We think you're near Los Angeles

Currently in Los Angeles

Location: Los Angeles Current temperature: 54°F: Current condition: Light Rain See Extended Forecast

Finally, some intellectual honesty from the NY Times on stem cells

Wonders never cease. The New York Times acknowledges President Bush's "careful compromise" in finding a way to allow federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research:

The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.

For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.

Once again we find President Obama trying to be on both sides of a very divisive issue. On Friday, reports indicated Obama would be lifting the Dickey-Wicker prohibition on using federal funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.

According to the Times, Obama intends to sign an executive order that "will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created." Melody C. Barnes, Obama's chief domestic policy adviser, says the president believes stem cell research "should be done in compliance with federal law."

How will Obama's executive order allow human embryonic stem cell research "in compliance with federal law?" Only Congress can overturn the Dickey-Wicker prohibition.

 


First 100 Day Special Report: Obama's First 100 Days
Exclusive examiner.com coverage of the Obama administration's promise to bring about change.
Advertisement

By

Right Side Politics Examiner

Dan Spencer has been blogging at, and as, California Yankee since 2003. He lives in Connecticut and practices law in New York. Here he will discuss...

Comments

  • Matt 2 years ago
    Report Abuse

    If we can take the moral equation out of the stem cell argument, we still must deal with the legal aspects of this.

    Since science can now produce an individual Human Embryo, and keep in living outside of a human host, the question is, “are these Human Embryo’s "born"?

    Relative is science’s ability to nurture the Human Embryo. But according to the law these Human Embryos are indeed "born" and living outside of an individual host (a mother). They may need aids to sustain life, much like an individual on life support, but never the less, science is sustaining a life outside of a human host, thus, giving the Human Embryos Constitution Rights.

Add a new comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Don't miss...