Article of Faith
Today history was made, or rather stopped. President Bush issued his first veto concerning federal funding for stem cell research. This is the first veto of President Bush's administration and ends the longest streak without a veto in American presidential history, almost six years. President Clinton used his veto 38 times. FDR used his over 600 times. President Bush the elder used his 44 times during his one term, which is 44 more times than his son used in his first term. Of course, this is mostly because there has been a Republican congress for all of Bush's term. Oh, and he hasn't been able to get anything of his own agenda through the congress since 2003, not counting Supreme Court Justices.
The last veto before this was on November 4, 2000 (ed. note: no shit, this took ME 2 days to find), which was a pocket veto on on budget for intelligence agencies because, and take a second to bask in the glorious irony, it called for unauthroized disclosure of classified information tobe a felony. Yup, Clinton might be responsible for Rove getting off all the Valerie Plame affair. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, this is the first use of Article 1, sec. 7 clause 2 of the Constitution in quite some time. And more importantly is why and how it was used. It was used on a vote to ban federal funding on stem cell research, which most Americans approve of across party lines to the tune of about 67%. Of course, a lot of that data comes from push polling and polls that muddy the question between "federal funding for stem cell research" and "stem cell research for Alzheimer's (or some such)". To be fair, a lot of opposition comes from people fearing babies being conceived solely for cells to heal other people and being killed for it (in a process termed "fetus farming").
First and foremost, said it before, say it again, this bill was about federal FUNDING for stem cell research. This DOES NOT make PRIVATE research using stem cells illegal. There are still private medical research facilities out there that do research with their own stem cell lines, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. They have been mentioned in past rants, so google them if you want the history. They have their own stem cells "lines" that they use to experiment on and come up with breakthroughs in skin regeneration, treatments for congenital diseases and other degenerative diseases. All this veto does is uphold the withholding of federal funds from research that uses stem cells. Note, it doesn't even prevent a group from using stem cells in private research and applying for federal funds for a different project (ie, the left hand and the right hand don't have to agree). Stem cells, which are often gotten from fertilized eggs that are not impregnated in a womb, are believed to contain the ability to grow into any kind of cell inthe body, including the hard to replicate neural tissue. Stem cell lines are created by seperating them from mature cells, which would then grow into a baby, and allowing them to multiply.
Opponents argue that this is tantamount to killing a baby, since life begins at conception (using the generally scientifically accepted defintions of life, these cells are alive) and these are the starting cells of a baby. They also worry about people conceiving babie just to sell the lines off to make money, which they call fetus farming. While all sane people can agree that selling babies is wrong, the idea of cells gets fuzzier since it doesn't have a face and cannot evoke a visceral reaction in people. There are those who also argue this treading into the cloning waters, since the cells are often being split and able to be made into viable people. Also, arguements of vat grown humans, kept alive solely for the purpose of spare parts for the person who was deemed fit to live.
The real truth is that most stem cells are the "remainders" from attempts to fertilize in vitro, since they usually take many attempts. These embryos are taking up space in cryogenic containers becuase by law they can't be disposed ofby the facility at their whim, but only at the directions of the parents. And yes, there have been custody battles about who gets the embryos in divorce cases (surprise, surprise, Mom usually wins). Also, stem cells are present in every umbilical cord that comes with every baby that is born. Under the current law, which was signed by President Clinton, it is not possible for parents to donate the umbilical cord to this kind of research, and they have to be disposed of by standard biohazard means. Nor can parents who have a child from in vitro fertilization donate any remaining embryos to science for this either.
Once again, misunderstanding science and misuderstanding religion have come up against each other, leaving the majority of people as the losers. While of course scientists are going to hype the possible benefits, there is real potential to cure some real nasty diseases that have plagued us for millenia. What is most telling, at least to the arena this blog plays in, is the fact that Bush had to sign this veto in the face of public opinion. To his credit, he has never wavered in his beliefs to suit public opinion, which is a form of integrity. While integrity and five bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks (but not at Starbuck's), he was trapped by his past statements vehemently against stem cell research. And in this fragile election year, he had to maintain to the religious right that the republican party can still do some things in their interest, even if Sen. Frist (formerly the right's golden boy for '08) voted for lifting the ban. Bush got elected by them religious right and he had to dance the tune.
The only question that remains is will this be the veto that marked how out of touch Bush is with the nation.
So it is written, so do I see it.
Progamming note: happy birthday to PapaRanter.
The last veto before this was on November 4, 2000 (ed. note: no shit, this took ME 2 days to find), which was a pocket veto on on budget for intelligence agencies because, and take a second to bask in the glorious irony, it called for unauthroized disclosure of classified information tobe a felony. Yup, Clinton might be responsible for Rove getting off all the Valerie Plame affair. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, this is the first use of Article 1, sec. 7 clause 2 of the Constitution in quite some time. And more importantly is why and how it was used. It was used on a vote to ban federal funding on stem cell research, which most Americans approve of across party lines to the tune of about 67%. Of course, a lot of that data comes from push polling and polls that muddy the question between "federal funding for stem cell research" and "stem cell research for Alzheimer's (or some such)". To be fair, a lot of opposition comes from people fearing babies being conceived solely for cells to heal other people and being killed for it (in a process termed "fetus farming").
First and foremost, said it before, say it again, this bill was about federal FUNDING for stem cell research. This DOES NOT make PRIVATE research using stem cells illegal. There are still private medical research facilities out there that do research with their own stem cell lines, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. They have been mentioned in past rants, so google them if you want the history. They have their own stem cells "lines" that they use to experiment on and come up with breakthroughs in skin regeneration, treatments for congenital diseases and other degenerative diseases. All this veto does is uphold the withholding of federal funds from research that uses stem cells. Note, it doesn't even prevent a group from using stem cells in private research and applying for federal funds for a different project (ie, the left hand and the right hand don't have to agree). Stem cells, which are often gotten from fertilized eggs that are not impregnated in a womb, are believed to contain the ability to grow into any kind of cell inthe body, including the hard to replicate neural tissue. Stem cell lines are created by seperating them from mature cells, which would then grow into a baby, and allowing them to multiply.
Opponents argue that this is tantamount to killing a baby, since life begins at conception (using the generally scientifically accepted defintions of life, these cells are alive) and these are the starting cells of a baby. They also worry about people conceiving babie just to sell the lines off to make money, which they call fetus farming. While all sane people can agree that selling babies is wrong, the idea of cells gets fuzzier since it doesn't have a face and cannot evoke a visceral reaction in people. There are those who also argue this treading into the cloning waters, since the cells are often being split and able to be made into viable people. Also, arguements of vat grown humans, kept alive solely for the purpose of spare parts for the person who was deemed fit to live.
The real truth is that most stem cells are the "remainders" from attempts to fertilize in vitro, since they usually take many attempts. These embryos are taking up space in cryogenic containers becuase by law they can't be disposed ofby the facility at their whim, but only at the directions of the parents. And yes, there have been custody battles about who gets the embryos in divorce cases (surprise, surprise, Mom usually wins). Also, stem cells are present in every umbilical cord that comes with every baby that is born. Under the current law, which was signed by President Clinton, it is not possible for parents to donate the umbilical cord to this kind of research, and they have to be disposed of by standard biohazard means. Nor can parents who have a child from in vitro fertilization donate any remaining embryos to science for this either.
Once again, misunderstanding science and misuderstanding religion have come up against each other, leaving the majority of people as the losers. While of course scientists are going to hype the possible benefits, there is real potential to cure some real nasty diseases that have plagued us for millenia. What is most telling, at least to the arena this blog plays in, is the fact that Bush had to sign this veto in the face of public opinion. To his credit, he has never wavered in his beliefs to suit public opinion, which is a form of integrity. While integrity and five bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks (but not at Starbuck's), he was trapped by his past statements vehemently against stem cell research. And in this fragile election year, he had to maintain to the religious right that the republican party can still do some things in their interest, even if Sen. Frist (formerly the right's golden boy for '08) voted for lifting the ban. Bush got elected by them religious right and he had to dance the tune.
The only question that remains is will this be the veto that marked how out of touch Bush is with the nation.
So it is written, so do I see it.
Progamming note: happy birthday to PapaRanter.