The good news is that the Senate has passed a bill expanding federal funding for stem cell research. The bill would allow blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization in fertility clinics to be used for research purposes. Only embryos that were created for the purpose of fertility treatment could be used. Further, only embryos produced in excess of the needs of those seeking fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded would be permitted. Those providing the embryos would also have to provide informed, written consent and could not receive compensation or other inducements to donate the embryos.

The bad news is that President Bush says he'll veto (his first ever) the legislation, which passed both the House and the Senate, claiming that stem cell research on these embryos constitutes "murder." The use of the term "murder" is clearly incendiary pandering to a tiny minority of right-wing extremists.

Update, 11:20 AM: Bush has vetoed the stem cell research bill.

The argument that using these blastocysts for medical and scientific research amounts to "murder" fails to convince. As provided by the law, only embryos that would otherwise be thrown in the trash (and probably be incinerated as biohazardous waste) could be used. Is Bush asserting that every embryo produced for fertility treatment must be used? As far as I know, he has not made that assertion, and he hasn't complained that many embryos are simply discarded in the trash.

Fox News Presidential Spokesman Tony Snow said, "The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research." But taking something living and making it dead for nothing at all by throwing it in the trash is acceptable?

One can't even argue that there's some kind of "slippery slope" wherein embryos will be somehow produced simply for the sake of performing stem cell research. The law won't allow it. The embryos must be produced for and left over from fertility treatment. Those donating their embryos can't be compensated for or induced to provide them. They can't be provided without their informed and written consent.

Stem cell research and treatments hold tremendous promise for saving lives and healing injuries (though whether they will remains to be seen). Is this the right-wing "Culture of Life?" Stonewalling medical research that could save lives?

Just to clarify further how opposition to this bill makes no sense, consider the following chart. Let's assume that the Acme Fertility Clinic has produced 10 blastocysts for Mr. and Mrs Smith:

Method # of Embryos Destroyed # of Embryos Used
Stem cell research 9 1
No stem cell research 9 1

So how does opposition make any sense? These blastocysts will be destroyed either way. Why not learn something from them? Why not learn something that could prolong and enrich life? Wouldn't that be the "culture of life" thing to do? Or are these extremists who oppose research merely in love with blastocysts and couldn't care less about people who are already alive? Even if that were the case, why aren't they passing legislation against in virtro fertilization, since it creates excess embryos? It just doesn't make sense.

The embryos can go to the lab, or they can go to the incinerator, and Bush is choosing the incinerator.

As of the time of this writing, there are insufficient votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. 67 votes are needed, and the bill passed with a 63-37 vote. The roll call vote has been posted to the Senate roll call vote page, so you can find out how your senator voted and communicate with your senator's office in whatever manner you feel is appropriate.

---Nick

vote FOR this article vote AGAINST this article flag as spam/abuse
Log in if you are spatula for more options. 
Find similar articles