Federal Legislation - Legislative Action Center
WASHINGTON (August 31, 2005) Before the end of September, the U.S. Senate may vote on legislation that would mandate federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos.
The bill, H.R. 810, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 24, 2005. H.R. 810 would require federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which would require the killing of human embryos. President Bush has said that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
KEY POINTS
* Each human being begins as a human embryo. Tell your senators that you agree with President Bush that the government should not fund research that requires the killing of human embryos.
* Stem cells can be obtained without killing human embryos, from umbilical cord blood and from various types of adult tissue. Already, humans with at least 58 different disease conditions have received therapeutic benefit from treatment with such adult stem cells. In contrast, embryonic stem cells have not been tested in humans at all because of the dangers, including frequent formation of tumors. Tell your senators that you favor ethical adult stem cell research, not research that requires killing human embryos.
* Those who favor federal funding of research that kills human embryos sometimes claim that these embryos will be discarded anyway, but this need not be so. Many human embryos have been adopted, or simply donated by their biological parents to other infertile couples, and are happy children today. Tell your senators that you favor human embryo adoption, not dissection.
* The biotech industry intends to create human embryos by cloning, specifically for the purpose of using them in medical research, including stem cell research, that will kill them. Urge your senators to act now to ban human cloning before these human embryo farms get started.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062557
NEW STEM-CELL POLL [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Here's David Espo of AP: "Republicans who dissent from President Bush's policy are circulating a poll designed to show they have the party's voters on their side even if many fellow GOP lawmakers are not."
He highlights the poll's finding that 57 percent of 800 Republicans polled favored embryonic stem-cell research while only 40 percent opposed. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican pushing for expanded funding of the research and for allowing research on cloned embryos, tells Espo: "Anytime you see a poll like that, that's a strong preference. Members of Congress understand polls."
Members of Congress, one hopes, also understand the limitations of polls--and of the ways interested parties like Castle can spin them. Here are some specific things they ought to understand:
-- The 57-40 percent support for embryonic stem-cell research does not indicate where public opinion stands on taxpayer funding or on cloning--the positions Castle favors. Dave Winston, who conducted the poll, tells me that these numbers, while interesting, do not reflect the policy question.
-- When asked their preference, 25 percent of Republicans said they wanted no government funding of the research, 33 percent favored the limited funding Bush offers, and 36 percent wanted expanded funding to cover research on leftover embryos at fertility clinics. So 58 percent of Republicans were with Bush or to his right, while only 36 percent were with Castle (and even that's with a question that arguably hypes the potential of the research).
-- Another finding: 70 percent of Republicans approved of the job Bush was doing on stem cells.
-- The 57-40 result came after respondents were exposed to 3 arguments for embryonic stem-cell research and 2 against it. I respect Winston's polling, and there are judgment calls on which arguments to select, but I think the ones he used tend to drive the numbers up artificially.
The argument that adult stem cell research is promising and does not involve ethical problems, and should therefore be pursued first, is the chief argument of the congressional opponents of the research. (I'm not find of this argument myself, but there's no denying it's the top one opponents are using.) Yet it's not one of the arguments presented to respondents.
Respondents are, however, presented with the argument that "fertility treatments should not be permitted" because they create embryos that will eventually be destroyed. Almost nobody is arguing for that position, it's an unpopular position, and it's only tangentially related to the policy question actually before the Congress.
-- Respondents were asked, understandably given the politics though somewhat oddly as an abstract matter, about what they thought about the promise of various lines of research. Sixty-nice percent thought that embryonic stem-cell research might generate medical advances. But when asked which avenue of research held the most promise, only 24 percent picked embryonic stem-cell research. Another 21 percent said adult stem-cell research, 31 percent said cord-blood stem-cell research, and 24 percent said (as I would have) that they didn't know.
These numbers aren't terrific for pro-lifers, but they're not the slam-dunk for Castle's side of this debate that he (and the Associated Press) would have us believe.
Bookmarked, thank you.
Politicians are human wind socks. Most of them believe in nothing but determining which way the wind is blowing during election time.
"Below are the names of the Republican House Members, most, if not all, of whom will be running for re-election. These people clearly showed, through their support for H.R. 810, their disregard for innocent human life. Because of this, RNC/Life PAC considers them unworthy of support by pro-life voters.
(AK) Don Young (AZ) Jim Kolbe (CA) Bill Thomas; Howard McKeon; David Dreier; Jerry Lewis; Ken Calvert; Mary Bono; Dana Rohrabacher; Darrell Issa; Randy Cunningham (CT) Robert Simmons; Chris Shays; Nancy Johnson (DE) Mike Castle (FL) Ginny Brown-Waite; Bill Young; Connie Mack; Mark Foley; Clay Shaw (IL) Mark Kirk; Judy Biggert (IA) Jim Leach (MD) Wayne Gilchrest (MI) Fred Upton; Joe Schwarz (MN) Jim Ramstad (MO) Jo Ann Emerson (NV) James Gibbons; Jon Porter (NH) Jeb Bradley; Charles Bass (NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (NM) Heather Wilson (NY) Vito Fossella; Sue Kelly; John Sweeney; Sherwood Boehlert (NC) Howard Coble (OH) Steven La Tourette; Deborah Pryce; Ralph Regula (OR) Greg Walden (PA) Jim Gerlach; Charles Dent; Todd Platts (TX) Joe Barton; Kay Granger (VA) Tom Davis (WV) Shelley Moore Capito."
Some of these names are indeed surprising. Obviously a lot of pro-lifers decided to waffle when it comes to stem-cell research because they're afraid of the Christopher Reeves vote. Of the 50 Republicans, at least 21 of them usually vote pro-life: Don Young; Howard McKeon; David Dreier; Jerry Lewis; Ken Calvert; Dana Rohrabacher; Duke Cunningham; Bill Young; Clay Shaw; Jo Ann Emerson; Jon Porter; Heather Wilson; Vito Fossella; John Sweeney; Howard Coble; Steven La Tourette; Ralph Regula; Greg Walden; Jim Gerlach; Todd Platts; and Joe Barton.
"Democrats who defied their partys leadership and displayed their pro-life convictions by voting against federal funding of research on human embryos are: (GA) Jim Marshall (IL) Dan Lipinski; Jerry Costello (MI) Bart Stupak; Dale Kildee (MN) Collin Peterson; James Oberstar (NC) Mike McIntyre (OH) Marcy Kaptur (PA) Tim Holden (TN) Lincoln Davis (WV) Alan Mollohan; Nick Rahall."
Most of these are principled pro-lifers. Oberstar, Rahall, Kildee and Kaptur vote liberal on most issues but are consistently pro-life. Costello, Lipinski and Stupak are moderates who consistently vote pro-life. Peterson, McIntyre, Holden, Davis and Mollohan are conservatives who not only vote pro-life, but cast conservative votes on other issues and would be able to switch to the GOP without skipping a beat. The only hypocrite in the bunch is Jim Marshall of Georgia, who almost always votes pro-abortion and is a liberal on most other issues as well but is scared that he'll be defeated for reelection in his GOP-trending district.
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 -
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
(1) have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
(2) were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
(3) were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment); and
(4) were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Get ready to be scolded by the win-even-if-it-means-selling-your-soul republicans. Thanks for posting this.
NFP
And .. of course that makes the democrats MORE DESERVING OF SUPPORT - JUST TO SHOW THOSE REPUBS WHO'S IN CHARGE!! /s
People need to get real!
Jim Ramstad
The Rammer (what he call him) is a classic RINO. The problem is he's in a safe seat.
Good post. Stuff to remember at election time.
More republicans than that are un-deserving of the anti-socialism vote..
As for Joe Schwarz he can be beaten with a strong primary challenger. He is well known for being pro-choice, as well as anti-gun(and somewhat pro-tax as well). He only won in 2004 because conservatives split their votes among several challengers in different parts of the district. Schwarz took advantage of that, as well as some democrat crossover votes. He won with under 30% in the primary, and was lucky to face a weak democrat who was underfunded.
On the democrat side, Dale Kildee is extremely liberal on most issues(unions, guns, economics), but he is pro-life due to his Catholic religion(he went to Sacred Heart Seminary).
Bart Stupak (also Catholic) is a moderate democrat from the Upper Peninsula. The district voted for Bush twice and has a majority of conservative democrats who split their tickets. Stupak is erratic on many issues, but is solidly pro-life, as is his district. A pro-choicer would likely be defeated there as the district is socially conservative, and economically somewhat populist.
Since GOPcapitalist left Free Republic I have only you to ask. Joe Batron a good conservative is on this list, any idea what's up?
I thought he already announced he was not seeking reelection.
Unfortunate, but typical of Republicans. They treat us the way Dimmycraps treat blacks.
I agree with a solid majority of Americans and scientists that embryonic stem cell research is promising and will save millions of lives down the road. It's an embryo, not a fetus! Be consistently pro-life and allow universities federal funding for this life-saving research.
only one in MN? Is that because of the low percentage of Repubs from MN or... :-)