As far as I can make out, the Administration is right in saying current law forbids, with one kind of exception, blocking funding for this awful research. That exception concerns cases where the timing or procedure is manipulated to "harvest" [sneer quotation marks -rdf] the tissue under more favorable conditions.
It's not easy for me, not being a lawyer, to be sure I'm right about these technical documents, but I think I've got it right. Any corrections would be appreciated.
It is dismaying that our pro-life legal and political forces failed to bring this to light during the run up to the ESCR decision last summer. It is also puzzling that the administration didn't point it out, though they, too, could have missed it, at least at the top levels. Someone in NIH clearly knew, but those people may have wished to keep it from the White House. It's anyone's guess what the real story might be.
One thing is plain: the pro-aborts who inserted the language in 1993 knew about it, and hence they, at least, knew there was an unreal character to the public discussion of ESCR. We were, that is to say, already committed to this kind of thing, with federal money, for the even more shocking harvesting of the corpses of unborn children late in the third trimester.
So where do we go from here? I think I'll write about it for the Declaration Foundation website and I'll poke around the pro-life contacts I have and see if there is any energy for raising public awareness of the situation. Ken Connor of FRC has written the President, and we should, IMHO, get letters out to our Legislators and to the White House as well.
It's a discouraging situation, but one does what one can.
Cheers,
Richard F.
You ARE right. That IS what I told you in NUMBER 79. Do you REMEMBER when I said THAT President Bush is ON our side and President Bush must FOLLOW the RULES of 1993 even though he wants TO change them? President Bush is not LIKE President Clinton. President Bush will not BREAK the rules. Sometimes I wonder and I THINK that nobody is really LISTENING to me and then I think MAYBE that is GOOD and they can learn it BY themselves. Now you KNOW why it is important TO support President Bush. President Bush is ON our side.
Thank you, Richard. That's what it looked like to me, after reading the article fully, and also what I could make out of the law deport posted.
It is dismaying that our pro-life legal and political forces failed to bring this to light during the run up to the ESCR decision last summer. It is also puzzling that the administration didn't point it out, though they, too, could have missed it, at least at the top levels. Someone in NIH clearly knew, but those people may have wished to keep it from the White House.
It seems to have totally slipped under the radar - I know there are pro-life people whose job is to monitor pending legislation & notify people when things like this are on the agenda - it would be interesting to know how the law even got there.
I still think the timing of the grant is quite suspicious; approved on the last day of the Clinton-appointed acting director's term? I can imagine it being deliberately delayed, both to deflect blame from the Clinton administration and embarrass the Bush administration.
So where do we go from here? ...we should, IMHO, get letters out to our Legislators and to the White House as well.
When you come up with other actions that could be taken, could you perhaps post an activism thread?
Thanks Richard! And I know this is a highly emotional subject (and I think a very misleading headline the Chicago Tribune put on the article) but thanks for being rational! :)