|
Bush issues first veto in 5.5 years. Congress FINALLY crossed the line ... hmm wait
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| 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."
|
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! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
yeah, i saw this. what a ing 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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
They smart, we dumb. Bo Gush. |
yeah i agree.
let someone else dig through YOUR trash. not my government.
edit> sorry that was out of line. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
let someone else dig through your trash baby killer. not my government. |
i ing hope youre taking the piss :mad: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i ing hope youre taking the piss :mad: |
take it or leave it. that dumb son of a bitch pisses me off every time i read his crap. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
spell it out for me. do you agree with this veto or not? and if so id like to see your rationale. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
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. |
there is a lot to be learned, not from this debate, but about it. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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. |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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? :conf: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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! |
whats your point? everyone and their dog knew he was gonna veto this for last 5.5 years. the guy threatens vetos 140 times, renigs on all of them, and you're suprized cause of this one? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so why is there a disctinction being made for whether its done at a federal level or not? |
because the President feels a moral obligation not to give Federal money for this. thats the rub right there. there are no limits as to what research can be done beyond the Federal level.| quote: | | if its such an offensive practice, why arent lawmakers busting their arses to stop it across the board? |
because that would be illeagal, unconstitutional, and against SCOTUS precedent (Roe among others.) | quote: | | and surely lacking federal funding would be a significant impediment to further research? |
no. there are absolutely no guarantees of any kind assuring advances of any research contingent upon Federal funding. stem cell research sure as hell isn't any different. | 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? :conf: |
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. |
|
|
|
|
