More Thoughts On Obama's Stem Cell Order

Here are some more thoughts from the professionals regarding Obama's recent order to free embryonic stem cell research:

Kathryn Jean Lopez

Obama Lifts Restrictions on Stem Cell Research; Wants Congress To Do More

By Alex Wayne and Adriel Bettelheim, CQ Staff

By lifting former President George W. Bush ’s restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, President Obama creates an opportunity for Congress to write new rules assuring expanded government support for the fast-growing field.

Codifying the Obama administration’s position would enable stem cell researchers to tap some of the $10 billion in funding for National Institutes of Health biomedical research contained in the recently enacted economic stimulus package (PL 111-5).

It also would block any of Obama’s successors from overturning his support through similar executive actions.

“Congress is likely to cement this policy so it would take a majority of the House and Senate to overturn it,” said Michael Rugnetta, a bioethics researcher at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that advised the administration on the issue.

Yuval Levin

Even for those of us who expected the worst from the Obama stem cell policy, the actual text of his Executive Order is a bit of a shock. It describes no particular ethical restraints whatsoever—not against funding the use of embryos created for research, or cloned embryos, or anything else. And it offers not even a mention of an ethical debate. The only case for the policy it makes is that “advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds.” Agreement in the scientific community seems to be all that matters in making federal funding policy. And it then leaves it up to NIH to make all the rules. It’s all science and no ethics, and doesn't even bother to pretend otherwise.

James C. Capretta

It seems the president’s moderate-sounding rhetoric during the campaign and early days in office had convinced many in the political class that he would abandon the political identity he had forged while serving as a legislator and govern from the center.

Now they know better, or at least they should.

Let’s hope the same awakening is occurring among those self-described pro-lifers who vociferously supported the Obama candidacy.

Governing is choosing, as the saying goes, and no amount of words can obscure the priorities reflected in President Obama’s decisions. Less than two months into his term, it should be obvious to all concerned, including voters, that the president’s sympathies lie with a strongly liberal social-policy agenda which is completely at odds with any sensible understanding of traditional moral reasoning.

What does this mean for pro-lifers? Going forward, there should be little wasted energy on “common ground” efforts. What’s needed are tactics to minimize the damage while a thoughtful game plan is put in place to use the excesses of the Obama agenda to leverage electoral victories the next time voters go to the polls.

Charles Krauthammer

What Obama is doing is he's expanding the range of the federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cells. He is allowing the use of embryos that were created in fertility clinics and are not going to be used anymore.

Now, I supported that when I was on the president's council of bioethics and in my writing, which I suppose is why the White House invited me to the signing ceremony.

But I declined for three reasons. One is the president has left open the cloning of human embryos in order to destroy them in experiments. Secondly, he leaves open the creation of human embryos entirely for the purpose of research and experimentation.

And thirdly, he had a memorandum which he signed in which he talks about restoring the scientific integrity in government decisions, which is an outrageous attack on Bush.

I disagreed with where Bush ended up drawing the line on permissible research, but he gave in August of 2001 the single most morally serious presidential speech on medical ethics ever given, and Obama did not, even though I agree on where — I agree more on where he ended up.

So I think it was disrespectful. And in pretending, as Obama did, that there's never a conflict between ethics and science, he was wrong.

Just some more food for thought.

There's my two cents.