Thread: House fails to override stem cell veto

House fails to override stem cell veto

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 46 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush rejected legislation Wednesday that could have multiplied the federal money going into embryonic stem cell research, using the first veto of his presidency to underscore his stand on the emotionally charged, life-and-death issue.

A few hours later, the House voted 235-193 to overturn Bush's veto, 51 short of the required two-thirds majority.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

Most Americans disagree with the president, according to public opinion polls. A number of lawmakers expressed confidence the legislation would someday become law and some suggested Bush's stance could hurt Republicans in congressional elections this fall.

"Mr. President, we will not give up," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "We will continue this battle."

Bush made good on a promise he made in 2001 to limit federally funded embryonic research to the stem cell lines that had been created by the time.

Bush's first veto, 5 1/2 years into his presidency, came in the Oval Office without any ceremony — though he then announced it surrounded by families with cheerful toddlers born from embryos. He added his signature to the bottom of a two-page message that was promptly hand-delivered to the House, where the legislation began.

"If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways," his message said. "For that reason, I must veto this bill."

Bush has made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking. His single veto is a departure from the practices of other recent presidents — Bill Clinton had 37, Bush's father had 44 and Ronald Reagan had 78.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research have had powerfully moving proponents on their side, including the late "Superman" star Christopher Reeve and actor Michael J. Fox. Other proponents say the research could lead to cures for the diseases that threaten to kill them.

Bush tried to put a face on his position, too. Eighteen families who had adopted unused frozen embryos were in the East Room as Bush made his case in a 15-minute speech that came 40 minutes after the veto. On stage behind the president and in the audience were two dozen children, squirming in their Sunday best, born from those leftover embryos.

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," Bush said. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research."

Also in the crowd were four embryo donor families and four patients who have been aided by adult stem cells. Those cells are found in various tissues, including bone marrow. Bush supports research involving adult stem cells.

As he vetoed the bill, he signed another that was passed unanimously in both chambers that would ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research. "Human beings are not a raw material to be exploited, or a commodity to be bought or sold, and this bill will help ensure that we respect the fundamental ethical line," Bush said, drawing a shout of "Amen!" from one of the fathers on stage with him.

Bush said he was disappointed that Congress failed to pass a third bill that would encourage adult stem cell research. Opponents said it would have given lawmakers political cover for opposing the embryonic stem cell bill. But Bush said it would fund vital and ethical research, and he would direct his administration to pursue this kind of science.

Pleadings from celebrities, former first lady Nancy Reagan and some fellow Republicans had failed to move Bush. He acted after two days of often wrenching emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that had cast lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

Some are predicting the veto could hurt GOP congressional candidates in close races this November. And the issue split the Republican senators who are thinking about running to replace Bush in the White House in 2008.

Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and George Allen of Virginia sided with Bush in opposing the bill. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona voted for the increased federal funding.

"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist, a heart surgeon. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

Rep. Diana DeGette (news, bio, voting record), D-Colo., a co-sponsor of the House bill, submitted 11,000 signatures urging Bush to sign the measure and said of his veto: "He is doing that on the backs of tens of millions of Americans."

I just cannot agree with embryotic stem cell research; it leaves too much room for unethical practices. Just like with cloning and euthanasia, who gets to play God? I feel for the people with the diseases that medical science is searching for a cure, but there has to be a better way than by taking a life to save another.

I know a lot of people have no problem with this, but, these are the same people that do not have a problem with abortion. These embryos are living beings. What makes their life less important than another?

Exactly, not to mention there are other way of getting the results they want. Adult stem cells have been shown to be very promissing, not so with emb. cells. The news has been making it out that he's banning it and that's not what's happening either. He is simly saying the govt. should not support it monitarily. I agree.

It isn't about just the egg...it is about the EMBRYO which is fertilized. This means that it is a life. How can it be ok to take a life in order to MAYBE save another life? And why take a life if there are other ways to accomplish the same thing? Using ADULT stem cells has been proving to be more productive than embryotic stem cells. So, why?

And like it was mentioned, this is about using government money (tax dollars) to fund this project or not. I personally do not want my tax dollars to be spent for this expermentation; just like I do not want my tax dollars paying for abortions.

Originally Posted by tngirl

How can it be ok to take a life in order to MAYBE save another life?

Originally Posted by tngirl

I know a lot of people have no problem with this, but, these are the same people that do not have a problem with abortion. These embryos are living beings. What makes their life less important than another?

Don't you mean a potential life? Every embryo does not develop into a human baby and every one that does develop into a baby doesn't develop into a healthy one that can sustain life.

I personally don't have a problem with embryonic stem cell research and I think it's very wrong of you to lump people who support it with those who 'do not have a problem with abortion.' I happen to be pro-choice and think abortion is acceptable in very few cases like rape, imminent death of the mother or child or severe retardation.

Why is it wrong to destroy potential human life when that research may save thousands, maybe millions of people already living (or even to be born in the future with the problems this research could solve)?

OH, and as for that idiot Shrub saying that it is 'morally reprehensible' or whatever he said. That was a LAUGH and a half. How many 'morally reprehensible' acts has he comitted or helped commit during his 5 1/2 year tenure? In the very least, isn't LYING considered 'morally reprehensible?'

Because we are not God and it is not for us to make the decision as to who gets to live and who does not. Potential life...makes it easier to kill a baby I guess. When a woman gets pregnant she is potentially going to give birth to a baby. We all know that there is no gaurantee that will happen, so much could go wrong...miscarriage or still birth.

I do not think this is a case of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The "many" have had a chance at life, why should that chance be taken away from a potential child?

Originally Posted by freeby4me

**Backing out of thread**

I only want to say that please do not turn this into a thread for bashing people with different views (I mean everyone, Not one person)
This is an interesting topic and I am looking forward to hearing everyone's viewpoint and reasoning

Who is bashing who? The only bashing is against Pres. Bush and that is totally irrellevant.

Originally Posted by freeby4me

I must say that I disagree, I believe we should be doing everything we can to help find cures for diseases and such (Yes, I know all about the other ways etc, But this is another way as well) I will also say I would be more than willing to donate my eggs for this science to be used in whatever way seemed fit.....Just my personal opinion and view though

You are perfactly free to do so. There are many places in the private sector that can use them. It's funny how they try to bash Bush about it but then simple facts like he was the first and only (so far) to fund this kind of research. It was legal to do this research back when Clinton was president but did he fund it when he had the chance? NO. Since Bush funded it there have been no breakthroughs, or anything even promissing. However like it's been said before there have been lots of good things comming out of adult stem cell research, and nobody potentially has to die.