Question for Hillary: "Who Puts Ideology Before Science?"
Answer: The Dems, not President Bush as she claims,
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 President Bush kept his word & again vetoed a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. As usual, the Dems began screaming about how horrible Bush was & how cruel he was to deny hope.
"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families." Hillary Clinton
According to Barak Obama The president is "deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives."
"President Bush won't listen to the more than 500 leading organizations who support the bill including AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Diabetes Association, just to name a few. President Bush won't listen to the 80 Nobel laureates or his own director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who all support embryonic stem cell research. Most importantly, President Bush won't listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who call out for stem cell research." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
"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. " Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo
But, as I've pointed out before, it is the Dems who won't listen. Bringing out the old canards about denying hope, they failed to notice who was there with President Bush when he gave his speech explaining his veto. Or maybe I should say, intentionally ignored. Right up there besides him was Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Conn. She was born with spina bifida. She was a prime example of someone who has benifited from "ethical stem cell research."
Yet, even when presented with evidence that shows adult & umbilical cord researchis the form that is succeeding,the Dems keep lying. & as you can see from the quote of Rep. DeGette do so boldfacedly, without any shame about the fact that they are. Anything using embryonic stem cells is at best, a maybe, a specious nebulous hope. Adult & umbilical stem cell research has produced REAL HOPE, REAL TREATMENT right now. (About 73 treatments & cures as listed here.)
& why are they doing this? Well, I have to agree with what was said last nite (Fri 22 June 2007) on EWTN's The World Over. The question came up & the answer put forward, the effect admiting this was life would have on the legality of abortion. If it is wrong to use embryos for stem cell research because they are a human life then it becomes just as wrong to abort the unborn child.
The Republican National Coalition for Life made a similar statement: "As long as the human embryo has some measure of legal protection in this country, and as long as the American people consider such protection a moral imperative, we have a chance to some day end legal abortion. The killing of human embryos for research is supported by public officials who are, in general, pro-abortion. They realize that the fate of the human embryo is at the core of the battle over the right to life and the 34-year effort to reestablish legal protection of that right under the U.S. Constitution. "
I'd like to have Rep. DeGette, or Sen. Harkin meet the guest they had on The World Over who's cancer was successful treated with a treatment that they claim doesn't exist.
As for Sen. Reid, while he is right about what NIH chief Elias Zerhouni has said, maybe the 2 of them better check out the NIH's website & see what it says. While it plugs the use of embryonic stem cells it has to admit the following fact: "Adult stem cells…are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases…The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer." Wait a minute, I thought Sens. Harkin & DeGette claimed that there wasn't any success for diabetes using adult stem cells? (The NIH site tries to downplay the success to build up what it wants, embryonic research. However, you can find more here that counters Zerhouni & NIH's claims.)
I also like the way Sen. Reid twists facts. He talks about an "overwhelming majority" calling out for stem cell research. The reality is different. A 2006 poll shows that "48% of Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, while only 39% support such funding." That shows that 13% have no opinion. So how does he come to his "overwhelming majority"?
When he says an overwhelming majority support stem cell research he leaves out 1 key fact, that the real majority (58.6%) supports using only adult & other non-embryonic sources. The only way he gets to an overwhelming majority is by adding in the 23.6% who support embryonic research as an alternative to the 56.8% majority who want only ethical research. So, while the majority do want stem cell research, to imply that the overwhelming majority of Americans are behind fetal/embryonic stem cell research as he does is disingeneous, an outright lie. Esp since the other implication in what he is saying is that no research is going on right now. The other "big lie" equating fetal/embryonic with all stem cell research. The reality, the truth, as you can see, is quite different.
President Bush was right when he said: "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us." Kudos to President Bush for doing the right thing & vetoing a bill that would put us further down the path of enshrining evil as national policy.
So, back to the original question: "Who is putting ideology before science, politics before family?" The answer, Hillary, Barak, Harry, Tom & the rest of the Dems who support embryonic stem cell research. Maybe they ought to read this: Patients, Not Politics. Or are they too afraid to confront the truth?
More info here:
posted by Al @ 4:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home