Congress keeping step with President’s unethical research
- Mar 17, 2009 - 2
Gone is the fortified wall that safeguarded Americans from being forced to underwrite life-taking research on embryos. But even the one-week-old White House order that took a wrecking ball to that wall is not enough to satisfy the pro-embryo-destruction lobby.
Plans are well underway in Congress to make President Obama’s policy a more permanent fixture, just to be sure “no future anti-science administration will be able to hinder progress,” as Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) put it. The congresswoman’s signature bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 873), essentially would graft into law the president’s March 9 executive order, which overturns his predecessor’s 2001 policy and gives the federal government the green light to support research that requires the killing of human embryos.
During his terms of office, President George W. Bush acted as the firewall against this trail of destruction, twice vetoing the legislation. But with both a White House and a majority in Congress cheerleading for the bill this time around, its chances for approval are almost certain.
Yet a few blocks of the wall that separates a respect for life from unrestrained science remain standing—at least for now. A 1996 law prevents direct taxpayer funding of either the creation of human embryos for research or the actual extraction of stem cells from embryos resulting in their destruction or harm. This Dickey-Wicker Amendment, as it is known for its sponsors, has been attached annually to an appropriations bill. The congressional wrecking ball appears to be in motion to topple these remaining blocks this year.
Absent this barrier, we can expect to see money diverted from ethical adult stem cell research that is currently treating patients to unethical, uncertain embryonic stem cell research. Funded by private means, scientists have considerable experience using embryonic stem cells in trials on animals. The outcome has been predictable: tumor formation. But never mind the fact that, ethical concerns aside, this form of research in animals has failed miserably thus far. We are told to believe that embryo-destructive research is the new wave of promise.
It is classic utilitarianism taken to its dangerous extreme: sacrifice the few for the betterment of the many, or in this case the bigger, the more developed. This form of human experimentation is nothing short of barbarism. Even if such research did give way to treatments, respect for innocent human life must always trump the capabilities of science.
If “we must respect their point of view,” as President Obama insisted his administration do for those with strong moral convictions on embryo-destructive research, why moments later widen the door for its federal funding through executive order and urge Congress to write it into law?
Why not instead direct more money to life-respecting research that is currently treating more than 70 diseases? Why not also promote an alternative research technique in which adult skin cells are “walked” back to an embryonic-like state, a recent breakthrough that many scientists believe could make destructive research unnecessary? And why not step up the campaign for embryo adoption? Well over 100 couples have now given life to “snowflake babies,” once frozen embryos left over at fertility clinics.
These seem like better means to show respect for unborn life and for those who find the destruction of embryos morally reprehensible. As Congress considers the future of experimentation on the tiniest among us, it would be wise to chart a different course than the president’s.
If you agree, please tell your congressman and senators to oppose the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 873) and to support the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Life, Stem-Cell Research
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Mar 17th, 2009, at 7:30pm, James E Reeves wrote:
The truth is in the cord “umbilical” all the material needed for research is abundant in supply not from just abortions but all the diliveries of full term children.
So is it the research or a lifestyle?
Your brother,
James
2 On Mar 18th, 2009, at 7:54am, Charles Enlow wrote:
President Obama said in issuing his executive order that he was placing science over ideology. But liberal ideology, which sidelines ethics and even science, motivated his move. Science is on the side of using umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells in experimental therapies. No benefit has ever come from use of embryonic stem cells, which is why experimenters cannot get private funding for it, and seek instead government grants.