Stem Cells and Frist and Vetos

[Annie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050731/ap_on_go_co/stem_cells_1

...Supporters of the research believe that stem cells, which potentially can grow into any type of tissue in the body, hold the promise of one day treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and more.

"It's one of the most exciting medical findings of our age," Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., said on CNN's "Late Edition."

However, even supporters allow that successful stem cell treatments are still years away. Foes of the research consider it the equivalent of abortion because embryos must be destroyed to harvest the stem cells.

"And this is an innocent human life," Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said on "This Week" on ABC. "You're destroying this life for the purpose of research which has questionable value."

Santorum said that "without question, the president will veto this."

Bush in 2001 banned federal dollars for stem cell research beyond existing cell lines, although private groups have paid for some new research. The bill in Congress would lift Bush's restrictions.

 

[Annie]

Whew, I might be safe. Only 3 views for the previous post. Seems on the Hill this is getting more notice. Here is a blog post, I'm on the fence, lots of links and self-righteous positioning. Feel free to rant here and at the link, he'll love it! :

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001948.php

July 31, 2005
WARNING

sign_esr_ahead.jpg

Does the latest hyperbolic stem cell rhetoric from Augustine at RedState.org represent "Collaborative Republicanism for the masses[?]"

Let's take a look at his assessment of Bill Frist's recent position on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research:

Bill Frist: Traitor

Today, on the floor of the Senate, Dr. Frist betrayed the conservative movement, President Bush, the history of the Republican Party, and thousands of defenseless Americans. In doing so, he effectively ended his brief flirtation with the Presidential nomination of the GOP – and if this is a just world, he may also have effectively ended his leadership role within the party in anything but title.
...
As a medical doctor, Senator Frist knows this. He knows there is no scientific debate about when human life begins: the embryos he seeks to have destroyed at taxpayer expense, so that we may profit by their deaths, are uniquely human and they are alive – they are each an individual human life. And Senator Frist also knows full well that – if he has his way - Trey Jones would not exist.

Well, that's certainly a calm, rational post. But first let's take a closer look at the facts surrounding Trey Jones' birth ...

Trey Jones was a "snowflake baby," a frozen embryo left over from a fertility treatment that was matched, thawed and implanted for the express purpose of fulfilling his adoptive parents' desire to have a child. The Jones family "adopted" 10 frozen embryos as potentials; seven were destroyed by the thawing process (let's call them Timmy, Tammy, Tom, Terri, Trent, Tara and Taye Jones) and two of the remaining three (Tobey and Tanya) failed to take hold in the womb and thus were flushed out of the mother's body. Yet for political effect, the necessarily destructive process that led to Trey Jones' birth is apparently much more acceptable to a pro-life absolutist that declares Frist "a traitor" to "thousands of defenseless Americans."

Put another way, in equally hyperbolic terms, RedState's Augustine knows full well that – if he has his way - Timmy, Tammy, Tom, Terri, Trent, Tara, Taye, Tobey and Tanya Jones would not exist ... as they were ripped from the safe, frozen solitude common to all Cryogenic-Americans and sacrificed for the risky purpose of adoption. In fact, given that Augustine declared all frozen embryos "uniquely human and ... alive ... each an individual human life," his willingness to coldly sacrifice them in order to birth Trey Jones would seem like a direct contravention to his black-and-white pro-life stance.

[Insert sarcastic Godwin's Law invocation about Augustine's motives]

And the RedState diarist's logic that Trey Jones wouldn't exist under Frist's machinations also ignores the fact that the government does not decide what happens to the excess embryos from fertility clinics in the first place:

The real issue, of course, is this: IVF, as currently practiced in the United States (and no mainstream politician is seriously proposing tightening regulations on the industry), creates a large number of excess embryos. In part because of the lack of regulation, different IVF clinics have different policies for dealing with these embryos, but virtually all are willing to cryo-preserve and store them for couples (almost always for a fee). In addition, many clinics offer a range of other options, including disposal, donation to other couples (leading to what some would call "adoption"), and donation for scientific research. Who decides which option to pursue? The IVF couples, of course -- and it's politically inconceivable to change this. The government is not going to come in and tell people what to do with their embryos.

That's where the Snowflakes p.r. campaign completely unravels. No matter how many politicians pose with cute babies that have been produced through embryo "adoption," the fact is that some couples with excess embryos will always take a different route, more consistent with their own values and worldview, for dealing with these embryos: the route of donating them for the advancement of scientific research. Indeed, even couples who have not yet decided to donate to science may not opt for "adoption" either.

...
Which brings us back to Bush's claim that there’s "no such thing as a spare embryo," and his appearance with Snowflakes children in order to suggest that "there's an alternative to the destruction of life." When Bush used the word "alternative," he failed to inform us that the people making the choice here are free actors, not ruled by the government -- which only enters into the process later to decide whether to fund research involving excess embryos already donated for that purpose. Snowflakes cannot reverse that private decision to donate; it has no right. Neither does Bush.

But if there will always be excess embryos, and if no one can possibly or legally "adopt" them all, then that puts us right back where we started, despite the Snowflakes diversion. Some American couples have decided to set aside their embryos for the purposes of scientific research. Period. They're already available to science, and the only remaining decision is whether our government will support that vital research.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the characterization that embryonic stem cell efforts constitute "vital research" (also tabling any instinctive aversion to my use of a lengthy excerpt from the American Prospect), Augustine's characterization that "Trey Jones would not exist" if Frist "has his way" would seem to be inaccurate demagoguery.

And regarding that "traitor" label ...

There is simply no justifiable reason for Dr. Frist to have changed his position on such an important matter, except in some crass attempt to appeal to a biased media. After years of claiming to be a pro-lifer – after accepting money, support, and applause from the pro-life community – Dr. Frist throws them overboard for the sake of The New York Times.

As the notoriously liberal Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Friday's Special Report with Brit Hume, Frist's previous position conditionally supported Bush's ban on federal funding. It's now apparent that this ban has relegated federal funding to research using stem cells lines that are largely contaminated with animal-derived materials, and that America is falling behind other countries in basic research. In addition, Frist is not proposing any action that would incite the creation of embryos not already scheduled for destruction. Thus, there is no unavoidably cynical inconsistency to Frist's latest position.

Furthermore, Augustine's characterization that Frist is pandering for the "sake of The New York Times," while also decreeing that he's "effectively ended his brief flirtation with the Presidential nomination of the GOP," just piles on more childish hyperbole and illogic to the RedState editorial. I'd feel confident wagering that Bill Frist doesn't give a damn about the New York Times, but presumably, he does care about his status within the GOP, his power as Majority Leader and his ability to successfully navigate the 2008 GOP Presidential Primaries, a contest disproportionately decided by the GOP's pro-life lobby. As a Boston Herald editorial succinctly puts it:

Frist, a possible contender for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, knows that with his support for this bill he is writing off the support of some elements within the party. The Christian Defense Coalition has already made it clear he can kiss their endorsement goodbye.

But there are many others who will see in his change of position an act of political courage and applaud him for it.

Look ...

Many of you disagree with Frist's (and my) position on embryonic stem cell research; some of you no doubt agree with the spirit of that RedState post ...

But the thing is, you aren't even necessarily in the mainstream of the GOP.*

And making your case with the emotional hyperbole that this issue brings out in a certain segment of the right wing - one that rants with the confident (and incorrect) assumption that the audience shares a popular common frame of reference regarding the status of blastocysts/embryos/snowflakes - is a counterproductive methodology, one that presents perhaps one of the most tangible possibilities of hedging Republican dominance that I can envision for the near future.

Just my $.02 as a "moderate" Republican. Take it for whatever you determine to be it's worth.

* Disagreeing with the concept of public funding or touting the promise of adult stem cell research over ESR (the latter beef far more compelling than the former, in my opinion) are separate issues from the ethical pro-life proxy rhetoric addressed in this post.

Posted by Bill at July 31, 2005 11:49 AM

 

[Gunny]

...Supporters of the research believe that stem cells, which potentially can grow into any type of tissue in the body, hold the promise of one day treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and more.

My problemo with stem cell research. I potentially hold the promise of one day flying under my own power too ......

 

[Merlin]

As a medical doctor, Senator Frist knows this. He knows there is no scientific debate about when human life begins: the embryos he seeks to have destroyed at taxpayer expense, so that we may profit by their deaths, are uniquely human and they are alive – they are each an individual human life.



I say horse pucky. Stem cells are no more of an embryo or alive, or human beings as a wart on someones butt would be. Its sicking hearing all that crap about embryos and/or stem cells being alive.

 

[Gunny]

As a medical doctor, Senator Frist knows this. He knows there is no scientific debate about when human life begins: the embryos he seeks to have destroyed at taxpayer expense, so that we may profit by their deaths, are uniquely human and they are alive – they are each an individual human life.



I say horse pucky. Stem cells are no more of an embryo or alive, or human beings as a wart on someones butt would be. Its sicking hearing all that crap about embryos and/or stem cells being alive.

Well, they ARE alive. The question is, are they human beings? I'm not sure of the answer myself when it comes to their Promethian conception.

 

[pegwinn]

I have some really unscientific hatred of abortion in general. But, if abortion is going to be the law of the land in spite of morality etc. We might as well cause the evil to bring some good. I read that adult stem cells have actually brought forth more benefits than embryonic. I'm for it, a necessary evil.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'm assuming that Frist is just responding to all the mail, e-mail, telephone calls, etc., he evidentally has received from those he is supposed to be representing in Washington. We've all heard the argument that these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, so why not make good use of them? My only problem with Frist's response was that he should start educating his constituency regarding the alternatives available to this research. There's plenty of current research showing that stem cells can be harvested from other parts of the body. And my reading on the subject supports Pegwinn's statement that adult stems cells have actually produced greater results than embryonic stem cells.

 

[pegwinn]

I'm assuming that Frist is just responding to all the mail, e-mail, telephone calls, etc., he evidentally has received from those he is supposed to be representing in Washington.

Pop quiz. Who is he (frist) supposed to be representing? I thought he was a Senator?

 

[Gabriella84]

I was under the impression that Senators also represented people. Usually the people that elect them.
Though we all know that their only real constituents are the lobbyists and special interests that finance their campaigns and pay for their junkets and lifestyles.

I am really surprised about Frist. It is rare to see a Republican that displays a conscience. I hope his wife doesn't hold an intelligence position.

 

[Markainion]

My only question with stem cell research is: What happens if they find many great cures with the use of embryonic components, what’s next. If they develop great cures require embryonic steam cells how do we balance supply and demand? What happens if supply is too low, do we treat them like we treat organ donations? I personally think to many people are jumping onboard with out asking serious questions about the consequences.

If a serious cure is found using steam cells, how much harder is going to balance the morel issue that abortion is wrong, with societies moral values to help the sick. Or am I totally wrong with my assessment, and they only wanting to use using embryonic steam cells like Ginny Pigs.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Pop quiz. Who is he (frist) supposed to be representing? I thought he was a Senator?

Those people who went to the polls, voted for him, and sent him to Washington to represent their interests.

 

[pegwinn]

I was under the impression that Senators also represented people. Usually the people that elect them.
Though we all know that their only real constituents are the lobbyists and special interests that finance their campaigns and pay for their junkets and lifestyles.

I am really surprised about Frist. It is rare to see a Republican that displays a conscience. I hope his wife doesn't hold an intelligence position.

Those people who went to the polls, voted for him, and sent him to Washington to represent their interests.

Well, y'all get the A for effort in junior high civics. The truth is that Senators are supposed to represent the interests of the state legislatures. The House of Representatives is supposed to be the direct representative of "we the people". If you picture each state appointing to Ambassadors to the Federal government, you are fairly close to the original intent. The idea was that the people of the state of confusion may have an opinion, but the legislature of the state of confusion may have a differing view. This allowed the STATES to have a direct say in the federal system. But thanks to that pesky amendment that hammered yet another nail in the states rights coffin....... The new reality correct answer is that the Senator represents whatever it takes to get reElected.