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.
-May 25, 2005
House Approves a Stem Cell Research Bill Opposed by Bush
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem.html
WASHINGTON, May 24 - The House passed a bill on Tuesday to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, defying a veto threat from President Bush, who appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos and warned the measure "would take us across a critical ethical line."
The vote, 238 to 194 with 50 Republicans in favor, fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to overturn a presidential veto, setting up a possible showdown between Congress and Mr. Bush, who has never exercised his veto power. An identical bill has broad bipartisan support in the Senate; moments after the House vote, the Senate sponsors wrote to the Republican leader, Bill Frist, urging him to put it on the agenda.
The House action is the first vote on embryonic stem cell research since August 2001, when Mr. Bush opened the door to taxpayer financing for the studies, but only with strict limits. The new bill permits the government to pay for studies involving human embryos that are in frozen storage at fertility clinics, so long as couples conceiving the embryos certified that they had made a decision to discard them.
"The White House cannot ignore this vote," said the bill's chief Republican backer, Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, adding, "I'm elated."
But opponents also said they were elated. Representative Joseph R. Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, said: "I hate to lose, but I feel pretty good about this vote. We beat a veto-proof margin by 50 votes."
The big question now is what will happen in the Senate. Dr. Frist, a heart surgeon from Tennessee who supports the existing policy, is already facing intense pressure from conservatives over the issue of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees and does not seem eager to schedule a vote on stem cell research. He said last week that he wanted to check with his colleagues before doing so.
The House vote followed an impassioned lobbying campaign by advocates for patients, including Nancy Reagan. Mrs. Reagan, who became a strong backer of stem cell research as her husband struggled with Alzheimer's disease, telephoned fellow Republicans this week urging a yes vote, Mr. Castle said.
But Mr. Bush countered with a powerful one-two punch, throwing the full weight of the White House behind the opposition. On Friday, he issued a rare threat to veto the Castle bill. On Tuesday, just hours before the vote, he appeared in the East Room of the White House with families created by a rare but growing practice in which one couple donates its frozen embryos to another.
"The children here today remind us that there is no such thing as a spare embryo," Mr. Bush said, amid the squeals and coos of babies cradled in their mothers' arms. "Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."
The parents, who worked through a Christian adoption agency, applauded enthusiastically. When Mr. Bush said that "every human life is a precious gift of matchless love," a mother behind him on stage mouthed the word "Amen."
The White House event, on what conservative Christians and the president call an important "culture of life" issue, demonstrated just how far Mr. Bush is willing to assert himself on policy that goes to what he considers the moral heart of his presidency. In another sign of how important the issue is to conservatives, the House Republican leader, Tom DeLay of Texas, managed the opposition to the bill, also casting it in stark moral terms.
"An embryo is a person, a distinct internally directed, self-integrating human organism," Mr. DeLay said, adding, "We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Muhammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth."
He went on: "The choice to protect a human embryo from federally funded destruction is not, ultimately, about the human embryo. It is about us, and our rejection of the treacherous notion that while all human lives are sacred, some are more sacred than others."
Human embryonic stem cells, isolated from human embryos for the first time in 1998, have the potential to grow into any cell or tissue in the body, and so hold great promise for treatment of disease. But the embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted. So Mr. Bush, intending to discourage further embryo destruction, insisted in 2001 that federal financing be limited to studies of those stem cell colonies, or lines, that had already been created.
Instead, Mr. Bush is promoting research on adult stem cells, which are drawn from bone marrow and blood, including umbilical cord blood, and have narrower implications for medicine than embryonic stem cells. On Tuesday, the House voted 431 to 1 to approve a measure that would create umbilical cord blood banks to advance adult stem cell research.
But it was the embryonic stem cell debate that inflamed the passions of the House, sounding at various times like a lesson in cell biology, a theological discourse and a personal confessional. Lawmaker after lawmaker came to the House well to recount struggles with conscience and searing personal experiences with death and disease.
Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, rolled to the microphone in his motorized wheelchair to speak of his spinal cord injury, which he said could be helped by the research. Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri, told of a young man named Cody, who had been paralyzed in a car accident at age 16 and asked her to rethink her opposition to embryonic stem cell studies.
"I later wrote a note to Cody's family telling them that even after hearing his story, I couldn't do as he asked," Ms. Emerson said, "and I have regretted writing that letter ever since."
But for every supporter with a compelling personal tale, there was an opponent like Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, whose brother has Parkinson's disease. "I've learned a lot of things from my brother," Mr. Lungren said, "But one of the things I learned most is that there is a difference between right and wrong."
The backers of the Senate measure, Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, have scheduled a news conference for Wednesday to demand quick action. "I don't understand why Mr. Bush is doing this," Mr. Harkin said, adding, "I wish he would refrain from drawing lines in the sand."
---------------------------
May 25, 2005
Vote on Stem Cell Research
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/politics/25stem_rollcall.html
WASHINGTON, May 24 (AP) - The 238-194 roll call Tuesday by which the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill that would lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
Voting yes were 187 Democrats, 50 Republicans and 1 Independent.
Voting no were 14 Democrats, 180 Republicans and no Independents.
X denotes those not voting.
ALABAMA
Democrats -- Cramer, Y; Davis, Y.
Republicans -- Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Everett, N; Rogers, N.
ALASKA
Republicans -- Young, Y.
ARIZONA
Democrats -- Grijalva, Y; Pastor, Y.
Republicans -- Flake, N; Franks, N; Hayworth, N; Kolbe, Y; Renzi, N; Shadegg, N.
ARKANSAS
Democrats -- Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.
Republicans -- Boozman, N.
CALIFORNIA
Democrats -- Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lantos, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; Millender-McDonald, X; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Solis, Y; Stark, Y; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.
Republicans -- Bono, Y; Calvert, Y; Cox, N; Cunningham, Y; Doolittle, N; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Pombo, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, N; Thomas, Y.
COLORADO
Democrats -- DeGette, Y; Salazar, Y; Udall, Y.
Republicans -- Beauprez, N; Hefley, N; Musgrave, N; Tancredo, N.
CONNECTICUT
Democrats -- DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y.
Republicans -- Johnson, Y; Shays, Y; Simmons, Y.
DELAWARE
Republicans -- Castle, Y.
FLORIDA
Democrats -- Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Davis, Y; Hastings, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wexler, Y.
Republicans -- Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, Y; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Feeney, N; Foley, Y; Harris, N; Keller, N; Mack, Y; Mica, N; Miller, N; Putnam, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Shaw, Y; Stearns, N; Weldon, N; Young, Y.
GEORGIA
Democrats -- Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Lewis, Y; Marshall, N; McKinney, Y; Scott, Y.
Republicans -- Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Norwood, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.
HAWAII
Democrats -- Abercrombie, Y; Case, Y.
IDAHO
Republicans -- Otter, N; Simpson, N.
ILLINOIS
Democrats -- Bean, Y; Costello, N; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Evans, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, N; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.
Republicans -- Biggert, Y; Hastert, N; Hyde, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; LaHood, N; Manzullo, N; Shimkus, N; Weller, N.
INDIANA
Democrats -- Carson, Y; Visclosky, Y.
Republicans -- Burton, N; Buyer, N; Chocola, N; Hostettler, N; Pence, N; Sodrel, N; Souder, N.
IOWA
Democrats -- Boswell, Y.
Republicans -- King, N; Latham, N; Leach, Y; Nussle, N.
KANSAS
Democrats -- Moore, Y.
Republicans -- Moran, N; Ryun, N; Tiahrt, N.
KENTUCKY
Democrats -- Chandler, Y.
Republicans -- Davis, N; Lewis, N; Northup, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.
LOUISIANA
Democrats -- Jefferson, Y; Melancon, Y.
Republicans -- Alexander, N; Baker, N; Boustany, N; Jindal, N; McCrery, N.
MAINE
Democrats -- Allen, Y; Michaud, Y.
MARYLAND
Democrats -- Cardin, Y; Cummings, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Van Hollen, Y; Wynn, Y.
Republicans -- Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y.
MASSACHUSETTS
Democrats -- Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Meehan, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y.
MICHIGAN
Democrats -- Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, N; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Stupak, N.
Republicans -- Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; Knollenberg, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Schwarz, Y; Upton, Y.
MINNESOTA
Democrats -- McCollum, Y; Oberstar, N; Peterson, N; Sabo, Y.
Republicans -- Gutknecht, N; Kennedy, N; Kline, N; Ramstad, Y.
MISSISSIPPI
Democrats -- Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.
Republicans -- Pickering, N; Wicker, N.
MISSOURI
Democrats -- Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Y.
Republicans -- Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, N; Hulshof, N.
MONTANA
Republicans -- Rehberg, N.
NEBRASKA
Republicans -- Fortenberry, N; Osborne, N; Terry, N.
NEVADA
Democrats -- Berkley, Y.
Republicans -- Gibbons, Y; Porter, Y.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Republicans -- Bass, Y; Bradley, Y.
NEW JERSEY
Democrats -- Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Menendez, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y.
Republicans -- Ferguson, N; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, N; Smith, N.
NEW MEXICO
Democrats -- Udall, Y.
Republicans -- Pearce, N; Wilson, Y.
NEW YORK
Democrats -- Ackerman, Y; Bishop, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.
Republicans -- Boehlert, Y; Fossella, Y; Kelly, Y; King, N; Kuhl, N; McHugh, N; Reynolds, N; Sweeney, Y; Walsh, N.
NORTH CAROLINA
Democrats -- Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Watt, Y.
Republicans -- Coble, Y; Foxx, N; Hayes, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N; Taylor, N.
NORTH DAKOTA
Democrats -- Pomeroy, Y.
OHIO
Democrats -- Brown, Y; Jones, Y; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Strickland, Y.
Republicans -- Boehner, N; Chabot, N; Gillmor, N; Hobson, N; LaTourette, Y; Ney, N; Oxley, N; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.
OKLAHOMA
Democrats -- Boren, Y.
Republicans -- Cole, N; Istook, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.
OREGON
Democrats -- Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y.
Republicans -- Walden, Y.
PENNSYLVANIA
Democrats -- Brady, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y.
Republicans -- Dent, Y; English, N; Fitzpatrick, N; Gerlach, Y; Hart, N; Murphy, N; Peterson, N; Pitts, N; Platts, Y; Sherwood, N; Shuster, N; Weldon, N.
RHODE ISLAND
Democrats -- Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats -- Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.
Republicans -- Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Democrats -- Herseth, Y.
TENNESSEE
Democrats -- Cooper, Y; Davis, N; Ford, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.
Republicans -- Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Jenkins, N; Wamp, N.
TEXAS
Democrats -- Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E.B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y.
Republicans -- Barton, Y; Bonilla, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; DeLay, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.
UTAH
Democrats -- Matheson, Y.
Republicans -- Bishop, N; Cannon, N.
VERMONT
Independent -- Sanders, Y.
VIRGINIA
Democrats -- Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, Y.
Republicans -- Cantor, N; Davis, Jo Ann, N; Davis, Tom, Y; Drake, N; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, N; Wolf, N.
WASHINGTON
Democrats -- Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.
Republicans -- Hastings, X; McMorris, N; Reichert, N.
WEST VIRGINIA
Democrats -- Mollohan, N; Rahall, N.
Republicans -- Capito, Y.
WISCONSIN
Democrats -- Baldwin, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.
Republicans -- Green, N; Petri, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.
WYOMING
Republicans -- Cubin, N.
deaddude said:You can draw stem cells from the nose, from hair follicles, and from umbilical fluid, nobody dies and many could be saved.
Hummmm...seems to me, many said the same of the space program years ago, look at all that has brought us.mom4 said:Why wouldn't they put more resources into the research that is yielding results? Makes no sense to me. It's all about keeping their grant money. ESCR is a fast train to nowhere.
Mom4, your statement is a false and outrageous accusation without a shread of proof. Your extremist rhetoric does not help illuminate this issue. Document with specific proof your accusation that scientists spin this issue only to retain research money.mom4 said:spun by researchers who don't want to lose their grant money is nothing less than evil.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=622&wit_id=51"I am proud to hold a Right to Life philosophy. I believe that human life begins in the womb, not in a petri dish. While I recognize that not everyone agrees with me, I am heartened that so many of people that I meet in Utah and throughout the country, including many fellow Right-to-Lifers, have supported me in my views. I believe that as the public studies and reflects upon these issues, support for the legislation we have drafted will grow." - Orrin Hatch, US Senator, Utah
Mr. P said:Hummmm...seems to me, many said the same of the space program years ago, look at all that has brought us.
Then there was that idiot Columbus guy that set sail to prove the world was not flat.
Yeah, your right, forget it, ESCR will lead us nowhere.
I understand that, and for some that oppose SCR that's true but not for all. Now, you don't really want to open that "what the Government" should be funding can of worms, do you? Heck we may eliminate 50% or more of the Government if we do that...maybe a good thing. On the other hand "some" things that are funded by the fed. are good for all...so what to do?Kathianne said:Mr. P, there is nothing from either side to stop research, just whether or not the feds should be funding it.
If one thinks it so promising, write the companies telling them you are willing to buy their stock, if they invest the R & D...
Kathianne said:Mr. P, there is nothing from either side to stop research, just whether or not the feds should be funding it.
If one thinks it so promising, write the companies telling them you are willing to buy their stock, if they invest the R & D...
Mr. P said:I understand that, and for some that oppose SCR that's true but not for all. Now, you don't really want to open that "what the Government" should be funding can of worms, do you? Heck we may eliminate 50% or more of the Government if we do that...maybe a good thing. On the other hand "some" things that are funded by the fed. are good for all...so what to do?
sitarro said:Isn't interesting how this " science " has become so important in the last five years . If all of the weatherman-like promises being made by " scientist " with a big hand out are true , why wouldn't the private investers be jumping on this sure thing . The "scientists" would much rather get money from the government where they will be less accountable for results than they would be from private stock holders . With government handouts they can always count on an increase of funding going up every year whether they need it or not.
This is so obviously politically motivated that it's a joke .I saw the special on nightline the other night where this promoter.. . . errr "scientist" was complaining that he knew at least 5 researchers that have left the country in order to continue their research . They are spinning this to make President Bush look like some ultra right wing religious zealot . I don't buy it . If there is any truth to the hyped up claims of everything from cancer cures to growing hair , the greedy pharmaceutical companies and Halliburton would be all over it , funding would be a non issue .
After WW2, the eventual development of civilian uses for nuclear power was a "sure thing," yet who produced the first nuclear power plants? Investors? Hardly. Investors never risk money when they do not know how long it will take to produce a return. If you had bothered to study the scientific R&D budget of the United States for 2006, then you would realize that your "they can always count on an increase of funding going up every year whether they need it or not" statement is absurd.sitarro said:Isn't interesting how this " science " has become so important in the last five years . If all of the weatherman-like promises being made by " scientist " with a big hand out are true , why wouldn't the private investers be jumping on this sure thing . The "scientists" would much rather get money from the government where they will be less accountable for results than they would be from private stock holders . With government handouts they can always count on an increase of funding going up every year whether they need it or not.
onedomino said:After WW2, the eventual development of civilian uses for nuclear power was a "sure thing," yet who produced the first nuclear power plants? Investors? Hardly. Investors never risk money when they do not know how long it will take to produce a return. If you had bothered to study the scientific R&D budget of the United States for 2006, then you would realize that your "they can always count on an increase of funding going up every year whether they need it or not" statement is absurd.
"President Bush's new budget proposes to spend $132.3 billion in fiscal 2006. (0.53 percent more than 2005) Space, energy and nondefense homeland security R&D programs would see substantial increases. But in physics, computers, mathematics, ecology, economics and even health programs that have seen sustained growth in recent years, the picture is not as bright. They are suffering as the government attempts to reduce its budget deficits. The proposed total R&D portfolio for 2006 is 0.6 percent, or $733 million, above this year's funding level. Within the portfolio, however, federal support for basic and applied research would fall by the same percentage, to $54.8 billion.
Federally funded R&D has produced countless breakthroughs over the years - among them the Internet, bar codes, gene mapping and even the Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Edible vaccines, fusion energy and commercial space travel are some of the emerging R&D products that promise to become commonplace."
http://www.govexec.com/features/0305-15/0305-15s4.htm
-
Oh believe me I am looking at it rationally..Kathianne said:Look at this rationally, if stem cell research is able to 'cure' diabetes, certain cancers, degenerative muscle diseases, they are guaranteed to have hit the biggest thing since anti-biotics.
Now if this was only for some rare disease and the universities were conducting research-I think it would be covered. But NO, this is the 'future' where a Christopher Reeves would walk again.
No, the pharmaceuticals can well afford to invest, IF they think these kinds of breakthroughs will come...
