Obama Has 'Misrepresented' The Science

Ten members of the President's Council On Bioethics take the President to task

...researchers have made progress on all of these methods – most strikingly in reprogramming somatic cells in order to restore them to a pluripotent condition. In the last two years, several different groups of scientists have succeeded in producing what are called induced pluripotent stem cells. Because producing them does not require the destruction of embryos, they do not raise what many regard as a grave moral difficulty. Because producing them does not require human ova, and because they are patient-specific stem cells that are less likely to be rejected by their recipients, they also have distinct scientific advantages. Indeed, on the day following President Obama’s announcement, an analysis in the New York Times noted that the embryonic stem cell research the president had touted “has been somewhat eclipsed by new advances.”

It is also worth noting here the position adopted by our predecessor body, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which did important work during the Clinton administration. NBAC approved stem cell research using (and, of course, destroying) embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization treatments. At the same time, however, NBAC stated that such embryo-destructive research is justifiable “only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.” Such alternatives are now available, and research on them is advancing.

With respect to the progress that had been made in reconciling the needs of research and the moral concerns of many Americans, we can only judge, therefore, that the president’s action has taken a step backward, and we regret that.

In his remarks on March 9, President Obama promised to “ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” While this may seem comforting, it stands in need of clarification.

The president’s announced policy would permit federal funding of research not only on stem cell lines derived from “spare” IVF embryos but also on lines derived from created and/or cloned embryos. In the latter two cases, we would be producing embryos simply in order to use them for our purposes.

What researchers most desire, in fact, are not spare IVF embryos but cloned embryos, produced in order to study disease models. The funding decision announced by the president on March 9 will encourage such cloning. Nor should we be reassured that, at the same time, the president opposed “the use of cloning for human reproduction.” If cloned embryos are produced, they may be implanted and gestated. To prevent that, it will be necessary, as we noted in Human Cloning and Human Dignity, “to prohibit, by law, the implantation of cloned embryos for the purpose of producing children. To do so, however, the government would find itself in the unsavory position of designating a class of embryos that it would be a felony not to destroy.” We cannot believe that this would advance our society’s commitment to equal human dignity.

Yuval Levin at The Corner:

..What’s notable about this statement.... is that rather than just express disagreement with the ethical views underlying Obama’s position on embryonic stem cell research, it criticizes Obama for mischaracterizing the plain facts of the matter, which unfortunately has been his consistent practice ...

Is the President ignorant, or does he lie? There's no third option.

.

Presidential

In contrast to Barack Obama's 'big deal' of a ceremony, signing up to federally fund embryonic stem cell research without limits, George W. Bush carefully explained his considerations in restricting embryonic research to lines that had already been destroyed and giving federal funding to the research of alternative, non-destructive stem cell research. (This funding for alternative research was rescinded by Obama )

President George W. Bush

Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths - even many of the same faith - coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother, and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. ``Make no mistake,'' he told me, ``that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these,'' he said, ``because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.''

And to the other crucial question - If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? - I also found different answers.

Many of these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that ``Brave New World'' that seemed so distant in 1932 when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a president's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.

This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

PRESIDENTIAL

.

Obama's Cynicism Astounds

CNS:

On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.....

.....Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research....

.....Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”

So, not only was the lifted ban NOT a ban in the first place, but it also wasn't 'lifted'! Not a bit of science trumped 'ideology'. All the propaganda and publicity were only a 'first step' .

THE AUDACITY OF SMOKE

.

"False Rhetoric"

False rhetoric such as “science must triumph over ideology” will not stand the test of time. Such counterfeit reasoning and slick cover-up of the truth will not have the last word.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted:

On Monday, March 9, President Obama signed an executive order that provides federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. This means that American taxpayers will now be paying for the killing of human beings at a very early stage in their lives (as embryos), so that scientific research can make use of them for experiments that may or may not yield positive results.

We U.S. taxpayers will now be forced to pay, whether we wish to or not, for the killing of our youngest brothers and sisters on the dubious hypothesis that their murders might, in the future, benefit others. Why did President Obama make this decision?...

....Let’s be clear about what this presidential decree is about. It is not about overcoming a prohibition against embryonic stem cell research. Tragically, such research is already legal in many places in our country. Already billions of dollars of California taxpayers are funding such heinous research. So our president is not overturning laws that prohibit such research. It is already legal.

What President Obama is doing is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research. He is forcing us who pay taxes to be complicit, in an involuntary yet real way, in this unethical enterprise. All of this is done so that “science can trump ideology.”

Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said this: “President Obama’s new executive order on embryonic stem cell research is a sad victory of politics over science and ethics. This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life. Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support.”....

(h/t curt jester)

Obama is so anxious to set up his Culture of Death regime, he cannot even pace himself! Callous disregard for science whilst pledging to put science before ideology;federally funding the unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research and at the same time rescinding the funding for the successful, alternative stem cell research; following an ideology himself that is self-serving and elitist, in that he places himself above other human beings that he has the power to declare unworthy; total disregard for the moral sensibilities of millions of American taxpayers and the nation's medical personnel; the appointment of possibly the MOST radical supporter of all kinds of abortion as Health and Human Services head; - this is not a Christian man, or even a man who actually believes in a Creator God!

.

Obama's Cure-All

Scott Ott:

...Hailing a new era "when science is restored to the proper side of the political aisle," President Barack Obama on Monday promised miraculous cures for a wide range of ailments when he signed an executive order expanding the scope of Bush-era federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

As he directed more tax dollars to such studies, the president said stem cells from embryos could be at the forefront of the battle against man-made global warming.

"Every human embryo in the hands of a scientist means one less potential source of carbon dioxide emissions," Obama said, "And because stem cell research could take decades to produce any useful result, it promises to remove millions of humanoid exhalers from the toxic CO2 stream. This could produce an even greater net benefit to our climate than abortion does."...

Not to mention the economic benefits a la Pelosi's proposal to eliminate the public cost of poverty, by not letting the poor reproduce. Maybe providing embryos for research could be part of a work for welfare program....

.

Obama Signs Off On More Killing

Eric Cantor via press release :

“The President’s action today is not about whether or not to permit stem cell research, or even embryonic stem cell research in America. We already do each of those things. Today’s action is about forcing taxpayers to fund ethically troublesome – and unproven – research that destroys life.

“Nearly every American supports continued stem cell research, and Republicans laud the miraculous innovations made in ethical and sensible adult stem cell research. Unfortunately, today the Administration wasted an opportunity to unite our country around these ethically and scientifically sound innovations by allowing the use of taxpayer money for embryo-destructive stem cell research, which millions of Americans find morally reprehensible. This divisive action will divert scarce federal resources away from innovative and proven adult stem cell research.”

Mitch McConnell's office:

“The administration’s announcement on embryonic stem cell research represents a troubling shift in U.S. policy. With this announcement, the government is, for the first time, incentivizing the creation and destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical.”

David Vitter's office:

“This is an issue that many Americans have deep concerns about. The restrictions put in place by the Bush administration reflected those concerns and recognized the value and sanctity of all human life. I’m saddened that President Obama has chosen to set aside the views of so many Americans and reversed these restrictions that were put in place to protect these valuable human embryos, especially when our most promising scientific potential has been seen in adult stem cell research,” said Vitter.

Larry Kudlow:

How can you destroy a life in order to save one? That’s a key question Pres. Obama is not answering as he aborts Pres. Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. We already have existing stem-cell lines, plus blood cells and skin cells. So why must we seek new stem-cell lines from human embryos?

According to reports, the Obama executive order does not fund the creation of new lines, nor does it specify which existing lines can be used. But it does allow scientists to get taxpayer money for the research. Does anyone doubt this will lead to new embryonic lines?

And why is taxpayer money necessary for this? That means those of us who oppose embryonic stem-cell research — for ethical, moral, or religious reasons — must finance it. Why not leave all this to the private sector and private capital? That wouldn’t make me any happier from a moral standpoint. But at least I wouldn’t be paying for this research with my tax dollars...

(h/t The Corner)

Another FAKE 'accomplishment' to distract from the economy and satisfy the bloodlust of Obama's death squad.

Stem Cell Science - A Study In Media Bias

Joel Johannesen at Proud To Be Canadian writes about the media's warped sense of reality...they're liars:

...The lie perpetrated by the liberal-left and their media regarding stem cell research is being perpetrated in new Obamerific ways today.

They’re all reporting on this new study which, after a year of consideration, the Food and Drug Administration OK’d today, for a scientific study using EMBRYONIC stem cells on humans.

But they’re making out like it’s some sort of an Obama election-induced advance for science. That’s an outright lie. And worse, they know it...

Joel's right. He goes on to delineate the extent of their lying support for embryonic stem cell research:

...The Bush Administration banned federal taxpayer funding (only) for EMBRYONIC (only embryonic) stem cell research, on ethics grounds (it requires the harvesting of stem cells from human baby embryos… hello!). ADULT stem cell research—the only research which has ever led to any medical cures or treatments, and there have been lots —is and always has been funded and of course legal in every way, and in America for the past several years, huge advances using ADULT stem cell research has been made. There are few if any ethical issues surrounding ADULT stem cell research.

Bush also made available a set number of human embryos, from which the stem cell lines harvested could be used for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and which would be eligible for federal funding; and the private sector could continue, as they always could, to fund research using those lines (the fact that private money was so scarce speaks to the ethical problems associated with it, and the paucity of promise in EMBRYONIC research). And research went on.

No stem cell research was ever “banned” by the Bush administration.

And here’s the kicker: The EMBRYONIC stem cell lines being used in the announced study today are those lines authorized by George Bush, although the study used no federal funding...

MSM .... All Death All the Time (thus their love-in with Obama!)

"Dedicated To Gordon Brown"

in honour of the great work he has done since becoming Prime Minister.





(Indianapolis Star)


(see previous articles on the HFE Bill)
Two Headed Monsters
Brave New World
Defending Against Unaccountable Power

Vatican Speaks Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

CNA:

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, the President of the Pontifical Council of Health Care, has responded to reports that President-elect Obama’s future administration will reverse a federal ban on human embryonic stem cell research funding. Saying that the stem cells produced by the destruction of embryos “serve no purpose,” he argued that embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in any significant cures so far and was “good for nothing.”

In comments made to reporters at the presentation of a conference on protecting children from diseases, Cardinal Lozano Barragan added that research on adult stem cells and umbilical cords has been shown to have “positive value,” though he recognized they too were not a “panacea.”

Professor Alberto Ugazio, Coordinator of the Department of Pediatrics in the Child Jesus Hospital of Rome, supported the cardinal’s remarks, saying according to SIR:

“In the medical field, we are always amazed at the excessive fuss ‘the media’ are making over fetal stem cells whose ineffectiveness is proved.”

The speakers endorsed pursuing the results of research into “hematopoietic” stem cells derived from the spinal cord or the umbilical cord. In their view, skin stem cells, hepatic stem cells, and stem cells from other organs had also produced worthy research.

The cardinal also accused the media of showing a “Malthusian mentality” to bring down the birth rate in poor countries, linking that mentality to embryonic research advocacy.

“The Church, instead, reaffirms the concept that human beings cannot be used as means, even at their embryo stage. Human beings always have a purpose,” he added...

Well, that's pretty clear. Now all we need is 2 cents from Biden and Pelosi to help us form our 'consciences'...and Doug Kmiec to help with the 'relativity' of it all.