect of even more middle and low income jobs. If this technology is as promising a creator of jobs as I think, it will spawn new technolgies in the future that could keep America's technological leadership for many decades.
So is America leading the way? No, we have President George Bush making another stupid decision that will have serious results for the well being of our country. The other countries supporting this research may well supplant America as the technological leader of the world.
John from Phoenix
The US lost its lead in electronics, with all TV, audio and cellular technology coming from elsewhere. Automotive has been slipping away from America for quite a while. We still have some bio-tech, but I agree that not putting money into stem cell research is setting us behind in that area too. The only lead we seem dedicated to holding onto in technology is WMD - weapons of mass destruction.
Post a Comment
<< Home