Bush Vetoes Embryonic Stem Cell Bill

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush pandering to the religious right and entrenched Republicans no matter what science and facts show.............Brilliant!

--------------------------------------------------------
Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_stem_cells_35)
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vetoing a stem cell bill for the second time, President Bush on Wednesday sought to placate those who disagree with him by signing an executive order urging scientists toward what he termed "ethically responsible" research in the field.

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.

Announcing his veto to a roomful of supporters, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

He vetoed similar embryonic stem cell legislation last July.

His executive order encourages scientists to work with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding — so long as it does not create, harm or destroy human embryos.

Democrats, focusing on the potential for cures or treatments of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases, made the embryonic stem cell legislation a priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January.

"President Bush won't listen to the more than 500 leading organizations who support the bill including AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Diabetes Association, just to name a few," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"President Bush won't listen to the 80 Nobel laureates or his own director of the National Institutes of Health, who all support embryonic stem cell research. Most importantly, President Bush won't listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who call out for stem cell research."

Reid said he would schedule an override vote "very, very quickly," but not until Wyoming selects a temporary replacement for Republican Sen. Craig Thomas, who died two weeks ago. Democrats do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

The stem cell issue has weighty political and ethical implications. Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush — and the GOP's social conservatives — in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research. At the Republican debate May 3, Giuliani said he supports such an expansion with limits, "as long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning."

Rivals Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney tried to stop legislation that encouraged expanded embryonic stem cell research. His veto was overturned.

Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.

The president is "deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives," Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, R-N.Y., said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.

The White House says that since 2001, the administration has made $130 million available for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that already had been destroyed before Bush's policy was announced. It also has provided more than $3 billion in federal dollars for research on non-embryonic sources.

Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

Bush said his executive order directs the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that — like human embryonic stem cells — also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease, and make them eligible for federal funding.

The order also renames the NIH's Embryonic Stem Cell Registry the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry so that it reflects what the stem cells can do, instead of their origin. Pluripotent stem cells are ones that can give rise to any kind of cell in the body except those required to develop a fetus.

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," said Bush, who appeared on stage with Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Conn., who was born with spina bifida, and is benefiting from what he called "ethical stem cell research."

Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, expressed anger and disgust at the veto and Bush's order.

"His executive order directing NIH to continue pursing alternate forms of research is nothing new since NIH has already been conducting this research for the past 20 years," Tipton said.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill's chief Democratic supporter who has a daughter with juvenile diabetes, said the executive order is not a substitute for easing funding restrictions.

"While I support these other methods of research, the consensus among the scientific community is that these methods are years behind the progress of embryonic stem cell research," she said, adding that British scientists recently announced that embryonic stem cells may be used to cure a form of macular degeneration within five years. "This research was made possible by an anonymous donation from a U.S. donor, who has become frustrated by curbs on stem cell work in this country."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Survey sees support for embryos in stem cell work (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/hl_nm/bush_stemcells_donors_dc_2)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 60 percent of people with frozen embryos stored at U.S. fertility clinics would be willing to donate them for use in human stem cell research, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

The survey, made public on the day U.S. President George W. Bush vetoed legislation to expand federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, tracked the attitudes of the people in a position to donate these embryos to create stem cell batches, or lines, for research.

These embryos are created at fertility clinics for in vitro fertilization procedures to help infertile couples have babies. Typically, more embryos are created than are needed, and many are simply destroyed after the donors no longer want them.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20070620/2007_06_20t162448_450x358_us_bush_stemcells_donors .jpg?x=380&y=302&sig=cOm1YlIz10RiOaR3Cx3EXg--
An embryo in an undated image. About 60 percent of people with frozen embryos stored at U.S. fertility clinics would be willing to donate them for use in human stem cell research, according to a survey released on Wednesday. (File/Reuters)

Researchers at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore questioned 1,020 people who have embryos stored at nine fertility centers in California, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Sixty percent were willing to donate their frozen embryos for use in stem cell research, the researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science. About 28 percent said they would be willing to donate embryos to improve cloning techniques for medical science.

Only 22 percent of those surveyed were willing to donate the embryos to other couples for adoption to make babies -- something Bush has advocated as a better use of the embryos.

[Garcia Bronco]

Well..all congress has to do is send it back with the proper majority and override his veto.

[REB]

Well as far as I know he's always been against using embryos for stem cell research so I wouldn't say he was pandering to anyone.

[REB]

Well..all congress has to do is send it back with the proper majority and override his veto.


Yep, that's the way it works :)

[spdirty]

I really don't give a shlt either way. This is not important to me.

[Rigs11]

I really don't give a shlt either way. This is not important to me.

Then why the hell did you post? I swear some people need to be evaluated before being allowed to use the internet.

[spdirty]

Then why the hell did you post?

Because I wanted you to know I don't give a shlt.

[Rigs11]

Dumbya values life so much and yet sits idly by while our troops are slaughtered in iraq.It's gotten so ridiculous that it's just funny now.

[Rigs11]

Because I wanted you to know I don't give a shlt.

thanks.can i have my 25 seconds back?

[spdirty]

thanks.can i have my 25 seconds back?

got a time machine?

[spdirty]

Dumbya values life so much and yet sits idly by while our troops are slaughtered in iraq.It's gotten so ridiculous that it's just funny now.

the stem cell **** is gonna get quadraplegics to run marathons, cure cancer, aids, herpes, the common cold, and give us all world peace and thats why W hates it blah blah blah

[Bronco Bob]

the stem cell **** is gonna get quadraplegics to run marathons, cure cancer, aids, herpes, the common cold,

And this is a bad thing? If stem cell research can do this, why not do it?

[Rascal]

And this is a bad thing? If stem cell research can do this, why not do it?

No one ever accused you of being the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

[Bronco Bob]

No one ever accused you of being the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

Actually they have. Many times.

[Rascal]

Must be an impressive toolbox. LOL

[Bronco Bob]

Must be an impressive toolbox. LOL

It is indeed a very impressive toolbox. Think of it as the Craftsman 393 piece Mechanics Tool Set.

[yavoon]

gayballs, lets get a 2/3rds on the ****er.

[Rascal]

It is indeed a very impressive toolbox. Think of it as the Craftsman 393 piece Mechanics Tool Set.

sure.

[spdirty]

And this is a bad thing? If stem cell research can do this, why not do it?

It is a bad thing if it gets a democrat elected.

[Garcia Bronco]

And this is a bad thing? If stem cell research can do this, why not do it?

This is the question. I am not really against government funding for this...but this is the question...should we be doing this?

What about population control? What happens if a large portion of the population lives another 25 years? How do we account for that? Who will actually afford this kind of health care? Will it create a class system and further divide the population along socio-economic status?

I think these things need consideration before we engage this stuff.

[TailgateNut]

He just wants to make it clear to the American public that he is the "Decider" he'll pout and stomp until he gets his way.
If the coward would have not skirted his ass out of Vietnam we wouldn't be dealing with him now, because someone with his attitude would have definately died of friendly fire.

[Play2win]

I think GARCIA was always MOCK. Garcia's posts now consist of pure MOCK-LOGIC. Mock is nowhere to be found. Now, all of a sudden, GARCIA is posting up a storm, whereas he wasn't before...

Coincidence, I think not...


GARCIA = MOCK

[Smiling Assassin27]

First smart thing this prez has done in months....Kudos, Mr. President.

[Hotrod]

Must be an impressive toolbox. LOL

Ha!

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00000DMD1.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Rascal]

I think GARCIA was always MOCK. Garcia's posts now consist of pure MOCK-LOGIC. Mock is nowhere to be found. Now, all of a sudden, GARCIA is posting up a storm, whereas he wasn't before...

Coincidence, I think not...

GARCIA = MOCK

See post above for pure MOCK-LOGIC. !Booya!

[Garcia Bronco]

I think GARCIA was always MOCK. Garcia's posts now consist of pure MOCK-LOGIC. Mock is nowhere to be found. Now, all of a sudden, GARCIA is posting up a storm, whereas he wasn't before...

Coincidence, I think not...


GARCIA = MOCK

You know...people have said some rotten things about me on this board, but this takes the cake.

Having said that...Mock is a good guy, and hopefully he's alright.

[Garcia Bronco]

See post above for pure MOCK-LOGIC. !Booya!

What do you mean?

[Garcia Bronco]

Yep... this one:





BTW- you can go to town on the typos on this one ;D

Typing on a PDA is hard for me. ...I have big hands.:approve:

[Play2win]

Typing on a PDA is hard for me. ...I have big hands.:approve:

J/K... I was just getting some slack for a typo I made... all in good fun...

[TheDave]

Party Yes No
Democratic 43 1
Independent 1 0
Republican 19 36
Total 63 37

Well the good news is they only need 4 more to override the veto...

[Garcia Bronco]

Party Yes No
Democratic 43 1
Independent 1 0
Republican 19 36
Total 63 37

Well the good news is they only need 4 more to override the veto...

I think it would be awesome if they took him to the task on this.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is the question. I am not really against government funding for this...but this is the question...should we be doing this?

What about population control? What happens if a large portion of the population lives another 25 years? How do we account for that? Who will actually afford this kind of health care? Will it create a class system and further divide the population along socio-economic status?

I think these things need consideration before we engage this stuff.

so no one wants to tackle these questions?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

so no one wants to tackle these questions?No one claims to play the "decider", who gets to live and who doesn't except Bush in this case. Your question(s) aren't really relevant and important as you would know if you had a son or daughter or a wife or brother or father, etc, etc... suffering a fatal disease that could be cured by stem cell research.

[Garcia Bronco]

No one claims to play the "decider", who gets to live and who doesn't except Bush in this case. Your question(s) aren't really relevant and important as you would know if you had a son or daughter or a wife or brother or father, etc, etc... suffering a fatal disease that could be cured by stem cell research.

Who lives and who dies are the tough decisions and one that our leaders have to make...which IMO is why you would have to suspicious of anyone who wants the job to begin with... But we already have a serious population problem, this would full on exacerbate the situation. We can't address this on an individual level...another disease from the 60's kids spread down to their off spring...We are talking about looking at this from a 100,000 foot view.

Is this something we should be doing?

What about population control? What happens if a large portion of the population lives another 25 years? How do we account for that? Who will actually afford this kind of health care? Will it create a class system and further divide the population along socio-economic status? What about increased government subsidized health care costs?

It's not just as simple as saying go for it. If we are going to do something like this then we have to do it right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who lives and who dies are the tough decisions and one that our leaders have to make...which IMO is why you would have to suspicious of anyone who wants the job to begin with... But we already have a serious population problem, this would full on exacerbate the situation. We can't address this on an individual level...another disease from the 60's kids spread down to their off spring...We are talking about looking at this from a 100,000 foot view.

Is this something we should be doing?

What about population control? What happens if a large portion of the population lives another 25 years? How do we account for that? Who will actually afford this kind of health care? Will it create a class system and further divide the population along socio-economic status? What about increased government subsidized health care costs?

It's not just as simple as saying go for it. If we are going to do something like this then we have to do it right.The only right thing to do is try and saves lives that can be saved. You're advocating selective death to maintain a perceived population level.

[Garcia Bronco]

The only right thing to do is try and saves lives that can be saved. You're advocating selective death to maintain a perceived population level.

Saving lives isn't always a good thing with regard to proper growth of species. If you take a test tube and place bacteria in it. Give it enough resources to survive..the bacteria will eventually over populate itself, produce more waste than it can get rid of, and eventually kill itself. Being a good stewart of the species involves sacriface and it might mean making a decision that unfortunately results in the deaths of others. Again, this is from high level/global view of the situation.

[ChargerChuck]

Saving lives isn't always a good thing with regard to proper growth of species. If you take a test tube and place bacteria in it. Give it enough resources to survive..the bacteria will eventually over populate itself, produce more waste than it can get rid of, and eventually kill itself. Being a good stewart of the species involves sacriface and it might mean making a decision that unfortunately results in the deaths of others. Again, this is from high level/global view of the situation.Are you serious or just trolling? That's the kind of statements that Hitler, communists and various other dictators might make.

[Garcia Bronco]

Are you serious or just trolling? That's the kind of statements that Hitler, communists and various other dictators might make.

Then you do not understand the full weight of a leadership role of 100's or millions of people. These are the tough decisions. You also do not understand the difference between what Hitler was and making good decisions for an entire population.

Also to elborate...the decisions made should always be for the greatest good.

Would you wager 50,000 lives to save 100 million lives? It's straight up utilitarianism. Determining the greatest good.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Then you do not understand the full weight of a leadership role of 100's or millions of people. These are the tough decisions. You also do not understand the difference between what Hitler was and making good decisions for an entire population.Uh, I think you're the one that is confused. World leaders don't get to play God (decide who lives and who dies) unless you live in dictatorship. You don't handle over population or differentiate racial numbers by "culling the herd"

And you portend this by saying "making good decisions for an entire population"? Your "thinking" is seriously deficient in several areas to say the least.

[Garcia Bronco]

Uh, I think you're the one that is confused. World leaders don't get to play God (decide who lives and who dies) unless you live in dictatorship. You don't handle over population or differentiate racial numbers by "culling the herd"

And you portend this by saying "making good decisions for an entire population"? Your "thinking" is seriously deficient in several areas to say the least.

Leaders do make decisions whether people live or die every day...every day..while in some instances it might not be directly...but they do. The most obvious example is the right to an abortion. So don't sit there and tell me leaders don't make these decisions...because they do. Going to war? That's making decisions that effect an entire population and it is deciding whether people live or die. Deciding either for or against stem cell research is deciding whether people live or die. Now I am asking...which senario will actually save more lives? Immediately engaging in the research...or studing it's impact on the population as a whole with regard to economic and resource consumption to make sure we do it right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Leaders do make decisions whether people live or die every day...every day..while in some instances it might not be directly...but they do. .You weren't talking about that crap. You were talking about overpopulation and culling the herd.

[Garcia Bronco]

You weren't talking about that crap. You were talking about overpopulation and culling the herd.

We do need to address over population. Again..I am talking about analysis from a global view.

[TheDave]

We do need to address over population. Again..I am talking about analysis from a global view.

I agree that population control will become an issue that must be delt with... But right now we (americans) do not have to deal with it. Possibly india/china might but we do not.

[TailgateNut]

Leaders do make decisions whether people live or die every day...every day..while in some instances it might not be directly...but they do. The most obvious example is the right to an abortion. So don't sit there and tell me leaders don't make these decisions...because they do. Going to war? That's making decisions that effect an entire population and it is deciding whether people live or die. Deciding either for or against stem cell research is deciding whether people live or die. Now I am asking...which senario will actually save more lives? Immediately engaging in the research...or studing it's impact on the population as a whole with regard to economic and resource consumption to make sure we do it right.


Damn GB, is that why Dumbya is against abortion and against Stem cell research. To balance "the herd"!

[Garcia Bronco]

Damn GB, is that why Dumbya is against abortion and against Stem cell research. To balance "the herd"!

His reasoning, I feel confident is faith based, and doesn't really extend further than that. Is that the right reason? Probably not...but what if the results are the greatest good anyway?

Another issue is money...in some ways we have to get in this arena to make sure we gain patents on various portions of medical and biotech market within the global economy.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree that population control will become an issue that must be delt with... But right now we (americans) do not have to deal with it. Possibly india/china might but we do not.

We will have to deal with it sooner though with population in exponetial growth. Is saving more lives wihtout accounting for growth a good idea? I don't think it is.

[ant1999e]

Dumbya values life so much and yet sits idly by while our troops are slaughtered in iraq.It's gotten so ridiculous that it's just funny now.

What do you care about the troops? Are you a war supporter now?

[TheDave]

We will have to deal with it sooner though with population in exponetial growth. Is saving more lives wihtout accounting for growth a good idea? I don't think it is.

Again population growth is not a USA problem... It could be for China and India in the near future, but it is definitely not our problem. We have more than enough natural resources for our population... As a matter of fact all of North and South america are on solid ground when it comes to this issues of land use, population density, water, etc.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What do you care about the troops? Are you a war supporter now?Ah the you must support invasions of sovereign countries in order to support the troops Neocon BS. Bush and Cheney would be proud of you!

[Garcia Bronco]

Ah the you must support invasions of sovereign countries in order to support the troops Neocon BS. Bush and Cheney would be proud of you!

You mean sovereign coutries that violate UN sanctions from the first time they attacked Kuwait?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You mean sovereign coutries that violate UN sanctions from the first time they attacked Kuwait?I mean countries that were absolutely no thereat to us that you and your boys thought would be a good idea to sacrifice over 3500 American lives, maim over 50,000 more over.

[Rascal]

Again population growth is not a USA problem... It could be for China and India in the near future, but it is definitely not our problem. We have more than enough natural resources for our population... As a matter of fact all of North and South america are on solid ground when it comes to this issues of land use, population density, water, etc.

I agree. Besides, as people continue to live longer they will have to work longer, and may start having kids later, etc. If we develop the ability to live healthier lives and get rid of cancer, etc the population problems are worth dealing with then IMO. We can go settle on the moon.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well as far as I know he's always been against using embryos for stem cell research so I wouldn't say he was pandering to anyone.

You're half right: Dim Son has always pandered to the snake handlers on the far right, so this is nothing new.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/stems-moral-line.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/veto-unethical.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/stem-cells-unhurt.jpg

[Bronco Bob]

I agree that population control will become an issue that must be delt with... But right now we (americans) do not have to deal with it. Possibly india/china might but we do not.

China has already been dealing with overpopulation for years now. They
realized that if their population grew unchecked it would reach the point
where they would no longer have enough land to grow food on to feed
everyone. One thing that drastically cut done on the rate of their population
growth was the one family one child rule, with active and vigorous
enforcement of the policy. Not saying a zero growth policy like that will work
here though, too many competing special interests and religious groups
for that to happen.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

China has already been dealing with overpopulation for years now. They
realized that if their population grew unchecked it would reach the point
where they would no longer have enough land to grow food on to feed
everyone. One thing that drastically cut done on the rate of their population
growth was the one family one child rule, with active and vigorous
enforcement of the policy. Not saying a zero growth policy like that will work
here though, too many competing special interests and religious groups
for that to happen.They implemented population growth rate controls in the early 70s if I remember right but they sure don''t have 0 growth. Their population will be almost 1.5 billion by 2010.

We can take care of any population problem here by taxing each kid instead of rewarding families for each kid. :~ohyah!:

[Chupacabra]

Well as far as I know he's always been against using embryos for stem cell research so I wouldn't say he was pandering to anyone.

Thats what I was going to say. This is just W sticking by his principles.

[yavoon]

China has already been dealing with overpopulation for years now. They
realized that if their population grew unchecked it would reach the point
where they would no longer have enough land to grow food on to feed
everyone. One thing that drastically cut done on the rate of their population
growth was the one family one child rule, with active and vigorous
enforcement of the policy. Not saying a zero growth policy like that will work
here though, too many competing special interests and religious groups
for that to happen.

america, right now is at zero growth. though its not stable across demographics. teh whties are declining, the blacks are growing barely and the hispanics are booming.

[TheDave]

Thats what I was going to say. This is just W sticking by his principles.

Principles or his pharmaceutical friends... There is nothing principled about limiting research on "embryos" on their way to the trash can.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Principles or his pharmaceutical friends...

Bingo. :thumbsup:

[TheDave]

Bingo. :thumbsup:

It's seriously disheartening that people can't see through this BS...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's seriously disheartening that people can't see through this BS...

Yep.

It's disturbing to that the so-called "pro-life" people still believe the Kennebunkport Cowboy makes such policy decisions because he shares their values.