Bush’s callous veto

July 19, 2006

As expected, Bush vetoed the bi-partisan stem-cell research bill that passed both houses of Congress and enjoys broad national support. It was the first veto of his presidency, and he was apparently a little embarrassed about it.

Bush addressed a friendly audience in the East Room this afternoon after vetoing the bill, and instead of rehashing the same arguments I’ve been writing about for months, I thought it’d be more informative to offer an annotated response to the president’s comments today. My thoughts are italicized in brackets.

“When I took office, there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research [that’s because the research technology didn’t exist before Bush became president]. Under the policy I announced five years ago, my administration became the first to make federal funds available for this research, yet only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed [Bush has lied for years about the number of available lines].

“My administration has made available more than $90 million for research on these lines [that’s not enough]. This policy has allowed important research to go forward without using taxpayer funds to encourage the further deliberate destruction of human embryos [it’s also blocked important research while embryos are discarded].

“One of the bills Congress has passed builds on the progress we have made over the last five years. So I signed it into law [it’s the “fetal farming” bill, which is a bit of a joke]. Congress has also passed a second bill that attempts to overturn the balanced policy I set. This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.”

“Like all Americans, I believe our nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibility that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions [except when James Dobson tells him he shouldn’t]. We have opportunities to discover cures and treatments that were unthinkable generations ago [maybe starting in 2009]. Some scientists believe that one source of these cures might be embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into specialized adult tissues, and this may give them the potential to replace damaged or defective cells or body parts and treat a variety of diseases.

“Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value [no, it’s not]. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children 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. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family [this is wildly misleading; 90% of embryos are not “adopted”; they’re thrown away].

“These boys and girls are not spare parts [no one is saying they are]. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research [no they don’t; what’s lost is the possibility of breakthrough medical research that can save lives and ease suffering for millions]. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells [yes, and we all also begin as sperm; does that mean every sperm is sacred?]. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals.

“Some people argue that finding new cures for disease requires the destruction of human embryos like the ones that these families adopted [when Bush says “some people,” look out]. I disagree. I believe that with the right techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities. That’s what I sought in 2001, when I set forth my administration’s policy allowing federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines where the life and death decision had already been made.

“This balanced approach has worked [no, it hasn’t]. Under this policy, 21 human embryonic stem cell lines are currently in use in research that is eligible for federal funding [he’s playing fast and loose here]. Each of these lines can be replicated many times. And as a result, the National Institutes of Health have helped make more than 700 shipments to researchers since 2001. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research [but if the research kills people, as Bush argues, shouldn’t there be a ban?]. To the contrary, even critics of my policy concede that these federally funded lines are being used in research every day by scientists around the world. My policy has allowed us to explore the potential of embryonic stem cells, and it has allowed America to continue to lead the world in this area [except researchers believe we’re falling behind other countries with more coherent policies].”

Bush went on from there, and he went on trying to defend the indefensible. Just when it seems the president can’t sink any lower, he manages to find a way.

Only 915 days to go….

To see the stem cell debate explained with visuals and how the political argument put forth by the President is ultimately an absurd manipulation of the facts…link here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • If embryonic stem cell research is the salvation of humanity then private companies should be willing to fund the research because they’ll make billions of dollars later on. (Maybe Buffett and Gates would be willing to step in?)

  • This will backfire (I hope). For one, the vast majority of Americans support this type of research. Secondly, Bu$h has lost his moral trump card with Iraq. Third, after his bizarre behavior at the G8 summit (“Yo Blair”, the unwanted massage of the German Chancellor, the Gosh, China and Russia are Big grade school observations), for him to parade before the press in this conference and talk about scientific issues is absurd. The man has a locker room mentality, and his actions at the G8 summit confirm this. No one takes him seriously anymore. Herr Rove making up false scientific reports only adds to the idiocy of this administration. November is looking sweeter and sweeter!

  • A great day for people who hate America…

    As stem cell research will go on without the USA participation.

    Other countries and and their corporations will profit.

    Nicely done “B.”

    I only wish there was some sort of oath every American would be asked to make.

    It would have two options:

    1) I believe this research is murder and neither I nor my family will use any therapies generated by this science. Forever.

    2) I believe this is legitimate science and I and my family will willingly accept the use of therapies generated by this research.

    It just bothers me to no end that these god-damned Christian luddites will someday benefit from the medical science that today they prohibit.

    People like Bush are such transparent cowards.
    It really is sickening…

    As soon as they get ill… they will be screaming for the stem cells cure that today they deny.

    Would that I had the power to deny them these future pallatives. Just as today… they seek to deny them to me and ye.

  • Jason — Flu vaccine saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year, but people aren’t rushing in to do it because it doesn’t make a lot of money. There’s a difference between being medically beneficial for human kind and being financially beneficial to rich folks.

  • Maybe someone should tell the president we are war with Alzheimers, spinal chord injuries and other maladies offered hope by the promise of stem cells. He certainly has no problem killing humans and the taking of all forms of life as long as he’s at war. Heck, he might have even reacted more quickly to Katrina is he was told frozen embryos would be drowned in the flood waters. But then W doesn’t care about life after it’s been born once.

  • Carpetbagger — Clinton’s administration allowed federal funding for stem cell research:

    The NIH, with input from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and others, went on to develop guidelines outlining the types of human embryonic stem cell research that would be eligible for federal funding. These Clinton Administration guidelines, published in August of 2000, forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells (because of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment), but permitted research with stem cells that other, privately funded scientists had already derived from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

    Shockingly, that sounds EXACT-FUCKING-LY LIKE BUSH’S PLAN.

  • “My administration has made available more than $90 million for research on these lines [that’s not enough].”

    In fact, that $90 million should be measured against the $145.3 billion that Congress appropriated for the NIH from 2000 through 2005. That means Bush is talking up 0.06% of the NIH budget (if I’m working from the right numbers; they’re plausible), less than one tenth of one percent of a very big pot of research money.

  • A request in advance…

    Everyone please resist responding to trolls. It only encourages them.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

  • So what is the final count on how many days in office and how many pieces of legislation came to his desk to sign before he vetoed a bill?

  • The other reason that the little funding he HAS allowed is meaningless, is that the existing stem cell lines are basically useless.

  • NAR can you read? If you can why did you selectively quote froml your source? All of the quotes below are from the link in #7.

    In one sense, Bush’s administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush’s repeated claims to be “the first president ever to allow funding” for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn’t his. Truth is, Bush’s immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

    Everyone should know that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment was Republican sponsered and tied Clinton’s hands.

    President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations [from an NIH ethics panel] and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. Within a year, Congress had banned the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is either created or destroyed. Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment for its authors, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, and Representative Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, the ban passed as a rider attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Congress has actively renewed that ban each year since, thus relegating all human embryo research to the private sector.[…]
    Such was the state of affairs when, in 1998, using—by necessity—private funds, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin successfully created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. Clinton’s NIH knew the historic nature of that achievement. “[…]
    But the research needed years of federal support in order to flourish—and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stood squarely in the way.

    Or did it? In January of 1999, Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services, released a legal opinion that would set the course for Clinton Administration policy. Federal funds, obviously, could not be used to derive stem cell lines (because derivation involves embryo destruction). However, she concluded that because human embryonic stem cells “are not a human embryo within the statutory definition,” the Dickey-Wicker Amendment does not apply to them. The NIH was therefore free to give federal funding to experiments involving the cells themselves (what Republican Senator Sam Brownback, of Kansas, called a bit of “legal sophistry.”)

    The key difference between the Clinton policy and BushCo. is there were no bans on federal funds for research on stems created with private funds in the Clinton policy, i.e. it didn’t have the logically stupid restriction to existing lines which Bush gave us.

  • Companies aren’t rushing in to make lots of flu vaccine because there are too many regulations here in the U.S. Remember, the only companies making it during the last flu scare were in the U.K. and Canada.

    The potential profits from stem cell research are much greater. After all, rich people will pay just about anything to extend their lives with organs grown specifically for them in “test tubes.”

  • I wouldn’t wish these things on anyone but with a spouse on an insulin pump, and a father that died of Parkiinson’s, I can’t help wonder what life will hold for boy george. I wonder if he will ever experience the agony of watching a loved one suffer and be told there is nothing more to be done. If there is any justice in the universe, then perhaps he will, and perhaps he will remember this day.

  • Shockingly, that sounds EXACT-FUCKING-LY LIKE BUSH’S PLAN.

    Your other comment at #5 suggests that you are in favor stem cell research, but that is an inference I made after you drew my attention. It is not explicitly stated by you in that comment that you favor stem cell research

    .Your comment as #7 is explicit in its misinterpretation of the Clinton policy. It was that misinterpretation which I commented on.

    Here is your opportunity to clarify yourself. Do you think that the Clinton and Bush policies are indistinguishable? If not what was your point in #7?

    I have to leave the computer for a couple of hours. If you respond to the question I will eventually get back to you.

  • BTW CB, I liked your anotated verision of the Bush’s comments. It makes a very handy reference.

  • So what is the final count on how many days in office and how many pieces of legislation came to his desk to sign before he vetoed a bill?

    Wow, that’s a pretty tough question. As for how many pieces of legislation, not only do I not know, I’m not even sure how I’d check. And considering that many bills have more than one law within them, it’d be a tough count. Let’s just say “a whole lot.”

    Everyone please resist responding to trolls. It only encourages them.

    I agree in general, but in this case, I don’t think NAR’s comment was trollish. It was a legitimate point, which as far as I can tell, sparked some legitimate responses. Just my opinion….

  • We must pray that stem cell research my finally result in a cure for Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to the Republic.

  • CB,

    Sorry, I have to disagree.

    1) IMHO, tacking on the statement, “EXACT-FUCKING-LY LIKE BUSH’S PLAN” makes the statement trollish by default.

    2) “It was a legitimate point” – It quoted text out of context, leaving out all the preceding and subsequent information that makes it clear that the funding model prior to Bush was completely different than the current funding model.

    I’ll concede that it is possible that NAR didn’t read the entire page, and that the particular quote NAR used was something that was passed on to NAR by someone else. Unfortunately, my cynicism kicks in and I come to the belief, barring any evidence to the contrary, that the misleading post and vulgar language was intentional.

  • IF President Bush and Karl Rove really believed that this veto was a ‘morally correct’ gesture, then why wasn’t it televised?

    The reason, IMHO, is that they are correctly afraid that photos of this travesty would be repeatedly used in November to demonstrate the level of hypocrisy that the curent pReisident has sunk to.

    Oh, and this ‘godly man’ who’s so concerned about the life of embryonic cells….isn’t he the same Christian who fell to his knees and laughed it up after he refused to spare the life of born-again Karla Faye Tucker?

    Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
    Matthew 23:25

  • Maybe Bush wasn’t photographed during the veto because he had to climb out of his human skin to use a pen properly. Has he been photographed signing anything else? 🙂

  • Veto vs. Signing Statement

    Let’s say the Dems control both houses after the fall elections. We finally pass this stem cell bill by veto proof margins. Will Bush negate this law, or any future law passed by a Democratic Congress, by his “signing statement”?

    Bush has previously said that the “signing statement” defines his interpretation of the law and also the “weight” of the effort to enforce this law.

    The question is: Are signing statements going to be the same thing as a Veto of a veto-proof law? This is a very scary question. Remember, Bush’s “signing statements” have been on Repug passed legislation. What will these “signing statements” have on Democratic passed legislation?

  • I disagree with the assumption Jason made that stem cell research will be profitable or more explicitly that it will be profitable in the short run.

    Curing disease is the right thing to do; sustaining them is evil.

  • Sad to say, I called it.

    And I think Boy George II’s extended references to his own, wonderful stem cell policy, mean I was right on the money.

    Too bad it’s impossible to gloat over the suffering of millions of people around the world.

  • Dang, I really thought my lobbying of the Oval Office Optimistic Rug was going to prevent the veto.

    Historians are going to wonder ‘of all the laws that passed, he vetoed THAT??!??”

  • Where are the fereral initiatives on saving the frozen embryos? Or saving those that did not get frozen, but not used in IVF?

    Probably a bad question to ask….

    Also, it is clear that the Bush position is playing politics with morality. He says that federal funding must be stopped because this research is unethical, and we as Americans cannot support it. However, he then tries to sidestep the politial fallout from hurting progress in stem cell research by pointing out that the research still happens without federal funding. If this is, in fact, a question of bioethics and morality, then he should be against the research actually occuring regardless of how it is funded. I won’t even mention the problem with the logic, “hey, we don’t actually stop any unethical stem cell research!”).

    Probably a bad point to make, too…

  • CB, nice takedown of Chimpy’s speechifying. But the shorter version is:

    Better that 10’s of thousands of you and your children die long and painful deaths, than I irritate Dobson and Robertson heading into the midterm elections.

    As for the day count? I have this as Bush’s 2,006th day in office, with 916 to go (F’n leap year!)

  • ocdemocrat, we’ll find out fairly soon now, as “The One-Ten” will be officially seated on January 3, 2007—and personally, I want to see the creepy little simian-in-chief try a signing statement on articles of impeachment ( as impeding federal investigations is a very bad thing for a simian-in-chief to do)….

  • The reason that the federal government or private foundations have to provide the primary support for stem cell research is because big Pharma will not put money into anything that does not result in profits within a fiscal year (on the outside). There are years and years of research to go on embryonic stem cells before they will be ready for clinical applications. No for-profit entity is willing to bankroll that. The reason that this decision does not hurt US big Pharma is that (as long as other countrys support such research) they can just license the final “product” from the foreign university where it is developed.

  • I’ve read recently in several places that progress is being made in ADULT stem cell research. If a person’s own stem cells can be used to fight disease or disability, then there will be no problem with rejection.

  • #2:# If embryonic stem cell research is the salvation of humanity then private companies should be willing to fund the research because they’ll make billions of dollars later on. (Maybe Buffett and Gates would be willing to step in?)

    Comment by Jason — 7/19/2006 @ 3:58 pm

    1) Stem cell research may or may not prove to be the salvation of humanity. But we won’t know for sure if we close the door on it.
    2) Privately and state funded stem cell research is going on, even in US. But because it’s scattered, unavoidably, a lot of it will be parallel/duplicated, rather than full steam ahead. And just the duplication — often un-necessary — of the equipment is a waste.
    3) If the cures are produced by private enterprise only, their main objective will be to a) recover the cost and b) make a profit. Which, automatically, will make the cures prohibitive/unavailable to those of us without millions in the bank (but not to Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Gang).

  • I’m waiting for Bush’s followup bill: the Virtuous Mother Gestation act. It would empower police to forcebly reimplant the frozen feutuses into the mothers that bred them, and incarcerate them until the fetus comes to term.

    After all, we can’t allow all those cyrogenic eggs to be calously “murdered” by those selfish mothers who created them, then only to be discarded after fertility treatment was finished. Right George?

  • Night after night, in the bedrooms of America’s adolescents, billions upon billions of potential embryos are going to waste. Yet Bush remains silent….

  • Jon Karak is on to something. Any couple that seeks IVF should be bound by law to do everything humanly possible to bring every embryo to childhood. If you can’t have a baby ‘naturally’ you may have to settle for one hundred of them. Anything less is mass murder. Right?
    By the same token, let’s rid ourselves of this barbaric practice of organ donation. This is nothing less than the desecration of the human body – God’s wonderous creation.

    All snark aside – I knew this was coming, but yet I’m surprised at how outraged this actually makes me, now that it’s come to pass.

  • Silence equals death. He still has his finger on the pulse of Americans. Excuse me, I meant he’s still using that finger to tell us how much he cares about the will of the majority.

  • Jon,

    Ahhh…the good ol’ VMGA. Babies for the Reich. Gotta do something to keep the insatiable appetite of our war-beast satisfied; else, it might develop a taste for Theocratic Reactionary Soup. KG might actually have to fly a combat mission—and I know where we can gat an old F-111 for him, too….

  • #9:

    Everyone please resist responding to trolls. It only encourages them.

    I have to disagree. If postings such as #7 are not responded to, then some casual readers will take them at face value. Responding to them is like pulling weeds: it may be a dreary never-ending task and it will not solve the problem, but it helps a little bit. Thank you rege for your response at #13.

  • Here’s a fun one. This pledge appears to be required at every public event, every meeting of city council, school board, planning commission, whatever.

    I was considering running for local office. Talked with a local politico who said, well, in this town, an atheist can win, it’s not a problem, not an issue unless you make it one.

    But still, I ain’t running. Because, it would become an issue when I refuse to participate in that jingoistic, idiotic pledge. Even without the “under god” it’s still wrong.

    I’m not pledging allegiance to any fucking scrap of cloth. I’ll pledge allegiance to the people I’d be serving, every day, enthusiastically, loudly, and cheerfully. To the Constitution certainly. But to a flag? No way. I haven’t had to deal with that damn-fool pledge since grade school and I ain’t starting now.

  • “I’ve read recently in several places that progress is being made in ADULT stem cell research. If a person’s own stem cells can be used to fight disease or disability, then there will be no problem with rejection.” – Fallenwoman

    Once again, you are being swayed by conservative propaganda. Missouri is attempting to pass a Stem Cell Initiative, and facts that have an actual basis in reality can be found at this website: http://www.missouricures.com

    Here are a few excerpts that explain how adult stem cells are limited in their use:

    FACT #5: Early stem cells could provide cures for diseases and injuries that have not been – and probably cannot be – cured with adult stem cells.
    Adult stem cells are partially specialized cells that can turn into a limited number of body cells and tissues. For example, blood-forming adult stem cells in bone marrow can turn into certain types of blood-related cells. Early stem cells are “pluripotent,” meaning that they are totally specialized cells that have the potential to turn into and regenerate any type of cell or tissue in the human body. Thus, the overwhelming majority of medical experts, medical organizations, disease foundations and patient groups agree that ES cells could provide cures for many diseases and injuries that have not been cured – and probably cannot be cured – with adult stem cells, such as juvenile diabetes, neurological diseases like Parkinson’s and MS, spinal cord injury and dozens of other debilitating medical conditions.

    FACT #6: The claim that adult stem cells already provide cures for 65 diseases is false.
    In an effort to persuade people that early stem cell research is not important or needed, opponents frequently claim that adult stem cells already provide treatments for 65 or more human diseases and injuries. This claim is apparently based on a list created by an opponent of ES cell research named David Prentice. Amazingly, there are a number of medical conditions included on his list – such as Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injury – that are currently incurable with any form of treatment. Moreover, no existing FDA-approved adult stem cell treatments are available for the majority of the other medical conditions on the Prentice list. The truth is, although adult stem cell research has been ongoing for over 50 years, FDA-approved adult stem cell treatments are in general use for only about 10 medical conditions (primarily blood-related diseases, such as certain types of leukemia). Opponents also make the misleading claim that ES cells have not provided any cures. This ignores the fact that ES cell research is a new field of research that has not even entered the human clinical trial stage at this point. Until human trials are conducted, the assertion that ES cells have provided no treatments is totally disingenuous. The same could have been said about any modern medical treatment before it was tested and approved for general use. In short, the claims opponents of the Initiative make about adult stem cells and ES cells are cynical distortions of the facts that are cruelly misleading to patients and unethically misleading to voters.

  • As tempting as it is to argue potential benefits of stem cell research vs destruction of embryos, I think it misses the point. Like abortion, the underlying disagreement seems to over the question of “when does life begin.”

    If you believe that life begins at fertilization, it is understandable that you would oppose both stem cell research and abortion on moral grounds. If you believe that life begins at birth, there is no moral issue. Most Americans seem to have reached a middle ground, by trying to balance moral concerns with practical concerns. Unable to say exactly when life begins, they’ve substituted viablity, or the ability of a potential life to survive outside the womb. Of course, medical advances are constantly changing the theshold of viability: premies now survive who would never have made it when Roe was decided. But, if you remove “outside the womb” from your definition of viability, an embryo implanted in the womb becomes life. So, from a purely logical perspective, we have a real problem. It all comes down to what you want to believe.

    BTW, thanks for the linked post CB — must have taken some time to put it together.

  • “If you believe that life begins at fertilization, it is understandable that you would oppose both stem cell research and abortion on moral grounds.” – beep52

    But that’s the hypocrisy of the situation that Carpetbagger already pointed out. Bush is against stem cell research because it destroys human embryos, but he also supports in vitro fertility clinics as being “pro-family.” If he is going to oppose stem cell research because it destroys human embryos, then logically he should oppose in vitro fertility clinics, as they discard embryos every day.

    Essentially the President is saying that the destruction of embryos is acceptable as long as children are created in the process, but the combination of destruction of embryos, creation of children, AND the possibility of curing diseases that kill Americans every day isn’t acceptable.

  • I’m just going to suggest that we are better off NOT having the Bushites involved any more than they are in the development of life saving technologies from embryonic stem cells.

  • Farinata,

    Your link to the Pierce piece was a touch funky. Here’s another one: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/07/post_887.html#003590

    I thank you for mentioning it; any day I get to read Charlie Pierce is a day that’s got something going for it.

    In case no one knows, Pierce has a line of nasty, early-onset Alzheimers in his family; he’s written and spoken about it at least locally. He really does have a (big) dog in this fight.

  • Danny – nope, I am not a troll and I support embryonic stem cell research.

    “EXACT-FUCKING-LY LIKE BUSH’S PLAN” was yelling at Bush for being a lying sack of donuts for claiming to be the first to allow federal stem cell funding, when Clinton was the first. I probably could have been clearer what I was talking about by writing the following instead of what I wrote:

    Bush lies when he says he was the first to authorize funding. Clinton’s administration allowed federal funding for stem cell research:

    I thought it was clear, when I guess it was not since you decided I am a troll.

    rege- can you read? The highlighted parts of the “selective quote” are the important ones:

    These Clinton Administration guidelines, published in August of 2000, forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells (because of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment), but permitted research with stem cells that other, privately funded scientists had already derived from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

    Clinton’s policy allowed federal funding for existing (see “already created”) stem cell lines, but not the creation or use of new stem cell lines.

    Which, to me, sounds exactly like Bush’s 2001 “compromise.”

    Which means that Bush is lying when he says that he is the first to allow funding for embryonic stem cell research.

    I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

  • NAR, although I may have been a little harsh, I did not intend to start a flame war. Your first post on this thread suggested that you weren’t a troll and that you were a supporter of stem cell research. The second post taken along with the first indicated that you may be anti-Clinton. That is why I asked for clarification on your position.

    For the sake of completeness let’s dissect the passage from Bush’s remarks, which generated this mini-tempest.

    When I took office, there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research Under the policy I announced five years ago, my administration became the first to make federal funds available for this research, yet only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed.

    Strictly speaking Bush is not lying here, but, as usual, he is being misleading. The creation of a viable stem cell line did not occur until 1998. It was done with private funding because of the Republican sponsored Dickey-Wicker amendment. This event created some urgency within the Clinton administration to find a way around the troublesome amendment. However, it wasn’t until August of 2000 that the bureaucracy finally churned out federal guidelines for funding research on stem cell lines created with private funds. (This latter restriction was needed to satisfy the Republican sponsored Dickey-Wicker amendment. One could surmise that absent this amendment Clinton would have allowed the use of federal funds in the creation of stem cells.) According to the PBS link in #7,

    President Clinton strongly endorsed the new guidelines, noting that human embryonic stem cell research promised “potentially staggering benefits.” And with the guidelines in place, the NIH began accepting grant proposals from scientists. Thus, it was the Clinton Administration that first opened the door to federal funding.

    It was after August of 2000, the final months of the Clinton presidency, that the NIH began to accept grant proposals on stem cell research. For those of you with no experience in the process of federal funding of research, you should know that proposals are not funded overnight. Hence, although not explicitly stated in the PBS story, it is unlikely that an federal funds where distributed for stem cell research on Clinton’s watch.

    Once Bush was in office he dramatically scaled back the Clinton policy on stem cell research. However, he did allow some federal funding and it was on his watch that funding was delivered. So when Bush says,”When I took office, there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research Under the policy I announced five years ago, my administration became the first to make federal funds available for this research,..” He isn’t lying. It is misleading because had Gore won there would have been significantly more support for this research, assuming the Republican congress didn’t intervene.

  • NAR,

    I apologize. I reacted too quickly to the shouting and vulgar language. That, combined with quoted text taken out of context, led me to assume a troll had crawled out from under his bridge. I see now my mistake, and I’m certainly willing to admit, and apologize for it.

    What got to me was that the text you quoted makes it sound like only the existing (65?, 22?, however many) embryonic stem cell lines would be able to receive public funding if Bush’s administration hadn’t pushed through their ban, when in actuality any time privately funded scientists derive a new human embryonic stem cell line from embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics, research on that new line would have been eligible for federal funding.

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the PBS article that is being linked to. But, from what I can tell, prior to the ban, new stem cell lines could be derived by private industry and then research on those stem cell lines could be publicly funded. This is much more like the bill that Bush just vetoed than it is like the current rules. Under the current rules, research on stem cells that are derived by private industry cannot receive public funding except for research on those lines that existed prior to the ban going into effect in 2001. Had the current rules been in effect in 1998 there wouldn’t be any public funding of embryonic stem cells, since all embryonic stem cell lines would be derived after the rules took effect.

    Here’s a break down of my understanding:

    1994: NIH Human Embryo Research Panel recommends that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, with the goal of obtaining stem cells, should receive federal funding. At this time nobody had yet successfully created a human embryonic stem cell line.

    1995: Jay Dickey & Roger Wicker author a rider attached to an appropriations bill that prevents public funding for the creation or destruction of embryos.

    1998: James Thompson (using private funds) successfully creates the first human embryonic stem cell lines. It is initially believed that because of Dickey-Wicker (and because obtaining the stem cells required destruction of the embryo), it would not be possible to use federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cells.

    1999: Harriet Rabb releases a legal opinion that stated that because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal funds couldn’t be used to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells, but once privately funded scientists derive stem cells from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics, research on those stem cells could receive federal funding.

    August 2000: NIH publishes guidelines forbidding the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos to derive stem cells, but permitting federal funding of research on any stem cells once they were derived by privately funded scientists from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics. President Clinton strongly endorsed these guidelines.

    January 2001: Bush tells the NIH to cancel its plans to review grant applications. It isn’t clear from the article, but at this time I suspect that no grants had yet completed the review/approval process. Therefore, it is technically correct to say that there was no funding of human embryonic stem cells prior to Bush’s administration. Obviously, private funding of research had occurred, and several stem cell lines had been created under private funding.

    August 2001: Bush announced that federal funding would be restricted to a limited number of stem cell lines already created by that date.

    November 2001: Bush’s administration ordered an official withdrawal of the funding guidelines that Clinton had authorized.

    Yesterday: The Senate and The House passed a bill that would return to allowing federal funding of research on new stem cell lines from spare embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics (see 1994, 1999, and Aug 2000). Bush vetoed this bill thereby upholding his August 2001 decision to prevent federal funding for any new stem cell lines.

    Note that sometime after August 2001, federal funding of research on human embryonic stem cells is approved for the first time (on cell lines that were created prior to Aug 2001). Therefore Bush can technically say, “When I took office, there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced five years ago, my administration became the first to make federal funds available for this research, yet only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed.”

    Between 1998 when James Thompson created the first human embryonic stem cell lines and August 2000 the Clinton administration was trying to find a way around Dickey-Wicker.

    Federal funding was possible under Clinton’s administration between August 2000 and January 2001, but no funding had received approval before Bush canceled the review process.

  • Just had a thought. What if Al Qaeda had developed a disease that afflicted a million people, roughly the count of Americans with Parkinson’s disease? And let’s also say that the disease could possibly be cured through stem cell research. Would George Bush suddenly “see the light” and agree to federally fund stem cell research?

    • Comments are closed.