Posted on 07/29/2005 6:08:02 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Breaking with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday he now supports legislation to remove some of the administration's limitations on embryonic stem cell research.
Frist, an abortion opponent who just last month said he did not support expanding federal financing of research on embryos, said his decision was consistent with both his experience as a physician and his anti-abortion stance.
"Now is the time to expand the president's policy because it's promising research, but it must be done in a way that is ethically considerate, that respects the dignity of human life," said Frist, who also is a heart and lung transplant surgeon.
The Tennessee Republican, who has been said to be eyeing a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, said only stem cells from embryos that "would otherwise be discarded," not implanted in a woman or frozen indefinitely, should be considered for research.
Bush has threatened to veto legislation for expanded financial support for stem cell research. A bill to finance more stem cell research has passed the House, but has been stalled in the Senate. Frist's support could push it closer to passage and set up a confrontation with Bush.
Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," Frist said his decision was based on policy, not politics.
Almost two-thirds of Americans say they support embryonic stem cell research and a majority of people say they would like to see fewer restrictions on taxpayer funding for those studies, according to recent polls.
"From those cells we have the potential for looking at those diseases that everybody knows about, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and others," Frist said.
The senator planned to further outline his policy in a speech on the Senate floor later Friday, explaining why he believes embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged, even though he is "strong pro-life" and considers the embryo to be "life in its earliest stage of development."
To many abortion opponents, the two views seem to conflict. Frist says they do not.
"I give huge moral significance to the human embryo, it is nascent human life, what that means is as we advance science, we treat that embryo with dignity, with respect," Frist said.
He credited Bush with opening the doors for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and said when this policy was announced in 2001, policy-makers thought 78 stem cell lines would be available. Since then, the number has dropped to 22.
"Those 22 cell lines are not of the quality for human application or human therapy, and that's why today I believe we need to modify that policy," Frist said.
When Bush announced his position on stem cell research, he said the government should pay only for research of stem cell colonies, or lines, that had already been created at that time, so that the "life or death" decision had already been made.
Frist said additional stem cells should be used, so long as there was a careful process of informed consent in which the parents had decided that the embryos should be discarded, not adopted or frozen.
Dear Senator Frist,
Many abortions today are performed in the 5th month of pregnancy, when genetic problems can be detected by amniocentesis. So when the pregnant woman says that she is sure she wants to abort the baby, now scientists can swoop down after the doctors remove it and take parts out to help old people with diseases?
Was Jonathan Swift's Proposal not so wrong, after all?
Sincerely,
FReeper Yaelle
The taxpayer funding is also very problematic when you consider how many people do not want their taxes used for this particular research; why not put it to a vote, at the very least?! Which reminds me...I wonder how the state-funded embryo research in Kalifornia is coming along?
Perhaps his change of position comes after reviewing another video.
"Who needs Democrats when the GOP does just fine promoting ____________"
You can also insert Socialism into that phrase.
It isn't about morals, regardless of what you think about embryonic stem cells....it's about this march towards a Socialist America. It isnt the government's role to fund this crap! Yet again, a Republican has proposed it.....more socialism from the so called "right"
Very Good Point!!!!!
Is it OK for the federal gov't to fund cancer research, other medical research, or be involved in public health issues like disease control, or do you think all that's socialism too?
In fact, the federal gov't is far too big and involved in too many things, but there are still areas where it can be very useful without undermining freedom and privacy.
Orrin Hatch was just on on Fox News / Special Report w/Brit Hume questioning advice the President received re: embryonic stem cell research.
No...not really. Where's it end? Do they find every research project for every illness known to man?
"Is it OK for the federal gov't to fund cancer research, other medical research, or be involved in public health issues like disease control, or do you think all that's socialism too? "
Nope. The FDA is bunk too. Dissolve it....
Yet more reasons why I oppose government funding...look at the disproportionate funding (politics comes into play once again):
The CDC dedicates more money to AIDS/HIV than to any other disease.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading killer of men and women (See "Adult mortality, Profile of the Nation's Health" CDC fact book 2000-2001).
In 2000, 710,760 people died from a cardiovascular related disease, and 553,091 died from cancer, yet 14,270 died from AIDS.
Data from the CDC Budget Request Summary 2004
Disease Actual CDC Budget
Arthritis $13,808,000
Breast and Cervical Cancer $191,965,000
HIV/AIDS -research and domestic $787,421,000
HIV/AIDS - Global (CDC wide) $143,720,000
HIV/AIDS - (CDC wide) $931,141,000
Total HIV/AIDS $1,962,282,000
Diabetes $61,683,000
Hep C $21,930,000
Prostate Cancer $14,062,000
Skin Cancer $1,647,000
I meant "nope" [its not ok for the government to fund] to the items you listed, not to the part where you said "do you think that's all socialism too".
I just watched the MacNeil Hour report on the state of embryonic stem cell research. There is plenty of that going on. California, Mass. Conn. private foundations. The complaint was that there is such a hodgepodge of research, well the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. I contend that only when you have competing centers of research will you get results. The next thing we will hear is that the United Nations should coordinate the research. Oh, and by the way adult stem cells have produced cures, not speculative promise.
Those numbers are amazing. Almost $2 billion for HIV/AIDS and only $14 million on prostate cancer! Instead of hearings on drugs used by baseball players, Congress should have public hearings about the root cause of AIDS: homosexual sodomy, with graphic descriptions of what that actually means for the viewing public on PBS. Rated XXX. Tell the public how many of their tax dollars are being spent for same.
A long list of diseases actually are self-inflicted (by smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc.), not just bad luck.
"Those numbers are amazing. Almost $2 billion for HIV/AIDS and only $14 million on prostate cancer! "
They really are, arent they?
It's sad because AIDS is almost DIRECTLY preventable, whereas prostate cancer and other diseases are related to diet and genetic predisposition.
Just imagine what would happen with Socialist Healthcare or rather Government Enforced Death. You'd have to pay for OTHER people's genetic susceptibilities and/or lifestyle habits (smoking, drugs, drinking, etc).
I agree but we need to remember that even our President allowed federal $$$ to be used for some stem cell research killing more babies.
Personaly Im giving up on the Republicans until they are ready to take a Strong Morale Christian stand on ALL issues.
If They cant do it we need to find Some One who can.
Uh-hunh..
So what party are you voting for then?
Hmmm?
"Can anybody get Frist to say something nice about Strom Thurmond, then we can throw him under the bus. "
You FReepers really make me laugh, I need that these days with this pathetic "leadership".
I think we should throw Frist overboard too. I realize that senators rarely become president, but if someone is the Majority leader of the senate, do they have even LESS of a chance? I ask this because I wonder if George Allen might be a good replacement? If not, what about Coburn?
NO one until I can find some one who is willing to stand up for Christian Morality. What about Pat Robertson? Maybe he couldnt win but he could force every one to tell us where they stand on these issues and then we could hold them to there word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.