The Candidates
The issue of adult and embryonic stem-cell research is an issue that is very important to many pro-lifers like myself. It surely is a controversial issue, and the passage of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research led to President Bush’s first veto of his presidency. Once again, the Senate is debating the issue, under two bills. The first bill, S 5, named the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,” is much like the bill Pres. Bush vetoed, except that it takes some language from a previous Santorum bill in order to try and make it veto proof. The second bill, S. 30, the HOPE Act, would encourage federal funding of ethical research without harming human embryos.
The issue of federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research has also become a “litmus test” for pro-lifers to judge a politican’s commitment towards the pro-life movement. For instance, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was slammed by the pro-life community for supporting it, while Democrat Sen. Bob Casey Jr. was praised yesterday by the Family Research Council for once again committing his support against it.
This issue is very important to pro-lifers in regards to 2008. Legislation that would federally fund embryonic stem-cell research passed under a Republican majority in both houses, and will likely pass again under a Democratic majority. Luckily, President Bush had the courage to use his first veto against the legislation, and will likely veto it again. However, will we be so lucky with our next president?
So far, the candidates opposed to federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, and Tancredo.
Supporting federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research are: McCain and Giuliani.
I am not sure where Fred Thompson or Jim Gilmore stand on this issue.
Brownback has been a leading supporter of adult stem-cell research and a leading opponent of embryonic stem-cell research. Here is what he posted today at the Hill’s Congressional blog titled: “Where do we draw the line on stem cells?”
I look forward to highlighting the fact that adult stem cell research, which does not destroy young human lives, has yielded real treatments for patients in need. I welcome the opportunity for a full and open debate which raises a basic question: should we use taxpayer dollars to fund research that many people, including myself, consider unethical because it destroys young human lives? Or should we focus federal research funding on ethical alternatives that carry more clinical promise?
I agree with Brownback on this issue. The main thing I wonder is if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research claim that it is so promising, then why is it not privately funded? Why aren’t research companies spending their own dollars on this research? Wouldn’t you love to be the first company to come up with the cure to all the diseases proponets claim this research would benefit?
Brownback also wrote an op-ed which USA Today ran yesterday:
Reject embryo bill
Washington should limit research funding to adult stem cells only.By Sam Brownback
Last year I met a courageous young woman, Jacki Rabon of Illinois, who was paralyzed in a car accident at age 16. Today, thanks to an ethical adult stem cell treatment that she received in Portugal, Jacki is regaining feeling in her legs and can walk with the aid of braces and a walker.
This week, the Senate will debate a bill that would provide taxpayer funding for a different type of stem cell research from the type that is helping Jacki and scores of other patients. The Senate will vote on whether to fund embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. We all started as an embryo, and biologically, the human embryo is no less human than you or I.
Two issues are at stake:
First, should we treat the young human as a person or as a piece of property? Will the federal government maintain high ethical standards in research, or will we sanction the destruction of young human lives to further speculative research that might or might not eventually help patients?
Second, should we fund the research that holds the most promise to bring treatments to patients soonest, or should we fund speculative and unethical research, the benefits of which are unclear and may never come?
For the sake of the patients, we should fund adult stem cell research to the exclusion of unethical embryonic stem cell research. Jacki should not have to travel to Portugal, at great personal expense, for a treatment with her own adult stem cells. And she is not the only patient who has had no choice but to travel around the world for an adult stem cell treatment.
We know of 72 peer-reviewed adult stem cell treatments and applications for a wide range of diseases and injuries. Yet embryonic stem cell research has not yielded any treatments or applications to date.
Patients should have the peace of mind that their treatment did not come at the expense of another’s destruction, and they should not have to travel around the world to seek help. I urge my Senate colleagues to reject the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research.
Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas and a candidate for president.
My main reasons for posting this is to inform readers on where the 2008 candidates stand on this issue, and also to remind readers why pro-lifers love Brownback so much — not only does he vote our way, but he is also our leader on issues like this. In recent years, most pro-life legislation has been very much supported by the general public — such as banning partial-birth abortions and parental notification laws. Embryonic stem-cell research, however, is much more controversial mostly because people don’t understand the issue, and is generally supported by the general public. This is when the pro-life movement finds out who its real leaders are — like Sam Brownback — and who the sell-outs are — like former majority leader Bill Frist.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Oh God… hang on to your seats, folks!!
April 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I’m ready to rock, bring it on
April 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Billy,
I agree with Brownback on this one. But I think Brownback’s biggest obstacle is really himself. As of today he is defining himself as the Presidential candidate with the pro-life message. Kudos to him, it is important. But unfortunately this won’t get him elected on it’s own, unless he was running for Gary Glenn’s job. Everyone believes Brownback is a huge supporter of the unborn, Brownback would have more of a chance if he started addressing issues (and he know he has on some topics) that most voters are thinking about.
I will give him credit for offering the most substantive policy ideas south of Romney, most of these candidates are purely running on an image an rhetoric.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Jason, I think when voters give Brownback a chance and listen to his views other then just being a hardcore pro-lifer, they see that he is more then just that. Most voters vote their checkbooks, and he is right on the money when it comes to economic policy, which was confirmed by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth — reform the tax code and fix social security while we still can. He is the only Republican candidate offering a real consensus solution in Iraq, not just playing off of people’s emotions like Rudy is doing, or the rhetoric of John McCain (which seems to shift with his poll numbers). etc.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sam Brownback is a great conservative. No question about it. If people seriously are questioning his pro-life creds, I don’t know what rock they’ve been hiding under for the past 10 years.
Brownback’s problems, IMHO, are pure style and not substance (save on immigration). Heavy implied in a previous post that he is boring. I agree he doesn’t have a lot of flash.
But I think the big 3 ignore Brownback at their peril. He has differentiated himself from the also-rans in the fundraising category ($2M not huge, but enough to keep going), and he will be extremely popular on the issues among Republicans in IA. If his style will help anywhere, it’s in the midwest. Brownback could definitely be the “surprise” guy coming out of IA, and whether his campaign will have legs from there is an interesting question.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Fredo, you are exactly right. I’ll be the first to admit — Brownback is far from polished and flashy. And as an east-coaster from DC, I am not used to that… at all. But that is honestly what people like to see in Iowa, and I think that he will do well with that image in South Carolina as well. Being polished is not necessarily a good thing in either of those places. I think thats why alot of people like McCain — he’s not flashy and does not come across as some sort of life-long Washington insider.
April 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The very fact that Brownback is coming out strongly agianst the Stem Cell Bill in the national media (USA and C-Span in one day)
Shows that he is gaining some steem and talking about the issues, this could become interesting as he really showing some substance on this issue
April 11th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
This issue coming to the fore this week gives people a chance to at last hear about Brownback in the media. Hopefully it will encourage them to find out more.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Just heard a great speech by Senator Brownback of the floor of the US Senate on CSPAN he did very well!
April 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
The only channel I get in my dorm room is NBC, so basically my TV is limited to The Office and Law and Order.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Where do you got to school? What kind of dorm does not provide cable..Strange..Unless you go to some kind of boarding school..you can always see cspan online LIVE..
April 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I go to one of the few private schools that do not charge $45,000 a year and put students into debt that they can never pay off. I’d rather go without cable then to be bankrupt for the rest of my life.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Setting the questionable role of government in funding stem cell research aside…Can someone please explain the logic of, and morality behind not wanting leftover embryos from IVF clinics that are already slated for destruction to, instead of being systematically tossed in the trash, possibly help provide cures in the future to many of today’s diseases?
Cadavers are used for scientific research and in anatomy classes everyday throughout America’s medical schools. If an embryo is damaged by an IVF clinic to the point of having no possible chance at ever developing into a living human being, even if implanted, then, from that point forward, provided there’s consent from the egg donor, why would you sooner want that “dead” embryo, with no chance of developing into a life, to be worthless medical waste when it still has the chance to one day save others’ lives?
April 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I believe that the HOPE bill, which also was up for vote today and overwhelmingly passed, would allow research on “dead” embryos. Senator Brownback supported this bill.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Any candidate who is against stem cell research will doom the GOP. We’ll be seen as a bunch of Luddites by swing voters.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I have no problem with research on “dead” embryos for just the reasons Argo outlined. But most embryos in IVF clinics aren’t dead. Rather they’re unwanted, or unneeded. The fact that the current state of the law allows such clinics to make the embryos “dead” by discarding them, hardly makes it a moral or ethical practice.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Case in point: My father, who has voted GOP his whole life, voted for none other than John Kerry in 2004. Reason? My father is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, and the GOP wants to prevent science from working on a cure.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The GOP is not preventing science from working on a cure. The GOP is forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for wealthy research companies to destroy human embryos. Private research is not banned, and if the research is so promising, like I said, why aren’t companies willing to foot the bill? Wouldn’t they want to be the first ones to come up with cures? Wouldn’t they make millions if not billions if they did?
Taxpayer funded research for destruction of human life for unproven techniques is completely unconservative and unacceptable.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Case in point: My father, who has voted GOP his whole life, voted for none other than John Kerry in 2004. Reason? My father is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, and the GOP wants to prevent science from working on a cure.
—-
Actually my step dad also has Parkinson’s however he understands that embryonic stem cell research should not be the norm that adult stem cells are were the promise in. Americans are starting to understand this so I question if this will really doom the GOP.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
[...] trusted. Second, Giuliani does support public funding for abortion at the Federal level because he supports Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which destroys human beings at the embryonic [...]