Obama Hits Right Notes on Stem Cell Research; Republicans Heartless

This was an easy step, but it was the right step, and it was the humane step.
When he signed the Executive Order lifting the federal ban on new embryonic stem cell research, President Obama was making good on a campaign promise. That’s what made it right. He was taking an action that is popular with the vast majority of the American public. That’s what made it easy. But it’s also an action that holds out the promise of curing a whole variety of debilitating diseases from diabetes all the way to Parkinson’s. That’s what made it so humane.
In a graceful touch, Obama invoked the famous and the unsung who fought so hard for embryonic stem cell research.
“As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause – people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.”
On Monday, Obama also signed a Presidential Memorandum ten ensure scientific integrity in government decision-making. His Administration, he said, will “base our public policies on the soundest science.” And he pledged to “appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology.”
What a refreshing break from the Bush-Cheney policies, which amounted to Lysenkoism—not only on stem cell research but also on global warming.
In typical fashion, the Republican Party remained the heartless party of no.
House Republican Leader John Boehner said Obama’s move “rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell provided his usual echo: “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.”
They talk about the destruction of human life, but fertility clinics around the country have their freezers full of embryos that they will never use and that they’ll ultimately toss in the garbage. Why not use these embryos to save lives instead?
Boehner and McConnell care more about the frozen embryos that are going to be discarded than the real-live human beings who are needlessly suffering today.
The Republican leaders are lost in the wilderness of their own barren ideology.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
Rothschild says: "Boehner and McConnell care more about the frozen embryos that are going to be discarded than the real-live human beings who are needlessly suffering today."
This is the sort of idiotic strawman dichotomy the left uses to avoid ever having to grapple with an opposing idea. The issue for the vast majority of those troubled by embryonic stem cell research has NEVER been "caring about frozen embryos." It has been to take seriously the notion that science is here treading into realms where lines will ultimately have to be drawn to prevent the manufacturing of human life for the sole purpose of exploiting human life. To not take the need for consideration of that issue seriously is to not live consciously in the 21st century at all.
Charles Krauthammer, a doctor as well as a journalist, who was on the presidential commission attempting to set guidelines in this area, did not agree with George W's decisions on this, but did agree about the seriousness with which Bush's administration contended with the moral aspects of the issue.
What then can we say about Obama's seriousness, in his grandstanding praise of people who are "not with us today" -- clear implication: because of those heartless Republicans. Or Matt Rothschild here, when he speaks of people "needlessly suffering today." It has always been a cruel hoax to hold out to such people the hope their diseases could be miraculously cured if only government funding of SOME stem cell research (it was always only some that was limited, even in this way) were resumed. No reputable scientist is ready to predict any cures at all as certain, let alone that they will be on the market in the lifetimes of most people suffering from the relevant diseases. It is sheer demagoguery to suggest otherwise. And cruel.
In fact, it was Bush who stood for principle in this debate, even if you disagree with how he applied it, and Obama who stands here for sheer expediency, pandering to the worst wishful thinking of the public and ingratiating himself to yet another group of corporate powers who stand now to rake in federal dollars that will enable them to rake in more if they ever do deliver on what has so far proved to be nothing but a hope and prayer anyway.