I'm not especially passionate about abortion and stem cell research. I have an opinion on it, but I don't have a lot invested emotionally in it.
But whether or not I can make political hay out of the issue, it doesn't alter the logic I gave for the points I made. If you can come up with a third case that would exonerate Bush of any culpability whatsoever, then I'd be happy to hear it, and will consider the points using what reasoning abilities I possess.
More generally, I always try to judge people by what they do, not what they say. Bush has *said* he will limit stem cell research to X number of lines, yet, evidently, he was not empowered to make that statement due to a law that he did or did not know about at the time. Thus, what is *done* is more 'lines' of stem cell research than the President's speech allows for. By itself, this may not be especially troubling, but as a data point for a trend in saying one thing while another is actually done, this situation could be one of many that points to something very troubling.
You can dismiss my reasoning by saying I'm merely a Bush-basher, but that, IMO, would be unwise. It would be one thing if I was just calling Bush names, but if you want to ignore factual matters because you don't like the messenger who brings them to your attention, then you are just as guilty of being a fool as those who ignored the actions of Clinton.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
Because of a discrepancy in regulations, stem cells taken from fetuses are subject to different rules than similar cells from embryos. In fact, the cells derived from fetuses may qualify for a broader range of federal funds, government experts said.Bush's policy barred the use of federal grants for research on stem cells taken from embryos after Aug. 9, 2001. Bush said the decision was based on his moral opposition to destroying additional embryos for research purposes.
But that restriction does not apply to research on stem cells obtained from fetuses, according to officials at the National Institutes of Health. Such work falls under less-restrictive Clinton-era rules, which Bush never revised.
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.
White House officials said Bush left the Clinton guidelines for fetal-derived cells in place because Congress passed a law in 1993 that made it illegal for presidents to ban funding for such research.
Ok, as I understand the article, Bush didn't approve this funding, the NIH did, and if the NIH hadn't taken the "rare step" of notifying the White House when they approved the grant, the President wouldn't have known about it until he read it in the newspaper.
Embryonic stem cells and fetal stem cells are covered under two different catagories: Bush's law earlier covered research on embryonic stem cells; fetal stem cells (which these are) are covered under a Clinton-era law.
Wow, reading the article can make a difference.