One of the best things I think President Bush has done during his presidency (notice I said “one of”) was to take a stand and twice veto a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Of course it doesn’t exactly excuse the fact that he was the first president to actually provide federal funding for ESC research, but I appreciate it, nonetheless.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton made it known that if she became president, she would
“sign an executive order rescinding President George W. Bush’s restrictions on U.S. government funding for embryonic stem cell research.”
Interestingly, one of Bush’s first executive orders as president in 2001 was to allow for federal funding on existing embryonic stem cell lines. Hillary’s may be the most extreme position of all the presidential candidates, even the Democrats, on the subject, but it is no real surprise. She voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act that Bush vetoed and has long been an outspoken supporter of this unethical research.
She called Bush’s restrictions, which prevents federal funding for research on any newly created ESC lines, a “ban on hope.” Anyone who has read this blog more than once knows I that I would call a statement like that is a bunch of b.s. 25 years of ESC research on animals has yielded disastrous results, mostly in the form of tumors, never once showing enough promise to be used in human trials. Meanwhile human patients with varying diseases and disabilities have been successfully treated with adult stem cells.
So how do the other candidates stack up?
DEMOCRATS
Barack Obama: supports ESC research and voted in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As president he would:
* Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
* Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
* Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
* Ensure Ethical Standards
Source: On the Issues
John Edwards: who can forget his ridiculous statement during the 2004 presidential campaign that expanding ESC research would allow, “people like [actor] Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again?” That’s enough to tell you where he stands.
REPUBLICANS
Sam Brownback: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and yes to ban cloning in 1998. He says, “We are curing and healing people with adult stem cells. It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people. And we’re doing it with adult stem cell work, and it’s getting done.” Source: On the Issues
Mitt Romney: impressed me a few years ago when he took a stand as Gov. of Massachusetts against human cloning despite the fact that his wife has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (speaking of which, you will remember that I posted last week on MS patients being treated with ASCs). He still opposes cloning, supporting instead a process called altered nuclear transfer, which some scientists believe will be able to make ESCs without creating a “viable embryo” (I’m still skeptical about this). Regarding ESC research on IVF embryos he says, “It’s fine for that to be allowed, to be legal. I won’t use our government funds for that.” See video here.
John McCain: voted yes on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, supports funding on embryos that “are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen” saying further “it’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.” Source: On The Issues He opposes creating human life for research and as president will:
strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
Source: Campaign website
Duncan Hunter: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and co-sponsored the Human Cloning Prohibition Act in 2003 (?). He also voted for the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, supporting alternatives to ESC research. Source: Campaign website
Tom Tancredo: voted no on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and yes on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act – says ESC research is “morally reprehensible in certain ways” Source: On the Issues
Mike Huckabee: supports funding for stem cell research on “existing stem cell lines” but opposes creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it. Source: Campaign website
Rudy Giuliani: I’ll let you decipher this answer on your own:
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A:As long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. So I would support it with those limitations, like Senator Coleman’s bill in Congress.
Source: On the Issues
Read more about the candidates’ position on stem cell research and other issues at The Pew Forum and On The Issues
2 Comments on “ESC Research and the Presidential Candidates”
Chelsea:
This was my response to Paul’s post (http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-not-giuliani.html) where he talked about the email he got from you about my post:
I respect your right to think that you can’t vote for Rudy. My own father has told me that under no circumstances can he vote for him. I get the controversy and respect your right to do so. But I also think we need to look at the consequences.
Rudy is in no way the Republican version of Hillary. He has a completely different world view than Hillary does and that makes a HUGE difference. I respect Chelsea’s right to not vote for Rudy as well. Yet she accused me of being willing to vote for anyone who has an R next to their name and that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I am a strong conservative Christian and a strong pro-lifer. Currently I am my county’s coordinator for the new effort with Cures Without Cloning to get a ban on cloning on the 2008 Missouri ballot.
I care deeply about the slaughter of babies and in my opinion the biggest way this comes to play is through strict constructionist judges who view Roe vs. Wade as bad law. There may be up to 3 SCOTUS appointments in this next presidential cycle. Rudy’s picks would be extremely superior to Hillary’s and there would be a drastic difference between the 2. IF Rudy becomes the nominee I can’t sit by and not vote for him or vote for a 3rd party knowing the disastrous outcome that would result.
Hillary Clinton would appoint ACLU type judges who would not only be all for slaughtering babies, but want to change the definition of marriage, they would want to take away our freedoms (like mine to home school) and the list is endless. Because of Bush we now have 4 awesome conservative judges on the court. I don’t want to go backwards with a Hillary presidency.
Bottom line Rudy is not my first pick, I would rather have Fred Thompson. But if we end up with Rudy and too many either sit out or vote for a 3rd party I shudder to think of the consequences.
I understand there are differences on this and I respect your & Chelsea’s right to have different takes according to your conscience. But mine is also for the concern of moral issues, not on just voting for any Republican or for political expediency. I was very distraught about our losses in 2006 and what it meant for our country, I just don’t want to see it happen again in 2008.
I was not referring to you personally in my previous comment, but those who think, like the Missouri Republican Party, that “Any effort to elect Republicans to public office is a good thing,” (I called the party headquarters to confirm and was told, “yes, that is our statement”). This is what I have a problem with. If that is not how you interpreted it, I sincerely apologize. I understand that you have given this a lot of thought and come up with your own opinion regarding this issue that you think is best. Also I don’t agree with Dobson regarding Fred Thompson.
Quite frankly I am sick of this whole Giuliani argument which I express in my latest post: The Great Giuliani Divide