[Also posted at The Next Hurrah]
In the middle of the Terri Schiavo media circus, a surprising item on the GOP congressional agenda has slipped under the radar. No, it's not about banning stem cell research. In fact, they're discussing changes to Bush's stem cell research policy.
The story is below the fold.
The
New York Times has the
story (the
bold emphasis is mine):
Representative Michael N. Castle, the Delaware Republican who is leader of a group of party moderates who have been pushing to ease restrictions on financing stem cell research, said the leadership pledged to take up some version of a proposal to allow federally financed research on stem cells taken from leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics.
Under a policy set by President Bush in August 2001, federal research financing is available only for the finite number of stem cell lines in use before that time, a number initially thought to be about 60 but now thought to be 22.
[snip]
Mr. Castle said the Republican leadership agreed in meetings on Wednesday and Thursday of last week to consider the proposal. Those same days the House was racing to enact emergency legislation in the case of Terri Schiavo, the critically brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was disconnected last week. In contrast to the Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case, adoption of the stem cell proposal would be a setback for those who argue for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Of course, the usual critics are speaking up. Note the statement in bold (my emphasis):
The proposal - in a bill introduced by Mr. Castle and Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado - focuses the ethical debate over stem cell research on the narrower subject of leftover embryos created in efforts at conception and destined to be discarded. Proponents of the proposal contend that the leftover embryos, which could be used only with the permission of the couple, have already passed the point where a decision has to be made between life and destruction.
Social conservatives argue, however, that such embryos are nascent human lives and should not be used for research.
"You will have to destroy the embryos, so obviously there is a moral issue involved," said Dr. David Prentice, a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative organization.
Dr. Prentice argued that the fruits of such research were yet to be proven. "If you can't even show the results would be useful," he asked, "why even address the ethical question?"
Although Dr. Prentice has impressive credentials, the fact that he's a fellow for an organization that publishes books like this casts doubt on his objectivity on any issue. Also, he's an occasional consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity... hmm. Sound familiar?