Ugh, Not Again. Our Moral President Vetos Stem Cell Bill

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president's decision.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

To blunt criticism, the White House said Bush is issuing an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that -- like human embryonic stem cells -- also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.

"This is, certainly not an attempt to muzzle science," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "It is an attempt, I think, to respect people's conscience on such an issue."

If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history -- to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. Snow said Bush's executive order will encourage scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines -- that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos -- to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.

"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."

This was the third veto of Bush's presidency. His first occurred last year when he rejected legislation to allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells -- a measure that passed over the objections of Republicans then in control. The second legislation he vetoed would have set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. (Interactive: Past vetoes by Bush and other presidents)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on August 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of August 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Opponents of the latest stem cell measure insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds -- and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically. These opponents, who applaud Bush's veto, cite breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.

It's getting harder and harder to support this man at all. ~:doh:

I disagree with you Ice. I'm annoyed with GW "I never met an entitlement or amnesty bill I wouldn't sign" Bush for a number of reasons, but this is not one.

This was a waste of time to begin with, congress knew he would veto it, and they knew they didnt have the votes in the house to overrule his veto.

Stemcell research and all the sub plots and topics deserved more then this waste of time, the democrats are begining to annoy me.

Send the bill up when you know you can get it passed and stop playing presidential politics. Federal funding for stem cell research is simply a matter of changing the president which will happen anyway, its a good program and should be done, as long as we have to live with the surplus murder of the unborn lets try and make a positive out of it.

Just another distraction for us to argue about while we're all being :daisy: by the elite.

Atleast this will provide me more garnish for my burgers....

With this and the department budget bills coming up, looks like our government is going to be getting nothing done til January 2009. Can't really say this is a bad thing.

At least Bush is using a power that he actually has the right to use. ~:rolleyes: I guess he remembered something from his Civics class after all.

good luck for Bush trying to stop progress.....

he´s trying to plug all the holes in his "morality" dam....

he´ll run out of fingers soon enough

17th Amendment....

It shouldn't have been brought up unless the Congress decided to pass it.
Do nothing Congress? Do something but end up with nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I disagree with you Ice. I'm annoyed with GW "I never met an entitlement or amnesty bill I wouldn't sign" Bush for a number of reasons, but this is not one.

---

Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.

Quote:

---

Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.

---

Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research. Its not like Bush is banning it. In fact he is the only president ever to ear mark money for it. Clinton refused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.

---

Not against stem cell research per se -- there is, at a minimum, a host of fascinating things yet.

Currently, there is still too much of a threat that embryos would be created solely for "harvesting" purposes -- which I cannot condone.

Other sources of stem cells can and should be researched.

What if all this is a bunch of bully? A false hope to treat cancers, cure diseases? If it doesn't deliver then what? You say 'it can cure cancer', but is there proof, or are these hypothesis and theories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Not against stem cell research per se -- there is, at a minimum, a host of fascinating things yet.

Currently, there is still too much of a threat that embryos would be created solely for "harvesting" purposes -- which I cannot condone.

Other sources of stem cells can and should be researched.

---

AFAIK (and never heard otherwise and that would actually make big news) there's no need for that as the fertilised eggs that ends up as "biohazard" is well enough to cover the need. I do admit that a need could appear if some very rare type of stemcell (odd genetical combination) was needed.

You're a "life begins at conception" type or simply not that fond of an "industrial" approach to embryons in general Seamus?

And other sources of stem cells can and are researched, but until you can take a stem cell from your blood (well any bodypart) and make it create a clone (regular cloning involves only the genetic material, the stem cell that creates the clone is from another embryo), the potency of embryonic stem cells cannot be matched.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research. Its not like Bush is banning it. In fact he is the only president ever to ear mark money for it. Clinton refused.

---

Some interesting stuff has came from adult stem cells. The embryonic ones are more potent, but harder to make what you want with (think fusion to fission).
As for Bush's veto, it's more of that banning funds on newer stem-cell lines that's interesting. The clear distiction, that says that "We (the state) does not support embryonic stem cell research, but we couldn't really forbid it", is telling and won't help the US keeping a leading position on the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

What if all this is a bunch of bully? A false hope to treat cancers, cure diseases? If it doesn't deliver then what? You say 'it can cure cancer', but is there proof, or are these hypothesis and theories?

---

An embryonic stem cell created you. Draw your own conclusions of the potency.

So? That indicates only that the cells can divide and produce a human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Why are you drawing god into this argument?

There is a difference between Meiosis and Mitosis, and while the birth of life is an astounding deal, that doesn't mean we could produce the same thing in a laboratory, or derive any benefit from it.

---

God? :inquisitive:

That original egg made umpteenth dichotomies (of the Mitosis version, although sometimes as a modified one), that created you from that single egg.
It's not the birth of life, but it's still the creation of you and here's the interesting part. If you can do it once, then you can do it again. It's not creation, but replication.

As for benefits, no lack of organs for organ donations?

It might not give the benefits, but there's undoubtable proof of the possibilities, so not researching on it would be folly, because we know that it is possible and aren't needed to reasearch it it is possible, but only if we can do it or not.

Edit: Well you edited your post after I vrote this, but I've already answered on your comment.

Quote:

---

Some interesting stuff has came from adult stem cells.

---

Any that meet the criteria I set or are they just theories?

Quote:

---

The embryonic ones are more potent, but harder to make what you want with (think fusion to fission).

---

You cant make anything with them. But you can with adult.

Quote:

---

As for Bush's veto, it's more of that banning funds on newer stem-cell lines that's interesting. The clear distiction, that says that "We (the state) does not support embryonic stem cell research, but we couldn't really forbid it", is telling and won't help the US keeping a leading position on the area.

---

:juggle2:

Im getting dizzy from this spinning.


The only reason he vetoed it was the embryonic part. He supports adult stem cell research.

Are we talking about the only President to have provide any federal funds at all for stem cells?

It's amazing to see people contort their thoughts to get mad at him when there was no funding for this before he came to office. It's like they write a new past history in their head of a world where this was the sole thing in the budget and Bush stopped all that.

Crazed Rabbit

Nice to know that the Org has so many bio-scientists on its books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You're a "life begins at conception" type or simply not that fond of an "industrial" approach to embryons in general Seamus?

---

Yes (Catholic and KofC) and therefore yes to part "B" as well. I understand why others who do not view life as beginning at conception would hold a different view on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Are we talking about the only President to have provide any federal funds at all for stem cells?

It's amazing to see people contort their thoughts to get mad at him when there was no funding for this before he came to office. It's like they write a new past history in their head of a world where this was the sole thing in the budget and Bush stopped all that.

Crazed Rabbit

---

:laugh4:

Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.

Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.

Quote:

---

Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.

---

And he keeps telling them that as long as they leave in the embryonic research he will veto it. And I and others are glad he does. He only opposes that. Stop trying to make it seem like hes some kind of nut on this. He does plenty wrong to critisize without catching flak for this. Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.

Quote:

---

Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.

---

For embryonic stem cell research If he had line item veto it would be different.

Quote:

---

And he keeps telling them that as long as they leave in the embryonic research he will veto it. And I and others are glad he does. He only opposes that.

---

That is plenty to oppose.

Quote:

---

Stop trying to make it seem like hes some kind of nut on this.

---

I don't think hes a nut, just a rube.

Quote:

---

He does plenty wrong to critisize without catching flak for this. Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.

---

Nothing has come of it YET. Who knows what additional funding could yield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.

---

http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=...etail&ref=1724
And I could have sworn that I saw news that they tried this on humans with the same results.
I will dig harder :book:

Knew it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle1637528.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research.

---

That's what i've been saying about your military spending for quite some time (well, obviously I'm not paying for it, I just think it's ridicoulous you do). At least this thing has promise, and possibly more science behind it than the average DoD approved project.

What's with the "Ugh Not again" in the thread title?

For once the President actually did something good, prevented the disgusting murders of some babies for the sake of "research". This is about the only good thing that Bush has ever done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

:laugh4:

Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.

Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.

---

Not to interrupt your chuckle, but there is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The problem is with new lines that involve the destruction of embryos. There's also funding for adult stem cells- which have shown more promise than any others thus far. Additionally, amniotic and umbilical stem cell funding is also provided. They're also completely free to research all embryonic stem cells via private funding- no one is stopping them.

I'm with Seamus, and Bush on this one. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=...etail&ref=1724
And I could have sworn that I saw news that they tried this on humans with the same results.
I will dig harder :book:

Knew it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle1637528.ece

---

Those were adult stem cells. Again, proven treatments and none of the ethical controversy- what's not to like there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Those were adult stem cells. Again, proven treatments and none of the ethical controversy- what's not to like there?

---

Fully aware of that, just a counter to Gawain claim that nothing has come out of it yet.
But if he meant that nothing good has come out of embryonic stem cells then he has a point.
But that doesn't mean you should cut fundings to it.

Meh its a non issue... let some other countries scientist get the Eureka moment and then get one of your companies to buy the commercial rights off of him... its the standard operating procedure so far...

Well, everybody who wants this to be funded so badly can always donate money to the cause I guess.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Fully aware of that, just a counter to Gawain claim that nothing has come out of it yet.
But if he meant that nothing good has come out of embryonic stem cells then he has a point.
But that doesn't mean you should cut fundings to it.

---

That did nothing to refute my claim. It only reinforced it. Why should we fund embryonic research at all. Everyone supports adult stem cell research.

well no one expects bushy to let science get in the way of his clumsy rhetoric. one of these days funding will pass for it, trying to stop progress is like plugging fingers in the dam, as someone mentioned above. the fundies just need to accept it and roll with it. progress is good, man.