Posted on 08/09/2004 1:16:56 PM PDT by Earl B.
(CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry Saturday carried his "help is on the way" theme to those affected in some way by diseases and conditions that could be improved by stem cell research, pledging to lift a partial ban President Bush put on the research three years ago.
Bush issued an executive order on August 7, 2001, limiting federal funding to projects using existing lines of fetal stem cells, a position supported by his party's fundamentalist Christian and conservative faction.
"The is not the way we do things in America," Kerry said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Here in America we don't sacrifice science for ideology. We are a land of discovery, a place where innovators and optimists are free to dream and explore."
"We know that progress has always brought with it the worry that this time, we have gone too far," Kerry said. "Believe it or not, there was a time when some questioned the morality of heart transplants. Not too long ago, we heard the same kind of arguments against the biotechnology research that now saves stroke victims and those with leukemia."
Such work, Kerry said, is too important to risk for an ideological base and must be "a priority" in the nation's medical community.
...
End excerpt
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Excuse me? American liberalism is built upon a disregard for "science" (or "facts" if you will) in the pursuit of ideology. Heck, Kerry's VP nominee built his fortune selling junk science to juries in pursuit of liberal ideology.
How much of the environmental movement is built upon junk science?
How frequently do the Democrats push their social ideology based on false and misleading economic/demographic data?
How much of Democrats "foreign policy" is based on a Euro-fantasy that totally ignores known fact?
How strongly do Democrats protest when conservatives point out the science behind abortion and partial-birth abortion? THAT science is considered in poor taste and it is ritually sacrificed on the altar of ideology.
Do the facts/science about the effects of same-sex marriage on traditional marriages and society in general stand in their way?
The Democratic party is the very last organization in America to let facts (science) stand in the way of their agenda.
Kerry seems to presume that all moral objections to medical research will, in time, be seen as foolish as "wiser" heads prevail and the benefits of the research are delivered to society. His comments imply that such objections are quaint and understandable, but ultimately illegitimate when balanced against the assumed benefits to be reaped from the research. In other words, Kerry does not believe that there is any place for a moral argument about this research. Probably because he is the nominee of the party that believes there is no God.
As for stem cells themselves - has it not been learned that adult stem cells are every bit as useful for the proposed research as fetal stem cells? And isn't it true that President Bush was the first to PERMIT limited, Federally-funded stem cell research? Overturning a Clinton-era ban?
It seems the Kerry campaign (and their friends in the media) are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. of course, mole hills may be all Kerry has at this point.
I'm sure someone else with more time and more talent (Lileks? Hugh Hewitt?) will properly deconstruct this. But I couldn't let this just float by without comment.
TRANSLATION
"taxation is on the way" theme
Simple demagoguery.
Adult stems cells are show greater promise, and you don't have to kill babies to use them.
And nobody is stopping anyone from using baby stem cells. Just don't force me to pay for it with my tax dollars.
There you go again with those danged facts. You are not allowed to invoke fact when discussing Jf'nK's pet projects.
That man must not be elected.
Kerry's position isn't pro-stem cell research; it's pro-abortion. He speaks as if the current policy is completely against stem cell research, which isn't the case. Significantly, Bush opposes that branch of stem cell research which has thus far been proven not only ineffective for treatment, but actually counterproductive.
He is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood who is looking to sell their aborted babies for profit. Disgusting.
How would John Kerry know how we do things in America, he doesnt go to work often enough to find out.
If Kerry wants to fund this "life-saving" research himself, all he has to do is get Tereza to sign a check.
But that's not what it's about.
"We know that progress has always brought with it the worry that this time, we have gone too far."
Perhaps the Kerry campaign should reflect on these comments and realize that they do a great job of capturing the prevailing sentiment in Weimer-era Germany in the late 1920s.
Sounds like Kerry should be all for human cloning, someone should ask him. (it is good science after all)
Origins of the Current Policy
In accordance with the Dickey Amendment, passed each year since 1995, research involving the destruction of human embryos cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars. This is not Bush's policy; it is the law of the land, passed annually by Congress and signed by both Presidents Clinton and Bush. This law does not ban embryo research, and it does not fund embryo research. It is a policy of public silence.
In 2000, the Clinton administration discovered a loophole that would allow the NIH to provide some federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research without asking Congress to overturn the Dickey amendment. By law, the government could not fund research in which embryos were destroyed. But if the destruction itself were funded privately, the government could offer funds for subsequent research on embryonic-stem-cell lines derived from the destroyed embryos. In other words: A researcher could destroy endless numbers of embryos in his private lab, and then use the fruits of such destruction to get public funding. This would not violate the letter of the law, but surely the spirit.
When he took office in 2001, President Bush put implementation of the Clinton guidelines on hold. He wanted a way to support potentially promising research, but he also did not believe the federal government should create an ongoing incentive for the destruction of human embryos. On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced his new guidelines: federal funding for research using stem-cell lines that existed before the announcement, but not for those created after. In this way, federal money would not act as an incentive for destroying human embryos in the future, but stem cells derived from embryos already destroyed in the past could be used with federal money to explore the basic science.
This was the fundamental bargain of the policy: no limits on embryonic-stem-cell research in the private sector (unlike much of the world, which regulates this practice), but no public subsidies to encourage a limitless industry of embryo destruction.
At a May 11 hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Aging, for example, Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease expert Peter Rabins and Washington University Alzheimer's researcher John Morris both told the senators that they do not expect embryonic stem cells to play a role in Alzheimer's treatment. Experts on other diseases speak with similar restraint. In the end, the research may bear therapeutic fruit and it may not — we cannot know in advance. It may cure some diseases and not others. But by seeming to promise medical salvation without limits, stem-cell advocates risk blurring the difficult ethical questions that surround this new science.
Inflated Promise, Distorted Facts
Though embryonic stem cell research advocates euphemistically refer to the current state of research as an “early stage”, the unfortunate reality is the goal of embryonic stem cell therapies is, at this point, more accurately described as a pipe dream. No researcher is anywhere close to significant progress in developing practical embryonic stem cell therapies.
The only thing certain is that the cost of that research will be high. If embryonic stem cell research had real and imminent possibilities, private investors would be pouring capital into research hoping for real and imminent profits. Instead, venture capital firms are contributing to political efforts to get taxpayers to fund research. What the venture capitalists seem to be hoping for is that taxpayer funding of stem cell research will increase the value of their stakes in biotech companies. The venture capitalists can then cash out at a hefty profit, leaving taxpayers holding the bag of fruitless research.
Ron Reagan Wrong on Stem Cells
“Embryonic stem cells are not going to be the source of a cure for Alzheimer's”, Dobson told the capacity crowd. ”Are you aware that not one human being anywhere in the world is being treated with embryonic stem cells? There is not a single clinical trial going on anywhere in the world, because (embryonic) stem cells in laboratory animals ... create tumors. Nobody will use them.”
By comparison, adult stem cells have shown great promise in the treatment of diseases such as diabetes, Dobson explained. And they do not require the destruction of embryonic human life, since they can be harvested from such sources as umbilical cord blood and bone marrow.
Hey...I thought Kerry was against using such divisive social issues. (Sarcasm).
Nice typo, CNN.
Yes, in Jf'nK's America we say we believe life begins at conception but we can't articulate why we believe that. And we behave as if it were not actually true. They are not persons, so we can do anything we want to them. We say one thing and do the opposite.
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.