GWB signs stem-cell research bill, permitting all kinds

[Little-Acorn]

President Bush signs bill permitting stem cell research

July 19, 2006

AP - President Bush has signed a bill that removes all restrictions on stem cell research, including the controversial "embryonic" stem cell resarch.

"I have made this decision with great care, and I pray that it is the right one," said Bush from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The bill not only allows all types of research to proceed without restriction, but even provides Federal funding for most kinds. All kinds of stem cell research have been going on for years, including the controversial embryonic type. This bill maintains that freedom for all kinds, and provides Federal funding for all but the embryonic type.

"We must proceed with great care," Bush said. He said research using embryonic stem cells involved "great promise, and great peril."

Bush's political opponents seemed surprised and confused at the apparent contrast between his signing of the broad bill favoring stem cell research, with their own insistance that Bush opposed such research.

The signing took place at a ceremony at the President's ranch at Crawford, Texas, on August 10, 2001. The President's policy on stem cell research has not changed since that time. His opponents have maintained their confusion, issuing statements to the effect that Bush opposed stem cell research, and that the embyonic type could cure various diseases. In fact, the results of embryonic stem cell research, which has gone on unrestricted for years, has never produced a viable cure for any disease or affliction. Only adult stem cell research has produced actual cures.

Today, the President is considering vetoing a different bill that will provide additional Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. If he does, it will not affect the freedom of laboratories to do such research in any way, but merely withhold Federal funds for that type. There is no word yet on whether his opponents will praise him for keeping his 2000 campaign promise not to give Federal funding for such embryonic cell research.

Copyright (c) 2006, AP (Acorn Press)

 

[Avatar4321]

From what I understanding it was the withholding federal funding that was his position to begin with. Obviously the government cant prevent private business from doing such research. The question has always been whether the federal government should fund it.

And personally I dont think the government should fund most things.

 

[dilloduck]

President Bush signs bill permitting stem cell research

July 19, 2006

AP - President Bush has signed a bill that removes all restrictions on stem cell research, including the controversial "embryonic" stem cell resarch.

"I have made this decision with great care, and I pray that it is the right one," said Bush from his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The bill not only allows all types of research to proceed without restriction, but even provides Federal funding for most kinds. All kinds of stem cell research have been going on for years, including the controversial embryonic type. This bill maintains that freedom for all kinds, and provides Federal funding for all but the embryonic type
"We must proceed with great care," Bush said. He said research using embryonic stem cells involved "great promise, and great peril."

Bush's political opponents seemed surprised and confused at the apparent contrast between his signing of the broad bill favoring stem cell research, with their own insistance that Bush opposed such research.

The signing took place at a ceremony at the President's ranch at Crawford, Texas, on August 10, 2001. The President's policy on stem cell research has not changed since that time. His opponents have maintained their confusion, issuing statements to the effect that Bush opposed stem cell research, and that the embyonic type could cure various diseases. In fact, the results of embryonic stem cell research, which has gone on unrestricted for years, has never produced a viable cure for any disease or affliction. Only adult stem cell research has produced actual cures.

Today, the President is considering vetoing a different bill that will provide additional Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. If he does, it will not affect the freedom of laboratories to do such research in any way, but merely withhold Federal funds for that type. There is no word yet on whether his opponents will praise him for keeping his 2000 campaign promise not to give Federal funding for such embryonic cell research.

Copyright (c) 2006, AP (Acorn Press)

 

[theHawk]

This bill maintains that freedom for all kinds, and provides Federal funding for all but the embryonic type.

 

[dilloduck]

July 19, 2006

AP - President Bush has signed a bill that removes all restrictions on stem cell research, including the controversial "embryonic" stem cell resarch.

Which bill is this?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Which bill is this?

The signing took place at a ceremony at the President's ranch at Crawford, Texas, on August 10, 2001.

.

 

[CSM]

Which bill is this?

A silly fantasy...

AP (Acorn Press) etc.

Probably should go in the humor section or just plain deleted.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A silly fantasy...

What fantasy? Did you find some part of the article that wasn' true?

Probably should go in the humor section

The funniest parts haven't happened yet.

or just plain deleted.

Why? The article points out something very important: That the left's constant barrage of "Bush opposes stem cell research, he wants Alzheimers victims to die, etc. etc." are a load of tripe and have been from day one. They've been trying to bash him with such falsehoods since before he was elected, but have never been able to muster any truth to their accusations.

The bill being considered today, merely provides Federal fiunding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush's upcoming veto of it, will simply withhold that Federal money, but will not halt the research or affect the millions being spent on research in corporate and private labs for years... research that has so far produced no cures for anything. Only adult stem-cell research has produced cures for a number of afflictions.

Leftists don't like the truth being revealed about either ESCR or Bush's permission of all kinds of it, because that will reveal just how dishonest and duplicitous their campaign against him has been.

 

[CSM]

What fantasy? Did you find some part of the article that wasn' true?


The funniest parts haven't happened yet.


Why? The article points out something very important: That the left's constant barrage of "Bush opposes stem cell research, he wants Alzheimers victims to die, etc. etc." are a load of tripe and have been from day one. They've been trying to bash him with such falsehoods since before he was elected, but have never been able to muster any truth to their accusations.

The bill being considered today, merely provides Federal fiunding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush's upcoming veto of it, will simply withhold that Federal money, but will not halt the research or affect the millions being spent on research in corporate and private labs for years... research that has so far produced no cures for anything. Only adult stem-cell research has produced cures for a number of afflictions.

Leftists don't like the truth being revealed about either ESCR or Bush's permission of all kinds of it, because that will reveal just how dishonest and duplicitous their campaign against him has been.

Don't get me wrong...I am with you on the confusion/bashing etc. I just thought it rather humorous that some missed the "Acorn Press" thing and the 2001 date.

 

[dilloduck]

What fantasy? Did you find some part of the article that wasn' true?

YA---Bush vetoed the bill

 

[Adam's Apple]

From what I understanding it was the withholding federal funding that was his position to begin with. Obviously the government cant prevent private business from doing such research. The question has always been whether the federal government should fund it.

Your understanding about the money part is absolutely right.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Good job of clearing up this muddy topic, Acorn.

 

[JeffWartman]

The liberal outcry about Bush's veto shows the overriding Liberal philosophy: "Government will solve your problems!!" :duh3: :duh3: :duh3:

 

[Dr Grump]

The liberal outcry about Bush's veto shows the overriding Liberal philosophy: "Government will solve your problems!!" :duh3: :duh3: :duh3:

I see it has more like govt will help research...

BTW, govt has been known to solve problems...on occasion...

 

[JeffWartman]

I see it has more like govt will help research...

BTW, govt has been known to solve problems...on occasion...

In the history of the planet, government hasn't truly solved one problem.

I would be much more confident in the private sector handling this research with the expectation of success so they will profit than the government slowly failing, which usually tends to happen.

 

[CSM]

In the history of the planet, government hasn't truly solved one problem.

I would be much more confident in the private sector handling this research with the expectation of success so they will profit than the government slowly failing, which usually tends to happen.

Hmmm.... seems to me that the US government did a pretty good job of getting all the states to use one currency; we have some pretty good highway systems here in the US thanks to the US government (and good ol Ike in particular). Small pox appears to be pretty much gone and polio is no longer the huge threat it once was. We dont have kids working in sweatshops. Women and blacks have a vote.


Nope, government never truly solved any problems.

 

[JeffWartman]

Hmmm.... seems to me that the US government did a pretty good job of getting all the states to use one currency

That's not a problem in the context I was referring to. A system of a single currency is something most economists found to be useful; it wasn't a problem per se.

we have some pretty good highway systems here in the US thanks to the US government (and good ol Ike in particular).

I don't know where you live, but the interstate system around Chicago is terrible. Around here, people will take side streets on 40 mile trips from the north side to the south side because it's quicker. The interstates were built stupidly.

Small pox appears to be pretty much gone and polio is no longer the huge threat it once was. We dont have kids working in sweatshops. Women and blacks have a vote.

See, you just don't get it. You say "blacks have a a vote", but given blacks the right to vote didn't solve racism. You have a messed up idea of what a problem is. The problem isn't blacks inability to vote, the problem is racism, which government DID NOT fix.

Nope, government never truly solved any problems.

Government is only a problem solver in deranged mind of liberal idealists.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

That's not a problem in the context I was referring to. A system of a single currency is something most economists found to be useful; it wasn't a problem per se.



I don't know where you live, but the interstate system around Chicago is terrible. Around here, people will take side streets on 40 mile trips from the north side to the south side because it's quicker. The interstates were built stupidly.


See, you just don't get it. You say "blacks have a a vote", but given blacks the right to vote didn't solve racism. You have a messed up idea of what a problem is. The problem isn't blacks inability to vote, the problem is racism, which government DID NOT fix.



Government is only a problem solver in deranged mind of liberal idealists.

I suppose that Private industry would have won WW2? Hmm?

The Interstates are victims of their own success. People love using automobiles thanks to the plethora of roads leading to just about everywhere imaginable. A private road system would be a nightmare to navigate.

How about the sewer systems? Water supplies? Hoover Dam? Jeez... There are just so many failures at the governmental level.

 

[CSM]

That's not a problem in the context I was referring to. A system of a single currency is something most economists found to be useful; it wasn't a problem per se.

From what I have read of the early history of this country...not having single currency was a huge problem...especially in interstate trade areas.



I don't know where you live, but the interstate system around Chicago is terrible. Around here, people will take side streets on 40 mile trips from the north side to the south side because it's quicker. The interstates were built stupidly.

Maybe Chicago was built stupid! Obviously, the interstate highway system was not built specifically for the convenience of the residents of Chicago.


See, you just don't get it. You say "blacks have a a vote", but given blacks the right to vote didn't solve racism. You have a messed up idea of what a problem is. The problem isn't blacks inability to vote, the problem is racism, which government DID NOT fix.

Ok. then lets fix racism and NOT give blacks the right to vote, or women either....It is my opinion that the government CANNOT fix racism; at least not until mind control is a viable option.

Government is only a problem solver in deranged mind of liberal idealists.

I see; it follows then what I always thought of as anarchy is a good thing. Too bad our founding fathers found a government so necessary that they wasted all that time writing a Constitution and forming a government....but then they all were a bunch of liberal radicals weren't they!

I interpret that last sentence as an implication that I am a deranged liberal idealist....

 

[JeffWartman]

I interpret that last sentence as an implication that I am a deranged liberal idealist....

The founders did not create a government so that they could establish a bunch of bloated government agencies. They formed a government to protect individual liberty. The philosophy was written into the Declaration of Independence...

"...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"

There is a difference from saying "government does not do a good job of solving problems" and saying "government shouldn't exist". I never said government shouldn't exist, I merely stated that when the government attempts to do things, the end result is a bloated bureaucracy that rarely takes to heart the problem it was created to solve.