Stem-cell bill could see vote

tonifig8 wrote:

Stem-cell bill could see vote


As Congress prepares to return for a limited pre-election agenda, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said she has picked up wide support for her bill to permit embryonic stem-cell research and expects it will pass this month. Although it has been strongly opposed by anti-abortion activists, she voiced confidence that the measure will be a political boost for its backers as well as good policy.

Working with her bipartisan allies and with Democratic leaders who want to make sure the bill does not raise objections from pro-life Democrats, DeGette has not resolved all details of the measure. But “the stars are pretty well aligned,” she said. “This is a positive wedge issue. Supporters can use it in an election because there is strong public support and its opponents look extreme.”

A House Democratic leadership aide added that DeGette’s bill is “on the table” for quick action, and discussions have continued to determine the best way to ensure the research.

Her proposal has gained additional urgency following the Aug. 23 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth that temporarily blocked President Barack Obama’s March 2009 executive order that expanded federal funding for human stem-cell research.

Lamberth focused, in particular, on congressional restrictions enacted in 1996 that barred federal funds for research that destroys human embryos. Referring to the amendment sponsored by then-Reps. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the judge ruled that “the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding in which a human embryo is destroyed.”

But DeGette has joined with outside researchers and the Health and Human Services Department in contending that Lamberth’s ruling, which was quickly appealed by the administration, misread the law. “Embryos and stem cells are two entirely different organisms,” and they involve different types of research, she said.

Congress passed legislation in 2006 and 2007 to permit embryonic stem-cell research. But President Bush vetoed each bill, and the House fell short of the two-thirds requirement to override. The July 2007 vote was 247 to 176, with 37 Republicans voting to override and 16 Democrats opposed. The Senate had passed the bill, 63 to 34.

Following Obama’s executive order, DeGette said she has consistently sought legislation to codify the ruling and avoid the prospect that a future president might reverse it. But her proposal “fell low the Senate’s priorities,” she said, until Lamberth’s ruling last week. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has set a Sept. 16 hearing date to review the ruling as chairman of the Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee.

Coincidentally, DeGette met in July with many politically vulnerable freshman Democrats to gauge their support for her proposal. “I was pleasantly surprised that the vast majority would support the bill and saw it as a political advantage.” She added that Speaker Nancy Pelosi “shared my concern that we need to clarify the law,” but that they did not reach a final determination on how to proceed. She also plans a campaign visit next week with second-term Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.), where she will discuss the issue at his request; Mitchell has become a prime Republican reelection target.

Proponents have discussed ways to exempt their proposal from the Dickey-Wicker restrictions, which DeGette termed “obsolete.” The bill would supersede Lamberth’s ruling by offering the congressional direction that he had sought. She added that the administration, including a member of Obama’s Cabinet, supports her bill.

DeGette has worked closely with Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and cites the bipartisan support for her bill. But the 51 cosponsors include only two Republicans: Castle and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Coincidentally, both are running for the Senate.

Although her proposal seems likely to gain the 60 votes to break a possible filibuster, Democratic leaders would have to determine whether the Senate should devote time to the issue and risk the prospect that it could become a controversy in some election campaigns. The possibility that Democrats will suffer big November losses in the House and Senate leaves them little time to spare in deciding whether to proceed.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z0yiqzRIZ7

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z0yiqb4o86

scb wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what the problem supposedly is with stem cell research anyway?? I can't understand why this should be such a big deal. (Not that it matters, but...) We're talking about embryos that are already going to be destroyed, right? And destroying embryos is legal anyway, right? :?

scb wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

scb wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what the problem supposedly is with stem cell research anyway?? I can't understand why this should be such a big deal. (Not that it matters, but...) We're talking about embryos that are already going to be destroyed, right? And destroying embryos is legal anyway, right? :?

i think people object to it because the embryo gets destroyed and according to some religious doctrine that is not ok. i guess it is ok to flush them down the toilet to get rid of them? i think it is quite selfish to oppose using there embryos, that were never going to ever be born in the first place, for research so that we can maybe cure some of the most common yet devestating illness and medical conditions..

But aren't they going to be destroyed anyway? :?

scb wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what the problem supposedly is with stem cell research anyway?? I can't understand why this should be such a big deal. (Not that it matters, but...) We're talking about embryos that are already going to be destroyed, right? And destroying embryos is legal anyway, right? :?

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what the problem supposedly is with stem cell research anyway?? I can't understand why this should be such a big deal. (Not that it matters, but...) We're talking about embryos that are already going to be destroyed, right? And destroying embryos is legal anyway, right? :?

I think some are worried about the beginning of a situation where embryos are created specifically to harvest stem cells...and then where that might take us.