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 ...
President Bush and House Republicans stand for life.
"It was imoral so I vetoed it." Good on ya, Mr. President!
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.
Hallelujah!
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.
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.
Sure sign it is a boondoggle, if noone wants to invest but politicians.
Good point.
Let's hope that his Veto pen is not out of ink. There's more bad legislation where that one came from.
Plenty of GOP support for snuffing out human life, I see.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The U.S. government pays for most significant medical research for the world.
A closer analogy would be using the parts of people after they die.
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.
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.