Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill
Veto Is His Second Of Stem Cell Legislation During Presidency
-
Play CBS Video Video Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill After vetoing a stem cell research bill, President Bush issued an executive order directing the government to take its research in a new direction. Susan Roberts reports.
-
-
President Bush speaks about embryonic stem cell research, Wednesday, June 20, 2007, in the East Room at the White House. (AP)
-
If the measure President Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. (CBS)
-
President Bush embraced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at Tuesday's congressional picnic. A day later he rejected Congress' Democratic-led stem cell legislation. (AP)
-
-
Timeline Stem Cell Debate The scientific advance sets off an ethical debate that rages on.
-
Interactive Stem Cell Research Follow the debate, and learn how and why the cells are harvested.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
"Today's veto, like last year's, is a cruel betrayal of the hopes of millions of patients and their families across America whose hope for a brighter future and a healthier life depend on stem cell research," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in a statement. "President Bush is as stubborn and wrong about stem cell research as he is about Iraq."
Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
The White House says that since 2001, the administration has made $130 million available for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that already had been destroyed before Bush's policy was announced. It also has provided more than $3 billion in federal dollars for research on non-embryonic sources.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.
Bush said his executive order directs the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that — like human embryonic stem cells — also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease, and make them eligible for federal funding.
The order also renames the NIH's Embryonic Stem Cell Registry the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry so that it reflects what the stem cells can do, instead of their origin. Pluripotent stem cells are ones that can give rise to any kind of cell in the body except those required to develop a fetus.
“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us,” said Bush, who appeared on stage with Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Conn., who was born with spina bifida, and is benefiting from what he called “ethical stem cell research.”
Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, expressed anger and disgust at the veto and Bush's order.
“His executive order directing NIH to continue pursing alternate forms of research is nothing new since NIH has already been conducting this research for the past 20 years,” Tipton said.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill's chief Democratic supporter who has a daughter with juvenile diabetes, said the executive order is not a substitute for easing funding restrictions.
“While I support these other methods of research, the consensus among the scientific community is that these methods are years behind the progress of embryonic stem cell research,” she said, adding that British scientists recently announced that embryonic stem cells may be used to cure a form of macular degeneration within five years. “This research was made possible by an anonymous donation from a U.S. donor, who has become frustrated by curbs on stem cell work in this country.”
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- Posted by veteran71
Im getting used to your off topic tyrades of disgusting puke.
Why do you post this aryan brotherhood claptrap on a string for stem cell research?
Ill take the simplest answer to be that you dont care what the topic is, as long as you get to insult everything that condemns white supremacy. - Reply to this comment
- Why all the debate?
They dont need embryo's. - Reply to this comment
- Embryonic Stem Cells Can Be Created Without Eggs
Adapted from the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
Embryonic stem cells are unique because they can develop into virtually any kind of tissue type, an attribute called pluripotency. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (%u201Ctherapeutic cloning%u201D) offers the hope of one day creating customized embryonic stem cells with a patient%u2019s own DNA. Here, an individual%u2019s DNA would be placed into an egg, resulting in a blastocyst that houses a supply of stem cells. But to access these cells, researchers must destroy a viable embryo.
Now, scientists at Whitehead Institute have demonstrated that embryonic stem cells can be created without eggs. By genetically manipulating mature skin cells taken from a mouse, the scientists have transformed these cells back into a pluripotent state, one that appears identical to an embryonic stem cell in every way. No eggs were used, and no embryos destroyed.
%u201CThese reprogrammed cells, by all criteria that we can apply, are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells,%u201D says Whitehead Member and MIT professor of biology Rudolf Jaenisch, senior author of the paper that will appear online June 6, 2007 in Nature.
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/June_2007.html#1 - Reply to this comment
- 86% of the media supports dems. Do you all really think you get fair reporting???
Posted by infidel_us at 12:25 PM : Jun 21, 2007
They will say yes. It's funny, they demonize the one channel that really does have fair reporting. They don't want to know the real truth on anything. - Reply to this comment
- i'll trust an agreed stance taken by 1000+ doctors over the disenting voices of just 3 neocon ASHHoLES
Posted by parrot2 at 10:24 AM : Jun 21, 2007
Your choice, don't really care what it is. There are always two sides to every story though, don't you owe it to yourself to learn them both? - Reply to this comment
- Bet you won't see this on CBS' website:
"6-21-07 MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
86% of the media supports dems. Do you all really think you get fair reporting??? - Reply to this comment
- ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush!!
Posted by MCVet at 11:36 AM : Jun 21, 2007
ROFLMAO....it must hurt.....LOL....going through life.....ROFL.....as a complete.....LOL.....imbicile......ROFLMFAO! :)
Better hurry....you'll miss your soaps and Oprah! - Reply to this comment
- Too bad there couldn't have been just one more abortion. The best part of this *** dribled down the crack of his mom's arse.
Posted by infidel_us at 11:29 AM : Jun 21, 2007
Oh come on!! You have to do better than that! Didn't you get involved at the last session at your Nazi Youth Camp? ROFLMAO But then when was the FIRST time you clowns supported ONE of our rights, especially the one about Freedom of Speech! ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush!! - Reply to this comment
- Bush is an idiot, but in this case, he's right. It's the SAME THING as using federal funds to fund highly disrespectful/objectionable "art".....this sort of thing is NOT the role of the federal government.
It's bad enough we have to fund NPR.....I do not want my tax dollars going to this cause. If I wanted to fund it, I would buy stock in companies that engauge in the research.
Posted by infidel_us at 11:05 AM : Jun 21, 2007
Who are YOU to determine what is or is not the role of our Government. That Governments role is whatever "We the People" want it to be. Now I know that's a hard thing for you Fascist to understand, being that you are so "Superior" but that's the Constitution. Sieg Heil Bush!! - Reply to this comment
- ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush!!!
Posted by MCVet at 11:25 AM : Jun 21, 2007
Too bad there couldn't have been just one more abortion. The best part of this *** dribled down the crack of his mom's arse. - Reply to this comment
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.




