“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.
“That is a conclusion with which I agree.”
Obama says “we must respect their point of view” and in the next
breath says the minority view will have no impact on federal
policy. Such callous disrespect for the minority has already
become Obama’s MO.
“I won. I will trump you on that,” Obama said to Republicans who
complained about the size of the stimulus bill. To pro-lifers who
don’t want their tax money to finance the destruction of human
embryos, he now says the same thing.
Obama justified this discarding of the minority view by citing
the need to separate ideology and science. He proclaimed:
“Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of
science in America. But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t
just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free
and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who
are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion,
and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient
— especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that
scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a
political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based
on facts, not ideology.”
He made that statement seconds after saying, “And we will ensure
that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning
for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and
has no place in our society, or any society.”
It is impossible to “make scientific decisions based on facts,
not ideology” while simultaneously ruling out funding for human
cloning because it is “profoundly wrong.” But apparently not for
Obama.
Clearly, the president did not remove ideology from the
discussion. He simply moved the line. Whereas the destruction of
potential human life was the line not to be crossed, now it is
“the use of cloning for human reproduction.” Why is the latter
more “profoundly wrong” than the former? Obama offers no reason.
He simply believes it is. The deep reflection evident in Bush’s
speech is entirely missing from Obama’s. His is a declaration of
personal belief, not an exercise of painstaking statesmanship.
Adding salt to the wound, the president did not have to do this.
Existing funding for stem cell research has led to profound
breakthroughs. Two separate possible cures for diabetes have been
found, one based on adult stem cells, the other on embryonic stem
cells. Research is barreling along, funded by the National
Institutes of Health, private investors, European governments and
U.S. states. Federally funded embryo-destroying stem cell
research would be a drop in the bucket. Why offend the religious
beliefs of millions of Americans for such a small contribution?
“When government fails to make these investments, opportunities
are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored,” Obama said on
Tuesday.
It’s not about whether the investments are made. It’s about who
makes them. To the president, it is unacceptable that the federal
government not be involved. The federal funding is a moral
imperative based on Obama’s personal belief that government must
do everything it can to promote good in every conceivable arena
of life.
And so, pro-lifers must be forced to fund abortions and research
that destroys human embryos. It is for the greater good. The
government is not in the business of compromise and unity. Its
duty is progress, as defined by the president (and public opinion
polls). He won the election, so his moral values reign. It’s a
zero-sum, winner-take-all game. What that means for pro-lifers is
simple: You lost; get over it.
