- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Obama Watch
Obama's Stem Cell Diktat
"We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising
embryonic stem cell research."
-- President Barack Obama, March 10, 2009
"Bush to allow limited stem cell funding"
--
CNN headline, Aug. 10, 2001
President George W. Bush's Aug. 9, 2001, executive order on federal funding for stem cell research authorized federal taxpayer funding for that research -- including experiments conducted on cells derived from human embryos -- for the first time.
But in that authorization -- which led to hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars being spent on stem cell research -- the President disallowed federal funding for experiments that would result in the destruction of human embryos. It was a political compromise rooted in respect for both sides of the debate.
President Bush gave liberals the federal subsidies they had demanded. At the same time, he showed respect for pro-lifers by refusing to allow their tax dollars to fund the direct destruction of human embryos.
As the headline above shows, even CNN got the story right initially. The president's decision "would allow federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines," CNN reported.
At the time, a lot of pro-lifers were upset with Bush. They had hoped he would ban all embryonic stem cell research, or at least all federal funding for it. In the interest of science, he did neither.
On Tuesday, President Obama overturned Bush's executive order and claimed credit for undoing what he called "a false choice between sound science and moral values." He said, "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent."
And therein lies the problem with Obama's order. Bush's decision was compromise; Obama's is a diktat.
President Bush listened to all sides of the debate, interviewed scientists, and came to a decision that was based on the need for the government to balance competing beliefs and interests.
"As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions," he said in his 2001 speech. "First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
"I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement."
Seven and a half years later, President Obama chose to disregard entirely the minority view.
"It's a difficult and delicate balance," he said on Tuesday. "And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.
"But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 3.12.09 @ 6:36AM
I will NOT have Obama lecture me about morality when he has no qualms about partial birth abortion. Every congressman should watch a procedure, then vote.
Compare Bush's sensitive explanation of what he had considered prior to the decision he made to Obama's "false choice between science and morals." What the heck does that mean? That's so shallow and incomplete a summary. There's no underlying explanation, but Obamaites might think it wise sounding.
And where's Obama's source that the majority of Americans agree with his opening up this research. Morality isn't a balance, it's based on a rule which is then applied to facts. The majority of Americans couldn't even tell you what a stem cell is, much less the components of water.
Again, Obama's last quoted statement in the article is without clarity, offers false assurances of controls.
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 7:38AM
Posts about Barack Obama as of March 12, 2009 » The Daily Parr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 3.12.09 @ 7:47AM
When the Nazis conducted experiments on human tissue, mankind was revolted. Somehow, it's all just too acceptable now.
Trackback| 3.12.09 @ 8:16AM
Obama's Stem Cell Diktat, on bush, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
stmichrick| 3.12.09 @ 8:34AM
Wow. Dr Mengele would thrive under this adminstration. If it can be done (to re-inforce pro-choice reasoning) it should be done.
Has anyone told Him why this research isn't supported in the private sector?
A consciencious media would challenge the new Science which is based on selected facts, without regard for ethics/ideology.
That would happen after they put global warming hysteria in historical perspective
Michele San Pietro| 3.12.09 @ 10:27AM
Obama's stem cell diktat is scandalous!
Gill O'Teen| 3.12.09 @ 11:32AM
drudge ette obama, it’s even worse than you think. When he was a member of the Illinois Senate, obumah voted to allow newborn babies to die if they were the product of a failed abortion. This professor of Constitutional law totally overlooked that Amendment 14 of The Constitution of the United States of America makes these newborns U.S. citizens entitled to the full protection of law. I’ve rattled this cage numerous times before as I am truly frightened by the implications of putting this jackass in charge of anything concerned with human life.
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 12:45PM
For those who would argue the point President Bush mentioned he considered in 2001, " [I]f they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?"; do you consider it ethical to experiment on prisoners condemned to death, like China does?
After all, they're going to be destroyed anyway, why not get some use out of them to help me?
Dustoff| 3.12.09 @ 1:02PM
Nick
After all, they're going to be destroyed anyway, why not get some use out of them to help me?
_______________________________
Well Nick in the 30+ years they have been doing this. The results have been pi$$ poor.
The Adult cells have been proven cure.
You know the entire world has been doing to too, with the same results. "faliure"
marybethlavin_com| 3.12.09 @ 1:33PM
OPERATION CREATION
The Eve of Man’s Manipulation
Dying for designer genes
Trying every new pair
Acid washed, custom made
Branded DNA wear
We the people have a greed
A better breed’s the answer
Our self-enhancing power only
Spreading like a cancer
Scientists increase their scope
Scalpels, needles, knives
Off they go down the slope
Crashing into lives
They break into the master plan
And make a master copy
They try to freeze a mortal man
And throw away the floppy
Oh highest tech intellect
Think about the scar
Think before dissecting us
Controlling who we are
You scrub away and scour
And carefully inspect us
With microscopic power
You claim you can perfect us
So slipping down the slope we go
To the deep abyss below
Design a mind, create a face
A polished, finished human race...
Copyright Mary Beth Lavin/Lavinia Publishing 2009
http://www.marybethlavin.com
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 1:44PM
The American Spectator : Obama's Stem Cell Diktat : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cathy| 3.12.09 @ 2:41PM
Come on now, folks....you may recall that during campaign Obama explained that this "when human life begins" is way above his payscale!
So, because he warned all of us he can't be held accountable for his actions!!!!
ruth| 3.12.09 @ 3:15PM
Obama won, decency lost. We might not be able to hold him accountable; but someday, Someone will.
cdc| 3.12.09 @ 4:18PM
If ESC research is doomed to failure, funding will dry up pretty quickly and capitol will flow to more productive avenues. Are you more afraid that ESC research will start developing cures now that the cuffs are off?
Pingback| 3.12.09 @ 4:33PM
Obama Proposes a Toast to His Brave New World « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MT| 3.12.09 @ 5:06PM
No, we're just afraid more innocent life will be destroyed, moron.
question| 3.12.09 @ 6:15PM
I'm a bit hazy on some of the details of the induced pluripotent stem cells. By retrovirus insertion of a handfull of removable genes a somatic cell is transformed into a pluripotent stem cell, which can differentiate into all tissues. A cloned embryo is collection of pluripotent stem cells which can differentiate into all tissues. Can an iPSC differentiate and grow into an adut organism like a cloned stem cell? Will iPSC suddenly become as immoral as cloned ESC?
Nick| 3.12.09 @ 6:48PM
Dustoff,
I was refering to the prisoners that are destroyed, not the embryos. And I was being facetious. If I misunderstood your point, sorry.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 7:53PM
it's not stem cells per se.
science, I now see, only gives free reign to people's appetites. in short, people live longer healthier lives but will behave more and more like animals.
your grandchildren will all be libertines. And I mean ALL of them. you dont think so now but you will later.
JR| 3.12.09 @ 8:00PM
Science is only about knowledge. Technology, which uses science, is about indulging appetites. However, it is humanities ability to use tools to indulge appetites that distinguishes us from other plain's apes.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 8:30PM
no JR, you can only separate pure science from technologies (there is no "technology", it is all 'chopped' into 'pieces' as is our consciousness) in your someone medically treats their grandparents without realizing the costs go up and then new technologies are attempted. we want med progress but we don't want Brave New World. but you might have to tolerate-- but not accept-- BNW.
though it is not inevitable it IS predictable.
What do I think? I agree with what churchill rhetorically asked his doctor circa '44: "what good is there in any new thing?"
utility, yes.
goodness, no.
so I'm not conservative really, just old fashioned.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 8:35PM
sorry, meant to write you can only separate pure science from technologies in your head. if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have to worry about Brave New World and worse, a Brave New World as a modified new-age police state, a true dystopia, unlike the smiley-face Have-A-Nice-Day dystopia in Huxley's book.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 8:39PM
PS,
we don't know what is going to happen, but we know it wont be good, only grossly materialistic.
your grandchildren WILL be libertines-- all of 'em-- if they aren't already.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 9:00PM
PPS,
what is meant by 'modified police state'?
you all deal with the police once in a while and you know they are no-nonsense.
so remember, the police and courts do not uphold justice, they uphold The LAW.
You take it from there, I don't like thinking about it much.
Chemman| 3.12.09 @ 10:52PM
Scientists researching ESC HOPE that it will result in lots of amazing cures. There's that darn hope again.
cdc: Such hubris; the rest of the world has had no restrictions as such. To date no ESC success but plenty of tumors. Do you really believe that American researchers are qualitatively heads and shoulders above the rest of the world. As I say such hubris
Alan: your PPS is right on "Consider a boot stamping on your face forever" It really doesn't matter what the nature of the boot is it's still stamping on your face.
Alan Brooks| 3.12.09 @ 11:12PM
some people think there is a Book Of Justice in the national archives or somewhere.
there are only laws upheld by very imperfect people.
Laugher| 3.13.09 @ 1:21AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! All you conservatives can suck it! I love how now that you're not in power, you think there should always be compromise. Us on the left were stuck for 8 years of Bush stuffing stuff down our mouths and all we're left with is the biggest recession since the great depression, the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and two wars. It's your turn to turn around and take it up the ass. And for those of you following the polls, you're in the minority for thinking that this wasn't a great move for science and the country. Continue to do nothing but preach pro-life and you'll continue to be in the minority forever. Here's a fact for you: only 29% of people under 25 are pro-life. Good luck winning elections with those numbers! Tuesday was a great day for science. When your conservative mothers are cured of cancer because of a stem cell line banned by Bush, you'll change your mind.
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 10:38AM
Interloper,
Your ignorance of constitutional law and medical advancement is only surpassed by your ignorance of everything else.
Pro-arborts like Harvard Law's Lawrence Tribe also think Roe is bad law.
Babies are surviving in the middle of the 2 trimester (not a medical term, BTW) at 22 and 23 weeks. The earliest is 21 weeks, something unthinkable in 1973.
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the internet (just kidding). I have heard plenty of doctors say there is NEVER a medical need to terminate a pregnancy, i.e. deliberately kill the baby. Most doctors don't execute abortions, many will not under any circumstances. If there are medical reasons to necessitate an abortion, and a doctor refuses to do one, wouldn't that be malpractice? Doctors aren't forced to kill innocent babies, not yet anyway. All abortions are elective, usually after someone has badgered the mother to have one.
Embryonic stem cell research has no future, except as a great way to create tumors.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 12:00PM
JEREMIAH AND BOB: FYI - I haven't been posting here in over a month, since maybe Feb 2nd. There is a troll here who adopts other people's names and posts as them. I never called Bob "blow-bob" or whatever. I saw you also got into some scraps with him, Jeremiah. None of it was me. I don't use terms like "lib" or whatever else this clown said.
Imagine doing that - being that pathetic? Logging on and pretending to be someone else you only know through the internet? It's sad and the sort of thing one would expect of a stalker.
Anyway, none of the posts under my name - S.L. Toddard - have actually been me since the first couple days of February. It's been that same, sad, lonely troll.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 3:50PM
Ignore my earlier post, I was just pulling your leg, Conservatives. I am a liberal troll who mocks all that is good and decent about America and I wear shiny new knee-pads for my Obama Master. I am one of the brainwashed morons who elected this doofus, please forgive me.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 3:51PM
Oh, by the way, Bob--you're still Blow-Bob. Ha!
MT| 3.13.09 @ 4:56PM
Interloper, you are a discard from the human race. Too bad your mommy didn't exercise her CHOICE when she was pregnant with you.
MT| 3.13.09 @ 4:59PM
You're right, Nick. Embryonic stem cells cause tumors in the people they are supposed to help. Adult stem cell trials have proven far more successful. Liberals like Interloper don't care, though, they just like abortion. It's their sacrament in their church of liberalism.
MT| 3.13.09 @ 5:02PM
Interloper, you are an anti-semitic pervert. I don't know why AmSpec even lets you post your abusive comments here. Shut up, you vicious liberal whore.
MT| 3.13.09 @ 5:05PM
By far, most Americans do NOT agree with Obama 's support of partial-birth abortion. Obama's a monster.
Jeremiah| 3.13.09 @ 8:05PM
You're a monster, too, Interloper.
CM| 3.13.09 @ 8:56PM
I think the column was well written. We are approaching not only a post-modern culture but a post-rational one where sound reasoning is eclipsed by emotion or just plain mental laziness. If you want to express your opinion let us help you at www.NoLeftTurnAmerica.com Let us know what you think!!
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 10:18PM
Interloper,
I speak for myself, thank you. And my points hardly ever get rebutted. Like you were unable to do.
SCOTUS would reaffirm Roe today, 5-4, without B.O.'s appointments. A constitutional "expert" should know this. Roe and Doe were bad law, period. Only fanatics try to defend them.
And since you couldn't name a medical condition requiring an abortion, maybe you would answer a question I asked earlier: If it is OK to use these embryos for research because they are going to be discarded, is it ethical to experiment on prisoners that are about to be put to death?
CH| 3.13.09 @ 10:30PM
Nick, evil is not rational--why bother trying to debate the moron?
Nick| 3.13.09 @ 11:35PM
CH,
Agreed.
But it is so much fun showing their stupidity.
Pingback| 3.22.09 @ 11:59PM
*Featured Post* A brief summary of the damage so far: « Bejohngalt’s Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:34AM
Read this article, I see Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
lot of things
groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:54AM
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.