A Valid Veto on Fruitless Funding
By Joe Mariani (07/23/06)
Five and a half years after taking office, President Bush finally blew the dust off his veto pen to reject increased Federal funding for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. There's no good, scientific reason the government should fund embryonic stem cell research (not to mention most other things), and many reasons not to do so.
Critics complain because he vetoed the bill due to his religious convictions, as though that's a bad thing. Liberals seem to believe no one who draws a government paycheck should have moral values, or should pretend they have none while on the job. Sometimes it seems they won't be satisfied until all officials are drawn from the 6 percent of Americans who have no religious or spiritual beliefs at all, while the 90 percent who do (according to a 2005 Newsweek/Beliefnet poll) are excluded from holding any government job. They just don't understand that the majority of Americans want a President who adheres to strong religious beliefs, as shown by a 2004 Zogby poll. While the Left tries to build a soulless, hidebound, all-encompassing bureaucratic machine reminiscent of the dear old Soviet Union, a republican form of government should be reflective of the people it governs.
The first reaction of Democrats and Liberals is to call the veto a "ban" on stem cell research, thinking to make it a campaign issue as they tried to do in 2004. That's two lies for the price of one. No research has been banned by Bush's veto on appropriating Federal funds for it. In fact, the Bush administration is the first to fund embryonic stem cell research at all, a fact those on the Left are disinclined to mention. In addition, there are other forms of stem cell research for which government funding has not been blocked.
The private sector (in which research and development used to take place) and state governments are free to fund ESC projects as much as they like. California, for instance, has appropriated three billion dollars for that purpose. Complaints about having to depend on private funding for ESC research only highlight the fact that years of such research have shown few positive results, and produced some spectacular failures. Embryonic stem cells introduced into laboratory mice are routinely rejected by the subject's immune system, and often result in teratomas -- Greek for "monster tumor" -- as the stem cells form all kinds of tissues unrelated to the surrounding tissue.
Meanwhile, research on adult stem cells found in bone marrow, the pancreas, the spleen, hair follicles and fat cells have all produced actual, measurable results. Stem cells taken from the placenta (afterbirth) and umbilical cord after live births show at least as much promise as cells from dead embryos. Dr. Mariusz Ratajczak of the University of Kentucky has directed adult bone marrow stem cells to change into brain, nerve, heart and pancreatic cells. In 2004, Dr. Dennis Turner testified before Congress that symptoms of his Parkinson's disease virtually vanished for four years after treatment with stem cells from his own brain. This research mimics all the supposedly miraculous properties of ESCs while overcoming the rejection issue.
Research on adult stem cells have shown remarkable progress in treating diabetes, muscular dystrophy, blindness, heart disease, paralysis, cancer and dozens of other medical conditions. All ESC research proponents can talk about is potential breakthroughs, while adult stem cell research is actually producing the results. Aside from the lure of endless funding for projects that never need show a return, why do Liberals want taxpayer dollars funneled into experiments that have so far yielded no results?
Deliberately killing fertilised, viable human embryos in the name of science would be a step towards "normalising" abortion for the general public, in anticipation of the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade. If the Supreme Court's unlegislated legalisation of abortion is overturned, individual states would once again get to decide the question of abortion's legality. The most common Liberal argument against Bush's veto is, "well, fertility clinics kill embryos anyway." Two wrongs, however, don't make a right.
If killing human embryos for research purposes becomes widely accepted as a legitimate use of tax dollars, then the Liberal argument for government-funded abortion will be, "how is it any different from harvesting them for research, which we already pay for?" To Liberals, money means endorsement... which is why they fight against Federal funding for projects run by religious groups or charities.
Bush's veto of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was the right thing to do, morally and scientifically. If state governments and private firms want to sink money into ESC research based on promises that sound more like those of a faith healer than a scientist, let them answer to local voters and investors.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-07_cy-2006_m-07_d-22_y-2006_o-0.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Joe Mariani
