SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (745506)7/17/2006 4:10:10 PM
From: pompsander  Respond to of 769670
 
I have a question...what is the conservative pro-life position on the embryos now in existence in the freezer used for fertility treatment? These are discarded if not used for stem cell research. Should these embroyos be brought to term? Is there a pro-life position against fertility treatments? I really don't know.

________________

Stem cell bill, if OK'd, faces likely veto By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 18 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The White House emphatically renewed President' Bush's threat to veto a bill heading toward Senate passage that would authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a practice Bush loathes.

ADVERTISEMENT

"If (the bill) were presented to the president, he would veto the bill," read a fresh official statement of administration policy Monday, with the sentence underlined for emphasis.

"The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the president's policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction," it said. Bush says the practice forces a choice between science and ethics.

The statement weakened speculation by proponents that Bush, persuaded by new science and strong public support for the legislation, might reverse course and sign it into law — especially if the Senate mustered the 67 votes required to overturn a veto.

But as the Senate opened debate, it appeared that was uncertain. Supporters of the bill, which would overturn Bush's restrictions in 2001 on any new such research, said the bill had 60 votes required for passage. But it was not clear how many more votes the measure would win during Tuesday's tally.

The House, too, would have to muster a two-thirds majority to overturn a veto. Last year, the measure fell 50 votes short, a number that supporters said was sure to shrink during an override attempt later in the week. But no one predicted enough support to turn back a veto.

In an emotionally-charged session marked by deeply personal stories of illness, death and hope, the Senate on Monday reopened debate on the legislation, which has deeply split Republican ranks and tested Bush's loyalty to his conservative base.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a presidential hopeful whose negotiations made the debate possible, decried restrictions on federal support for stem cell research.

"I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive," he told colleagues.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emphasized that the bill would use only embryos derived from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. He compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to such landmark advances as vaccinations against disease and space travel, "to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous."

"There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research," said Specter, R-Pa.

Opponents say the advance of science is not worth destroying human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because the process of extracting the all-purpose stem cells destroys a fertilized embryo that is a few days old.

"The government should not be in the business of funding this ethically troubling research with taxpayer dollars," Brownback said, adding that using embryos for such research amounts to "treating humans as raw material."

"It is immoral for us to do it," he added.

"I do not believe taxpayer dollars should support research that destroys human life," seconded Santorum said in a statement.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill Tuesday afternoon and Bush is expected to veto it Wednesday. The House is expected to try to override the veto as early as Wednesday, but support for the bill is expected to fall short of the required two-thirds majority.

That the debate is happening at all is the result of a deal brokered by Frist, who broke a yearlong standoff between supporters and opponents of the legislation. To satisfy opponents and clear objections blocking the debate, Frist also is allowing votes on two related bills. One, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., would encourage study on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos. The other, sponsored by Santorum and Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would ban so-called "fetal farming," the possibility of developing fetuses and aborting them for scientific purposes.

Those two bills are uncontroversial. The House is expected to approve them Tuesday by voice vote, and Bush is expected to sign them.

But the bill lifting Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is highly controversial and emotional because many scientists say the process holds the most promise for curing diseases that afflict millions of people.

Proponents struggled to make sure nobody thought the uncontroversial adult stem cell bill would advance science in the same way as the embryonic bill, numbered H.R. 810.

"Unless a senator votes for H.R. 810, he or she will not have voted for this meaningful life-giving research," said Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record), D-S.D.



To: pompsander who wrote (745506)7/17/2006 4:54:56 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Senate Poised to Pass Embryonic Stem Cell Bill
July 17, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
nytimes.com
Filed at 1:58 p.m. ET


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emphasized that the bill would only use embryos derived from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. He compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to such landmark advances as vaccinations against disease and space travel, ''to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous.''

''There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research,'' said Specter, R-Pa.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist decried restrictions on federal support for stem cell research in opening a new floor debate Monday on the divisive issue.

But the White House has shown no willingness to stray from the position that President Bush took five years ago when he halted government funding of any new embryonic stem cell research, a practice he called immoral. Bush said at the time that 78 stem cell lines existed on which research could continue, but in the years since, scientists have found that number to be far lower.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill Tuesday afternoon and Bush is expected to veto it Wednesday. The House is expected to try to override the veto as early as Wednesday, but support for the bill is expected to fall short of the required two-thirds majority.

That the debate is happening at all is the result of a deal brokered by Frist, who broke a yearlong standoff between supporters and opponents of the legislation. To satisfy opponents and clear objections blocking the debate, Frist also is allowing votes on two related bills. One, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would encourage study on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos. The other, sponsored by Santorum and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would ban so-called ''fetal farming,'' the possibility of developing fetuses and aborting them for scientific purposes.

Those two bills are uncontroversial. The House is expected to approve them Tuesday by voice vote, and Bush is expected to sign them.

But the bill lifting Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is highly controversial and emotional because many scientists say the process holds the most promise for curing diseases that afflict millions of people.

''I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive,'' Frist said on the Senate floor Monday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emphasized that the bill would only use embryos derived from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. He compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to such landmark advances as vaccinations against disease and space travel, ''to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous.''

''There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research,'' said Specter, R-Pa.

Opponents say the advance of science is not worth destroying human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because the process of extracting the all-purpose stem cells destroys a fertilized embryo that is a few days old.

''I do not believe taxpayer dollars should support research that destroys human life,'' Santorum said in a statement.

The wild card is the number of Senate supporters the legislation will win in Tuesday's tally. Vote-counters on both sides expect at least 60 supporters, the number required to pass. But whether the legislation can display the crucial veto-proof 67 is unknown. House supporters say a veto-proof margin in the Senate might inspire one in the House, though that is unlikely.

That chamber fell 50 votes short of that threshold last year, when it passed the bill 238-194.

------

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 810, S. 3504 and S. 2754, may be found at thomas.loc.gov

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press



To: pompsander who wrote (745506)7/17/2006 5:20:48 PM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
I don't agree that federal funding for medical research is a bad thing. Private investment as a sole source of medical research can lead only in directions private enterprise may deem "most profitable", and not necessarily in the broader public good

I would certainly enjoy reading about a medicaL discovery that is IN the broader public good, yet has no profit potential.

I would also be interested in these other generous countries and if they provide the money without some agreement for payment if successful or if they perform the research themselves, do they sell the results.

I have noted many of these generous countries have yet to make good on their Tsunami Relief pledges. The USA of coyurse has done that, but was ridiculed by the left for not providing enough. It seems we provided more than any other country.