Posted on 06/14/2004 11:27:57 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WHITE HOUSE -- The White House is rejecting calls by former President Reagan's family to change its policy on stem cell research.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan says flatly, "The policy remains the same." He adds, "We are looking at other ways to combat disease."
Reagan's widow Nancy and his daughter Patti Davis have been outspoken advocates of expanding medical research using embryonic stem cells. Biologists think these could help create treatments for diseases ranging from diabetes to Alzheimer's, which afflicted Reagan for a decade.
In 2001, Bush signed an executive order limiting federally funded research to 78 lines of embryonic stem cells then in existence. However, researchers say the number of lines actually available is now 19 -- and contamination may make those unusable.
McClellan says Bush believes his policy still provides enough lines to continue research.
Adult stem cell research is where the promise is anyway.
No Dems who's new borns have died, donates their dead children for this research?
Bush is sticking to his guns. I think the American public appreciates that.
No they don't, if this article is any indication.
But they'll pretend they do, so that they can use a grieving widow as a prop.
Does anyone think that Ronald Reagan would support embryonic stem cell research? Does Nancy think he would?
Hanoi John French Kerry would have it no other way
The Bush policy is reasonable and appropriate. Lies or misleading statements from liberals and the media do not change the underlying facts here that Bush has provided for the ability to perform stem cell research and that there is consensus of no likeihood for cures of Alzheimers through stem cells.
I wish someone in authority would come out and actually say this. Maybe it would put this fetal stem cell issue to bed once and for all.
What's up with this prediction that Alzheimers cases will increase by 50% over next several years (I don't recall exactly how many years, perhap ten)? If it's genetic, then why this huge jump?
I don't think Ronald Reagan would support embryonic stem cell research, either. I don't think he'd want to profit from aborted children. The man had firm principles.
Because people live longer now. People who are 65 years of age, you have a 10% probability of developing Alzheimers with the next year. At 75, the odds go to 40%. In your 80's, the odds increase to 50%. About 50 percent of Americans over 85 have Alzheimer's. Scientists have determined that certain genes make some families particularly vulnerable to Alzheimer’s. Head injuries may increase risk; high blood pressure is a new suspect.
I'm confused. What about embryos from fertility clinics, where there are more produced than necessary to achieve conception? Do we toss those? Sorry. I understand limiting in most circumstances, but if we are not opposed artificial conception, then why would we be opposed to doing something with the leftovers rather than wasting them?
Oh one other thing. Listening to Al Gore speak will cause immediate Alzhimers in adults!
Perhaps it is based on America's large population of Boomers getting older all at the same time, thus increasing the likelihood of getting Alzheimer's.
Al who?
The language you used here reveals much about modern reproductive freedom, which really isn't confined to abortion. "Leftovers"? "Wasting them"? Hard to believe we're talking here about unique human individuals, but that is exactly what we are talking about.
Not only that .. these big fat cat dems (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton), never put THEIR money where their mouth is. They want to use YOUR MONEY for their research.
The President has said (now for the 2nd time) NO! The dems are not going to be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to fund research which the President considers immoral.
THERE IS NO LAW STOPING THE DEMS FROM SETTING UP AND FUNDING THEIR OWN RESEARCH IF THEY WANT IT SO BAD. Don't allow the dems to make this a Bush admin issue.
Okay. So you are saying that because they are human beings from the point of conception, it is wrong to regard them in such ill terms. I agree. So we are "throwing away" human beings. What are we best to do with them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.