Friday, March 6, 2009

Obama to continue his Abortion Mission; Will authorize more Deaths through Embryonic Stem Cell Research on Monday

.
Now that the Obama administration has achieved such marvelous economic successes in its first weeks in office, "Barack the Impaler" will refocus on his primary mission on Monday

In the face of hundreds of miraculous successes achieved by researchers in the field of adult stem cell research, and absolutely no, repeat, no, success at all in the field of embryonic stem cell research, Obama the Abortion President will continue his primary mission and will accelerate the baby killing rate on Monday in hopes that something might be achieved if he can just throw enough money at the problem.


President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order on Monday reversing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The long-expected move is likely to stir up not only the promise of scientific breakthrough but also the controversy over where government crosses a moral line.

Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.

Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.

Obama's move is expected to lift that restriction. The official said the aim of the policy is restore "scientific integrity" to the process.

Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.

Such research is controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells; they typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. Once a group of stem cells is culled, it can be kept alive and propagating in lab dishes for years.

There are different types of stem cells, and critics say the nation should pursue alternatives to embryonic ones such as adult stem cells, or those found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.

"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.

During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."

He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."

"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.

The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work — from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings — won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.

Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines for what embryonic stem cell lines will qualify under Obama's ruling. Among other things, the guidelines are expected to demand that the cells were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo. Star Tribune


18 comments:

Anonymous said...

What action has any Republican president done in recent memory to save (or help) the lives of children that have already been born? You have your opinion and I have mine. I am one Roman Catholic who refuses to deed over my vote to any political candidate who claims to be "right" on abortion. It is not a simple decision. There are numerous LIVING human beings who will be worse off or dead under a Republican administration. There is no right or wrong answer to this problem. My money is on President Obama to do the most good for the most people. I think God will be happy with that result.

Vianney33 said...

Anonymous, All anyone needs to do to refute your argument is simply point out one number; 40,000,000.
If you can't figure out what that number represents it is no wonder why you think the way you do.

Ray from MN said...

Thank you, V33!

I was musing on how to respond, or IF to respond. You handled better than I would have.

The Pope said...

Excellent! We need stem cell research and I am SURE that everyone who is opposed to it will decline any and all future medical procedures that may come from the research? Right? Oh, sure they will....

TotusTuus said...

The Church has made clear that embryonic stem cell research (ESR) is mortally sinful, and so yes, I will reject any cure that comes from it, even if that means my death. Even if ESR results in a cure, the means used to acquire that cure are gravely sinful, so it would be wrong to utilize any cure that results from ESR. I'd die first.

Anonymous said...

Hey Totus, we know what the church says but do you think there will ever come a time when you'll think for yourself?

TotusTuus said...

Anonymous, I have asthma myself, and as much as I would love a cure so I could stop using an inhaler, killing someone else to obtain that cure is utilitarianism and it's wrong. The means used to obtain such cures are wrong. The end never justifies the means in issues where destruction of innocent human life is involved.
And as far as social justice is concerned, the foundation of all social justice is recognizing that all human life is sacred and deserves protection, from conception until natural death. Anyone who endorses destruction and/or exploitation of innocent human life, no matter the cause, is fooling themselves.
Whatever happened to Democrats like Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota and Governor Bob Casey Sr. of Pennsylvania, who weren't afraid to stand up for the rights of the unborn and the common man?
The DFL was once the voice of the common man, now, with a few exceptions like Congressman Jim Oberstar and Governor Joe Manchin of WV, it's become the voice of rich moral relativists. The GOP isn't much better, but at least they recognize the rights of the unborn. I'd rather deal with corporate corruption than feticide.

Steve said...

Well, Totus, I'm sorry to say that with the GOP, you're dealing with "feticide" and corporate corruption. If you think the GOLP (Grand Old Limbaugh Party) has any intention of giving up the anti-choice issue, you're the one fooling yourself. It's great for fundraising (not only for politicians, but for churches as well).

Speaking of "moral relativism" (a label that could be applied to everyone, based on one's own opinions) your position diminishes the sanctity of the life of fully-formed humans in order to elevate the importance of a group of cells...all for a religious and political agenda. You know this.

TotusTuus said...

Dear Steve,
Dealing with the death of your youngest sister helps you understand the sanctity of human life through new eyes. My sister, Connie, was stillborn as a result of Turner's Syndrome in March of 2005, at 22 weeks gestation.
I was pro-life before my sister was stillborn, but my sister's death made me more actively pro-life.
Also, I absolutely despise Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.
I think the DFL position is better than the GOP position on a number of issues, particularly on Capital Punishment, conservation, trade, and labor issues. I also oppose the War in Iraq. My favorite politician of all time Gov. Bob Casey Sr. of Pennsylvania, is a pro-life Democrat. I'd gladly vote for a pro-life democrat over a Republican any day.
But, for me the most important issues are protection of human life from conception until natural death, and safeguarding marriage as between one man and one woman.
Attacks against innocent human life and the traditional definition of marriage will destroy families, and, eventually, society.
I respect your views, and I ask that you respect the views of this devout Catholic and pro-life Democrat (if I had to label myself).

Anonymous said...

What has a Republican done to help post-born children. Sigh. If I wasn't at work, I would take the time to look up the exact numbers and post a lengthly reply. How about this. Look at President Bush's spending. Look at what went to Africa. So much that even Euro-weineis praised him for it. Look at domestic programs. Can you give me a specific example of where human Americans are worse off because of Republican policies?

Anonymous said...

Totus, no one is disrespecting your position anymore than you're disrespecting theirs. Which is to say, in both cases, none. I don't know how anyone could pay attention to the news and think that our two most pressing issues are abortion and marriage. (Speaking of which, what would you be protecting? A 50+ percent divorce rate? Please.) I understand that people like to follow certain leaders, and you have every right to do just that, so I am not disrespecting your view.

Rich said...

"Can you give me a specific example of where human Americans are worse off because of Republican policies?"

Yeah. Over 4,000 Americans are worse off (read: dead) because of a failed policy in Iraq. 40 million are worse off because of obstructionist tactics against covering the uninsured. Seven years of delay on certain types of medical research because of a nanny-state policy against stem cell research (just overturned, thank God). Deregulation of banks (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which heaped on the financial troubles.

How many more would you like? (I mean, after you of course attempt to blame all those things on Democrats.)

Anonymous said...

How is changing the definition of marriage going to lower the divorce rate?

Anonymous said...

Changing the definition of marriage won't lower the divorce rate. No one said it would. The point is that people love to drone on about the "sanctity of marriage," while we have a massive divorce rate, to say nothing of infidelity w/o divorce.

It's laughable to pretend that something "sacred" is being protected.

TotusTuus said...

I think divorce is a huge tragedy, and impermissible in all cases. Sometimes there is the rare case of an impediment that prevented the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from taking hold, such as a "shotgun marriage", but impediments to the marriage are far different than divorce.
Marriages are meant to be permanent. Divorce is simply impermissible. I've seen the arguments for divorce, but I don't agree with any of them. It doesn't make sense that a man and woman who have made vows giving themselves completely and fully to each other "until death do us part" could ever be split up. Divorce breaks vows made before God, and I don't think it's ever permissible. If a divorce does happen, the person shouldn't be allowed to remarry.

Rich said...

Totus, I assume (read: hope) you're talking about in the eyes of the church and not a civil marriage, right?

I'm not even going to bother trying to figure out the part where you say divorce is impermissible, because you can't possibly be arguing that, say, a battered spouse should stick with the abuser, or that a spouse should stay in a marriage where the other spouse is constantly cheating on them, stealing money out of a joint account and bankrupting the family. No serious person would advise an individual to subject themselves to further mistreatment like that.

TotusTuus said...

Rich, the cases you mention are probably cases where an impediment exists.

Anonymous said...

Did you know that these embryos can instead be adopted. Organizations like Nightlight.org offer matching couples with donated frozen embryos. They are just babies waiting to be born.