TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait
| quote: |
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04 President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections. At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called "adopted" frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal. The vetoed bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," the president said, as babies cooed and cried behind him. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Each child on the stage, he said, "began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. . . . These boys and girls are not spare parts." Within hours of Bush's announcement, the House, as expected, fell short in a bid to override the veto, extinguishing the issue as a legislative matter this year but not as a political matter. Democrats said voters will penalize GOP candidates for the demise of a popular measure, and predicted the issue could trigger the defeat of Bush allies such as Sen. James M. Talent, who faces a tough reelection battle in Missouri. "Those families who wake up every morning to face another day with a deadly disease or a disability will not forget this decision by the president to stand in the way of sound science and medical research," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Some conservatives also criticized the veto. "I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), a heart surgeon who is weighing a 2008 presidential run. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing [human embryonic stem cell] lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available." The House and Senate passed the bill by comfortable margins but not with the two-thirds majorities required to override a veto. The House voted 235 to 193 yesterday to override Bush, falling short of the threshold and negating the need for a Senate override attempt. Bush did sign a bill, unanimously passed this week by the House and Senate, to ban the creation of human fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting organs. But the House thwarted prompt passage of another bill he had hoped to sign yesterday. It would have promoted efforts to conduct stem cell research without destroying human embryos. Bush called it "an important piece of legislation," but several Democrats called it a political fig leaf intended to distract attention from his veto of the long-debated funding measure for embryonic stem cells. Bush has threatened vetoes on numerous issues over the years, but he and the Republican-controlled Congress had always worked out their differences. On stem cells, however, the president drew a sharp line during his first nationally televised address, on Aug. 9, 2001, banning government funding for research using human embryonic stem cell colonies created after that date. Over the next five years, public sentiment increasingly moved away from him as celebrities such as Nancy Reagan and Christopher Reeve touted the potential that embryonic stem cells offer in treating Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and other conditions. Unlike "adult" stem cells, embryonic cells can replicate themselves and turn into almost any human tissue. Officials say that about 400,000 frozen embryos are stored at U.S. fertility clinics. The vast majority await disposal because the couples that produced them have completed their pursuit of children and do not want another person to raise their biological child. Bush praised those who "adopt" such embryos, implant them in a woman's womb and bring them to term. But others said there will be few such adoptions because most couples seeking a child through in vitro fertilization want a genetic connection to that child. "Even with federal funding available to encourage adoption, the number is 128, which makes it conclusive that these 400,000 embryos will either be used for scientific research or thrown away," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a proponent of the bill, said this week. Bush and his allies say that frozen embryos are tantamount to humans, and therefore are no more appropriate for medical research than are death row inmates. "If this bill were to become law," Bush said yesterday, "American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos." Others reject that analysis, saying it would make killers of every couple that produces an unused embryo, and every employee and official who allows fertility clinics to produce and store such embryos. "If that's murder, how come the president allows that to continue?" asked Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). "Where is his outrage?" Harkin called the veto "a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy and ignorance." |
yeah, i saw this. what a fucking disgrace.
somehow its ok to sacrifice iraqi children in the name of freedom, but not unfeeling/unknowing cells to improve the standard of living for anyone afflicted with a serious ailment.
Hmmm, let's see, out of those embryos created, only about something like 10% gets adopted. The rest of those embryos are destroyed.
Scientists wanted to utilize those embryos that were going to be destroyed for their research.
In essence, the scientists are trash digging, and such digging has some very serious potential to understanding, slowing, and even halting a myriad of diseases and ailments.
But Bush and Brownback tell them to stop trash digging, let those embryos get thrown away anyway because that's what the "culture of life" does. They save those embryos so they can essentially be destroyed.
Yep, definitely worth a veto. They smart, we dumb. Bo Gush.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 They smart, we dumb. Bo Gush. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo let someone else dig through your trash baby killer. not my government. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i fucking hope youre taking the piss |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo take it or leave it. that dumb son of a bitch pisses me off every time i read his crap. |
Tony Snow's the man. from todays monumental veto press briefing
| quote: |
| Q Is the President concerned that his veto of the stem cell bill is going to hurt Republicans running in fall elections? MR. SNOW: Not a bit. Q He doesn't feel as though it will hurt? MR. SNOW: No. Q Why not? MR. SNOW: And I'll tell you what, it's worth pointing out one thing � actually several things on stem cells. Number one, the President is the first ever to have financed research using embryonic stem cell lines. Number two, there is a bit of demagoguery in the House of Representatives. Representative Castle was circulating talking points about a measure that the House ended up killing that would have provided for research into promising areas that would give us access to what he wants, which are pluripotent cells. But rather than using embryos, it could use adult cells and other cells, and using techniques that are now being pioneered here in the United States provide exactly what he wants. And instead what he did is, is he circulated a series of misleading and fallacious talking points. And on that particular matter, the President is disappointed in the House of Representatives. Let me just give you a couple of examples. One of the things that Representative Castle was saying is that "it mandates the National Institutes of Health to support highly speculative research, some of which has been deemed unethical by the President's own bioethics council." Wrong, false, 100 percent wrong. As a matter of fact, what the bioethics council said is that this precise kind of research, because it does not place in jeopardy the life of a human being � which is what many people think that the embryo is, and that is what the President believes � you do not engage in morally controversial research when you find ways to back-engineer adult or blood cord cells. Second point, he says, "it takes the focus away from advancing cures through federal funded embryonic stem cell research." Again, the most promising research to date � and, granted, a lot of the embryonic stem cell research is itself relatively young, has been in some of these areas that we're talking about. So the President is disappointed in the House of Representatives for actually seeming to try to create a false choice, which is to say, either you do embryonic stem cells, which raise the specter in many people's minds of killing another human being, or you don't support anything at all, a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach. What the President has done is he has provided access to previously existing embryonic stem cell lines, which are responsible for the vast bulk of research in the entire world, and also pioneering other methods which would get people to exactly the promised land they seek, which is to take a look at pluripotent cells, but getting there through a morally non-controversial means. And apparently that's not good enough for some members of the House. Q But it often appears in some of the reporting and some of the discussion out there that the President is holding back scientific progress. MR. SNOW: Wrong. Q How do you � MR. SNOW: You're just flat wrong. Just flat wrong. I mean, that is basically an attempt to substitute an insult for an argument. I've given you the argument and I've rebutted the insult. Q Can I follow up on that? MR. SNOW: Yes. Q I mean, you got a lot off your chest there, but he asked you a political question, and that is, you know, Democrats clearly feel that there's support in the country for this bill, so therefore why won't it hurt Republicans in the fall? MR. SNOW: I just don't think it will. I think a President acting on conscience � a President who, again � Bill Clinton, as President, didn't authorize any of these lines. This is a President who's spent more money on embryonic stem cell research and stem cell research generally than any President in American history. He's got the track record. What's happening now is that people are trying to politicize it by accusing him of standing in the way of science, when he's the guy who's made it possible to open up the way to science. Furthermore � getting me warmed up here � for those who are engaged in embryonic stem cell research, there's no legal prohibition against their doing it. What they don't have access to is federal funding. And so the idea that the President is standing in the way of science seems to indicate that the only way you do it is through a federal grant. And there is a burgeoning business � as you know, a lot of people getting rich already � in this kind of medical research. So I would argue that the President is the recipient of a bum rap, and for that reason people, when they do get a chance to judge the facts, are going to draw the same conclusion. Q Okay, now to follow up, the Democrats clearly are going to be hammering away on this. The President really has spoken on stem cell research really when it's come up at various points, but not too consistently, I don't think. Is he going to be talking about this in the fall campaign? Is he going to be making his case? MR. SNOW: No. The President has made his case. If you take a look back at what happened in 2001, he laid out a position on stem cell research, and guess what, the rest of the world, for the most part, followed. If you take a look at the kinds of conditions that are being applied in Europe and elsewhere, they generally tend to follow the path that was laid down by the President. The people who are Johnny-Come-Latelys to this debate are people who decided, well, let's try to whip this up for a political year. I would argue that the ones who are bringing it up and speaking on a sporadic basis are the critics and not the President, who has been promoting these policies now for going on six years. Q So he is or he is not going to be speaking about it during the campaign? MR. SNOW: Don't know. I just � I think � look, this is in many ways � I don't see this being a huge issue. And if Democrats want to make that the centerpiece of their campaign, it will be interesting. Q What's the point of having the snowflakes here today? What's the message of that? MR. SNOW: The message is that an embryo can produce a human being, and there will be some in evidence. In addition, there will be people who have been the recipients � who have been the beneficiaries of stem cell breakthroughs, advances that have been garnered through adult and other stem cells, and therefore demonstrating � getting back to our other point that, in fact, scientific breakthroughs have been made with these technologies that have also been financed by the federal government and by private industry. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN spell it out for me. do you agree with this veto or not? and if so id like to see your rationale. |
so why is there a disctinction being made for whether its done at a federal level or not? if its such an offensive practice, why arent lawmakers busting their arses to stop it across the board? and surely lacking federal funding would be a significant impediment to further research? so youre essentially saying the research can continue but its gonna be a long and slow process, helping far less people any time soon? 
Re: Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Science and common sense have no place next to jesus. I'm raising my beer to bush. Because in the past 5.5 years, congress has never needed to be reigned in until now! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so why is there a disctinction being made for whether its done at a federal level or not? |
| quote: |
| if its such an offensive practice, why arent lawmakers busting their arses to stop it across the board? |
| quote: |
| and surely lacking federal funding would be a significant impediment to further research? |
| quote: |
| so youre essentially saying the research can continue but its gonna be a long and slow process, helping far less people any time soon? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo sure. simple. there will be no Federal funding for the destruction of embryos. whether there in the "trash" is a seperate issue to me. people can farm, dumpster dive, rob, donate embryos all day long in this country. a fact. it stops at the Federal level as far as i, the President, a handful of lawmakers and 50% of this country is concerned. |
| quote: |
the severe lack of any private/corporate funding should give you an idea of how dodgey and intelectually dishonest this whole debate is. maybe this will change now. who knows. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Wait. The federal funding does not further the destruction of embryos ... these embryos are destroyed as a part of the processes of fertility clinics. So if the President has a moral objection to the issue at hand, WHY doesn't he try to pass legislation or do SOMETHING to ban the behavior of fertilization clinics??? |
| quote: |
| The government already sanctions the destruction of embroys by allowing this behaviour to happen legally. However, you're saying that by providing funding for science to study the "murder" that the government already allows violates some ethical standards??? Please explain. |
| quote: |
| What? Do you know how much funding states provide towards stem celled research? |
oh this is a good one for you proponents of stem cell research. read this and ask yourself of your lawmakers, wtf?
| quote: |
| July 19, 2006, 4:18 p.m. Who�s �Anti-Science� Now? Proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research put themselves in a bad position. By Kathryn Jean Lopez Proponents of embryo-destroying research lost one of their favorite knee-jerk rhetorical points on Tuesday, as they succeeded in killing a bill that would have funded alternatives to embryo-destroying research. It�s hard to dismiss your opponents as �anti-science� when you�ve voted against it yourself. The Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act was a great constructive opportunity for Congress. Early on Tuesday, a leading pro-life senator, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum (who is in a tough reelection battle and could afford to be focusing on other things right now � like, oh, saving his political life), rattled off his record of commitment to stem-cell-research advocacy, none of it destructive. He talked about his attempt at finding a �middle ground� by sponsoring a bill to fund adult-stem-cell and other non-embryo-destroying research. This �alternatives� bill was even cosponsored by his Pennsylvania colleague Arlen Specter (who supports embryo research, abortion . . . very many things a Santorum never will). The bill, in both its House and its Senate version, was an embrace of research that is free of embryonic-stem-cell research�s unavoidable ethical baggage. But on Tuesday afternoon, Delaware Republican Mike Castle, co-sponsor of a bill that would federally fund embryonic-stem-cell research for the first time, sent around an e-mail urging colleagues to vote against Santorum�s alternatives bill. (Richard Doerflinger responds to his e-mail here.) Since they already knew the president would veto the Castle bill, and since embryonic-stem-cell research will always be a lightning rod for political and moral debate, the alternatives bill was a gift to any politician. Embryo-research stalwart Mike Castle and, say, embryo-protection stalwart (Dr.) Dave Weldon could have united behind it. Given Congress�s dismal approval ratings, it would have even been good politics. Look at what we can do when we set our minds to it! We�re pro-hope, and pro-research, and pro-consensus. So much for that. Under a rules suspension Tuesday night, the bill failed to get the two-thirds needed for passage, thanks to Castle�s eleventh-hour work. Even in the Senate, where the alternatives bill garnered unanimous support in the final roll call, Minority Leader Harry Reid couldn�t help but dismiss it as �meaningless.� But Tuesday�s alternatives takedown in the House is about much more than just one vote. Limits always seem to be too limiting for proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning. The Beltway battle this week has had shades of a Bay State fight last year. The governor there, Republican Mitt Romney, met proponents of cloning research halfway. He said, O.K., the state government won�t fund it, but you can use so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures as long as you don�t create new embryos. But there was no line of legislators outside his door waiting to work with him. All or nothing, proponents of clone-and-kill research proclaimed. We saw something similar in New Jersey in late 2003. As Wesley Smith, author of The Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, put it to me at the time, �It is remarkable � and very telling � that in less then two years, we have gone from �only� wanting to harvest the stem cells from embryos left over from IVF procedures, to a state senate passing legislation that would permit the implantation and gestation of cloned fetuses to the ninth month, before requiring their destruction. This is not just a slide down a slippery slope, it is a headfirst plunge into the abyss.� Like the House vote Tuesday night, the Garden State debate was instructive. On the federal level this week we�ve seen supposed proponents of stem-cell research say, No, none of this alternatives stuff, we only want embryonic-stem-cell research. The embryo is everything. Or rather, destroying embryos is everything � that�s where they want research to be focused, and they�re happy to hold research that is free of embryonic entanglements hostage. Coming from a crowd that regularly throws the word �anti-science� at those who oppose embryo destruction and cloning, this is pretty rich. When given the option to vote for a bill that nearly no one could sensibly disagree with � to explore already successful and other less-ethically-entangled research, like a spoiled two-year-old who wants his way and only his way even if it�s impractical and Dad has already said no, so went the House. When given the option to vote for a bill that nearly no one could sensibly disagree with, they acted like spoiled two-year-olds who want their way and only their way � even if it�s impractical and Dad has already said �no.� They�ve given opponents a great campaign ad for November, turning the �anti-science� label on them: Care more about what the bioethics lobby wants than advancing science? Talk about hopeless. Tuesday�s House action gives an advantage to those who talk about the sanctity of human life, specifically those who voted against the federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research and for the alternatives bill. A third of the members of House of Representatives will support stem-cell research only if it involves the destruction of embryos? Otherwise they�re against it? This is what they want their position to be? As Americans increasingly pay attention to these confusing issues, such clear Party of Death votes as we saw Tuesday night in the House should be as deadly to political careers as they are to life. |
I'm first to admit I'm not really clued up on this topic, but I gather from what i have read here that it would be perfectly fine for me and a female partner to organise for our gametes to be joined in a scientific way and to then use them to cure my (insert afliction).
ie the embryo is 'manufacture' purely to cure me and with no intent on using it to have a child.
if that's the case, are people who are cashed up like Reeve and Fox going about this procedure? it seems like they (were) are not . I don't know why they wouldn't.
itd take more than stem cells to cure reeve of his affliction 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo let someone else dig through your trash baby killer. not my government. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo yeah i agree. let someone else dig through YOUR trash. not my government. edit> sorry that was out of line. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo the difference is fertility clinics deal in the process of creating babies. each embryo is treated as if it were going to term. and if it isn't it's frozen for it's potential as a human. to be honest i don't know how many or percentage of embryos are not utilized by clinics but i'll bet the farm that it's a finite supply. the needs of ESC research labs could go into countless of farmed then destroyed viable embryos. something the Feds should not touch with a 10' pole. why are you f**king arguing with me about this? why do i have to distinguish written law and monetary subsidy to you, of all people? why would the President choose that fight? |
| quote: |
| This legislation does NOT allow funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This is already outlawed in the annual Dickey-Wicker Amendment that is attached as a rider to the Labor HHS Education Appropriations Bill. Rather it allows federally funded research on stem cell lines derived ethically according to the following principles: *The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded. *The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation. http://www.house.gov/castle/pr_06_S...dentletter.html |
| quote: |
| When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos. In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.".... But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story. The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush's moral reservations about embryonic stem cells. "[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves. If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading." Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos. Grompe said, "I think it's a problem when [opponents of embryonic research] make a scientific argument as opposed to stating the real reason they are opposed--which is [that] it's a moral, ethical problem." http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0607190211jul19,1,5676240.story?ctrack=1&cset=true |
I mean, it's not like Bush who's a fucking advocate for Creationism isn't a top notch scientist or anything. Of course Rove and Tony Snow and the rest of the minority Right Wing Noise Machine fucking blowhards have some terrific research credentials in their back pockets as well. But since Q5 loooves printing out press releases by these folks, I guess it's only fair that I do the same, from MSNBC's Arthur Caplan, MD:
| quote: |
| An administration that has shown itself over and over again to have trouble telling the truth is now telling Americans in wheelchairs, those with damaged hearts, babies who are diabetic and those left immobile by Parkinsonism not to worry. The president, whose grasp of science left him unable to identify creationism as a fundamentally religious idea, and his trusty sidekick Karl Rove, rarely seen in a white lab coat but who knows something about rats, having been in Washington for some time now, claim to know best which medical research is most likely to benefit diseased Americans in the future. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13935219/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo take it or leave it. that dumb son of a bitch pisses me off every time i read his crap. |
And one other point to consider for all you "culture of life" folks out there. If, indeed you are arguing that the blastocyst is a human life with a soul, then what occurs when an extra soul develops during tetragametic chimerism?:
| quote: |
| the chimera is formed from the merger of two fraternal twins in a very early (zygote or blastocyst) phase. As such, they can be male, female, or hermaphroditic�As of 2003, there were about 30-40 human cases in the literature, according to New Scientist |
| quote: |
| the incidence of tetragametic chimerism is set to rise because of modern fertility techniques that increase the rate of twinning. In 1998, they reported a case of a chimeric IVF baby who resulted from the accidental fusion of a male embryo and a female embryo. The child was outwardly male, but the left hand side of his internal reproductive system had developed as an ovary and fallopian tube. source: New Scientist vol 180 issue 2421 |
Wait a fucking second here. Did Tony Snow actually say this on 7/18?:
| quote: |
| �There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal. It simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it. And I dare say if people think that there�s a market for it, they�re going to support it handsomely. The simple answer is he thinks murder�s wrong.� |
stem-cell research is not and never has been illegal. It is simply not something that your government is going to fund. Shit, with all you lefties whining about our overextended budget deficit while at the same time bitching and complaining about how rich, greedy and powerful corporate America is...yet you would prefer the government to somehow fund the initiative while not placing any burden on the evil rich corporations, even though the private market with all of its competition and innovation can probably do a much better job at it. Your government doesn't think it should be in the business of growing babies for spare parts, but hasn't said it is illegal for a private company to neccessarily do so.
Are you sure you're not just looking for one more reason to throw shit at the current administration even though it has done more than any previous administrations to fund this initiative? Fucking stupid. Why raise taxes when there are corporations sitting on mountains of cash that can do the research without burdening the rest of us?
It is beyond me how the left can criticize an administration for not doing enough when that very administration has done more for the cause than any prior administrations. This is nothing more than ongoing, unadulterated Bush-bashing for the sake of spreading the hate.
Sure you're not listening to Air 'Merikkka?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.