U.S. quietly OKs fetal stem cell work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use

Chicago Tribune ^ | July 7, 2002 | By Jeremy Manier

[Keyes For President]

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.

[carenot]

How can Bush veto a budget that he didn't sign?

EO ?

[Amelia]

Amazing.

[carenot]

If Bush didn't sign the Federal budget, we have a serious problem.

Yep, and they might have to shut the whole thing down!

HeHEEE!!!

[marajade]

Do you all get the feeling there are two conversations going on in this thread?

[Bandolier]

That would seem to be the statute in question. Once the budget has been authorized, with stem cell research funds included, the money cannot be subsequently withheld. If no funding is budgeted for the project, there is nothing to withhold. This may be a case, as someone stated earlier, where funding was budgeted by the prior administration. In that case, no, Bush could not withhold the funds. If he blocks funding in future budgets, this code would not apply.

[carenot]

I believe the funding in which the grant in this article is referring to was Clinton's budget...

Yeah, everything is Clinton's fault.

That is what has been said for close to two years.

So when does Bush get to be President?

Please ping me.

[Fred Mertz]

Bush is no friend to unborn children.

Actually, I should state this clearer; Bush is an enemy to unborn children.

By going with Clinton's policies, he makes his own bed.

[Bandolier]

When and about what did GW overturn an EO?

If I am remembering correctly (never a certainty,) the "workplace ergonomics" and "arsenic in the water" debacles were last minute Clinton EOs that W rightly smacked down. It seems like he put the axe to a few "greenie" EOs also, but I don't remember specifics.

[exodus]

"I came across a fascinating passage last night in Keunnelt-Leddinn's "Liberalism".
Had to do with a US report on the failures of the German family, schools etc.
and specific measures to counteract these. Chilling, really.

I'll go dig it up and post it this evening perhaps..."
# 128 by Askel5

*************************

Please flag me to that article when you post it, Askel5.

[marajade]

If he blocks funding in future budgets, this code would not apply.

Does anyone know if there was funding in the HHS bill this last year, which would be Bush's first budget year?

[marajade]

By going with Clinton's policies, he makes his own bed.

What do you suggest? That he violate the law?

[rdf]

This may be helpful.

Is it the 1993 legislation referenced in the article?

Cheers,

Richard F.

[deport]

Do you all get the feeling there are two conversations going on in this thread?

LOL.... I surmise that two is a way too small... but then what do I know. Ya'll have fun now.... I'm outta this one

[MissAmericanPie]

Yes, I'm sure, it was a "bill", "legislation", he signed it with a real pen too.

Do a google.com search, type in "President Bush, stem cell research, signature, signs, bill"...there are several articles, read away...

[rdf]

I just wish folks would slow down so I could get a fix on this matter.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[FreeReign]

I was "bashing" the concept that Congress somehow made a law in 1993 that ensured funding for something, off into the future, without Executive recourse.

Congress and a current president can vote to fund something leaves no future executive recourse. That item would stay funded until that bill expired. A president can only approve a yearly descresionary budget but cannot touch anything that is funded by law.

I would guess that would cover the 93 bill everybody here is talking about.

[carenot]

So I guess Bush should just start veteoing full budget bills just because of one issue of funding he doesn't agree with? I guess some people are never happy...

I thought he agreed with the "already killed" babies being used.

But we won't fund anymore being killed

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

Excellent post Unc. Thanks for putting it all together.

[Keyes For President]

Actually, I now see that the misleading headline as presented by KFP is not the Tribunes but instead it is KFP's. I don't agree wiht this particular headline.

The headline is Exactly as written by The Chicago Tribune. It is exactly as it appeared on the front page of their newspaper.

Don't accuse me of misleading anyone.

[Amelia]

I just wish folks would slow down so I could get a fix on this matter.

Try reading post #79. It's pretty simple.