Senate poised to pass embryonic stem cell bill, draw Bush's first veto

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House emphatically renewed President' Bush's threat to veto a bill heading toward Senate passage that would authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a practice Bush loathes.

``If (the bill) were presented to the president, he would veto the bill,'' read a fresh official statement of administration policy Monday, with the sentence underlined for emphasis.

``The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the president's policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction,'' it said. Bush says the practice forces a choice between science and ethics.

The statement weakened speculation by proponents that Bush, persuaded by new science and strong public support for the legislation, might reverse course and sign it into law -- especially if the Senate mustered the 67 votes required to overturn a veto.

But as the Senate opened debate, it appeared that was uncertain. Supporters of the bill, which would overturn Bush's restrictions in 2001 on any new such research, said the bill had 60 votes required for passage. But it was not clear how many more votes the measure would win during Tuesday's tally.

The House, too, would have to muster a two-thirds majority to overturn a veto. Last year, the measure fell 50 votes short, a number that supporters said was sure to shrink during an override attempt later in the week. But no one predicted enough support to turn back a veto.

In an emotionally-charged session marked by deeply personal stories of illness, death and hope, the Senate on Monday reopened debate on the legislation, which has deeply split Republican ranks and tested Bush's loyalty to his conservative base.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a presidential hopeful whose negotiations made the debate possible, decried restrictions on federal support for stem cell research.

``I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive,'' he told colleagues.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emphasized that the bill would use only embryos derived from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. He compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to such landmark advances as vaccinations against disease and space travel, ``to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous.''

``There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research,'' said Specter, R-Pa.

Opponents say the advance of science is not worth destroying human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because the process of extracting the all-purpose stem cells destroys a fertilized embryo that is a few days old.

``The government should not be in the business of funding this ethically troubling research with taxpayer dollars,'' Brownback said, adding that using embryos for such research amounts to ``treating humans as raw material.''

``I do not believe taxpayer dollars should support research that destroys human life,'' seconded Santorum said in a statement.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill Tuesday afternoon and Bush is expected to veto it Wednesday. The House is expected to try to override the veto as early as Wednesday, but support for the bill is expected to fall short of the required two-thirds majority.

That the debate is happening at all is the result of a deal brokered by Frist, who broke a yearlong standoff between supporters and opponents of the legislation. To satisfy opponents and clear objections blocking the debate, Frist also is allowing votes on two related bills. One, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would encourage study on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos. The other, sponsored by Santorum and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would ban so-called ``fetal farming,'' the possibility of developing fetuses and aborting them for scientific purposes.

Those two bills are uncontroversial. The House is expected to approve them Tuesday by voice vote, and Bush is expected to sign them.

But the bill lifting Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is highly controversial and emotional because many scientists say the process holds the most promise for curing diseases that afflict millions of people.

Proponents struggled to make sure nobody thought the uncontroversial adult stem cell bill would advance science in the same way as the embryonic bill, numbered H.R. 810.

``Unless a senator votes for H.R. 810, he or she will not have voted for this meaningful life-giving research,'' said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

Information on the bill, H.R. 810, S. 3504 and S. 2754, may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...

"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?

...would this change the argument?
or, at this point will the argument really just begin?"

To Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the great celebrities like the late Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if they really support the use of human embryonic stem cell they should please follow these instructions:

#1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo.

#2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others.

OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure.

Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory.

HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS

We have to respect and Protect All human life

To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator.

However, there is a paradox of life and rights:

Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution.

One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us.

If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself?

Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence.

thoughts on human stem cells...

Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective.

I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question:

What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?

Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?'

Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive?

I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time.

The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle.

Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions.

For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children...

Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob.

In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights.

...post thoughts part I

As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument.

For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation:

Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project.

Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice."

Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease.

"If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician

K&V Jenerette... South 'By-God' Carolina - www.jenerette.com

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.