Stem Cells and Politics

by DemFromCT

Not the first post written on this topic, not the last. But look around the Internets and watch how stem cell stories and data are being collected, collated and posted with increasing frequency. Steve Soto notes that the Q poll looks at stem cell support from Dems, Repubs and Indies and finds support across the board (he also notes support for Roe v Wade from men and women, and Bush's continuing slide at an all-time low of 44%). And Gallup's polling (summarized by Plutonium Page yesterday) has supplied us with more insight into the importance of this issue to Americans.

On May 2-5 Gallup asked an opinion on "Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos": 60% of respondents thought stem cell research morally acceptable (including 47% of Republicans) while 33% of respondents answered morally wrong (including 47% of Republicans). Indies and Dems were heavily in the direction of morally acceptable by more than 2-1 for Indies and 3-1 for Dems.

In this poll, the party ID breakdown (kindly supplied by Gallup) was  R 357  Indie 294   D 338 before weighting (and R 348   I 297   D 344 after weighting. For more on party ID and weighting, see Mystery Pollster's Should Pollsters Weight by Party ID?)

On May 22-24, the respondents were a bit more Democratic (R 318 Indie 329  D 341;  weighted base  R 295   I 329   D 362 ), as is often the case with the vagaries of polling. Nonetheless, the message was clear once again. Republicans split on the question of easing vs. keeping current restrictions ( 33 vs 34) while indies (48 vs 21) and Dems (43 vs 20) were in favor of easing current restrictions (other choices included no restrictions and no funding, with little support for these positions from any of the three ID groups).

The above Gallup poll internals match the Quinnipiac sentiment and clearly are representative of mainstream American thinking. The Democrats are well aware of this:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday for a swift vote in the Senate on legislation to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research, and he criticized President Bush for opposing the measure.

Several Senate Republicans later took up the call as Bush renewed his veto threat.

In a new rhetorical exchange a day after the House passed the bill, Reid said it was "wrong politically, morally and scientifically" for Bush to oppose the loosening of restrictions.

On the heels of the Bolton controversy and (especially) the Nuclear Option debate with its foreshadowing of SCOTUS appointments, Bush and the Republicans are at risk of driving their approval ratings even lower by opposing what Americans so clearly want. The poll numbers on stem cell research are going to drive poll numbers on Presidential approval the more visible this issue is. The Presidential stem cell 'compromise' in the first term is looking more and more like junk science as the various 'approved' stem cell lines peter out, become contaminated and otherwise prove useless for research. Adult stem cells are not a substitute (blood stem cells cannot function as brain or spinal cord stem cells; they're too differentiated to be of use) and are more of the junk science the WH is fond of relying on. As David Shaywitz wrote in the WSJ:

For some opponents of embryonic stem cell  science, the argument is fundamentally one of faith: The human embryo should be held as sacrosanct, and not used for the pursuit of any ends, regardless of how nobly intended. The trouble for such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that most Americans hold a less extreme position; given a choice between discarding frozen, excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for medical research -- specifically, the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines -- most of us would choose the second. Consequently, conservative  stem cell  opponents have now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally wrong, but also unnecessary, an argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated by even more questionable principles.

This one's a no-brainer. Democrats are on the right side of the issue, and Reid is right to drive it home. And if the American Taliban try to get in the way yet again, too bad for them. This is one case that they will win the battle (they may have the votes to sustain a veto) but Democrats will win the war.

[UPDATE]: The reality-based CT delegation voted 5-0 for loosening restrictions. And Chris Shays had some unkind things to say about Bush on this issue:

A Connecticut Republican said Wednesday that history will not look kindly on President Bush if he carries out his threat to veto a bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., also said that if a bill is sent to the president and he vetoes it, the Senate should take a vote to override his veto, even though there doesn't appear to be enough support in the House for an override.

"I think history will be extraordinarily unkind to a veto that will be based on ideology and not on sound ethics or sound science," Shays said. "This shows that their ideology has gotten them out of the mainstream of the American people."  ...

Shays, who favors abortion rights, praised the House GOP leaders for allowing the vote to take place. And he said the significant Republican support for the bill shows that conservative party leaders are out of step with the country.

All three of the state's Republican House members voted in favor of the bill.

Comments

[DemFromCT]

I may have to reconsider my position. Chris Matthews, David Ignatius And Deborah Orin all agreed (on Hardball).

[Coldblue Steele]

CBS has a poll out yesterday that also shows strong support 58/31 for embryonic stem cell research. This is a no brainer for the Democrats, and I was glad to see Reid bring it up.

Link

[DemFromCT]

Let's be clear. Some of my good friends are religious conservatives. Some even still support Bush as strongly as ever. But the ones I'm friendly with are not imposing their morality on the majority of Americans.

I respect those with a different opinion based on faith.

But I believe that this argument is already decided by the American people. And those like Dobson and his ilk who think they own the Congress because Americans were security-conscious in the wake of 9/11 (Bush won because of national security concerns, not values) are going to have a rude awakening over this issue, especially if they mistakenly think they represent majority opinion.

[Coldblue Steele]

This is very much like the Schiavo incident. People don't have to be political to know how they feel about issues that affect their personal lives. If I were a Democratic Party strategist, I would lump both of the issues together and show how Bush & Co. are out of touch with mainstream America.

[DemFromCT]

Chris Shays is practicing the politics of Yale. Presumably, that's the center of CT's biotechnology industry of the future.

hey, something's going to have to replace Groton. And that, of course, is Rob Simmons' problem.

[Rick Brady]

Let's be clear. Some of my good friends are secular liberals. Some even still support Nancy Pelosi as strongly as ever. But the ones I'm friendly with are not imposing their morality on the majority of Americans.

I respect those with a different opinion based on their faith in secular humanism.

But I believe that this argument is already decided by the American people.

What argument? Why, gay marriage of course...

[4jkb4ia]

Gay marriage is not exclusive to secular humanism. UU accepts it.

[DemFromCT]

"What argument? Why, gay marriage of course..."

You mean in CT and MA? As for everywhere else, ask the folks under 35. Even so, it's only Republicans that are intolerant, and that will fade in a generation. ;-)

Boston Globe Poll conducted by University of New Hampshire Survey Center. May 4-9, 2005. N=760 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.6 (for all adults). "As you may know, Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized gay marriage. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married in Massachusetts, should their marriage be recognized as legal in all 50 states?"

Yes No Unsure

% % %

ALL 46 50 4

Democrats 63 33 4

Independents 46 49 5

Republicans 27 69 4

Rick and I are old friends (no snark), by the way. We work together on projects of mutual interest, even when we (frequently) agree to disagree. Sort of like the way the Senate used to work before this administration.