by Plutonium Page
Today marked the beginning of the House debate on whether or not stem cell research should receive federal funding. There are two bills:
- H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005", which proposes lifting President Bush's ban on any new embryonic stem cell research. This bill was introduced by Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
- H.R. 596, the "Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005", which proposes research with only umbilical cord blood stem cells. This bill was introduced by Chris Smith, R, NJ-4.
Now, as you can imagine, Tom DeLay is making a whole lot of noise about H.R. 810, which he says will use taxpayers' money to fund "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings." And Bush, who appeared today with 21 children who were the result of in vitro fertilization, said that the Castle-DeGette bill "would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life."
DeLay and Bush assume that American taxpayers don't want their money supporting embryonic stem cell research.
They couldn't be more wrong.
Look below the fold.
DemFromCT sent me information on several recent Gallup polls regarding stem cell research. Access to the site is by subscription only, so I'll give you the highlights.
Stem cell research is complex -- as is polling on the topic. DeLay told reporters, "Once people understand the issue, more than 70% are against embryonic stem cell research." But most polls I've reviewed reflect exactly the opposite -- that a majority of Americans favor stem cell research involving humans.
Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll (May 2-5) shows 60% of Americans feel "medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos" is morally acceptable. That's an uptick from the previous Values and Beliefs polls; 52% said stem cell research was morally acceptable in May 2002 and 54% said so in May 2003 and May 2004.
(Emphasis mine)
So, not only is Tom DeLay pulling numbers from who knows where, he's dead wrong. And, for all the Bush administration's railing on how embryonic stem cell research "destroys life", it simply didn't have the effect they probably desired.
Now, here are the results of a May 20-22 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll:
A majority of Americans, 53%, either want no restrictions at all on government funding of stem cell research or want the restrictions eased. The rest are more conservative; 24% say keep the restrictions as they are (the position advocated by Bush), while a hard-core group of 19% wants no government funding of stem cell research at all.
If the Republicans in Congress pass a bill relaxing restrictions on stem cell research, it would run against Bush's wishes, suggesting divisions within the GOP on the issue. That's exactly what Gallup's Values and Beliefs poll shows -- 47% of Republicans say stem cell research is morally acceptable, while exactly the same percentage of Republicans say it is not.
They're split on Social Security , and now we know they're split on stem cell research, two things that Bush holds near and dear to his heart.
Basically, he can't win:
In short, if Bush vetoes legislation that removes restrictions on stem cell research, he will please the majority of the religious right, but will leave about half of the members of his own party less than enthusiastic.
There is a more significant religious division on the issue, however. Christian evangelicals (about 22% of the population as defined by Gallup) are opposed to stem cell research by a 59% to 30% margin.
He pleases the Dobson drones, but they're only 22% of the population.
The take-home message is this: Bush is alienating half of his party if he vetoes embryonic stem cell research. Not only that, but 60% of Americans would be pretty disappointed, too.
Perhaps, if he vetoes the bill, he'll see the consequences in the result of the 2006 elections. We'll have to wait and see.
Bush: "Today the House of Representatives is considering a bill that violates the clear standard I set four years ago. This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life."
First we had an "emerging threat", then we had "emerging democracy", now "emerging human life." Has the term "emerging" replaced the wink?
Posted by: muledriver | May 24, 2005 at 19:45
"Emerging"... yeah, that's vague. "Mis-emerging catastrophic success, y'all."
Posted by: Plutonium Page | May 24, 2005 at 19:48
Love the headline at Voice of America:
Posted by: DemFromCT | May 24, 2005 at 21:01
This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life."
Cord Blood Banking
Posted by: Sithan | October 24, 2007 at 06:36