House Passes Stem Cell Bill

But Vote To Expand Government-Financed Research Faces Presidential Veto

(CBS/AP)  The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.

But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush's promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Mr. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.

Senate backers of the bill say they expect to have a veto-proof margin when they vote, which should increase pressure on President Bush on an issue that polls show has very strong public support, CBS Radio News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

The White House said the bill — the third bill of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda to pass the House — "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."

At stake was whether research on cells taken from human embryos — considered by scientists to be the most promising approach to developing potential treatments or cures for dozens of diseases — should be underwritten with taxpayer funds.

The debate raises passions because the research typically involves the destruction of frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization. It draws fierce opposition from anti-abortion lawmakers and like-minded constituents who believe their taxes should not fund such research. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway.

"I support stem cell research with only one exception — research that requires killing human life," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community."

Democrats countered with Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager. The research, Langevin said, offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."

Dr. Robert Lanza, a top stem cell researcher at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc., said that stem cell-based treatments could be just a few years away for eye and spinal cord injuries, but that a decade or more of research is needed before treatments might become available for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's.

Polls show most Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the issue played a big role in the Nov. 7 elections that returned their party to the majority in the House and Senate.

But in the House, Democratic gains of 30 seats don't translate into anywhere near that number of new votes for the embryonic stem cell research bill, sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del.

For starters, many Democratic freshmen defeated more moderate Republicans who voted for the bill when it originally passed in 2005 and on an unsuccessful veto override attempt last year. And some Republicans who supported the bill have been replaced with opponents of the measure.

As a result, House embryonic stem cell research proponents have gained only 15 votes over the high-water mark of 238 in the prior GOP-controlled House.

If every House member votes, it takes 290 votes to override a veto, and both the House and Senate must override a veto for a bill to become law without a president's signature.

President Bush will also likely veto legislation requiring the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare, Republican officials said Thursday.

The House is scheduled to debate and vote Friday on the bill, which is one of a handful of priority items for Democrats who gained control of Congress in last fall's elections.

Scientists still say, however, that embryonic stem cells so far are backed by the most promising evidence that one day they might be used to grow replacements for damaged tissue, such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

The legislation would lift Mr. Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. President Bush's veto of the bill last year was the first veto of his presidency.

Embryonic stem cells are able to morph into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body. Mr. Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, restricted government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

But those 21 stem cell lines have many problems, and researchers say 300 newer lines, culled from fertility clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away, are considered better suited for implantation into sick Americans.

Scientists take those cells from a 5-day-old embryo, when it's bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

[webdepot]

I'm sure Dumbya will veto the bill, much to the delight of the Repuk-a-Cons.. Embryonic stem cell research will continue though, whether from private funding or the funding provided by forward thinking states like California and Massachusets.

But the total hypocrisy of these Repuk-a-Cons will come when they eagerly accept any cures derived from this research rather than rejecting them because of how they were developed.. and that will happen right up to and including the pope.

When the lives of the rich, who want to live forever to enjoy their millions and billions, or the lives of the super religious, are on the line, watch how quickly their tune changes from save the unborn to kill the little b@st@rds in order to save me... After all, I'm much more important than any embryo.. yea.... right... hypocrits.

[randalds]

Religion is garbage period! These people are ignorant slobs

Posted by george2221 at 04:49 PM : Jan 12, 2007

Amen.

[olgreyghost]

Rafterman1:

Try this test www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

You might like it...

[scouser691]

In any other western country these religous right wackos would be recognized for the baffoons they are. Go ahead Bush veto, rest assured wacko's stem cell research will progress throughout the rest of the world and eventually it will be accepted as norm in U.S. Just delaying inevitable wacko's.

[rafterman1]

You know, now that I think of it, maybe I'm being too hard on 'ol Bushie. I think he likes the poor and middle class fine and would sign all sorts of bills to help them. So as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of his rich friends to make money. If it does, then forget it. The "haves" get to "have" even more I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the uber-rich. I hope to be one myself one day :) But I figure that the rich and superrich really don't need government assistance to make them even richer.

[rafterman1]

With all the recent legislation passing, George Bush is showing his true colors (not that he hasn't already). The Democrats have passed a number of bills, almost of them designed to help people, especially the poor and middle class. And our dear leader is goig to veto almost all of them, siding with the corporate view. The only thing he may sign is minimum wage - and even then, only is some tax cuts are given to companies. But the last straw is the bill designed to give the government the right to negotiate drug prices. Of course, Bush will side with the drug companies and veto that as well.

The few times this idiot-in-chief has wielded his veto, it's been on legislation designed to help people. But give him a good juicy tax cut for the rich or a spending bill, and he's all over that. I have never seen such a disdain for the poor and middle class like I've seen from Bush.

And the ironic thing is, many Republicans are actually voting for some of these bills along with Democrats. But Bush won't even help out his own party by giving them some help for future election campaigns by signing these bills and making the Republicans look good. Bush's selfishness knows no bounds.

[rafterman1]

jeffk1623,

Thanks :) As a general concept, conservatism isn't bad, but it seems these days that many of the people who believe in it are. It's all right for some to say "OK, let's slow down a bit, I need time before being dragged into the future." But conservatism has moved from a set a specific, well, conservative, beliefs to an almost suedo-religion itself. And, as is the case with most religions, it becomes "believe in what I believe or die".

Now I know that conservatives will accuse liberals of the same thing, believe in our ideas or I'm going to attack you. And I myself haven't always expressed myself in the kidest of words to some around here :) But there's a difference in having a belief and trying to interfere with our lives to force others to that belief. For example, if you are are against g@y marriage, fine, while I personally have no problem with g@y people, I am not going to smack people around for those who don't like them. Believe what they want. But when people go and try and make laws to prevent g@ys from getting married or get benefits, now they are directly interfering in the g@y people's lives and that isn't OK, it isn't their place. While there are some liberal activist groups trying to get legilation passed too, like gun control for example, conservative groups probably outnumber liberal groups 100-1 when it somes to this sort of thing.

[rf35]

I know some liberal Christians. I used to be a conservative atheist. Now I%u2019m a moderate agnostic leaning toward Wiccan beliefs, but that%u2019s not the point. The point is that if a few cells destined to be tossed in the bin could relegate wheel chairs to museum display pieces, then I%u2019m all for it! And how can anyone possibly oppose stem cell research, yet support the war in Iraq (which I have fought in, thank you very much)? Human cells (NOT potential humans) vs. American, British, Australian, Japanese, etc. lives? These are real, living, thinking humans, not medical waste! Think, people! By the way, I thought our reason for going to war was good enough, but enough already. Saddam is dead, now Iraq needs to have its civil war without our help! Get us out and spend a fraction of the money going to the war on stem cell research. Spend some more on workable ways to secure our boarders from terrorists and other illegals. Spend a big chunk on alternative energy. Give the rest back to us in the form of a tax reduction for the lower- and middle-classes. Oh, and Blessed be!

[random_radar]

Actually, there are only two sources of violence in the world: criminals and governments. And arguably, they are one and the same.

[jeffk1623]

Rafterman1

Your posts are probably some of the best I have read on this site. I will have to agree completely that religion is not the core of problems and that conservatism is. While I do not prescribe to religion as my basis for living it does bring much satisfaction and comfort to others and as long as people do not attempt to shove it at me I am fine with them believing what ever they want to. It is terrible how the conservatives has used religion to influence people against others.

[olgreyghost]

"The truth is, conservatism is the cause of much of the world's violence."

Actually, attributing negative characteristics to one's political rival in absolute terms is the cause of most of the fear in the world and most of the violence is an irrational response to fear. That's just the nature of being human.

There are more points on the political paradigm than the dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative. Statists are most destructive to the good of all mankind whether their purposes are liberal (communitarian) or conservative (fascist). Destroy the state and destroy the fear and most of the problems of mankind caused by poor relations will resolve themselves.

"Two persons constantly banging heads can rarely be assured of peace but they can be assured of having headaches..."

[jeffk1623]

I'm not even going to dignify your ***-backwards assumptions of me and people like me. I chew you libs up in conversation because you don't have anything worthy to say. When you're cornered on a subject all you can do is dodge the issue or blame someone else Preferably a conservative or a Christian.
Don't get comfortable. Yours will be a short rein. You and your limp wrist buddies will be evicted.
Posted by libsarenuts at 07:25 PM : Jan 11, 2007

The only reason you FEEL that you chew liberals up is that you are to narrow and close minded to listen to anything but right wing propaganda.

As far as your short rein comment...look around the number of people that support your position is growing smaller and smaller. So explain how you and your kind are going to take back power?

As I stated before you and your NEOCON CHRISTIAN beliefs are relics and America has grown tired of watching you suppress our rights and enforce your limited views.

[rafterman1]

The truth is, conservatism is the cause of much of the world's violence. Whenever you have groups of people who look to the past and refuse to accept new ways of doing things, refuse to negotiate or even budge an inch - who think war is the first option and not the last because anything less would look "weak", you are going to get conflict - always.

[rafterman1]

Actually, Jesus is welcome in the liberal world. We just don't want him shoved down people's throats. We don't think religion should be forced upon anyone. Since the country is not 100% Catholic, to put one religion above others is unfair to the millions who don't subscribe to the faith.

Another thing to think about regarding liberals and conservatives. Right now, trouble's a-brewin' with Iran and it's nuclear program. Who's running Iran now? The religious CONSERVATIVES. The liberals in Iran want to drop the whole nuke program. It's the conservatives in Iran (and the Muslim world in general) that drive the hard line violence.

Meanwhile, on our side, the conservatives want to fight as much as the Iranian conservatives do and are pushing for war. Look what happens if conservatives run the show. Almost certain war. Now, if the liberals ran things, Iran wouldn't want a nuke program and therefore we wouldn't want to fight them.

A simplistic view of a complex world perhaps, but fairly accurate just the same. If liberals ran the world, we wouldn't need to fight as much (since the bar for war would be much higher) and countries wouldn't do as many stupid things to provoke others (like lying to get us into another Middle Eastern war or running clandestine nuke terror programs).

[rmsdm4]

That's right, turn it over the the government and let them screw it up. The only thing the government does well is print money, deliver mail, and blow stuff up. Other than that, the rest is a failure.(FEMA, Education, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Amtrak...) All of these programs have diarea of the wallet. If this is truly the magic cure for what ailes us, then let private sector develop it.

[dallison7]

"A CONSERVATIVE GOES TO HEAVEN", upon arriving at the 'republicans only heaven' he announces that he had been out drinking and doing drugs with Rush and W the night before and needed to relieve his bladder. St. Peter told him to 'go over and **** down through that hole in the clouds'. He looked down through the hole in the clouds and said to St. Peter, "there are thousands of people down there", to which St. Peter (the republican) responded, "those are the poor and oppressed, the disease stricken and hungry of the world... **** ON THEM!!"

[olgreyghost]

I have no problem with stem-cell research being kept legal (or not criminalized) by the government. I believe medical ethicists can make their own determination. What I have a problem with is that the government will steal, at gunpoint, from me and others to pay for it, which is criminal. Let it be legal for those who want to pursue it to do so and let them and their supporters pay for it.

"Render unto Caesar..."

[randalds]

You're not good enough to shine George's shoes.

Posted by libsarenuts at 04:27 PM : Jan 11, 2007

And you're perfect for the job. Try using your tongue to get that real spit-shine look though.

[randalds]

Maybe you are right, and the "religious wackos" you checked out ARE religious wackos. You are right to STAY AWAY from them. BUT you don't want to short yourself by missing out on the food from good places. You are on my prayer list, you remember! You can't get away from God when He has his eye on YOU! He probably thinks you are special!
Posted by Hermit22 at 02:52 AM : Jan 12, 2007

You are refreshingly polite about disagreeing with me. Thank you for that. I don't, as some have claimed, "hate god" or anything like that and I have no problem with being on someone prayer list (What the hell, couldn't hurt, right?). I just don't believe it all and I get upset when people who do believe preach to me like if they just said some magic words I might suddenly start believing. I find it very insulting. As if I'm just too stupid to understand what they're saying when I have spent a lot of time studying religion and have made my decision on it. I'll check out the site after a grab some sleep (long night at work).

[randalds]

RandalDS -
how very sad to actually see the email name of someone that for sure will spend eternity in hell.
Posted by jetlizhan at 08:59 AM : Jan 12, 2007

There is no hell (except maybe when I was putting up with my 2nd mother-in-law) just like there's no heaven. It's all a myth. A fairy tale. No more real then Valhalla. The Judeo-Christian god is no more real then was Odin, Baal, Zeus, etc. Just a story. Not real. Didn't happen.