The inevitable drive to ban stem-cell research

Based on his comments yesterday, I’m pretty sure the president is unaware of his own policy on stem-cell research.

“There are ethical dilemmas when it comes to science, and I think it’s very important for a government to recognize those ethical dilemmas,” Bush told the reporters. “The dilemma I was faced with was do I allow the destruction of life in order to advance science.”

Actually, that wasn’t the dilemma at all. Even if we operate under the president’s worldview, Bush still “allows the destruction of life in order to advance science,” he just limited its federal funding in overly-restrictive ways. What the president described yesterday was a completely different dynamic, independent of federal researching grants — whether stem-cell research should be permitted in this country at all.

In some ways, this is the logical extension of the right-wing approach to the issue. As far as Bush and others who share his views are concerned, a three-day old blastocyst is a human person. To destroy it for medical research, no matter how many people are suffering or how promising the science, is akin to murder. This is a dilemma Bush faced four years ago, when he decided that he’d accept the destruction of life in order to advance science. Given how serious this controversy is, how long it’s lingered, and the likelihood of legislation on this to end up on his desk soon, you’d think the president would understand the basics of the debate by now. Then again, given Bush’s history, I should probably know better.

Nevertheless, Bush’s comment was revealing. The debate on the Hill right now is whether to expand federal funding for this field of science. We don’t hear about it often, but the right is planning a concerted effort to change this debate and roll back the conversation considerably. Forget this contorversy over funding; they want a fight over a flat ban on the research.

Earlier this week, for example, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family issued an alert to its membership on the recent flury of legislative successes by the GOP. The group noted, however, that the issues the religious right cares about most haven’t generated as much attention as they’d like.

Capitol Hill was abuzz last week with last minute politicking on several pieces of legislation just prior to the annual August recess. But in the rush, many family-friendly bills were left behind — tabled until the fall session begins in September.

[…Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute] said pro-family groups will step up their efforts when lawmakers return in September and they’ve already made a list of their favorite proposals.

“Number one on the plate would be a Federal Marriage Amendment,” he said. “Number two would be a stem-cell bill gotten through the Senate to ban embryonic stem-cell research.” (emphasis added)

This is what the Dobson crowd wants and will be demanding of their allies in Washington soon. How will the GOP blow off the base? And how will the far-right react if it does?

Just as importantly, it’s worth noting that the public, including most Republicans, strongly supports not only the existence of stem-cell research, but federal funding for it. It’s helpful when the Dobson crowd takes such fringe positions because it reminds the mainstream of just how far gone the GOP base has become.

In fact, it’d be helpful if Republican office holders are asked, “James Dobson and other conservative leaders want a flat ban on stem-cell research in this country. Do you think Dobson and his allies are wrong?”

Too bad the Dobsonian/Bush/Wingnut worldview doesn’t view the conflict in Iraq a an exercise in the destruction of ‘life” or the tragedy in Darfur as the destruction of “life” or the torture of human beings in Cuba as the destruction of “life”.

We could end all suffering in war if we could find a way to return our enemies back into blastocysts.

  • I think the GOP will cave in on the FMA, as it solidifies the base, but pussy foot on stem cells.

  • I think the GOP will cave in on the FMA, as it solidifies the base, but pussy foot on stem cells.

    I’m inclined to agree, but I still think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. At this point, Republican lawmakers are debating about whether to move forward on the science very slowly or fairly quickly. The base is debating how best to move backwards.

    And as we’ve seen repeatedly of late, the GOP has a very tough time ignoring the base’s demands.

  • Bush advocates the “advance of science?” WOW!!! Who knew. I would have never guessed it based on his comments on a whole host of issues.

  • This is great news, for a very simple reason: they can’t win this argument.

    The snakehandlers’ views on stem cell are shared by maybe 20 percent of the electorate. Add in that there’s a serious economic consequence to not supporting research, and you’ve got the potential for head-to-head conflict between the two most important factions of the right-wing coalition, and it’s clear that we should want this to get as wide an airing as possible.

  • This is great news, for a very simple reason: they can’t win this argument.

    Thanks to dajafi for summarizing so well exactly what I was trying to say. This is a no-win proposition for the right, which is exactly why I’m so delighted to see them try.

  • This is SUCH bullshit. Chimpy’s opposed to stem cell research because BIG PHARMA is opposed to it.

    Can’t make money curing diseases you make trillions treating.

  • On Bush’s statement, I think it’s an exercise
    in futility to parse his comments for subtleties
    and nuances that his mind is incapable of
    grasping.

    But on the broader issue, I just don’t think the
    far right has any leverage here at all. What
    are they going to do – sit out the elections?
    Vote for Democrats? Of course not. They
    have the Republicans in their camp on many
    issues, and they’ll just have to eat it here.

  • Sometimes I venture over to RedState.org to see what they are thinking. Most of them are furious over Sen. Frist’s flip-flip on stem cell research. One of them even called stem cells “embryonic people.â€?

    Dobson may have his base on his side, but eventually science will win out. Seems to me there was a similar debate over “test tube� babies. And we all know what happened there.

  • Read Bill Kristol’s editorial in the current Weekly Standard and the opposition’s game plan becomes clear. They will try to draw a distinction between research on IVF excess embryos and stem cell lines that are derived by SCNT. This approach will give them some great sound bites, “clone and killâ€?, “create life to destroy itâ€?, “embryo farmsâ€? and of course all the residual fear associated with the very concept of cloning.

    SCNT or “therapeutic cloning� is probably the most promising form of stem cell research. Cells could be created that would be a DNA match for the patient and thereby avoid the concern of tissue rejection in transplantation. Cell lines could be generated that would contain the traits of any disease with a genetic component and allow us to research the origin of disease from the earliest moments. (I hate to sound like I am hyping the research but just spend 30 seconds thinking about the possibilities of being able to understand what causes the pancreas to stop producing insulin or a normal cell to change to a cancerous one.)

    The House has voted twice to criminalize SCNT but the opponents of the research have not been able to push their bill through the Senate. We must be very careful of the negotiations that will go on in September. Frist opposes SCNT and could still emerge as a hero to the anti research forces if he manages to outlaw the most promising avenue of stem cell research.

    Richard Arvedon

  • On another posting, CB asked if the lawyers would
    chime in on the issue of immunity.

    If anyone is still around at this late hour (I live in
    Idaho, where it’s only seven-fifty now), I’d be
    interested in another legal opinion.

    If Congress passed a bill to prohibit stem-cell
    research of any kind that destroyed zygotes or
    any more advanced humans like blastocytes,
    would it be Constitutional?

    If not, would it be because it’s a state’s right
    issue, or simply because the government, on
    any level, has no right to interfere with such
    research, since no “real” human beings are
    being injured?

    If no one is around, I’ll pose the question when
    a pertinent topic is raised here again.

  • “Number one on the plate would be a Federal Marriage Amendment,” he said. “Number two would be a stem-cell bill gotten through the Senate to ban embryonic stem-cell research.”

    Man, I just love this. “Yes, yes, human lives are being destroyed as we speak, and that sucks, but we’ll get to that later. Right now, them gay folk could one day potentially get married in America, and THAT we have to deal with first.”

  • Comments are closed.