Bush Loses Lott on Stem Cells

From the Boston Globe:

A majority of the US Senate has signed a letter asking President Bush to lift the government's funding restrictions on embryonic stem cells, increasing the pressure to change a policy critics say is holding back potentially lifesaving medical research.

The letter, which is still being circulated for signatures and has not yet been released, says the United States is falling behind in research into diseases "that affect more than 100 million Americans" and calls on the president to "expand" the current policy. It has been signed by 56 senators, including conservatives Trent Lott of Mississippi, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, and 10 other Republicans.
…..
The Senate letter, which mirrors one released by the House of Representatives two months ago, is a sign of how the political terrain has changed since Bush issued his policy in August 2001.

Since then, groups representing victims of diseases that might be helped by the research -- such as Parkinson's or juvenile diabetes -- have been aggressively lobbying Congress. This campaign has included pleading visits from children who have diabetes, as well as a powerful speech from former first lady Nancy Reagan. Though many legislators remain firmly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, the campaign has taken some of the partisan edge off the debate and given the president a measure of political cover should he decide to alter the policy.
……
Backers of the Senate letter want more signatures because they are still short of the 60 senators whose approval would be needed to force a vote on a controversial topic.

The letter raises the prospect that the ban could be lifted with new legislation, but even critics of Bush's policy consider that unlikely. It would be hard to find the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress needed to overturn a presidential veto, Soler conceded. Instead, the senators offer to work with Bush to forge a new policy.

Comments

[Warren]

Stem cell research is a good thing, but I don't support lifting funding restrictions. On the contrary I'd rather all federal funding (and regulation) of medical research be restricted. Preferably to zero.

[Thorley Winston]

Stem cell research is a good thing, but I don't support lifting funding restrictions. On the contrary I'd rather all federal funding (and regulation) of medical research be restricted. Preferably to zero.

Yes it does seem rather odd to see a supposed "libertarian" magazine upset that the federal government is deciding not to fund something with our tax dollars. I'm surprised that we have not seen more articles in Reason talking about the obvious upside ? with the federal government out of (or at least substantially reducing its role in) the subsidizing stem cell research business, this creates more incentive for a private sector solution.

[Thorley Winston]

Question for Brian Doherty:

Regardless of the merits and potential of stem cell research, do you think that the federal government should be in the business of paying for medical research?

[Jennifer]

I support the idea of government-funded medical research. The preamble to the Constitution DOES have the phrase "support the general welfare," and I'd say medical research falls into that category.

Of course, I'm not a true-blue libertarian.

[kevrob]

The Constitution's main author would disagree with Jennifer.

"The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. . . ." Regarding the general welfare phrase specifically, he said: "To refer the power in question to the clause 'to provide for the common defense and general welfare' would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them. . . "

James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 11 (New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), pp. 569-70. quoted James Madison @ http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/general.shtml

I do not get angry about the federal funding restrictions on stem-cell research as:

1.) Most federal research funding is not authorized by the Constitution, and stem-cell research certainly isn't.

2.) While I don't agree with the theories the pro-lifers hold regarding the personhood of fetuses, if I did, I would also see the harvesting of such cells from the bodies of "dead babies" as grotesque. Who says A must say B.

Kevin

[jeff]

I'm by no means doubting anything that was said in that letter since Bush's stem cell position, more than anything else, is what had me considering voting for someone else (that is, until i saw who the Dems were running), I'm only saying/asking this out of curiousity, but that 100 million number strikes me as high.

they use the term "affected", so are they including not just people who have those diseases, but also family members and others whose lives are changed/altered by having to deal with a loved one having such a disease.

For example, would Nancy Reagan or Michael J Fox's wife fall under the category of someone affected?

[Gadfly]

"...the campaign has taken some of the partisan edge off the debate and given the president a measure of political cover should he decide to alter the policy."

Or do you mean "flip flop"?

[chthus]

Jeff,

I don't think the figure would include family members. However they are likely including anyone at any stage of diseases that may potentially be treated with stem cell advancements. This would include Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/infoCenter/stemCellBasics.asp#6

I wouldn't call this number dishonest, but they are definitely using statistics to their own favor.

[Thorley Winston]

I agree with Kevin although I am pro-life, I draw the line at brainwaves rather than conception. As such it really is not a moral issue for me. However I agree with the moratorium on both constitutional/limited government and privatization/free market grounds ? two things that libertarians are supposed to be in favor of.

It seems interesting though that Reason Magazine and other purported ?libertarians? would criticize Bush for (a) stopping the government from funding something that is not authorized by our Constitution and (b) has the effect of encouraging the private sector to step in (which is where it should be funded anyway). This would seem to be a golden opportunity for proponents of privatization to step in say ?here is why medical research can and should be funded by the private sector and not taxpayers.?

Bush is doing the right thing on this one (even if you do not share his pro-life rationale) and the ?libertarians? who are belly-aching about this are simply being hypocrites.