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]

Re: Holy hell, Bush does know about veto power

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.

[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]

Re: Holy hell, Bush does know about veto power

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.

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?