Skip to comments.U.S. quietly OKs fetal stem cell work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use
Posted on 07/07/2002 11:24:26 AM PDT by Keyes For PresidentEdited on 09/03/2002 4:50:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Bush administration has approved the first federally funded project using stem cells obtained from fetuses aborted up to eight weeks after conception, expanding the scientific promise of stem cell research and complicating the ethics debate that surrounds it.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Yes, I read it. It says "the Bush administration", not "President Bush". Could it be that the first line reflects bias from the author? I also read this part, in later paragraphs:
On May 20, the NIH awarded the first funds for research on stem cells from fetuses to the team of stem cell pioneer John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine....
In another rare step for a relatively small grant application, NIH officials notified the White House staff when Gearhart's proposal was approved, said administration spokesman Scott McClellan.
The approval "was based on long-standing law and guidelines," McClellan said.
It doesn't sound to me as if the President had anything to do with it, other than being notified after the grant had been approved.
You know and I know that any agency in government is now called "the Bush administration", whether or not the President has any actual control over it or not.
You could very well be right. No one knows until the law and regulations have been set out.
Why all the rush to judgment?
I posted the law at #205 above.
Think Again, Mr. President - Bush Must Reconsider Stem Cell Decision
Lets start where the President started: in his campaign declarations.
On Nov. 21, 1999, on NBCs "Meet the Press," then-candidate Bush affirmed the basic fact from which any discussion of this research must begin.
Tim Russert asked, "Do you believe life begins at conception?"
"I do," said Bush.
...Clintons proposed rules, the Washington Post reported, "forbid the use of federal funds to destroy embryos directly, but they permit federal research on stem cells taken from embryos by privately financed researchers."
The response from candidate Bush was emphatic. "The governor opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo," said campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan. But what of Clintons effort to finesse the issue by funding research only after the killing was done by private money? Reported the Post: "In Bushs view, Sullivan said, that still amounts to federal support of embryo destruction."
In October, Bush reiterated this position in a written statement to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Taxpayer funds," said Bush, "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos."
As late as May 18, Bush stood firmly by this position. "I oppose federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying living human embryos," the President wrote in a letter to the Culture of Life Foundation.
Although Bush never published a succinct syllogism summarizing his argument, it is easy to infer what it was:
1) Human life begins at conception.
2) It is wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life.
3) Taxpayers, therefore, should not be forced by government to subsidize scientists who do research that begins with the deliberate destruction of innocent lives.
[End of Partial Transcript]
Bush Would End Stem Cell Research Involving Human Embryos
September 22, 2000
If elected president, pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush would end stem cell research involving human embryos, an aide to the Republican presidential nominee said Friday.
The controversial practice was cleared last month for taxpayer funding by the National Institutes of Health.
"It's something we would take steps to remedy," a Bush campaign health policy adviser said, on condition of anonymity, as the candidate suggested an increase in NIH funding by $67 billion over 10 years.
The adviser said Bush's public stance against medical studies using tissue from unborn children would lead a Bush administration to cut off taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, which the NIH approved in August by lifting a yearlong moratorium.
Stem cells, formed in humans and animals at the beginning of life, have the ability to produce a variety of specialized cells in the body, such as muscle cells or nerve cells. Scientists believe they can cultivate stem cells to produce healthy tissues to augment or replace ailing organs.
Pro-life organziations oppose stem cell research and have been promoting life-affirming alternatives that would advance scientific research but not at the expense of killing unborn children.
"Gov. Bush as a pro-life candidate does not support things that would be the potential taking of a life, so that's why embryonic (research) is problematic for us," the adviser said.
[End of Transcript]
"If elected president, pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush would end stem cell research involving human embryos,"
"It's something we would take steps to remedy,"
"Bush's public stance against medical studies using tissue from unborn children would lead a Bush administration to cut off taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research,"
Thanks for the vote suckers
Bush: No Federal Money For Research On Fetal Tissue From Abortions
January 26, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush said Friday that federal money should not pay for research on fetal tissue or so-called stem cells derived from abortions.
"I do not support research from aborted fetuses," he said.
He did not say whether he would move to block federal research funding an act that many scientists say could stop promising research into therapies for numerous diseases. Aides said afterward he was signaling his intent to do so.
Bush had indicated his opposition to such research during the presidential campaign, but the remarks Friday were his first on the topic since taking over the White House a week ago.
"I will let you know when I decide all policy decisions, but the answer to your question is no," Bush said when asked whether he believes federal money should be spent on fetal-tissue and stem-cell research from abortions.
On Monday, two days into his presidency, Bush had moved to restore restrictions on U.S. foreign aid to family-planning organizations involved in abortion. Anti-abortion conservatives were a cornerstone of his political campaign.
Scientists say research with stem cells, master cells that are the building blocks for all other tissue in the body, could lead to revolutionary treatments for problems from Alzheimer's to paralyzing spinal cord injuries.
Stem cells can come from aborted fetuses or from embryos left over from fertility clinics. A few also can be found from adult tissues, but scientists say fetal and embryonic stem cells are the most flexible and thus most usable.
Bush did not specifically address embryonic stem cells.
Some conservative groups oppose using embryonic stem cells for research because culling them kills the embryos. Scientists now know how to multiply embryonic stem cells in laboratories without killing additional embryos. Unless Bush intervenes, the National Institutes of Health plans to begin funding research with just those lab-grown embryonic stem cells as early as this spring.
Some researchers are concerned that Bush might cut off existing funding for a larger type of research related to tissues from induced abortions. Some Parkinson's disease patients, for instance, improved after receiving fetal tissue transplants in their brains.
Bush has said in the past he supports an alternative method using fetal tissues retrieved from miscarriages. But scientists say such tissue is seldom usable because of genetic abnormalities in the fetus that caused the miscarriage.
"I believe there's some wonderful opportunities for adult stem-cell research," Bush said. "I believe we can find stem cells from fetuses that died a natural death, but I do not support research from aborted fetuses."
He commented in a question-and-answer session during a meeting with Democratic and Republican governors.
Shortly before Bush took office, his spokesman refused to address whether the new Republican administration would shut down government research on the stem cells of discarded human embryos.
Press secretary Ari Fleischer, quoting his boss' statements during the campaign, said Friday that Bush "would oppose federally funded research for experimentation on embryonic stem cells that require live human embryos to be discarded or destroyed."
But Fleischer, questioned by reporters, would not say whether Bush intends to block the NIH, which is now accepting grant applications for research on lab-grown embryonic stem cells initially harvested by private researchers.
Bush stopped short Friday of saying whether or how he might block the NIH funding.
Incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has likewise sidestepped the issue. But as an anti-abortion governor of Wisconsin, Thompson praised as medical pioneers the University of Wisconsin scientists who first grew embryonic stem cells in their laboratory.
The White House is reviewing all rules and executive orders implemented by the Clinton administration, including those on abortion-related research.
[End of Transcript]
Thank you sooooooooo much for your vote, hahahahaha
May the President instruct the Secretary to block the use of these funds? Or does he have no option?
The language sounds permissive, not mandatory, to me. But perhaps there is other legislation, or other EO's. But then, perhaps the President could countermand EO's.
Still in the dark ...
Bet he got a "briefing" or two after that one.
1. The Director of NIH is not a cabinet-level position. NIH is ONE of the agencies in the Dept. of Health and Human Services.
2. President Bush's nominee to head NIH wasn't confirmed until early May 2002, and at the time this grant was approved, an acting director appointed by Clinton was still in office.
3. Your name-calling in #231 above doesn't help your argument any.
I didn't jump in to this food fight to make a point, pro or con, regarding stem cell research. I only got involved because the original article, and the article deport posted were either being disingenuous, or lying.
Congress cannot make a law taking away the Executive's veto power. The Budget is an annual event, and the President gets a chance to veto it every year. Congress' only recourse, in that instance, is to override the veto with a 2/3rds vote. If Congress could make a law that funded something into the distant future, without the Executive having any recourse, the crackheads would have funded their favorite programs through the year 5000 already.
This could be a case where Congress and the NIH pulled a fast one on Bush, I don't have enough info to say. But, believe me, the President's veto is still intact.
As for EOs, I think they are illegal as hell anyway. But, Bush has the authority to overturn prior EOs, and has done so. I don't know if that ability would be helpful to him in this particular instance.
"There is only one pro-life position. A human being exists at fertilization; he or she is a person; and the human embryo is being destroyed for the sake of taking the stem cells. That is killing it is direct killing and the President really has no choice."
Judie Brown - American Life League president. - Source
I reckon some people might say that.
I call it knowing what you believe and not having to check the polls.
Keys has always said the same thing.
GW's wife and mother believe in a woman's choice (to murder her unborn child).
1. It seems that GWB could've tried to stop this financing, and if he's brought to court about it, so be it.
2. If the President wanted to do something for his pro-life supporters, he could've pushed the Republicans in Senate to pass a ban on Partial Birth Abortion. We were always told there was no point in it while Clinton was in office.
3. I was shocked after the election when Laura Bush in an interview on TV supported Roe vs. Wade. With two attractive girls going away to college, it didn't seem like a message most parents would convey.
4. GWB was already on shaky ground with pro-lifers because of that bill he signed "by mistake" honoring an abortionist and for giving a Cabinet post to Chrissie Whitman, who vetoed anti-PBA abortion legislation.
5. One of Bush's primary arguments to the Conservatives against McCain was that McCain would be soft on abortion restrictions...that only Bush would support Conservative views.
I just don't see where anyone in the Bush family has done anything to outlaw or discourage abortion.
Yes, he will.
And every Republican will vote for him, no matter what.
"Nobody else can win".
I think I will vote for "Nobody else", if we can get him to run.
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.