Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House fails to override stem cell veto (Embryonic)
AP ^ | July 19, 2006

Posted on 07/19/2006 4:35:23 PM PDT by TheDon

The House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto of a bill to lift his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That means the veto stands, killing the measure.

...............

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; embryos; hr810; stemcells; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
Great news!
1 posted on 07/19/2006 4:35:24 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheDon

President Bush and House Republicans stand for life.


2 posted on 07/19/2006 4:36:55 PM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

"It was imoral so I vetoed it." Good on ya, Mr. President!


3 posted on 07/19/2006 4:39:32 PM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

There has been a fair amount of research using embryonic stem cells, yet the major advances have involved adult stem cells.

I am glad that Bush vetoed this bill. It made sense on several levels.


4 posted on 07/19/2006 4:40:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Al Qaeda / Taliban operatives: Read the NY Times, for daily up to the minute security threat tips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon


Hallelujah!


5 posted on 07/19/2006 4:56:47 PM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Ah, shoot. Really? The abortion lobby doesn't get to suck my tax money into their coffers through yet another means? Oh, darn.

I'm against this for moral reasons primarily, but I do find it offensive the proponents can't even provide strong evidence, research and proof of its success. Only promises that we're all to take on "Faith". Then they claim I'm the religious zealot.

I would still disagree, but at least I could understand where one was coming from if it was saving lives and performing "Miracles" as they claimed years ago. Wouldn't make it more ethical, but I'd understand why people suffering would leap at a real cure. But a promise of a cure? Might as well buy snake oil. Simply taking advantage of people that are desperate and it sickens me, especially when adult stem cells and human cord are reaping vastly more concrete dividends.

Bush said the bill crossed a moral line "between science and ethics that can only do damage to both."

Especially when science is manipulated to support another agenda. I'm not anti-science, but I am anti-junk science.

Congratulations to the Republiacsn, and any Democrats if they were any, that voted against this. And I thank the President. He did the right thing. He restored some of my faith in him. Said long ago if he ever VETO'd a bill, if he ever was going to VETO a bill, it would be this one. I really am glad to learn I was right about that.

6 posted on 07/19/2006 5:00:40 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Kobach: Amnesty is going from an illegal to a legal position, without imposing the original penalty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Why do we need to spend money on this anyway? It's NOT the job of Federal Government to fund such programs. Let the companies' shareholders fund research.


7 posted on 07/19/2006 5:03:38 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Sure sign it is a boondoggle, if noone wants to invest but politicians.


8 posted on 07/19/2006 5:14:51 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Good point.


9 posted on 07/19/2006 5:15:20 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Al Qaeda / Taliban operatives: Read the NY Times, for daily up to the minute security threat tips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
The House failed Wednesday to override President Bush's veto

Let's hope that his Veto pen is not out of ink. There's more bad legislation where that one came from.

10 posted on 07/19/2006 5:43:49 PM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
The vote was 235-193 to override, 50 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to send the question to the Senate.

Plenty of GOP support for snuffing out human life, I see.

11 posted on 07/19/2006 5:51:24 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
This from National Review Online:
The proponents of federal funding for embryo-destructive research didn't come close to getting the 2/3ds vote they needed in the House. The vote was 235-193 to override the veto. Fifty-one Republicans voted for an override, while 14 Democrats voted against it. Three Republicans flipped from the anti-funding to the pro-funding side. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania and Dave Reichert of Washington voted against the bill last year, but voted to override Bush's veto of it today. And Brian Bilbray, who told pro-lifers that he supported the president's policy during his campaign just a few weeks ago, voted for the override too.

12 posted on 07/19/2006 6:10:58 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Yeah, the GOP doesn't like to call my house looking for money. I don't have a lot, and I don't want it going to a party of wimps.

Then again, W always comes through where it really matters. Although this was not the first bill in his administration that needed to be vetoed.


13 posted on 07/19/2006 6:16:01 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

The federal government spends $25 billion a year on research for drug companies. The drug companies then get to patent the government's research and keep all of the profits.


14 posted on 07/19/2006 6:36:50 PM PDT by oozzyy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; Soul Seeker; Integrityrocks

The bill would have only allowed research on embryos that were going to be destroyed anyway.

This has nothing to do with abortion. When couples use this treatment to have a baby multiple eggs are harvested. The eggs are fertilized and then implanted in the mother. If the first one takes, the others are left frozen for 5 years or so and then they are destroyed. There are 400,000 of these embryos sitting unused in freezers and almost all of them will be destroyed.


15 posted on 07/19/2006 6:44:25 PM PDT by oozzyy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: oozzyy

You know, people generally are going to die someday, and a whole lot of them are basically just wasting time waiting for the day. So why don't we just round 'em up and harvest 'em for spare parts?


16 posted on 07/19/2006 6:50:06 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
The vote was 235-193 to override, 51 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to send the question to the Senate.
17 posted on 07/19/2006 6:58:39 PM PDT by BreitbartSentMe (Ex-Dem since 2001 *Folding@Home for the Gipper - Join the FReeper Folders*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The U.S. government pays for most significant medical research for the world.


18 posted on 07/19/2006 7:04:58 PM PDT by oozzyy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

A closer analogy would be using the parts of people after they die.


19 posted on 07/19/2006 7:06:37 PM PDT by oozzyy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oozzyy

Ah, that "after" part is such a nuisance. Why, the very same scientific minds that demand the death of embryos are now telling us that "before" works ever so much better. The field is called "bioethics," and it sounds like plenty of Freepers are heavily into it.


20 posted on 07/19/2006 7:13:47 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson