PDA

View Full Version : Idiot Bush vetoing stem cell bill.


Phokus
05-25-2005, 04:49 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After impassioned debate, the House passed a controversial bill Tuesday that would expand public funding for embryonic stem cell research -- a measure President Bush threatened to veto last week.

The vote was 238-194, short of the two-thirds supermajority of 290 necessary to override a veto. The measure now goes to the Senate.

The House then overwhelmingly passed a Republican-backed proposal that would use federal money to study stem cells taken from adults and umbilical cord blood, instead of using human embryos.

The vote was 431-1. One Republican voted against the bill, which was supported by Bush.

The first bill passed would extend funding to research on embryonic stem cell lines that were nonexistent in 2001, when Bush limited funding to lines in existence at the time.

According to scientists, many if not all of the previous lines are now contaminated and unusable.

The biggest support for the bill came from Democrats, with 187 votes. Fifty Republicans also voted for the measure. Fourteen Democrats opposed the bill, along with 180 Republicans.

Stem cell research has been touted by scientists as a possible step toward finding cures for diseases and afflictions including Alzheimer's, cancer and paralysis.

Among its most vocal supporters is former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband, former President Ronald Reagan, died of Alzheimer's in June 2004.

Bush said Tuesday the bill "violates the clear standard I set four years ago."

"This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life," the president said. "Crossing this line would be a great mistake."

Bush claims the research destroys life because embryos are destroyed in the process.

Supporters point out there are embryos in fertility clinics that would never be used to create babies, but could be used for research purposes.

Rep. Mike Castle, the Delaware Republican who introduced the bill, said it "draws a strict ethical line by only allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines that were derived ethically from donated embryos determined to be in excess."

Under the bill, couples who have undergone fertility treatments and have embryos they won't use can then make the choice of putting them up for adoption, giving them directly to another couple, storing them, discarding them or donating them to science, co-sponsor Rep. Diana DeGette said during debate.

"The only federal funds used under the Castle-DeGette bill are federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines" donated to science, the Colorado Democrat said.

The threatened veto would be the first of Bush's presidency. His stance is supported by Catholic leadership and social conservatives but has been rejected by some moderate Republicans.
DeLay: 'An embryo is a person'

Majority Leader Tom DeLay said before the vote it would be wrong for the government to finance "medical research predicated on the destruction of human embryos."

"An embryo is a person," the Texas Republican said.

"This bill tramples on the moral convictions of an awful lot of people who don't want their tax dollars to be spent for killing innocent human life," DeLay said.

At least one GOP member took issue with such a view.

"To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, cancer, MS [multiple sclerosis], Lou Gehrig's disease and other fatal, debilitating diseases," said Rep. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican.

"What could be more pro-life than working for a cure for a loved one?" asked Rep. James Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat, another of the bill's 200 co-sponsors, who suffered a spinal cord injury at age 16 and cannot walk.

Bush held a news conference Tuesday surrounded by families who had either adopted or given up for adoption embryos remaining after fertility treatments.

"With the right policies and the right techniques, we can pursue scientific progress while still fulfilling our moral duties," Bush said. "The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo."

Supporters of the bill say only about 10 percent of excess embryos are adopted; the rest are discarded.

A poll released Monday shows Bush does not have the support of the majority of Americans when it comes to government funding of stem cell research.

Forty-two percent said the federal government should ease restrictions on funding research, and another 11 percent said there should be no restrictions, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 Americans surveyed over the weekend.

Nineteen percent said there should be no funding of such research -- an increase from 14 percent in a poll conducted last year.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Alternative measure

During debate on the measure dealing with umbilical cord blood, opponents of the embryonic stem cell legislation pointed out repeatedly that while adult stem cells have been proved to cure and treat patients, embryonic stem cells have not.

Embryonic stem cell research is "a scientific exploration into the benefits of killing human beings," DeLay said.

But, said DeGette, "Frankly, they're good for different things, so let's not muddle the science."

She and other supporters of both bills argued the two should not be divided.

"Separating these two legislative initiatives would be like separating the flag from the Pledge of Allegiance," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat.

Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, the latter group including those taken from umbilical cord blood, have different functions and characteristics, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Embryonic stem cells can become all of the body's cell types, though research on them is still in its early stages, according to the NIH.

Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into the cell types of their tissue of origin, potentially limiting their use in treatments.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells/index.html

Just goes to show that republicans HATE science, they HATE logic, they HATE reasoning. What a frigging moron, those stem cells ARE NOT HUMAN LIFE. Those cells are BLASTOCYSTS which are eggs that are NOT FERTILIZED BY SPERM BUT BY OTHER DNA. Republicans are some of the kookiest/stupidest mofos on the face of the planet. :banghead:

Way to go bush, pander to the retarded, i mean religious right while the rest of the world creates advanced medical miracles.

Mark_Henderson
05-25-2005, 06:10 PM
In four years, there will most likely be someone who is less of a Neanderthal on these issues in the White House and in the meantime, this research is being pursued in labs in Europe & Japan, so the effect of the veto won't be that significant.

But, the three Supreme Court appointments Dubya's going to get are going to be interpreting the constitution through this prism til I'm in a nursing home.

O_P_T
05-26-2005, 09:39 PM
The only thing GWB wants to prevent is federal funding for this research.

There is no law prohibiting this research.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial today (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006738) describing the other sources of funding that are used in this area.

So what's happened, research-wise, since 2001? Given the rhetoric of some of the President's critics, you might think the answer is nothing. In fact, federal funding for all forms of stem-cell research (including adult and umbilical stem cells) has nearly doubled, to $566 million from $306 million. The federal government has also made 22 fully developed embryonic stem-cell lines available to researchers, although researchers complain of bureaucratic bottlenecks at the National Institutes of Health.
At the state level, Californians passed Proposition 71, which commits $3 billion over 10 years for stem-cell research. New Jersey is building a $380 million Stem Cell Institute. The Massachusetts Legislature has passed a bill authorizing stem-cell research by a veto-proof margin, and similar legislation is in the works in Connecticut and Wisconsin.

Then there's the private sector. According to Navigant Consulting, the U.S. stem-cell therapeutics market will generate revenues of $3.6 billion by 2015. Some 70 companies are now doing stem-cell research, with Geron, ES Cell International and Advanced Cell Technologies being leaders in embryonic research. Clinical trials using embryonic stem-cell technologies for spinal cord injuries are due to begin sometime next year.

True, many privately funded researchers complain about what they call Mr. Bush's "antiquated stem-cell policy." But we have yet to meet the CEO or entrepreneur who doesn't bridle at government restrictions, or who wouldn't welcome more in government subsidies under the heading of "basic research."

These companies are still raising private equity on the capital markets, and CFO David Greenwood tells us that Geron has been developing its own stem-cell lines, a process he says has only gotten cheaper as they get better at it. "When Bush made those comments in 2001 we applauded," he says. "We thought at the time, 'hey, this is a victory.' There was a minimum sufficiency of material to get the ball rolling."

All of which is to say that if embryonic stem-cell researchers can get this far within the regime Mr. Bush imposed in 2001, then surely they can go further without additional federal help. The same goes for the $79 million the President and his allies in Congress are proposing to spend on umbilical cord stem-cell research. Here, too, the government is spending tax dollars to subsidize a private sector that already has every incentive to invest.

One typically sees great predictions for what stem cell research will do interms of new treatment regimines.

If this promise is so certain, then venture capitalists would be fighting to fund this effort in order to make a huge profit.

If it isn't so certain that only Federal funds can support this research, then that contradicts the argument that its something we must fund because of the wonderful benifts.

Now I can accept that reasonable people can disagree on what is the appropriate level of support that should be provided by the government, but to suggest that GWB's policy is preventing any work on this subject in the US is just plain wrong.

Phokus
05-27-2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by O_P_T
The only thing GWB wants to prevent is federal funding for this research.

There is no law prohibiting this research.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial today (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006738) describing the other sources of funding that are used in this area.



One typically sees great predictions for what stem cell research will do interms of new treatment regimines.

If this promise is so certain, then venture capitalists would be fighting to fund this effort in order to make a huge profit.

If it isn't so certain that only Federal funds can support this research, then that contradicts the argument that its something we must fund because of the wonderful benifts.

Now I can accept that reasonable people can disagree on what is the appropriate level of support that should be provided by the government, but to suggest that GWB's policy is preventing any work on this subject in the US is just plain wrong.

Nobody said bush was banning stem cell research, but he's severly hampering it. You're arguing against a claim nobody in this thread made.

Also, you're confused about a few things here:

1) A LOT of discoveries are made in university research labs using federal grants, i should know, my dad conducts biomedical research at MIT through the national institute of health.

2) There isn't always a market for these types of research, even if it's beneficial for the human race

3) Stem cell research won't necessarily give you the cure, you might find out how a disease is caused. Private companies use these public research discoveries to develop drugs or therapies to cure them, a lot of the time.

Just look at how korea made a recent breakthrough using stem cell research by the koreans and bush's condemnation of the research.

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200505/200505240013.html

bideau
05-27-2005, 01:13 PM
If you want to read an old debate on this subject, the out the Stem Cell Research (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7359) thread.

kez
05-28-2005, 09:10 AM
Basically, all Bush has done is say "Stem cell research is a controversial issue and because so many people are opposed to it, we should not provide federal tax money for it. However, research with private funding is O.K."

That's MUCH, MUCH, MUCH different than saying "stem cell research should be banned."

But that's how it's played in the media: "Bush is trying to ban stem cell research." I guess Bush's opponents can't tell the difference. It's easier for them simply to say "look, he's a religious fanatic who's opposed to science."

That's simply not the case. A RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC examination of what he's saying makes this difference pretty clear.

Bush's opponents make the same irrational argument about issues like same-sex marriage. Bush simply says it's up to the states. He's made no movement, for example, to ban same-sex marriage here in Massachusetts. Again, he has a very rational position. But his opponents love to say that he's an anti-gay religious nut simply because he doesn't come out and say "Hey, gay marriage for everyone!"

Again, his opponents have difficulty examining his positions rationally. Ironic, isn't it?

fusion99
05-28-2005, 07:12 PM
Why do republicans hate science so much?

Bandwagoneer*
05-29-2005, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by kez
Bush's opponents make the same irrational argument about issues like same-sex marriage. Bush simply says it's up to the states. He's made no movement, for example, to ban same-sex marriage here in Massachusetts. Again, he has a very rational position. But his opponents love to say that he's an anti-gay religious nut simply because he doesn't come out and say "Hey, gay marriage for everyone!"
He asked for Congress to create a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage throughout America - which Massachusetts is a part of. John Kerry is the one who said it should be left up to the states.

O_P_T
05-29-2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Bandwagoneer
He asked for Congress to create a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage throughout America - which Massachusetts is a part of. John Kerry is the one who said it should be left up to the states.

Correct.

However there is some irony in the fact that his justification for the constitutional amendment is to uphold a bill signed into law byBill Clinton (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html)


THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

kez
05-30-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Bandwagoneer
He asked for Congress to create a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage throughout America - which Massachusetts is a part of. John Kerry is the one who said it should be left up to the states.


I've never heard Kerry say that, but I'll give you the point.

However, asking congress to create a constitutional amendment hardly amounts to a right-wing attack on homosexuals -- which is how it's treated among Bush's opponents. They make it sound like he's some puppet tyrant issuing religous-based diktats from the Oval Office and that anyone who disagrees is shipped off to the gulag.

The truth is that there's been little to no movement on a constitutional amendment. It's hardly a priority of his and, even if it were a priority and an amendment was written, he's clearly acting within the legal bounds of the Constitution. There's a long, ponderous and clearly defined legal and legislative road it must travel before being ratified. It wouldn't happen in his presidency.

Again, the truth about Bush (suggesting that something be considered) stands in sharp contrast to the hysteria ("Bush hates gays!") perpetuated by people on the left.

dchester
05-30-2005, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Phokus
Just goes to show that republicans HATE science, they HATE logic, they HATE reasoning. What a frigging moron, those stem cells ARE NOT HUMAN LIFE. Those cells are BLASTOCYSTS which are eggs that are NOT FERTILIZED BY SPERM BUT BY OTHER DNA. Republicans are some of the kookiest/stupidest mofos on the face of the planet. :banghead:

Way to go bush, pander to the retarded, i mean religious right while the rest of the world creates advanced medical miracles. It's nice that you are here to give us morons some well thought out, reasoned, and intelligent debate on the subject.
:blink:

I had never realized how I hated science, logic, & reasoning before you so tactfully pointed this out. Out of curiosity, do you consider these cells to be life (and if so, what species of life do you consider them to be)? Would this mean that the clone of a human being would not be considered human (since clones are NOT FERTILIZED BY SPERM BUT BY OTHER DNA)? I look forward to hearing your enlightened opinion on this, especially since I'm apparently either kooky, stupid, or retarded.
:jerkit:
________
drug testing kit (http://drugtestingkit.org)

spiderman
05-31-2005, 10:28 AM
Apparently I didn't get the blastocysts memo. I still thought stem cell research was controversial.

Is abortion still controversial or am I just being a neanderthal again?

Phokus
05-31-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by spiderman
Apparently I didn't get the blastocysts memo. I still thought stem cell research was controversial.

Is abortion still controversial or am I just being a neanderthal again?

Yes you are being a neanderthal (as usual) :D

The only reason why blastocysts are 'controversial' is because the christian right needs something to bitch about and they're horribly uninformed (I mean hey, they're republicans :p. Blastocysts are basically two things: a female egg fertilized by the dna of some tissue. For example, they could use my skin cells to fertilize a female egg, and now we have an embryo. That's NOT human life.

O_P_T
05-31-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Phokus
Blastocysts are basically two things: a female egg fertilized by the dna of some tissue. For example, they could use my skin cells to fertilize a female egg, and now we have an embryo. That's NOT human life.

I thought the present legislation in Congress would allow the use of unused material from test tube babies.

The original artice quoted states the following.

Supporters point out there are embryos in fertility clinics that would never be used to create babies, but could be used for research purposes.

As I understand it, the invitro fertilization process has a low success rate, so they normally use multiple egss to ensure they get a success.

I agree that these developing eggs will not go to term unless they are implanted in a woman, but any one of them could have been implanted.

Based on this, I think that if one believes that life begins at conception, then one would consider these a human life.

Now I recognize that reasonable people can disagree at what point a human life begins.

There are only three logical points to select.

Life begins at birth
Life begins at conception
Life begins at some point between the first two choices.

The Supreme Court effectively chose the third choice in Roe vs Wade, and uses the concept of viability outside the womb as their threshold.

However, using the concept of viability to define when life begins means that point is contantly moving.

The exact week after conception a fetus can survive outside the womb is a fucntion of how advanced medical science is.

If medical science advances to the point that a fetus can develop full term from conception outside of a woman, does that mean that life begins at conception?

spiderman
05-31-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Phokus
Yes you are being a neanderthal (as usual) :D

The only reason why blastocysts are 'controversial' is because the christian right needs something to bitch about and they're horribly uninformed (I mean hey, they're republicans :p. Blastocysts are basically two things: a female egg fertilized by the dna of some tissue. For example, they could use my skin cells to fertilize a female egg, and now we have an embryo. That's NOT human life.

To be honest, I've spent very little time pondering this issue, and my grasp of genetic science is minimal at best. But I do take issue with your constant reference to the "christian right". I happen to be a non-religious person, but I still find these types of issues controversial.

What I mean is, you don't have to be a christian to have a fundamental problem with abortion, and if you find these types of issues controversial, it doesn't mean you are against the progress of medical science.

If the issue is of funding research as you describe it, I'm not sure if I would really have a problem with it. The way you tell it, it doesn't sound all that bad, but when we all become slaves to our Clone Overlords I just want you to know that it's all your fault.