Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Bush told backers at a White House event.
House Republican leaders have said they would try for an override vote on the measure, but it's unlikely to pass, lacking the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber.
In August 2001, Bush announced that his administration would allow federal funding only for research on about 60 stem-cell lines that existed at the time. Researchers have since found that many of those lines are contaminated and unusable for research.
"In 2001, I spoke to the American people and set forth a new policy on stem-cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscious," Bush said.
The president's decision comes a day after the Senate voted 63-37 to loosen Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. (Watch how the issue pits Bush against some Republicans -- 1:30)
The measure, which the House of Representatives passed 238-194 in May, allows couples who have had embryos frozen for fertility treatments to donate them to researchers rather than let them be destroyed.
The issue has split the Republican Party, with Bush siding with the Catholic Church and social conservatives against the GOP's more moderate voices. Specter, who recently survived a brush with cancer, was joined by Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a physician who argued that Bush's policy is too restrictive.
Other supporters included former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband's long battle with Alzheimer's disease helped draw attention to the issue.
"Time is short, and life is precious," Reagan said before the veto, "and I hope this promising research can now move forward."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had urged Bush to listen to moderate Republicans and "Americans crying for help" and stay his veto threat.
Scientists believe stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat afflictions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, strokes and burns.
Opponents objected to the destruction of human embryos to extract stem cells and warned that lifting Bush's restrictions would lead to the cloning of human embryos for research purposes.
"Each and every one of us began as an embryo," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. "Therefore, I firmly believe that [neither] Congress, independent researchers nor any human being should be allowed, in effect, to play God by determining that one life is more valuable than another."
But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a staunch opponent of abortion, said the bill is promotes life by encouraging research.
"I believe we are aiding the living, which is one of the most pro-life positions you can take," Hatch said.
Opponents argue that other alternatives, such as adult stem cells, are available. Two companion bills -- one to promote alternative means of developing stem-cell lines from sources such as placental blood and another to ban the commercial production of human fetal tissue, also known as "fetal farming" -- passed the Senate 100-0.
On Tuesday evening, the House approved the "fetal farming" bill 425-0 but didn't pass the measure promoting alternative stem-cell sources when backers failed to achieve the two-thirds majority that House rules required. The vote on the alternative-sources bill was 273-154.
A House GOP aide said that the leadership would bring the funding bill back to the floor at another time under a different set of rules that would require a simple majority to pass the measure.
Avatar4321 said:The veto does not restrict scientific research. It restricts federal funding of research. Private funding has never been proscribed. In fact, President Bush has been the first President to allow stem cell research.
Its amazing how people can twist things.
jillian said:I think we should use the money that pays for abstinence only research and government-funded studies on the power of prayer to save lives.
Notice a pattern here?
Gee...no one complains about the money spent on that stuff. Why only about something that saves lives? Hmmmmmm....
Avatar4321 said:Since when does the government fund studies on the power of prayer?
And people probably dont complain about it because it doesnt involve growing humans in test tubes and killing them for experiments.
jillian said:In answer to your question:
http://www.stnews.org/Research-2372.htm
In response to your comment:
Neither did this bill. It was talking about using frozen embryos unused in the in vitro fertilization process. We're not talking about "people" or "killing".
Yeah, it is amazing how people will twist things. Embryonic stem-cell research wasn't even an option until the time President Bush was in office, so it's ridiculous to say that he's "the first President to allow stem cell research." Of course he is! It didn't exist until he was in office!Avatar4321 said:The veto does not restrict scientific research. It restricts federal funding of research. Private funding has never been proscribed. In fact, President Bush has been the first President to allow stem cell research.
Its amazing how people can twist things.
manu1959 said:funny thing my daughter was once a frozen embryo
....in fact she had 30 other siblings in that freezer with her.....when the doctor picked one they picked her....all her siblings are dead now....my wife and i donated them all to science....they gave their lives to help others....i hope....
so believe whatever you like based on whatever personal experience you have had concerning this issue....
So apparently getting excited about the possibility of curing diseases for millions is biased? This is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and I can't believe people don't want it.dmp said:The title of your thread betrays how biased you are. You're unteachable, my sweet Jillian. Poor girl....
dmp said:The title of your thread betrays how biased you are. You're unteachable, my sweet Jillian. Poor girl....
jillian said:So was my son.
*Edit* Well, actually, I don't think he ever got to the frozen stage.
I do.
*Edit* And thank you for donating them to research. I hope they saved lives.
Hagbard Celine said:So apparently getting excited about the possibility of curing diseases for millions is biased? This is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and I can't believe people don't want it.
Hagbard Celine said:The bottom line is that he will use his first veto to stifle research that could lead to cures for diseases and improve the quality of life for millions all so he can continue to court his religious conservative voter base.
Dr Grump said:And yet, you are very teachable....
Adult stem-cells don't have the ability to infinitely reproduce themselves the way embryonic cells do. They are much more limited. Obviously, if you could achieve the same results with adult stem cells as you theoretically can with embryonic ones, there would be no debate. The issue here, IMO, is that these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. Why not use them for research that could cure disease and other medical problems?theHawk said:Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the best results of stem cell research come from adults rather than embroys?
And does vetoing the bill prevent embrionic stem cell research from being done? Or it just means it will not get my tax dollars to pay for it?
manu1959 said:if you don't belive in killing living things such as human embryos to help others then i can see how someone would be against funding this type of research.....for me, they were never going to become anything other than a frozen embryo as 30 children is a bit beyond my wife's patience and my economic ability.... anyway, i had a much harder time allowing them to be donated to science than my wife did.....i still get sad when i think about them not becoming more than an embryo....at the end of the day i hope they fullfilled their purpose on this planet by helping others and that they live on in them rather than live frozen in a cryo lab.....
Hagbard Celine said:The issue here, IMO, is that these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. Why not use them for research that could cure disease and other medical problems?
