News & Politics - Stem Cell Research - Will Bush Veto?

Lexis · 07-31-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Frist's stem cell stance creates rift
Bush's reaction mild; religious conservatives say they're outraged

By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
Published July 30, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's announcement Friday that he would support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research sparked outrage among Christian conservatives and may signal a rift within the Republican Party in advance of the 2008 elections.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Frist, a heart- and lung-transplant surgeon from Tennessee, said the restrictions on federal funding imposed by President Bush in 2001 "will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases."

Frist's break with the president elicited profuse thanks from such stalwarts of the left as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), as well as gratitude from Republicans on the right, ranging from former First Lady Nancy Reagan to Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Orrin Hatch of Utah. Bush, notified by Frist of his decision late Thursday, said, "You've got to vote your conscience," according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

But Frist's decision may complicate his presidential ambitions and expose the limits of the clout of social conservatives considered pivotal in the Republican presidential primary.

"Sen. Frist's public backing of this horrific science is being felt deeply across Middle America, and most importantly at the grass roots," said Tamara Scott, Iowa state director for Concerned Women of America. "Iowans today are significantly saddened to see our majority leader support an issue that stands in opposition to his former pro-life stance."

Marshall Wittmann, former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, said Frist's break with social conservatives may be a sign that GOP lawmakers are feeling the heat from swing voters for intervening in the Terri Schiavo case this year.

After voting to instruct the courts to review whether Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted, Congress began sinking in the polls as voters expressed unhappiness and shock that lawmakers would try to step into a private family dispute.

"It may be a signal that the religious right can take nothing for granted as they look to 2008," said Wittmann, now a political analyst at the Democratic Leadership Council. "His apostasy may presage a real fight within the Republican Party in 2008."

On Capitol Hill, Frist's announcement changes the political calculus for stem cell legislation, which passed the House and is pending in the Senate with myriad related bills.

Specter, one of stem cell research's early backers, said Frist has given political cover to undecided lawmakers and provided new momentum to the issue.

"Here's a man who really knows science and who really knows government," Specter said. "So it is a very, very profound change. It's an earthquake."

Aides to Frist and others who are close to him say the senator spent several months reviewing information and talking with scientists, ethicists and religious figures, including at Harvard, Stanford, Vanderbilt and other universities.

They said Frist studied the current policy, as well as the state of the science now. One fact may have moved him the most: Existing stem cell lines have been contaminated and can't be applied for human medical use.

Whether he factored politics into his decision isn't known. But aides said Frist made the decision based on science.

"Of course there are those on the right who are going to scream," one person close to Frist said, dismissing the uproar.

In any event, the senator was unlikely to become the top choice of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, said John Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who studies the GOP.

"There were many doubts about his effectiveness in dealing with judicial nominations," Pitney said.

And while the right agreed with his position on Schiavo, Pitney said, "he wound up getting bad publicity out of it because a lot of people viewed him as trying to do a diagnosis on the basis of videotape."

There was little question, however, where socially conservative Christian groups stood on Frist and stem cells after his speech Friday morning.

"Across the board there is profound disappointment," said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "I think it would be extremely difficult for the conservative, evangelical community and the pro-life community to say they would endorse Sen. Frist should he run for president in 2008. I think it's a really strong breach here."

At Focus on the Family, spokeswoman Carrie Gordon Earll called Frist's decision "more than disappointing" and complained that he was making scientifically inaccurate statements using a selective analysis of research.

But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said it is too soon to tell what the political ramifications might be for Frist or social conservatives.

"I don't think there's any bigger message being sent by this decision at all," Perkins said. "I think this is the decision of one man, albeit an important man."

In the Senate, opponents of embryonic stem cell research shook off the loss Friday.

"I don't think it matters," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who also is a doctor. "The president is going to veto it anyway."

And despite talk by stem cell advocates that they will try to change the president's mind, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said he's not worried that they will succeed.

"I'm quite confident," said Brownback, a favorite among social conservatives who also is mulling a run for the White House. "The president staked out clear principles that this is human life and I don't think he'll move from it."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed

I have to say, I was quite surprised that Frist made the decision to back the research. And I think Bush will veto otherwise it would be a too obvious climbdown.

Do you think Frist has done this to give himself a better chance in 2008? Would he even make it past the primaries?

sick little jag · 07-31-2005, 11:54 AM

I normally think Frist is a right ol jackass and I'm not a big fan of his stance as a conservative evangelical Republican, but this I can support. He is a doctor, a scientist, and he see's that buy Bush publically saying he will take the side of religion over science, he's putting the US at a major disadvantage. Over the years Bush has been in office, the big scientists haven't been coming to the US to work anymore because they will be underfunded and restricted, or told to find things in favor of Bush's policies rather than things that reflect truth. It's smart of Frist to say that because he does know science and he does know that stem cell research is something the US should be funding research for. But it does look a little bit like policital suicide for him. Who would've thought an actual pragmatic decision would sink him rather than the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco?

But of course Bush is gonna veto it.

Drekkan · 07-31-2005, 10:45 PM

And the media hails Bill Frist joining half the Senate in announcing his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election.

86amanda86 · 08-04-2005, 04:32 PM

Again, I'm split on this issue.

Miss_Priss · 08-04-2005, 05:19 PM

I'm just confused how pro-lifers are against stem cell research...especially when it will SAVE lives.

Should Bush veto? No. Will he? probably.

Maybe more republicans will get behind it and be able to pass it despite Bush's veto. Though that isn't likely.

Lexis · 08-05-2005, 05:42 AM

I really hope that Frist's move persuades other Republicans to stand up and be brave. This research is so important and could help millions of people reclaim their lives. Already, America is falling behind in the scientific community because of this refusel to get active on this research.

At C&L they had this mock letter that people who didn't apporve of stem cell research could sign bascially saying that neither they nor any of their ancestors would never accept any treatment developed by it. Maybe that would put their minds at rest.

86amanda86 · 08-05-2005, 12:14 PM

I believe in stem cell research as long as it is before the zygote becomes an embryo.

mh67511 · 08-05-2005, 05:45 PM

I am against destroying a life to potentially improve or save someone from dying from an illness. I just find it morally wrong. To me it's like killing someone so you can have their organs, that's just how I view it. I also fear that people will start creating embryos just to sell for stem cells OR some companies begin CREATING embryos just to harvest stem cells. It creeps me out.

Does anyone have a link to Bush's ACTUAL ruling? Like a trancript? I'm not talking about some biased site, but what exaclty is "banned?" I thought only federal funding had restrictions, so what is preventing private companies from doing stem cell research? Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions developing new drugs, so can't they start researching stem cells?

Secondly, if people want to receive federal funding, are they required to make the research public? Are they allowed to patent and sell that research to the highest bidder? I do NOT want federal funding to go towards research that (a) ends up being afforable ONLY to very wealthy people ot those with the best insurance (b) is sold to the highest bidder to make a huge profit and then ends up as (a).

We are already in a deficit. The last thing we need is MORE ways to spend our tax dollars...

Lexis · 08-06-2005, 04:49 AM

I believe its because private companies can't compete with the research in other nations that is supported by the government's of those countries. Here in the UK, we have a whole dedicated centre and I think its South Korea that has made the biggest leaps in the research.

Miss_Priss · 08-06-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh67511

I am against destroying a life to potentially improve or save someone from dying from an illness.

The thing is we KNOW what we can do with those cells. They can become anything and if there was solid research and funding we would most DEFINITELY be able to cure a myriad of illnesses.

I think the thing is, you believe the cells would be coming from a life. That's your right, but I happen to believe differently. To me I think it's a tradgedy to NOT save living, breathing, thinking people for the sake of a cell that I don't happen to think of as a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh67511

We are already in a deficit. The last thing we need is MORE ways to spend our tax dollars...

Well you can't blame science for the deficit. That's for sure. Bush's fiscal policy is painful to watch. "What? Deficit? I know! TAX BREAKS for the rich! wooooo!"

mh67511 · 08-07-2005, 01:42 AM

I didn't blame science for the deficit. What I am saying is that if you are in a deficit, you can't increase spending, you need to decrease it. I am not against stem cell reasearch completely, I am just against embryonic stem cell research. I think stem calls can do a lot of good, but I don't necessarily think it's the governments job to fund this type of research, mainly because of what I said earlier about it leading to AFFORDABLE treatments which I find very hard to believe.

ceilirose · 08-07-2005, 10:01 AM

Aren't a good portion of the human embryonic stem cells coming from fertility clinics? If the embryos are going to be destroyed then why not use them for something that would help people?

If Bush vetoes this as planned it still leaves open many serious questions. The rest of the world is moving ahead on stem cell research. What happens if South Korea, Great Britain or any other country finds a treatment for M.S., Parkinsons or Alzheimers. Does the U.S. prohibit that treatment in this country? Do they forbid US citizens from traveling overseas to receive this treatment? If this same group is running the country 5 to 10 years from now then that could be a possiblity. I hope not because I'd hate to see people suffer unnecessarily just because of a partisan political belief.

Milt Palacio · 08-07-2005, 11:44 AM

The Pro-Cure Movement

Bronson · 08-08-2005, 05:53 AM

I'm sorry but I don't see the problem with this issue. If you can sure a disease that or at the very least alleave someone of their suffering, then why not do it.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Stem Cell Research - Will Bush Veto?