Holy hell, Bush does know about veto power

[CyclonePackFan]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

Bush vetoes embryonic stem-cell bill
House fails to muster votes for override

Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Posted: 7:04 p.m. EDT (23:04 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush used his veto power Wednesday for the first time since taking office 5 1/2 years ago, saying that an 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 tried Thursday evening to override the veto, but that vote was 235 to 193, short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

"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.

CNN's Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.


I honestly thought he was going to get through his years without using it once. He'll probably make up for it in the next two or three after the Democrats win the majority in Congress this November.

[Fosco33]

I wonder what his poll numbers will fall to now - not that it matters as he's on his way out anyways.

Personally, this is such a stupid veto and plays religion into politics. I generally support most of Bush's actions but I think this is ridiculous. Here's a chance to get an edge on the world in the next big thing and we're blowing it - might as well give it to China/Japan/India. If we're giving away all our manufacturing jobs and we're becoming a service economy, this is the type of stuff that will help the economy for 20+ years (along w/ nanotech and adv. fuels/fuel cells).

Anyone know the % of the population supporting advancements in stem cell technology?

Ooooh, this just pisses me off. :mad:

[MJZiggy]

Do I understand this correctly? Did Bush just veto a bill that would have used the cell clusters leftover from fertility treatments for research instead of just destroying them? So instead of those cell clusters doing some good before dying, they are now mandated to just kill them and not let them offer any benefit? I must have read that wrong.

[SkinBasket]

Do I understand this correctly? Did Bush just veto a bill that would have used the cell clusters leftover from fertility treatments for research instead of just destroying them? So instead of those cell clusters doing some good before dying, they are now mandated to just kill them and not let them offer any benefit? I must have read that wrong.

Actually, it's a question of when life begins. Bushie believes that life begins when that sperm and that egg hug and hump for the first time. The fact that those cell clusters will die anyway doesn't matter, since he believes those clusters constitute life, even if it is transient. Therefor Okaying research on those cells would be akin to using a retarded person who will die by the age of 10 for research. He believes life is sacred, no matter the form or destiny. And since life, for him and hundreds of millions of others, begins at conception, then protecting the dignity of that life, even if it is only a cluster of cells, isn;t such a difficult position for him to take.

I don't necessarily agree with the position, but I don't fault a man who will stand by what he believes, not adopt whatever position is most convienient for his conscience or his poll numbers.

Then you also get into the entire debate about whether using such cells are necessary, since cord blood cells and whatever those adult stem cell thingies are called (the ones not harvested from the seed of life of our very own kind) have shown just as much promise for research purposes.

I would also be careful to call this strictly a religious issue injected into politics, as there are many people who don't consider themselves "religious" that have a problem with the moral and social issues raised when using human embryos for research.

[Deputy Nutz]

GOD DAMN IT!!! That fucking dirty bastard president. What the fuck am I supposed to do with a freezer full of aborted fetus?




Morals? I am sorry one does not get to be president on his morals. He gets millions and millions of dollars each year from the Religious Right. There is more to this than Bush just taking the moral high ground.

[Partial]

I wonder what his poll numbers will fall to now - not that it matters as he's on his way out anyways.

Personally, this is such a stupid veto and plays religion into politics. I generally support most of Bush's actions but I think this is ridiculous. Here's a chance to get an edge on the world in the next big thing and we're blowing it - might as well give it to China/Japan/India. If we're giving away all our manufacturing jobs and we're becoming a service economy, this is the type of stuff that will help the economy for 20+ years (along w/ nanotech and adv. fuels/fuel cells).

Anyone know the % of the population supporting advancements in stem cell technology?

Ooooh, this just pisses me off. :mad:

agreed, you should especially be pissed off since your alma mater is so advanced in this field and would probably be the world's leading institution for this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

this is a political loser for Bush, so I at least give him credit for acting on principle.

[Zool]

I hope the next time Bush gets a headache they drill a hole in his head to let the demons out. Without medical research thats where we would still be. Its something that needs to be done if we want to advance medical science.

[SkinBasket]

Without medical research thats where we would still be. Its something that needs to be done if we want to advance medical science.

Actually, that isn't true. As I already pointed out, adult stem cells and cord blood cells have shown to be just as effective for research.

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I just don't consider the destruction of human embryos for research that can be accomplished through other means "advancement" of medical science. Not because of the destruction of life agrument, but because it simply seems barbaric and short sighted to me.


Here's a game: If aliens landed and told you they wanted 500 orphans in exchange for the cure to diabetes, would you make the trade in the name of medical science?

[MJZiggy]

Without medical research thats where we would still be. Its something that needs to be done if we want to advance medical science.

Actually, that isn't true. As I already pointed out, adult stem cells and cord blood cells have shown to be just as effective for research.

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I just don't consider the destruction of human embryos for research that can be accomplished through other means "advancement" of medical science. Not because of the destruction of life agrument, but because it simply seems barbaric and short sighted to me.


Here's a game: If aliens landed and told you they wanted 500 orphans in exchange for the cure to diabetes, would you make the trade in the name of medical science?

That's a little bit different, though, those orphans have a reasonable shot at survival and quality of life. These embryos are certainly doomed and saying that you're worried for their dignity, should you then not be upset that they are frozen? They've learned how to freeze humans. Or perhaps we should leave it up to the "parents" of these embryos to decide what should be done with them. I have a dozen or so cousins that aren't going anywhere anytime soon and I can assure you, I know what the couple involved would decide.

[Zool]

Without medical research thats where we would still be. Its something that needs to be done if we want to advance medical science.

Actually, that isn't true. As I already pointed out, adult stem cells and cord blood cells have shown to be just as effective for research.

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I just don't consider the destruction of human embryos for research that can be accomplished through other means "advancement" of medical science. Not because of the destruction of life agrument, but because it simply seems barbaric and short sighted to me.


Here's a game: If aliens landed and told you they wanted 500 orphans in exchange for the cure to diabetes, would you make the trade in the name of medical science?

That's a little bit different, though, those orphans have a reasonable shot at survival and quality of life. These embryos are certainly doomed and saying that you're worried for their dignity, should you then not be upset that they are frozen? They've learned how to freeze humans. Or perhaps we should leave it up to the "parents" of these embryos to decide what should be done with them. I have a dozen or so cousins that aren't going anywhere anytime soon and I can assure you, I know what the couple involved would decide.

I dont equate a frozen embryo with a breathing human being so the game is quite lopsided.

If this research can someday save your child from some disease, would you want that research to be done, or take the moral approach and lose your child? I'm selfish and I would want my child to live.

[Partial]

Without medical research thats where we would still be. Its something that needs to be done if we want to advance medical science.

Actually, that isn't true. As I already pointed out, adult stem cells and cord blood cells have shown to be just as effective for research.

Call me old fashioned, but I guess I just don't consider the destruction of human embryos for research that can be accomplished through other means "advancement" of medical science. Not because of the destruction of life agrument, but because it simply seems barbaric and short sighted to me.


Here's a game: If aliens landed and told you they wanted 500 orphans in exchange for the cure to diabetes, would you make the trade in the name of medical science?

I see your points skin, but at the same time as a world leader we cannot afford to fall behind. I am a firm believer in not standing in the way of science by any means. I understand it may not be entirely ethical, but it is something that would better the world.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This issue is so politicized, and I bet 90% of the folks posting on here have no idea what the real facts are about this issue are. I'm guessing that most who have posted on this thread don't care. I can see both sides of this issue. It's not as cut and dried as it seems--like most issues.

Whatever happened to the old style debating technique where you were taught to first argue the opposite viewpoint of your own. It's a very neat trick. It makes people realize that there is more gray to most issues than black and white.

[SkinBasket]

I dont equate a frozen embryo with a breathing human being so the game is quite lopsided.

If this research can someday save your child from some disease, would you want that research to be done, or take the moral approach and lose your child? I'm selfish and I would want my child to live.

Well, Bush and other religious types do consider an embryo to have the same value as a "breathing human being." From their point of view, the game isn't lopsided at all, and the choice for them isn't a choice whatsoever.

I want the research to be done, but I'm not sure why we should go about destroying embryos if we can collect adult stem cells to do the same research.

[MJZiggy]

If I've read the article right, these are embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway. The question was, should they be allowed to be used for research before they are destroyed. Am I wrong on that?

[Deputy Nutz]

This is what I gather from the situation. Before the fetus is aborted, they collect a stem cell sample for research. Am I wrong if so, somebody that has the knowledge please share.

If this is the question it goes back to whether you accept the fact that these fetuses feel pain, and if they do does collecting the stem cells cause pain, that could be considered torture.

So far there are valid points on both side of this PackerRat argument, but to say Bush has morals or principles is laughable, he would cluck for a buck, just like every other president or politician.

[MJZiggy]

My bad. I thought they were using the frozen blastocyst cell clusters left over from fertility treatments. The ones that don't get implanted are destroyed.

[hoosier]

My bad. I thought they were using the frozen blastocyst cell clusters left over from fertility treatments. The ones that don't get implanted are destroyed.

You're right, according to NIH most come from frozen embryos, not from pre-aborted fetuses. NIH also says that stem cells coming from adults have limitations and won't necessarily yield as many medical benefits.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED%7d&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#wherefrom

[Deputy Nutz]

Right now this is a huge issue in the Governor race in the state of Wisconsin. Current Governor Jim Doyle is for opening up state tax dollars and allowing Wisconsin to rise to the front of stem cell research and stem cell therapy. Meanwhile, the President's choice Mark Green is a faction of the religious right, and wants to hault stem cell research in Wisconsin.

This is an important issue for me. I usually vote republican, but I do not support the corruption of my political party by the religious right, and crazies like Texaspackerbacker.

[hoosier]

I do not support the corruption of my political party by the religious right, and crazies like Texaspackerbacker.

Hasn't that been, like, 20 or 30 years in the making now?

[Joemailman]

this is a political loser for Bush, so I at least give him credit for acting on principle.


Don't be so sure Harlan. Right now considering where Bush is in the polls, his Christian Conservative base is about all he has left for support. He cannot afford to lose them with congressional elections coming up. This election could hinge on voter turnout, and he needs Christiian Conservatives to turn out in big numbers. Of course it could backfire, but it would ne naive to think he wasn't influenced by politics here.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Bush had signed the bill, it would have received very little attention.

It is hard to imagine that this dramatic first veto could stimulate enough conservative christians to vote (who weren't already voting for him) to compensate for the people that are offended by the decision.

[Deputy Nutz]

I do not support the corruption of my political party by the religious right, and crazies like Texaspackerbacker.

Hasn't that been, like, 20 or 30 years in the making now?

I have only been voting for ten years, but it seems the Republican Party is relying more and more of the Christian Conservative base, especially in this presidency. I may be completely retarded, but it seems that either you vote repbulican because of the second amendment, or because you are pro-life. I voted republican for fiscal responsiblity, and because of Bush's Social Security Plan, and we can all see what how both of these reasons turned out.

[Joemailman]

Like Harvey, I can see both sides of this issue. However, I am bothered by what I see as inconsistency by people on the Christian right (For the record, I'm Catholic). They will argue that it is morally wrong to end human life even if doing so benefits many members of our society. And yet, isn't that how we justify our wars? Don't those who support the war in Iraq justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the basis that the war will lead to a better society in the future? I think Christian Conservatives would have more credibility on issues like abortion and stem-cell research if they would adopt a more consistently pro-life agenda.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Don't those who support the war in Iraq justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the basis that the war will lead to a better society in the future?

You were okay with Saddam Hussein killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians? I find this argument pretty illogical. Having problems with the war is fine, but this is a pretty weak argument IMHO. I'm not going to make a case for or against the war. At this point nobody is on the fence--although I hope everybody wants it turn out succesfully. However, this statement is right out of the left-wing fringe playbook. Playing to emotion rather than logic.

It's seems pretty hypocritical to me that many of the same people that make this argument also want us to stop the genocide in Sudan. People in both political parties are very inconsistent on this issue. It's really rather disingenuous.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Right now this is a huge issue in the Governor race in the state of Wisconsin. Current Governor Jim Doyle is for opening up state tax dollars and allowing Wisconsin to rise to the front of stem cell research and stem cell therapy. Meanwhile, the President's choice Mark Green is a faction of the religious right, and wants to hault stem cell research in Wisconsin. .

Do you mean he wants to halt the public funding fo stem cell research in Wisconsin? It's legal now to do the research. Does he want to make it illegal? I'm not familiar with his policies.

[Joemailman]

Don't those who support the war in Iraq justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the basis that the war will lead to a better society in the future?

You were okay with Saddam Hussein killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians? I find this argument pretty illogical. Having problems with the war is fine, but this is a pretty weak argument IMHO. I'm not going to make a case for or against the war. At this point nobody is on the fence--although I hope everybody wants it turn out succesfully. However, this statement is right out of the left-wing fringe playbook. Playing to emotion rather than logic.

It's seems pretty hypocritical to me that many of the same people that make this argument also want us to stop the genocide in Sudan. People in both political parties are very inconsistent on this issue. It's really rather disingenuous.


The point of my post was not to debate the Iraq war. I just think it is somewhat inconsistent that many of the same people who support a war in Iraq that kills innocent civilians, are totally opposed to the destruction of stem cells which may lead to better lives down the road. I agree that there are inconsistencies on both sides. Neither political party in this country really has much justification for claiming to be pro-life.

[Deputy Nutz]

Right now this is a huge issue in the Governor race in the state of Wisconsin. Current Governor Jim Doyle is for opening up state tax dollars and allowing Wisconsin to rise to the front of stem cell research and stem cell therapy. Meanwhile, the President's choice Mark Green is a faction of the religious right, and wants to hault stem cell research in Wisconsin. .

Do you mean he wants to halt the public funding fo stem cell research in Wisconsin? It's legal now to do the research. Does he want to make it illegal? I'm not familiar with his policies.

I am sorry I meant hault the advancement of Stem Cell research, by refusing to pass bills that provide tax dollars for funding Stem Cell Research.

[Joemailman]

Right now this is a huge issue in the Governor race in the state of Wisconsin. Current Governor Jim Doyle is for opening up state tax dollars and allowing Wisconsin to rise to the front of stem cell research and stem cell therapy. Meanwhile, the President's choice Mark Green is a faction of the religious right, and wants to hault stem cell research in Wisconsin. .

Do you mean he wants to halt the public funding fo stem cell research in Wisconsin? It's legal now to do the research. Does he want to make it illegal? I'm not familiar with his policies.


Green zone

Green dismissed the charge that he would stop stem cell research in Wisconsin, noting that he supports the embryonic stem cell research that is underway on the lines developed prior to 2001, and that he helped secure funding for the first National Stem Cell Bank at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The true difference between the two candidates, Green said, is the issue of human cloning. Green has voted several times to ban human cloning, and characterized the bill Doyle vetoed as one that would have banned human cloning in Wisconsin. Green also said he has supported federal efforts to ban human cloning that have specific exemptions for stem cell research.

"Because he can't stand on his own record, Jim Doyle is trying to confuse people," Green said. "I can't think of a more crass political demonstration than trying to prey on human suffering for partisan gain. I've been a leader in making the fight to find cures a national priority for the past eight years - long before Jim Doyle said a word about medical research."

Green also cited his co-sponsorship of the "Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005." As a result of that act, he said stem cells derived from cord blood already have has led to 67 clinical applications.

In contrast, he said embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any clinical applications.

Green also said the stem cell research budget of the National Institutes for Health has doubled since he has been in Congress, and that he has worked to increase cancer research funding by $625 million, diabetes research funding by more than $120 million, and Alzheimer's research funding by more than $2 billion.

"I'll take that same commitment with me to the governor's office," he said.



This article doesn't address how much funding Green would provide for stem-cell research, or whether additional stem-cell lines would be provided. Obviously this will be a big issue this fall.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I want something clarified here. Is the research illegal? If public funding isn't provided, could the research go on with private donations? I'm just trying to figure out if this is similar to public funding of abortion rights groups. Some folks that aren't against this or abortion may be against the public funding of these things, so I'd like this clarified.

[Deputy Nutz]

I want something clarified here. Is the research illegal? If public funding isn't provided, could the research go on with private donations? I'm just trying to figure out if this is similar to public funding of abortion rights groups. Some folks that aren't against this or abortion may be against the public funding of these things, so I'd like this clarified.

Right now it is legal but without public funding

[Joemailman]

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the research should be made illegal. The issue seems to be government funding. Anyone know anything different?

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's what I thought, and I think people get confused on this. You could be all for the research, but against the public funding for this. Are there private entities researching this? I imagine if a breakthrough is found with this research, there stands to be a lot of money to be made.

[Deputy Nutz]

University of Wisconsin is so close. Madison could be not only the national leader in stem cell but a world leader.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is it true that the research that they've done on embryonic stem cells has produced much on results--while the results seem to be coming from the adult stem cell research?

[Deputy Nutz]

Shit I don't know

[MJZiggy]

I'm starting to think that if the adult stem cells produced decent results, it wouldn't be worth it to them to go through all this controversy to get funded for embryonic. I will qualify that by saying that it is an impression as I am certainly no expert here.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It's an argument that those that are opposed to the research make, so take it with a grain of salt. I'd like to have some independent opinion on it. Personally, this seems like a hot button item that has been really blown out of proportion. Those that are for the research tend to make it seem like we are really close to a breakthrough, but if you read more about (with an open mind), it seems like that a lot of researchers feel that there's little benefit for researching embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. Again, this is all about the PUBLIC FUNDING of this research--not on the legality of the research itself. As a Libertarian, I tend to be for the government keeping its nose out of things like this. As far as I know though, we could be close to a breakthrough and a little public funding is all that it would take. I'm not an expert. I get the feeling that's not the case though.

[hoosier]

Those that are for the research tend to make it seem like we are really close to a breakthrough, but if you read more about (with an open mind), it seems like that a lot of researchers feel that there's little benefit for researching embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells..

The NIH doesn't say there's little benefit in researching embryonic cells. They say pretty much the opposite:

"There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells." (http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED%7d&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#wherefrom)

[HarveyWallbangers]

From that same article:


Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research.

Apparently, they've only had federal funds to support their research since the summer of 2001--when Bush opened up federal funding for this. Funny that you didn't hear massive outcries in the three years prior while Clinton was in office--when federal funds weren't made available.


Individual states have the authority to pass laws to permit human embryonic stem cell research using state funds.

Since the reseach is not illegal, states (and private donors) have the right to fund the research. Again this is about FEDERAL FUNDING of this research. It's not about the legality of doing this research.


In the third quarter of 2004, there are 22 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers may purchase. This number is up from only one or two lines in Spring 2002.

More lines of embryonic stems cells have been opened up since federal funding was opened up for this.

Again, I'm sure there's other sides of the story, but it seems to me that this issue has been massively overblown.

[hoosier]

Again, this is all about the PUBLIC FUNDING of this research--not on the legality of the research itself. As a Libertarian, I tend to be for the government keeping its nose out of things like this. As far as I know though, we could be close to a breakthrough and a little public funding is all that it would take. I'm not an expert. I get the feeling that's not the case though.

Isn't saying that the government should stay out of things like this putting the cart before the horse? You can't really expect the private sector to fund research that doesn't yet have practical uses and a profit waiting to be realized. That's where the state comes in. And if it doesn't come in, then research never has the chance to make the leap from speculation to practical applications. Or it has to go elsewhere (Europe, Asia) to make that leap.

[Joemailman]

From that same article:

[quote]Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research.

Apparently, they've only had federal funds to support their research since the summer of 2001--when Bush opened up federal funding for this. Funny that you didn't hear massive outcries in the three years prior while Clinton was in office--when federal funds weren't made available.




The Clinton legacy
President Bush's stem cell decision, like the many state measures, is part of a long history of lawmakers grappling with the ethics of human embryo research. In fact, since the advent of in vitro fertilization, which produced the first "test-tube" baby in 1978, the federal government has avoided funding any work with human embryos. Many scientists say that this has hobbled research into infertility, birth defects, cancer, and methods for diagnosing genetic disease in embryos.

In one sense, Bush's administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

Recall the political context. In 1993, with something called the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, Congress and President Clinton gave the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time—ushering in what seemed like a new era. In response, the NIH established a panel of scientists, ethicists, public policy experts, and patients' advocates to consider the moral and ethical issues involved and to determine which types of experiments should be eligible for federal funding. In 1994, this NIH Human Embryo Research Panel made its recommendations—among them, that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, with the goal of obtaining stem cells, should receive federal funding. Embryos at the required stage are round balls no bigger than a grain of sand.

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment
President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. Within a year, Congress had banned the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is either created or destroyed. Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment for its authors, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, and Representative Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, the ban passed as a rider attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress has actively renewed that ban each year since, thus relegating all human embryo research to the private sector.

Such was the state of affairs when, in 1998, using—by necessity—private funds, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin successfully created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. Clinton's NIH knew the historic nature of that achievement. "This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine," Harold Varmus, director of the NIH, testified at a Senate hearing that year. New treatments for conditions like Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury now appeared possible. But the research needed years of federal support in order to flourish—and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stood squarely in the way.

Or did it? In January of 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells "are not a human embryo within the statutory definition," the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them. The NIH was therefore free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves (what Republican Senator Sam Brownback, of Kansas, called a bit of "legal sophistry.")

The NIH, with input from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and others, went on to develop guidelines outlining the types of human embryonic stem cell research that would be eligible for federal funding. These Clinton Administration guidelines, published in August of 2000, forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells (because of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment), but permitted research with stem cells that other, privately funded scientists had already derived from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

President Clinton strongly endorsed the new guidelines, noting that human embryonic stem cell research promised "potentially staggering benefits." And with the guidelines in place, the NIH began accepting grant proposals from scientists. Thus, it was the Clinton Administration that first opened the door to federal funding.

Bush's restrictions
When President Bush took office in January of 2001, by contrast, he began to shut that door. First, his HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson ordered a review of Rabb's legal decision. Then, the Bush Administration told the NIH to cancel its plans to review grant applications—pending completion of the HHS review. If the Bush Administration had done nothing, the NIH would have proceeded to review the applications and to finance those that were successful. Instead, that process was halted, a decision that saddened, angered, and frustrated supporters of human embryonic stem cell research.

On August 9, 2001, Bush went further. He announced that federal funding would now be restricted to a limited number of stem cell lines already created by that date—a decision that denied support to many promising avenues of biomedical research in an effort not to "sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos." Three months later, his administration ordered an official withdrawal of funding guidelines that Clinton had authorized. And with that withdrawal, Bush became the first president to reduce—below what his predecessor had authorized—the amount of human embryonic stem cell research eligible for federal funding. (Reports issued by Bush's own President's Council on Bioethics, which he established by executive order before appointing all of its members, confirm these events in detail.)



It would appear that Clinton did what he could to support funding for this research. Obviously, funding for this research is more acceptable to Congress than it was then.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Don't those who support the war in Iraq justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on the basis that the war will lead to a better society in the future?

You were okay with Saddam Hussein killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians? I find this argument pretty illogical. Having problems with the war is fine, but this is a pretty weak argument IMHO. I'm not going to make a case for or against the war. At this point nobody is on the fence--although I hope everybody wants it turn out succesfully. However, this statement is right out of the left-wing fringe playbook. Playing to emotion rather than logic.

It's seems pretty hypocritical to me that many of the same people that make this argument also want us to stop the genocide in Sudan. People in both political parties are very inconsistent on this issue. It's really rather disingenuous.

Funny how all of these debates revolve around the issue of the "freedom to take life", even though that freedom is contrary to the majority of stated religions in the world. As a nation, we've made it OK to kill Iraqis in the name of OUR cause. Israelis and Lebanese fighters are now killing each other for their cause. Protestants during the Reformation killed for their cause. Catholics during the crusades. Christians purified through inquisitions. Killing for a cause has happened throughout history. Humans are good at killing each other. One could argue that we are entertained by it.

I agree Harv that there is much inconsistency across the board on these issues. Stem cell application may lead to the death of a fetus, but it all boils down to the concept of "taking life". The bottom line is that we're killing in Iraq for a cause/policy (coincidentally, with the intent of saving lives) and yet Bush took a stand on a moral/religious issue, however you want to spin it, that could also save lives.

To me, his veto decision is the perfect example of hypocrisy--his action speaks to the belief that it is OK to kill fellow human beings when the cause aligns with religious politics, but not OK when it doesn't.

tyler

[Partial]

Funny how all of these debates revolve around the issue of the "freedom to take life", even though that freedom is contrary to the majority of stated religions in the world. As a nation, we've made it OK to kill Iraqis in the name of OUR cause. Israelis and Lebanese fighters are now killing each other for their cause. Protestants during the Reformation killed for their cause. Catholics during the crusades. Christians purified through inquisitions. Killing for a cause has happened throughout history. Humans are good at killing each other. One could argue that we are entertained by it.

I agree Harv that there is much inconsistency across the board on these issues. Stem cell application may lead to the death of a fetus, but it all boils down to the concept of "taking life". The bottom line is that we're killing in Iraq for a cause/policy (coincidentally, with the intent of saving lives) and yet Bush took a stand on a moral/religious issue, however you want to spin it, that could also save lives.

To me, his veto decision is the perfect example of hypocrisy--his action speaks to the belief that it is OK to kill fellow human beings when the cause aligns with religious politics, but not OK when it doesn't.

tyler


hit the nail square on the head

[HarveyWallbangers]

Isn't saying that the government should stay out of things like this putting the cart before the horse? You can't really expect the private sector to fund research that doesn't yet have practical uses and a profit waiting to be realized. That's where the state comes in. And if it doesn't come in, then research never has the chance to make the leap from speculation to practical applications. Or it has to go elsewhere (Europe, Asia) to make that leap.

You and I have different ideas for what the federal government is for.

The first issue to get resolved is whether the federel government should even be involved with this. State governments can do whatever they want. (We do live in a Republic.) I guess it goes back to how stringently you follow the Constitution. The federal government was given very little power by the founding fathers, and the onus was on state governments to do as they see fit.

Would you want the federal government to publicly fund abortions? Personally, I lean towards the federal government staying out of hot button issues like this, but I'm also against the federal government strong-arming states over abortion rights, drinking ages, and speeding limits also. I'm all for as little federal involvement as necessary--unless it has to do with the defense or possibly education.

If private entities see great potential in something like this, it will get researched. Is most drug/health research funded by the government, or is it funded by private entities? Are you saying that nothing can get researched without federal funding?

I don't know. It's a tough question, and it's not as black and white as one would think.

[woodbuck27]

Canada Government Authorizes Embryonic Stem Cell Research for First Time

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

June 26, 2006


Ottawa, Canada (LifeNews.com) --

The Canadian government, for the first time ever, has authorized embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer funds. Canada's health agency says it will allow days-old unborn children to be destroyed for their stem cells in studies conducted by a team of researchers across the country.

The governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) gave conditional approval for the scientists to use both "fresh" and frozen human embryos in the research.

The agency reviewed the requests for funds for a year and has authorized the scientists to proceed with the $523,000 project**.

The CIHR approval is conditional and based on the receipt of consent forms from the couples who have donated the embryos from fertility clinics for the research. The Canadian Stem Cell Network, which receives federal funds, authorized the project last year.

The network's executive director, Drew Lyall, told the Edmonton Journal newspaper that there's "no reason" the forms won't be process and the research advanced.

"It's an important new project to be moving forward," he told the Journal.

The research comes one year after leading Canadian bioethicists said they worried women would be coerced into donating their eggs or embryos for research.

Andras Nagy of Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, Jamie Piret at the University of British Columbia and Mick Bhatia at McMaster University will head up the research team.

Last June, Nagy produced Canada's first embryonic stem cell lines and made the two lines available to other scientists.

The stem cell network has not said how many human embryos will be killed for stem cells for the study.

Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any cures or treatments and never been tried on humans because of problems progressing past the animal research stage.

Meanwhile, adult stem cells have produced dozens of treatments for patients with various ailments.

comment: woodbuck27

** That doesn't seem like much money. That's just the cost of a decent home in alot of major City's up here. In 30 years that will be the cost of a two car garage.

So that is where we are - in this important issue in Canada.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Funny how all of these debates revolve around the issue of the "freedom to take life", even though that freedom is contrary to the majority of stated religions in the world. As a nation, we've made it OK to kill Iraqis in the name of OUR cause. Israelis and Lebanese fighters are now killing each other for their cause. Protestants during the Reformation killed for their cause. Catholics during the crusades. Christians purified through inquisitions. Killing for a cause has happened throughout history. Humans are good at killing each other. One could argue that we are entertained by it.

I may actually end up agreeing with you on this issue, but I think equating this to the war in Iraq is ludicrous. After Saddam's regime you could argue that we took the moral high ground by what we've TRIED to do in Iraq. It's not an apt comparison.

What I find hypocritical are the people that throw Bush under the bus on every issue. That's laughable. Get some nuts to think independently on issues, know the facts, and try to see the other side of the issue. I don't agree with Bush on the death penalty or his liberal spending. I agreed with Clinton when he "killed innocent lives" in Bosnia. It's seems the same people are opposed to his/conservative viewpoints on every issue.

People want to paint him bad on this issue (which I think is mostly a media and election year creation). He has gone further than Clinton by opening up federal funding for this--whether it was politically easier to do or not. It seems to me that he tried to find a middle ground on the issue. I'm sure there are some that oppose any embryonic stem cell research. There are others that are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Hell, i'm sure there are some who think it would be okay to abort a 9 month old fetus (the ones that believe that human life doesn't begin until birth) and use them for stem cell research. To me it seems that he has found some kind of middle ground on the issue. Apparently, he can't win on any issue for some people.

[Fosco33]

This issue is so politicized, and I bet 90% of the folks posting on here have no idea what the real facts are about this issue are. I'm guessing that most who have posted on this thread don't care. I can see both sides of this issue. It's not as cut and dried as it seems--like most issues.

Whatever happened to the old style debating technique where you were taught to first argue the opposite viewpoint of your own. It's a very neat trick. It makes people realize that there is more gray to most issues than black and white.

Good call, Harv. I've followed this issue for years. While Bush's veto may have some warrants (i.e., no fetal farms), it could have been line item changed and sent back to Congress - I think.

[Fosco33]

Bush administration is doing some political sidestepping before the midterms on stem cell use....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400990.html

Excerpts:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page A07

President Bush does not consider stem cell research using human embryos to be murder, the White House said yesterday, reversing its description of his position just days after he vetoed legislation to lift federal funding restrictions on the hotly disputed area of study.

But polls show that most Americans see such research as a potential key to treating Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries and other afflictions.

EDIT:

I saw this as well on JSO regarding groups targeting WARF's broad patents.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=475031

Excerpts:


The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, Calif., and the Public Patent Foundation in New York filed a request Tuesday with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office asking it to overturn three important patents on embryonic stem cells awarded to James A. Thomson. The University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist first isolated stem cells from human embryos in 1998.

WARF, the university's patenting and licensing arm, holds the broadly worded patents. In its 80 years, the foundation has amassed a $1.5 billion endowment and guided discoveries such as vitamin D and the widely used blood-thinning drug known as coumadin to the market.

But the embryonic stem cell patents are impeding scientific progress and forcing companies to locate overseas to avoid WARF's "draconian" licensing terms, said Dan Ravicher, an attorney with the New York foundation, which he said was founded in 2003 to "remove the pollution from the patent system."

Invitrogen Corp. of Carlsbad, Calif., said recently that it is locating its stem-cell research in Asia to avoid the WARF patents.

"Patents are like guns," Ravicher said. "A gun in the hand of a police officer is a good thing; a gun in the hand of a madman is a bad thing."

Although he wouldn't call WARF a "madman," he said, the technology transfer organization is harming science and California taxpayers and causing public harm by failing to "stand up and admit they got something they didn't deserve."

Researchers and others in California are getting more interested in the WARF patents as the money from Proposition 71 - the initiative that California voters passed in November to create the nation's largest stem cell research fund - begins to get allocated. Proponents of the initiative have estimated that the resulting research could produce therapies that bring in $4 billion of yearly revenue within 10 years.

In the pharmaceutical arena, royalties on basic patents typically are 2% to 5% of product revenue, which would mean those estimates could translate into as much as $200 million a year in royalties for WARF, Balbus said.

Frenchick said the patent office will give WARF a chance to respond to the challenge, and that its patents will be presumed valid while the patent office evaluates the request.