Stem Cell Bill nearing approval in Senate

[JaJae]

http://today.reuters.com/investing/f...1-ArticlePage2

Senate to pass stem cell bill, Bush set to veto
Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:11 PM ET

By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON, July 18 (Reuters) - Conservative anti-abortion senators were split on Tuesday ahead of a vote on a stem cell research bill that appears destined to draw the first veto of George W. Bush's presidency.
The bill, already approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and set to win Senate passage later in the day, has broad bipartisan support. Most Democrats and roughly 20 Republicans support it.
"This is the bill that will help provide the long overdue expansion of the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded biomedical research," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican with a long anti-abortion record, said during debate on Tuesday.
"This is what our leading scientists have told us they want and need to move the field of stem cell research forward," Hatch said.
Bush has said he will cast the first veto of his presidency because days-old embryos are destroyed when the stem cells are extracted.
Some conservatives who agree with Bush were pushing legislation that would encourage other forms of stem cell research that do not harm the embryo. Some like Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, want more leftover embryos to be adopted by infertile couples.
Hatch and others backers of the research pointed out that the legislation only allows scientists to use leftover embryos at fertility clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.
Although the legislation is expected to sail through the Senate, backers acknowledge they do not expect to muster the two-thirds majorities both houses would need to override a Bush veto.
PUBLIC SUPPORT
Numerous opinion polls have found strong public support for expanding federal embryonic stem cell research, and disease advocacy groups have lobbied for it strenuously. Nancy Reagan, widow of former president Ronald Reagan who died of Alzheimer's, was seeking support from fellow Republicans.
Scientists, including Nobel laureates, told the U.S. Congress that the research has a realistic chance of leading to stunning breakthroughs in treating disabling or deadly diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries.
Bush in 2001 allowed limited federal funding for research on 78 stem cell lines then in existence. But most of them proved unsuitable for research.
"I don't follow his (Bush's) logic on this and frankly I don't believe it is logical," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. Durbin said he did not see how Bush could allow research on some cells, which scientists have said are inadequate, but not on others.
With Republicans divided, stem cell research has become an issue in several Senate races in the November elections and possibly in the 2008 presidential race.
Of the five Senate Republicans considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2008, three -- George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- side with Bush. Two, John McCain of Arizona and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, back expanding the research.
Some Republicans, including Brownback and Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum, who is in a tight re-election race this November, have pushed hard for two alternative bills, which are expected to pass both the Senate and House on Tuesday and be signed by Bush as early as Wednesday.
One would ban "fetus farming," or implanting a human embryo in a woman or animal for the purpose of harvesting cells or tissue, which has not been proposed. The other promotes research into stem cells that do not involve destruction of an embryo, research which some top government scientists say they are already doing.

Looks as if the Senate is about to do something no one ever thought it would with the current Republican control. However, will Bush use his veto power?

Stem cell research is a wonderful tool that can save many lives. We all likely know someone who could benefit from stem cell research. Why block it? Where is the immorality?

The embreyos used are extremely underdeveloped and at the stage that most of us would find acceptable to be aborted. I hope the Senate passes this and I hope Bush lets it go.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

<snip>

Looks as if the Senate is about to do something no one ever thought it would with the current Republican control. However, will Bush use his veto power?

Stem cell research is a wonderful tool that can save many lives. We all likely know someone who could benefit from stem cell research. Why block it? Where is the immorality?

The embreyos used are extremely underdeveloped and at the stage that most of us would find acceptable to be aborted. I hope the Senate passes this and I hope Bush lets it go.

Personally, I think this is an election year stand to allow certain people in certain districts to take principled stands either for or against stem cell research, all under the cover of the President vetoing it.

This helps Democrats by being able to show that they're for this because of the potential for disease curing, etc, (ibb2wsaysi'mwrong), and it allows certain Republicans in moderate or unsafe territory to point out that they're not towing the party line. Republicans in very conservative districts can point to it as a fact that they're pro-life, etc, etc..

Maybe I'm a bit jaded though. I personally find it somewhat ironic that Bush's first veto will be a veto on the progress of science. This research is going to take place whether or not it's done in the US or not, but personally I'd much rather see jobs relating to the field be created in the US than in some place like South Korea or elsewhere.

[6SpeedTA95]

I hope he doesn't veto this for the science aspect. There is a potential key here for many cures. On the other hand I'm hoping for a possible veto just for the sake of veto'ing a spending bill of somekind anykind. I think given the budget scenario and the fact that its MUCH better than it was 18 months ago that he should sign this bill into law. They aren't aborting more babies with this they aren't creating embryos for the sole sake of destruction so I honestly dont have a problem with it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by motivez

Personally, I think this is an election year stand to allow certain people in certain districts to take principled stands either for or against stem cell research, all under the cover of the President vetoing it.

This helps Democrats by being able to show that they're for this because of the potential for disease curing, etc, (ibb2wsaysi'mwrong), and it allows certain Republicans in moderate or unsafe territory to point out that they're not towing the party line. Republicans in very conservative districts can point to it as a fact that they're pro-life, etc, etc..

Maybe I'm a bit jaded though. I personally find it somewhat ironic that Bush's first veto will be a veto on the progress of science. This research is going to take place whether or not it's done in the US or not, but personally I'd much rather see jobs relating to the field be created in the US than in some place like South Korea or elsewhere.

I have a great question to ask the conservatives who oppose it today, especially the younger ones. When they are older and there is a cure for their ailment, and that cure was developed from stem cell research, are they going to refuse the treatment?

To me it is kind of hypocritical in a way to not refuse.

[motivez]

I'm sure the reasoning would be along the lines of why let them go to waste by refusing / not using the cures that were available.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm sure the reasoning would be along the lines of why let them go to waste by refusing / not using the cures that were available.

Heh, thats my justification for stem cell research. All of these abortions, not to mention the variety of other methods of obtaining stem cells, are just going to waste. Even if abortion was illegal entirely, there would still be some from when the pregnancy threatened the mothers life.

Like 6speed said, its not like they are harvesting them.

[lew]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I have a great question to ask the conservatives who oppose it today, especially the younger ones. When they are older and there is a cure for their ailment, and that cure was developed from stem cell research, are they going to refuse the treatment?

To me it is kind of hypocritical in a way to not refuse.

I'm against this bill because I'm against all bills.


Dealing directly with stem-cells though, I'm against it because of the possibility of "harvesting" them in the future. If fetuses are grown for the sole purpose of harvesting stem-cells, I'm completely against that.

However, I have no problems with stem-cells from umbilical cords or anything of that nature.

To answer your question, I will take the treatment, even if I don't agree with the methods taken. (If those methods are still being used, I would refuse it, though.) Let me explain. During the last few centuries, things have been done in the name of Medical Science that are considered unethical by many. However, out of that evil, good came about because of it. Those practices are not practiced now as they were then. So, I would take advantage of that.

However, if a medical practice was being used that I did not agree with, and it yielded a cure for me, I would like to believe that I would not take it. But I cannot say for sure, since when you have death staring at you, you will sometimes make decisions that you normally would not do.

[ballz2wallz]

i suspect there is a fear of the possible 'embryonic harvesting' in the future. i suspect that most of us here, as i think most in the country, feel that abortion is not a good thing but don't want to take away the rights of the mother. well, i think that were free use of aborted embryos allowed, then abortions might be encouraged and i can't see that as a good thing.

i'm still not sure how i feel about this whole stem cell issue, except that i think more emphasis should be on the use of adult stem cells or even alternative tissue stem cells, as more and more discoveries are being made with these cell types.

btw, bush DOES allow the use of previously made embryos for stem cells research. he hasn't completely banned it by any means.

Bush to allow limited stem cell funding

[motivez]

I thought that part of the problem was that there was a lack of diversity being restricted to the "current crop"

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I thought that part of the problem was that there was a lack of diversity being restricted to the "current crop"

what do you mean

[DosEquis]

Could they not make a provision in the bill that strictly forbids and prevents the "harvesting" of embryos? I am not sure of the best way to do it, but there has to be a way.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Could they not make a provision in the bill that strictly forbids and prevents the "harvesting" of embryos? I am not sure of the best way to do it, but there has to be a way.

i'm not even sure it's something they can specifically target...how can you make sure someone is not getting an abortion with the justification in their mind that they're doing a good thing? a possible scenario: a woman isn't sure whether she should have the baby...she can, she wouldn't mind, but then again perhaps she should get an abortion, as she's 'not quite ready'. to her she might say 'hey, well, if i DID get an abortion it wouldn't necessarily be so bad anymore cause i'm helping society...ok, i'll get one' i think they want to avoid the suggestion that the government or scientific community is almost encouraging abortions to provide more research opportunities.

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i'm not even sure it's something they can specifically target...how can you make sure someone is not getting an abortion with the justification in their mind that they're doing a good thing? a possible scenario: a woman isn't sure whether she should have the baby...she can, she wouldn't mind, but then again perhaps she should get an abortion, as she's 'not quite ready'. to her she might say 'hey, well, if i DID get an abortion it wouldn't necessarily be so bad anymore cause i'm helping society...ok, i'll get one' i think they want to avoid the suggestion that the government or scientific community is almost encouraging abortions to provide more research opportunities.

Which is why I'm against abortions and stem-cell (in this manner) research. :happysad:

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by lew

I'm against this bill because I'm against all bills.


Dealing directly with stem-cells though, I'm against it because of the possibility of "harvesting" them in the future. If fetuses are grown for the sole purpose of harvesting stem-cells, I'm completely against that.

However, I have no problems with stem-cells from umbilical cords or anything of that nature.

To answer your question, I will take the treatment, even if I don't agree with the methods taken. (If those methods are still being used, I would refuse it, though.) Let me explain. During the last few centuries, things have been done in the name of Medical Science that are considered unethical by many. However, out of that evil, good came about because of it. Those practices are not practiced now as they were then. So, I would take advantage of that.

However, if a medical practice was being used that I did not agree with, and it yielded a cure for me, I would like to believe that I would not take it. But I cannot say for sure, since when you have death staring at you, you will sometimes make decisions that you normally would not do.

I would be totally against growing fetuses to harvest stem cells hell lots of prochoicers would be against something like that, but thats not what this bill does. I think we can cross the bridge of harvesting when we get to it. I dont like calling a duck a duck unless it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I would be totally against growing fetuses to harvest stem cells hell lots of prochoicers would be against something like that, but thats not what this bill does. I think we can cross the bridge of harvesting when we get to it. I dont like calling a duck a duck unless it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

I tend to like to "cut things off at the pass" rather than waiting until there is a problem.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by lew

I tend to like to "cut things off at the pass" rather than waiting until there is a problem.

I'm not saying let it become a problem but thats not part of the debate now nor is it in anyones goals, at least not that I can tell. We're probably 5 year away from a discussion about harvesting. Granted I could be wrong but given the speed that this has all unfolded I dont think we'll have to worry about that anytime in the immediate future.

[DosEquis]

It could be made so that it is tough to donate embryos in that fashion. Just add a shit ton of bureacracy to the donation process

[lew]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

It could be made so that it is tough to donate embryos in that fashion. Just add a shit ton of bureacracy to the donation process

I hate bureacratic crap. :happysad:

[Donkey®]

Education on this subject is KEY. Start with the President.