White House wiggle room on stem-cell research?

Supporters of stem-cell research believe, despite rhetoric to the contrary, that the president really would sign the Castle-DeGette bill, even though it undoes his 2001 policy, if the legislation reached his desk with bi-partisan support. The trick, as they see it, is finding some “wiggle room” for Bush to offer him some political cover from charges of flip-flopping.

For example, Michael Manganiello, senior vice president of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, said proponents of the effort are scrutinizing Bush’s previous comments “to see if there is room for the president to allow a compromise to his initial policy.”

It’s possible that Trent Duffy hinted at some wiggle room yesterday.

Subbing for Scott McClellan, Duffy ran yesterday’s press gaggle aboard Air Force One, and was asked what kind of response the White House was preparing in advance of the Castle-DeGette bill. Duffy said:

“The President’s stem cell research policy is very clear. He was the first President to authorize embryonic stem cell research in 2001, under a principle that human life should not be created for the purpose of destroying it. And he continues to stand firmly behind that principle. And I would note that there has been tens of millions of dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research at the federal government under this President and under his policy. So that’s where he stands on that, and he continues to stand behind his policy.” (emphasis added)

Maybe Duffy doesn’t fully understand the White House position on this, or maybe he was offering the wiggle room proponents are hoping for, but the principle Bush has held is not limited to embryos “created for the purpose of destroying” them; it’s a limit on research on all embryos.

But if Duffy’s right, and his response yesterday is the White House policy, then we’re in luck. The Castle-DeGette bill centers on using embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that otherwise would be discarded — and the bill does not permit embryos to be created specifically for the purpose of medical research. In other words, the legislation is completely in line with Bush’s principles, at least as they were articulated yesterday.

For that matter, if Bush is looking for an excuse, maybe he’ll be motivated by the fact that the South Koreans have taken the lead on stem-cell research. It seems to me there was a time when the United States was the world leader on scientific research, before the religious right held veto power over the president’s domestic policy agenda….

It’s time for a renaming: freedom cells, the Healthy Bodies Research Policy, the Private Health Enablement Act, the Leave No Embryo Behind bill, The Republican Health For Mothers Policy Opposed By Nazi Democrat Liberals, or something.

  • You know, N.Wells, that’s a really good idea.

    “Freedom cells.” I love it.

  • Bush seems to want to sound like he has a clear position at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast (if I understand the confused writing):

    “I made very clear to Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayer’s money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life _ I’m against that,” Bush said. “Therefore, if the bill does that, I would veto it.”

  • So I take it by his comment above that we will no longer be funding development of new weapons for the Pentagon. “You know, heh, weapons is science. And we need weapons to protect America and Americans. And in order to protect American lives…”

    W, who ya crappin’.

  • use of federal money, taxpayer’s money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life _ I’m against that,â€? Bush said

    Why doesn’t anyone nail this pinheads words against him? He has a “philosophy” of life that is about as well thought out as the Iraqi invasion. It is a hodge-podge. If he truly beleived what he said here, then he is immoral, because he is perfectly willing to “destroy” life in order to bring “democracy” (which is an ideal…meaning he’s willing to spend lives to create an ideal, but NOT in order to save lives) to them.

    He is also willing (see “Falluja”) to kill and destroy life, innocent life, in order to possibly end the lives of insurgents.

    And yet this is never mentioned. This makes him a complete hypocrite.

  • Comments are closed.