link Frist Breaks With Bush on Stem-Cell Bill By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008. ADVERTISEMENT "It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tenn., said on the floor of the Senate. Frist's announcement immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives but won lavish praise from former first lady Nancy Reagan, who said it "has the potential to alleviate so much suffering." Her husband, the late former President Ronald Reagan, had Alzheimer's disease. At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said Frist had given Bush advance notice of his announcement. "The president said, `You've got to vote your conscious,'" McClellan said. "The president's made his position clear," the spokesman said when asked if Bush stands by his threat to veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life," McClellan said. Bush and Frist appeared together at the White House shortly after Frist's speech as the president signed a bill that allows health care professionals to report information on medical errors without fearing that it will be used against them in lawsuits. Bush introduced him as "Doctor Bill Frist" and afterward, Bush shook Frist's hand and said something that made the majority leader laugh. As Bush was leaving the room, he summoned Frist to join him. The Christian Defense Coalition lambasted Frist's change of position. "Sen. Frist should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding," it said. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the group. "Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008." A heart-lung transplant surgeon who opposes abortion, Frist said loosening Bush's strict limitations on stem cell research would lead to scientific advances and "bridge the moral and ethical differences" that have made the issue politically charged. "While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," the Tennessee lawmaker said in his speech. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds," he said. 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. Frist's announcement will put pressure on the White House, predicted Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., a cancer patient and the bill's sponsor. "I know that the president will listen to what Sen. Frist has had to say," Specter said. "I'm not saying he is going to agree with it but ... I think may bring us all together on this issue." It also could impact Frist's own political future. A likely presidential candidate in 2008, Frist has been courting religious conservatives who helped make Bush a twice-elected president and generally consider embryonic stem cell research a moral equivalent to abortion. But the announcement, coming just a month after Frist said he did not support expanded financing "at this juncture," could help him with centrist voters. With those political realities in mind, Frist argued that his positions on stem cell research and abortion were not inconsistent. He said the decision was about policy, not politics. Frist's decision brought quick praise from leading Democrats. "It is a decision that will bring hope to millions of Americans," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "I know there's still a long ways to go with the legislation, but a large step has been taken by the majority leader today ... and I admire the majority leader for doing it." Said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.: "As a physician, Sen. Frist has a moral calling to save lives and alleviate suffering. He honors his Hippocratic Oath today by recognizing the unique healing power of embryonic stem cells."
I think this is just the administration's way of admitting they were wrong. Frist is the one who drafted the original stem cell plan and now he is revising his stance. Why else would Frist be making such a public announcement about how he is opposing W's position? It's another Rove plan to update their policy without looking like a "flip flopper." Since Frist is gonna run for office, he is willing to do it so he can get some publicity.
I would say it is common sense to allow science funding for this research which could save lives, money, and improve the quality of life down the road for millions of people. Political positioning would be to claim that these cells are fully developed humans.
While I agree with Frist's new position I agree with the Jeffster this might be political positioning. I think Frist might be realizing that its going to be a crowded field looking for the Evangelical vote and could be making a move for moderates. Further I think he took some heat in the medical circles for his "diagnose" of the Schiavo case and is trying to buff up his image as a man of science and medicine. Even if it is totally political I think its a good sign on this critical issue although I'm sure the pro-life posters will disagree.
So, if killing your child would allow for good research, would you support that too? And you say it *could* do all these things, it seems creating life with the purpose of destroying it would not be a fair trade for something that is not proven to help with anything. But then, I don't think children should be artificially created for any reason, so it's not too surprising I wouldn't support this research. And political positioning can be done without making a statement about "fully developed humans." By the way, how do you define "fully developed"? Seems to me that development pretty much never ends in the human body, or at very least doesn't end until one is in adulthood.
I sense a change coming from within the Republican party. At first, they choose to limit/oppose stem cell research because of the religious groups. But I think inherently, especially since Senators are pretty old, they want to reap the benefits of stem cell research. Now they feel they can get away with it. Talk about flip-flopping.
No offense dude, but you may want to read some real studies on this and not politically-charged talking points. I worked in a Parkinson's lab in college doing stem cell work and we didn't harvest a bunch of children. Some couples fertilize several embryos and end up not needing them. Trust me, they dont get a funeral and a nice burial if they are not needed. Medical research could use them. Also, step away from the whole irritating embryo argument. There are stem cells in the umbilical cord of your child. A company known as Viacord offers to hold this material for you in case your child gets sick later.
Weak argument. Pro-stem-cell research claim people who are born is considered a person. However, a few cells is not a person to them. Thus, even stem cell supporters agree that a child is a person and has rights. This question argues nothing. This is what especially annoys me about political positioning: the rhetoric. Medical professionals have already attested to the benefits stem cells bring. You might as well deny global warming even though the there's a super majority consensus that global warming exists by the experts.
In Jeffster's defense if you believe that human life begins at conception and that fertilized embryo is a born human and should be according the same rights then he's absolutely correct. I don't believe an embryo is anywhere the same as a human as much as an acorn is the same as an oak tree but if I felt otherwise I would be totally against Frist's change of heart and calling him a gutless flip flopper. Well I think he is a flip flopper and doing this for les than purely noble reasons but since I agree with it I'll leave it at that. This is an argument we've had on the forum and I'm sure we will again.
You do understand that these stem cells would be trashed if they weren't used for science, right? These cells aren't created with the purpose of destroying them. They are from fertilization clinics and are cells that were created to make life, but won't be used for that. It becomes a matter of just getting rid of them, or using them to help others live.
Maybe Frist just didn't want to look like a medical idiot again like he did when he couldn't answer the question about getting AIDS from tears. He is supposed to be a learned man of medicine. More than likely though he just saw the polling data on the issue
Yeah, I understand what you guys are saying, I guess I wasn't clear enough in stating that I'm opposed to the entire concept of creating life artificially, not just choosing to do research on created life or throwing it away. I fully admit that it's an extreme position, but it's my belief, so as I said, I'm not going to get behind something that furthers that concept. It would be like saying that killing mentally handicapped children is wrong, but as long as they're doing it anyway, let's use their corpses for research. I think the whole realm of genetic engineering is contrary to the natural plan of the universe and is an attempt to play god by people. And regardless of whether someone shares that view or not, I've never understood there being an arguement over whether or not life begins at conception. Of course it does. Any other point you pick after that is arbitrary, because you can always go back 1 second before that point and the child doesn't cease to be human. Anyway, obviously as was pointed out by Sishir Chang, that's a much larger discussion than a particular Senator doing what politicians often do, changing his position when preparing to run for a higher office.
I have no doubt that is what Bush truly said.... Didn't he allude to that when he authored the stem cell plan? I guess it's more like political repositioning.
