Freepmail me to join the Duncan Hunter Pinglist
Freepmail seanmerc to join the Veterans for Hunter Pinglist
Contribute to Duncan Hunter's Presidential Campaign -- http://www.gohunter08.com
Posted on 02/22/2007 9:23:18 PM PST by EternalVigilance
I will wait for the Video to come out to hear what Romney said at that meeting, and I am sure the title is more like "Stem Cell Research!"
To: BigSkyFreeper; MHGinTN; EternalVigilance
BigSkyFreeper,
Mitt Romney has never condemned embryonic stem cell research. As your link shows, he only condemns the cloning of embryos. Elsewhere, his spokesperson has stated that Romney opposes federal funds for ESCR, and has never denied his support for the research.
Months before the article you posted, Romney wrote another Globe piece called "The problem with the stem cell bill."
What was Romney's "problem" with the bill? Not that it was pro-ESCR, but that it was "vague on the matter of human cloning." After condemning human cloning, which destroys embryos, Romney then endorsed the destruction of embryos for research.
Confused? That's the idea.
Romney is not against embryonic stem cell research, not against the destruction of life for science, he favors it on "surplus" embryos in fertility clinics--which is the source ESCR supporters are after. This is a position Bush has condemned, as he has joined with the pro-life community in advocating adoption, not destruction, of this life.
Here is Romney's statement from the Globe, March 6, 2005:
The problem with the stem cell bill
Mitt Romney
March 6, 2005
[snip]
Supporters of the bill are correct that state law regulating embryonic research is ambiguous and in need of revising. A proposal designed to give the law clarity, however, should not be vague on the matter of human cloning. This is the problem with the bill. . . .
Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos. Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I support that research, provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process that includes adoption as an alternative. Further, the greatest successes in stem cell research to date have come from the use of adult and umbilical cord stem cells. Stanford professor William Hurlbut, a physician and member of the President's Council on Bioethics, has proposed a promising approach. Known as altered nuclear transfer, this method could allow researchers to obtain embryonic stem cells without the moral shortcut of cloning and destroying a human embryo.
A bill that includes methods such as these and bans all human cloning would receive my full support. I share the excitement and hope that new cures to terrible diseases like multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, and Parkinson's could soon be within our reach.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/06/the_problem_with_the_stem_cell_bill/
That is not a pro-life position. Thankfully, not everyone is fooled.
Romney's stem cell view may upset the right
Use of excess embryos at issue
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | February 11, 2007
In the heated debate among conservatives over whether Mitt Romney deserves their vote, the focus has been largely on whether his big swings to the right on social issues are sincere.
But on the charged issue of stem cell research, he's facing conservative criticism of a different shade: that he hasn't swung far enough.
Unlike many on the right, Romney supports research on excess embryos created during fertility treatments. Because couples are making embryos to have a baby, he reasons, it is ethical to use the leftovers for research when they would otherwise just be discarded.
Romney's position, however, is at odds with the views of many conservative anti abortion activists, who believe that any work on stem cells derived from human embryos is wrong, because it destroys the embryos in the process. Some say Romney's views make him unacceptable to many voters and will complicate his attempt to win the 2008 GOP nomination by appealing to the party's conservative flank.
Romney's views on stem cell research, which have drawn little public scrutiny amid the static over his shifts on abortion and gay rights, are sure to attract more attention with Congress poised to pass a bill expanding federal support for human embryonic stem cell research, the latest flashpoint in a long-running debate about the sanctity of life and when it begins.
"It's a no-no for some people," Nick Lantinga, a Republican activist in heavily conservative northwest Iowa, said of Romney's support of using excess embryos.
[. . .]
Congress sought to lift the ban last year by passing the CastleDeGette bill. The measure seeks to promote, under certain conditions, research on embryos left over from fertility treatments by sanctioning federal funding for it. It would not authorize federal funding for research that involves cloning.
Bush, using his first presidential veto, rejected the bill.
But the issue is pressing again -- the House passed an identical measure last month and the Senate is expected to follow suit. With Congress still apparently lacking the votes to override a Bush veto, the views of the next president are crucial.
Romney, in an illustration of his delicate maneuvering on the issue, supports the principle at the heart of the bill -- that it's ethical to use excess embryos for research -- but opposes the bill itself, in part because he objects to any expansion of taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research.
Romney aide Peter Flaherty explained in an e-mail statement that Romney does not believe the public should pay for research that is "ethically troublesome."
"Governor Romney believes that because of its inherent ethical issues this research should not be funded by the taxpayers," Flaherty said, adding that Romney supports government funding of research into alternative methods of extracting stem cells.
[. . .]
Romney's views on stem cell research have evolved over the past five years. When he ran for governor in 2002, he endorsed embryonic stem cell research in broad terms, saying at one campaign stop that he would lobby Bush to embrace it.
But in February 2005, as the state Legislature was considering a bill to promote embryonic stem cell research, Romney, after consulting with specialists on both sides of the issue, tried to forge a middle ground: He would fight efforts to clone human embryos for research, he said, but believed it was ethical to experiment on embryos left over from fertility treatments.
Romney continues to hold that position, but he also now expresses opposition to expanding federal funding for research on excess embryos.
[. . .]
Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs for the influential Family Research Council, noted that Romney, after his education on stem cell research as governor led him to abandon his past support for abortion rights, now describes himself as "firmly pro-life." But the organization is concerned that Romney's position on stem cell research is not a pure "pro-life" position.
[. . .]
"Mitt Romney's position on embryonic stem cell research is not pro-life, and no one should say that it is," the Republican National Coalition for Life, a group founded by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, said in a weekly e-mail.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/
289 posted on 03/14/2007 1:48:17 PM CDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800515/posts?page=289#289
Is the Pro-Life Community OK with Romney's Stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
And here's a quote for people who can't see the video:
" I don't oppose on moral ground the use of discarded embryos from an invitro fertilization clinic if there is in place an information setting so people understand what the nature is of what they're doing and if there's an option for adoption available."
I really really hate to sound jaded (I think it's inevitable in this election - sheesh!), but it sounds awfully similar to "Well personally I'm opposed to abortion, but I won't stop anyone else from doing it."
Malin Burnham and his institute the Burnham Institute do indeed believe in stem cell research: all of it embryonic, fetal, and adult. And they use all of it in their research.
He did donate large amounts of money to Proposition 71 in CA. He did speak to the board of California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (what Prop 71 created) about stem cell research. And his Institute was one of the first 72 groups to receive some of the millions in grants awarded from CIRM and Prop 71.
Burnham Institute received their grant for:
"Generation of a library of hESC lines that model a number of human genetic diseases (Burnham Institute)" [hESC = human Embryonic Stem Cells]
Burnham himself is also one of the financial backers of Romney's fundraiser luncheon this weekend in San Diego. If Romney is truly against ESCR (according to the video interview above taken 2 weeks ago), he isn't truly against it, then he or his people would know who was hosting and backing these fundraisers.
All the above information is accessible & verifiable by a few simple Google searches.
He's still buddying up with the pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-destruction of human embryo radicals. This weekend, in fact.
How childish this is. Who cares? They're going to be at the same party. Wow! Say it isn't so!!
Being a conservative means a lot of things. Perhaps they back Romney for his fiscal conservatism, strong position on the war against Islamic jihad, anti-amnesty stance, commitment to small government and strict constructionist judges? Ya think?
I have many liberal friends who have diametrically opposed opinions from mine on nearly every issue. I am not voting for them or putting them in positions of authority in my life and neither is Romney.
Grown ups realize that they can attend parties with and find common ground among a myriad of different people regardless of race, religion, gender or political affiliation. It doesn't change one's own values or opinions. Your world of animosity, distrust, divisiveness and exclusion is not healthy and it is not conducive to good leadership. You should read a couple of Ronald Reagan's books before you set us back 50 years.
**EV Spam alert. Posting comments which serve to reject converts - repel conservatives 24/7
I'm afraid the knee-jerk responses to Eternal Vigilance's very presence on this forum has caused a good many people to lose perspective.
Would you 'care' if the financial backer/supporter in question was someone who considered terrorists freedom fighters? Perhaps a member of CAIR? Someone who worked, legally, doing something that many many people find morally objectionable?
This exact issue has come up time and time again in the political arena, and time and time again we hear about politicians returning checks, disavowing support from people, claiming ignorance & refusing comment, etc. This is nothing new, and certainly shouldn't be new info to Romney's campaign people.
Your personal attack at the end was tired, even as you claim to be 'grown up.'
It depends on the facts and the person, of course, but generally, no, because I wouldn't support Romney if I thought that attendance at one party with someone whose views we do not share on one issue was going to change him or his convictions.
Your personal attack at the end was tired, even as you claim to be 'grown up.'
To the contrary, it is not a personal attack, it is a mature and truthful opinion on his comments to which I am entitled.
**EV Spam alert. Posting comments which serve to reject converts - repel conservatives 24/7
I think that is precisely what I find troubling. Romney DOES share the views of Burnham. Romney says so himself in the video linked above from an interview taken 2 weeks ago:
" I don't oppose on moral ground the use of discarded embryos from an invitro fertilization clinic if there is in place an information setting so people understand what the nature is of what they're doing and if there's an option for adoption available."
He doesn't oppose using human embryos for research: which is what Burnham and his Institute do/fund/promote/support. SO perhaps if there was say, an hour long PSA video for people to watch before they released their 'leftover embryos' to research, then ESCR would be acceptable to Romney. I find that troubling. The embryo is still being destroyed.
BTW, I should apologize for my 'Hannity-esque' question in post #66 'What if...'. It's a lazy way of debating/discussion and I'm embarrassed to have resorted to it. I was distracted and apologize for rushing that to you.
Perhaps, Romney will have the opportunity for dialogue with Burnham, and hearts and minds will open to the extent he may even stop research on embryos and Romney will be convinced to oppose research on even the discarded ones. It is most likely about the Benjamins in the end and adult stem cell research has proven much more $ucce$$ful. I am hoping for more and more conversions along the way. I think it is true though --- you catch more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar.
It doesn't matter anyway, Dick Morris just said on Hannity' show that it's Rudy all the way! He's convinced! So most likely we will end up with much less than even Romney could give us.
No problem. I actually like Hannity and far be it from me to judge anyone's debate style -- especially someone with the #2 rated radio show and a top cable news show. We should all be so bad. LOL.
great cartoons
Actually, they've organized the party. Ever stop and wonder why pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell destruction folks would want to do that for Mr. Romney?
he should not show up.
Burnham is a an affluent and influential Republican philanthropist in San Diego with a long history of donating to Republicans and attending Republican fundraisers in San Diego. Burnham is just one in a list of approximately 50 other Republicans on the host committee and Dorsee has worked for many Republicans, even Bush and Cheney.
Ever stop and wonder why pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell destruction folks would want to do that for Mr. Romney?
Already answered that in the previous post ---->they are not one issue conservatives. They probably agree with him on 99.9% of all the other conservative issues. They like low taxes, small government, fiscal conservatism, secure borders, no amnesty, strong national security etc... On the other hand, it is possible they are doing a favor for a friend or they just like parties. Who knows? Who cares? Again, there are a lot of good reasons. It is still ridiculous to speculate.
Further, the more time good conservatives spend talking about conservatism with pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell destruction folks the better. How do you hope to convert them without talking to them?
In the end, there is no perfect candidate. The perfect candidate would be more conservative than Newt (without the baggage), would have the executive experience, intelligence and Reaganesque charm of Romney, the name recognition and star-power of 9/11 Rudy and the military experience of Hunter. Oh, and they have to be able to beat Hillary, like Mitt and Rudy. Good luck finding that person.
Agreed. Bet he will, though.
He's banking on folks' ignorance.
I don't trust Dick Morris and believe he thinks it's Rudy all the way because he, Morris, is for Hillary all the way.
Let's go with the guy who is definitely pro-choice over the one who is running on a pro-life platform.
Bravo, redgirl! So well said. : )
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.