Yesterday, the House passed the embronic-stem cell research bill:
The Democratic-controlled House Thursday passed a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.
But the 253-174 vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to overturn President Bush’s promised veto, despite gains made by supporters in the November elections. Bush vetoed identical legislation last year and the White House on Thursday promised he would veto it again.
snip
"I support stem cell research with only one exception _ research that requires killing human life," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community."
Democrats countered with Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager. The research, Langevin said, offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."
Last time around, it was 238-194. So while the Democrats picked up 30 seats, embryonic stem-cell research funding picked up only 15 votes.
The World Magazine blog looks at the votes from the newly-elected pro-life Dems:
The bill was a direct challenge to President Bush, who last year vetoed the nearly identical "Castle bill," a veto that stood after Congress could not muster the votes to override it. The House passed the new bill yesterday as part of Democrats’ "first 100 hours" package. Pro-life House freshmen Jason Altmire and Chris Carney voted yes on expanding tax-paid funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Pro-life newcomers Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler, and Charlie Wilson voted no.
The Raleigh paper looks at freshman Democrat Heath Schuler’s vote:
Shuler, who considers himself pro-life, said he listened to colleagues argue for and against expanding embryonic stem cell research, something advocates say could aid in developing numerous medical cures.
Supporters of an alternative bill to spur research into extracting stem cells from embryos without destroying them made a more convincing case, said Shuler, who was elected in November to represent the 11th Congressional District.
“I want to do it without destroying an embryo. We are continuing to see exceptional advancements in stem cell research that does not endanger human embryos, especially from amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood,” Shuler said.
The House voted yesterday to erase Bush’s line. But future generations may nonetheless thank Bush for standing athwart history, if only for a few years. It gave technology enough time to catch up and rescue us from the moral dilemmas of embryonic destruction. It has just been demonstrated that stem cells with enormous potential can be harvested from amniotic fluid.
This is a revolutionary finding. Amniotic fluid surrounds the baby in the womb during pregnancy. It is routinely drawn out by needle in amniocentesis. The procedure carries little risk and is done for legitimate medical purposes that have nothing to do with stem cells. If it nonetheless yields a harvest of stem cells, we have just stumbled upon an endless supply.
And not just endless, but uncontroversial. No embryos are destroyed. The cells are just floating there, as if waiting for science to discover them.
Of course, the amniotic fluid finds are important, but the knowledge that any "benefits" from embryonic stem-cells are largely illusory and real benefits have been found in stem cells from other sources isn’t news if you’ve really been following this.
By the way, I heard something on the radio the other day, have not really been able to verify it, and perhaps someone can enlighten me. I heard that the reason biotech interests are so keen on stem cells derived from embryos is that treatments derived from them can be patented and stem cells derived from parts of an individual’s body cannot because you can’t patent an individual’s body part. But the embryo is independent. Which would mean then it’s an independent being and why are we destroying it, but anyway…can anyone clarify?
Read Previous Post