Just looking to clarify your position.
Oh, and it's also pretty hillarious (we're laughing AT you, not WITH you), that someone who claims to be for "small L" libertarian fiscal policies, and that the Republicans aren't conservative cause they spend too much, blah,blah,blah, etc. etc., posts an article complainig how Bush didn't spend money on some scientific boon-doggle that they happen to think is worthwhile.
Pray tell Mr. Constitutionalist, what part of the Constitution authorizes the Fed to spend money on unproven (or any, for that matter) medical research?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Small-L!
Unlike many here, I don't only publish articles that I agree with. Your point is well made. Actually I agree with Bush's decision not to fund stem cell research, but for an entirely different reason--the one you make. It's no business of the federal government to be funding medical research of any kind (or education for that matter).
As far as the argument about crimes against humans, according to our federal constitution, that's a matter that is left to the states. Why is abortion any different? If a the residents of a state want to outlaw abortion entirely, and it legally permitted by their state constitution, then by all means outlaw it. The federal government should have no role, one way or the other. I applaud South Dakota's effort, but why should it be subject to second guessing by the SCOTUS?