Please show me where and how his statements now differ materially from his 2001 statements on the Senate record.
I'm probably dense, but I just can't see where he's flipping here.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/896uigck.asp?pg=1
Read that article. It explains it better than I can.
I disagree with him, however, just as I disagreed with him in 2001.
I do not think that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research except in those lines that were already derived (whether it is 78 or 22 is immaterial to me).
We cannot stop this from happening in other countries. We cannot even stop it in the private sector. But by gosh, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it!
On the practical issue, it deems to me that if the stem cells in the existent lines are degrading, then it means that in order to have viable cells researchers will have to have a continuing supply of new cells, an incentive to procure even more embryos.
Frist has been consistent. I don't agree with his stance. I also want to know why, in the middle of all that is going on in Congress and internationally, he picked this moment (right before recess) to come out with this statement.