Obama reverses embryo research ban

No controversy here. The only folks opposed to this are evangelicals and Republicans who block anything on the Obama agenda. The vast majority of real Americans support the president.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

As could be expected, the article starts out with a headline that's not true: no "embryo research ban" has ever existed. In fact, scientists have been and still are free to do embryo research.

If The Swamp can't even tell the truth in a article's headline, what does that say about the rest of the article?

This is a good thing!! This is pro-life. Obama is putting facts, research and science before religious and political ideology. This will benefit people with diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and neck and spinal injuries.

This is a hot topic.......prepare to hear from the "second chancers" er the " I need a crutch" er I mean the born again and again and again.....

The research was never banned in the first place. This just means our tax dollars will be used on them. A headline that WOULDN'T be a lie would read "Obama reverses ban on federal money going to embryonic stem cell research."

Good! Now the medical community can get back to the business of saving people from some horrendous diseases, not the least of which is Huntington's Disease, which has taken several members of my husband's family. It is a horrifying, progressive, neuromuscular disease that takes years to kill its victims. Their bodies fail while their minds remain mostly intact.

I hope that now we will see the day when it will be eradicated.

After eight years of knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, flat earth, anti-science, Repukelican party rule.....SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MAKES A COME BACK!

Thank you, President Obama....

I can hear freeper Wingnut heads exploding already!
http://media.photobucket.com/image/exploding%20head/horrorfx/scanners4.gif

The audacity of this president! How dare he try to reverse the Repuglican Regression of the past decade!

They'll be ranting about snow flake babies, abortion harvesting and all sorts of crazy right-wing lunatic fringe things.

Hooray - life-saving science can be aggressively pursued without being held hostage by religious fanatics who wish to project their beliefs onto everyone else.

On August 2001, when Bush was ignoring the PDFs that were warning of the impending al-Qaida attacks, him and his rightwing religious flat earth pals were also sacrificing additional American lives by putting together his ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research that President Obama is going to reverse.

Geez, I hope all the BushCo Republicans are sterile so we don't have to live through another era like that. Can we offer them a million barrels of oil if they agree to get vasectomies?

"... Promoting science isn't just about providing resources," Obama said. "It is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient"

Tell that to the African-American subjects of the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. (http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586) "Free and open inquiry" without ethics and morality is an invitation to abuse of science.

"We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

But, of course, you can't create human embryos from which to obtain human embryonic stem cells without using cloning to reproduce a human being. So this statement is more than misleading; it is an outright lie.

The research was never banned in the first place. This just means our tax dollars will be used on them. A headline that WOULDN'T be a lie would read "Obama reverses ban on federal money going to embryonic stem cell research."

Posted by: Jeff | March 9, 2009 1:56 PM
...

Crybaby Jeff,
We're going to take it out of the Billions that you crazy BushCo Republicans have been taking from the taxpayers and spending on that useless Abstinence crap for the last eight years.

Once again, The Swamp, and their man Obama, politicize science and prostitute the truth:

"One of the great myths of the Bush administration is that the president blocked stem-cell research as part of an anti-science jihad. The facts, of course, are the opposite: Bush actually liberalized the rules for stem-cell research. Before the Bush administration, no federal funds were available for embryonic stem-cell research. Bush changed the rules to make some funds available. (And, of course, there never has been a ban on stem-cell research, or a ban on funding for stem-cell research, nor a ban on embryonic stem-cell research, though there restrictions against federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and Bush relaxed those rules.)

The [New York] Times headline is wrong. Regardless of how one feels about embryonic stem-cell research and federal funding of it, the facts are that there were no federal funds available for those projects before Bush, and there were federal funds available for them after his 2001 executive order spelling out the conditions under which such funds would be made available. The original ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research was signed into law by Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. But don't tell it to the Times's headline writers; they need their nap time."

(from Kevin Williamson at NRO)

When did the destruction of human life become "pro life"? I guess I missed that memo.

Funny (not really), this administration wants to talk about science - but won't give a straight answer when asked when human life begins. Science absolutely confirms that a child in the womb is exactly that. "We embrace science - except when we don't like the answers it provides..."

"The president acknowledged the controversy surrounding the scientific research which involves the destruction of human embryos and is opposed by many who oppose abortion.

But Obama said that in his mind the benefits to be gained in terms of potentially finding new cures and treatments that could reduce human suffering outweighed such concerns."

I remember another group of people with a similar thought process of "who cares who it harms now it it helps in the long run". They ran all sorts of inhumane medical research in the name of saving lives. They did most of their work in facilities known as concentration camps. I think you know who I'm talking about...

I have read many reports of new ways of getting non-embryonic cells to act the exact same as embryonic stem cells. Why don't we fund the research using those? Have embryonic stem cells shown any promise these other stem cells have not shown? Or is it just because they are "readily available"? The short cut is rarely the best route...

Of course the Obamabots think this is something NEW. There has never been a BAN of this type of research, just having the federal government subsidize the research.

What has yet to be reported by the Obama fawning media is the statistical comparisons already documented between the two forms of stem cell research. Both embryonic and adult stem cell research has been conducted and there are no claims by the scientific community as to the far reaching benefits of embryonic vs. adult. They only cry about not gettinf federal dollars to fund the research.

On another note, at least our new president acknowledges the Frankenstein effect -

"Among the dangers, Obama said, was the potential for the cloning of humans. But he said his administration would place strict rules in place to prevent such cloning from happening." "We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Yeah right! like Obama has been 100% true to his word so far?

How come we have not heard of all the promising discoveries made with the use of embryonic stem cell research by ALL the other countries who are funding research while we weren't? Perhaps because there weren't any! And yet after only 8 weeks in office, this president has stuck his finger in the eye of so many Americans who feel this is a "Life" issue and lifted the band on this type of research. We can not be surprised since he said he would do so, even though it is "beyond his pay grade" to say when life actually does begin. Do we really believe that the merciful hand of GOD will not be lifted from our country who up until now has been so blessed! You are fooling yourselves. In this time of economic crisis, this government now has money to fund research that to many is to so many morally reprehensible shows the lack of moral character of this man Obama.

So I am wondering when someone, somewhere, somehow is going to add up the federal dollars spent on embryonic stem cell research versus non-stem-cell related research.

We know there hasn't been a ban on esc research...just a lack of progress in it.

"Hallelujah! This marks the end of a long, Republican-led, repressive chapter in scientific history. It's the stem cell 'emancipation proclamation'. - Yes We Did!

You dumb misinformed people. There was never a ban on the research, just a ban on the research being federally funded. It was funded privately and well funded at that. Now our tax dollars are going to fund that stuff in which now our Government controls. Yay!!

The research was never banned in the first place. This just means our tax dollars will be used on them. A headline that WOULDN'T be a lie would read "Obama reverses ban on federal money going to embryonic stem cell research."

Posted by: Jeff | March 9, 2009 1:56 PM

Another correction is needed to make it even more clear. No Federal funds are used to actually extract any stem cells. Only Federal money is used after the cells have been already taken. And to those of you who are against science using these cells, do you know what happens to them if they are not used? They are thrown in the garbage! Thats right disposed of. So you prefer this tissue to be wasted rather then used to perhaps cure your aging grandmother who thinks you are Thomas Jefferson? Morons.

"President Barack Obama signed an executive order Monday to permit federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research."

What did the cons. miss in this statement?

There is a lot of starvation in the world. The answer to this is just eat other people. There are too many people anyway and this will prevent many other people from dying and it kills two birds with one stone. I am for canabalism. Anyone with me?

From above:
=====
"Bush actually liberalized the rules for stem-cell research. Before the Bush administration, no federal funds were available for embryonic stem-cell research."
=====

The reality is that embryonic stem cells hadn't been isolated until 1999 and President Clinton had the National Institute of Health draw up funding guidelines. It took the NIH until August 2000 to finish them which were then approved by Clinton. However, by then the annual budget was already allocated. Come 2001, one of Bush's first actions were to freeze any funding followed by a ban on funding for any cell lines except a handful of approved ones which were widely viewed to be corrupted with murine proteins. Saying "no one before Bush did this" is like saying "No one before Clinton addressed internet pornography" -- hard to tackle an issue that doesn't exist yet. But Bush DID un-do Clinton's approved funding for stem cell research.

How does a scientist define "ethical"?

The headline is inaccurate and further supports a lie many have come to believe is true, that is, Bush banned stem cell research. Let's get it right, people!

Clinton in 1996 banned federal dollars in support of stem cell research. Bush was actually the first president to authorize federal funds as noted in 2001.

There was no ban on research! In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on stem cell research, supported by both private and public funds.

Once again a misleading headline gets left wingers all believing something that isn't true.

What media bias?

Do you have a disagreement with the facts I just stated or are you just going to scream "crybaby" and other fifth-grade names as your form of debate?

"We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

The president said he was ordering the head of his Office of Science and Technology policy to create a strategy to make sure that science, not ideology, drove the administration's policies.

"... Promoting science isn't just about providing resources," Obama said. "It is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient"

Obviously today, we already know that there will never be a time in the future where we can learn anything positive about reproductive cloning. So much for letting science do its job free of ideology. Kind of sounds like the preacher telling us not to seek to understand something that might challenge his authority or a deity's authority

I can't say it better, so these two posts need to be pounded into the pinheads who "champion" this as a positive step. If you're going to be an Obama apologist and outright, kool-aid drinking liar, at least learn the facts:

Once again, The Swamp, and their man Obama, politicize science and prostitute the truth:

"One of the great myths of the Bush administration is that the president blocked stem-cell research as part of an anti-science jihad. The facts, of course, are the opposite: Bush actually liberalized the rules for stem-cell research. Before the Bush administration, no federal funds were available for embryonic stem-cell research. Bush changed the rules to make some funds available. (And, of course, there never has been a ban on stem-cell research, or a ban on funding for stem-cell research, nor a ban on embryonic stem-cell research, though there restrictions against federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and Bush relaxed those rules.)

The [New York] Times headline is wrong. Regardless of how one feels about embryonic stem-cell research and federal funding of it, the facts are that there were no federal funds available for those projects before Bush, and there were federal funds available for them after his 2001 executive order spelling out the conditions under which such funds would be made available. The original ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research was signed into law by Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. But don't tell it to the Times's headline writers; they need their nap time."

(from Kevin Williamson at NRO)

Posted by: Hope N. Change | March 9, 2009 2:36 PM

When did the destruction of human life become "pro life"? I guess I missed that memo.

Funny (not really), this administration wants to talk about science - but won't give a straight answer when asked when human life begins. Science absolutely confirms that a child in the womb is exactly that. "We embrace science - except when we don't like the answers it provides..."

Posted by: Teddy Baseball | March 9, 2009 2:36 PM

Frank also conveniently left out that embryonic stem cell research is now obselete. In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors. I sure hope Scot knows what he's giving to his grandmother who thinks he's Thomas Jefferson,
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

Dear 'matt' the UNINFORMED,

Many outside the evangelical church oppose those for reasons other than ethics.

Here is a clue, we don't want our TAX money spent on research that is going to LINE the pockets of hospitals and drug companies.

Next time take off your PARTISAN glasses and end your theological hatemongering.

It was laughable (and a flat out lie) this morning when liberal 92.7 FM says Obama is doing this because he wants to keep government and business seperate.

The truth is he is doing just the OPPOSITE and trying to have business and government one and the same. Whether its fat contracts, bailouts, or union jobs, its all the same word : socialism.

I think this goes far beyond the Progressives, regardless of the part we played. There are only a few hardliner Wingnuts that stood with Bush on this one, I think most moderate Republicans believe that Bush and Co were nuts on this topic.

You know: BushCo = The rightwing religious nutjob types who don't care if countless frozen embryos are destroyed each year, as long as they don't fall into the hands of the dreaded scientists.

The 2009 Repuglican Party - "BRAVELY LEADING AMERICA INTO THE 1800's"!

How does a scientist define "ethical"?

Posted by: DAG | March 9, 2009 4:28 PM

How does a creationist define "reality"?

Obsolete, Jeff?
We can hope it will be, but I don't think the scientists have agreed on that yet. And yes, we know and have known that privately funded research wasn't banned. But say it again if you must, Seville.

Whether its fat contracts, bailouts, or union jobs, its all the same word : socialism.

Posted by: Libertarian | March 9, 2009 5:04 PM

Chances are that with your "socialism" labeling BS, my guess is you were in full support of our tax dollars being spent on the disaster called Iraq, as well of the complete failure of drawing the Afghanistan war to a close. Let me see.....war vs possible cures for deadly diseases to save lives.....Hmmmmmm!!

I sure hope Scot knows what he's giving to his grandmother who thinks he's Thomas Jefferson,

Posted by: Jeff | March 9, 2009 4:58 PM

Ok so if its 100% obsolete then explain to me why everyone -including the scientific community - is happy about this decision? Are you saying embryonic stem cell research is 100% ineffective forever?
Fax machines are obsolete Jeff, scientific research never dies (unless a Republican is in office)

In this short story by the writer, Frank James, he states Obama said: "The president said he was ordering the head of his Office of Science and Technology policy to create a strategy to make sure that science, not ideology, drove the administration's policies."

If this is truly what Obama believes, why does he not adhere to this principle with the Census, where it was decided to run the census from the Whitehouse, under the ideological direction of Rahm Emanual?

Obama gets to pick and choose what programs follow science and what follow ideological agendas?

What is the word that describes those actions? Oh, yes, that word is hypocrite!

That's super, now we can clone Barack, thereby solving the only real problem in the world- how will we ever do without him?
-
And Bush didn't ban stem-cell research, as some are saying- he only forbade Federal funding for it. Now it's moving from the private sector to a government-funded and directed approach- just like everything else with this crew.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Finally, after almost a decade of limiting taxpayer money for research president Barrack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research today. Let's think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I'm sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies such as Parkinson's, repairing spinal cord injuries as well as treating diabetes, cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and many more defects.

Obama the baby killer at work. It takes dead babies to do this stem cell research. This is why Obama condones abortions. Hes a baby killer ! All you fools that agree with him are baby killers to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Creation is the reality,,No matter how you want to beleive it took place ,where we live and what we are was the result of some sort of creation,,,Now ,(again), How does a scientist define "ethical"? Anyone?

In 1818 Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley was first published.

To day he was reborn, on his 200 birthday in 2018 will we all be "MONSTERS" Once you allow no "rules" in science, "Monsters will surly follow.

Yes, everyday we move closer to that "BRAVE NEW WORLD"

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
NO MORE SCHUMER
NO MORE PELOSI

It takes dead babies to do this stem cell research.
Posted by: Marie | March 10, 2009 12:30 AM

Absolutely.....you left out that not only do they need to sneak out at night to kill these babies, they must have the blood from a freshly killed chicken before the can dance the ritual dance to the underworld gods. The only difference between these people and the supporters of an ill-concieved, ill-planned Iraqi war is that afterwords, they don't go to church to ask forgiveness.

Ok so if its 100% obsolete then explain to me why everyone -including the scientific community - is happy about this decision?
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | March 9, 2009 7:18 PM

Scot- your hero worshipping is getting old..
Here's a couple of really smart people that couldn't disagree with you more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html

Scot- your hero worshipping is getting old..
Here's a couple of really smart people that couldn't disagree with you more...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html

Posted by: heartburn | March 10, of 2009 2:37 PM

The only people I worship Heartburn are my parents so get off your old soap box already. As for your list of "Really smart people" I have a list that doubles two fold with "real" smart people that disagree with your list so move on already.

AND:

Creation is the reality,,No matter how you want to beleive it took place ,where we live and what we are was the result of some sort of creation,,,Now ,(again), How does a scientist define "ethical"? Anyone?

Posted by: Patrick | March 10, 2009 2:10 AM

Can you offer me one grain of proof to back your religious ideals of creationism? I said "Real" proof not fairy tales.

So now I ask you Patrick, how does a Creationist define "Facts" from "Fiction"

I might add to all of you who are now in the "Minority" aparently your God saw fit to oust your party and allow another to reign. So go back to confession and reep your sins well and perhaps your god will forgive you and give you 20012!
Morons!

Posted by: heartburn | March 10, of 2009 2:37 PM

The only people I worship Heartburn are my parents so get off your old soap box already. As for your list of "Really smart people" I have a list that doubles two fold with "real" smart people that disagree with your list so move on already.

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | March 10, 2009 4:28 PM

Scot- when you previously posted " Ok so if its 100% obsolete then explain to me why everyone -including the scientific community - is happy about this decision?"

What did you mean by "Happy" or "Everyone" then?

Now can you move on please?

Scot, I can't read the article for you. You're going to have to click the link and read it. The title and the author might clue you and Flo in: It's called "Why Stem Cells are Obselete" by DR. Bernardine Healy, MD. That's right, it comes FROM the medical community. a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors. Tumors that kill you as a side effect doesn't make for a good alzheimers or Parkinson's treatment unless your doctor is named Kevorkian.
An Israeli boy who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. Research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern.
And doctors who participate in Obama's trials will have to ask what every doctor must ask before performing research on a human subject: Were I this patient, would I participate? Would I encourage my loved ones to do so?

Even as the future of embryonic stem cells has dimmed, adult stem cell research has scored major wins evident just in the past few months. These advances involve human stem cells that are not derived from human embryos. In fact, adult stem cells, which occur in small quantities in organs throughout the body for natural growth and repair, have become stars despite great skepticism early on. Though this is a more difficult task, scientists have learned to coax them to mature into many cell types.
Now Flo and Scot, in the face of all this knowledge, you tell me which one of us is fueled by out-of-control ideology and which one is driven by facts?

The facts Jeff are that what the scientists are trying to achieve is to teach the cells from stop growing which is the cause for the tumors. They've already taught the cells to grow into new tissue, its just a matter of time that they will teach them when to stop growing.
Taking factual information out of context does not make a good point. And any Dr who tests this procedure on a child, without knowing the outcome, well, his opinion has no credit.
Again I say Morons!

I didn't say anything about ideology, Jeff; but the answer is Bush and the religious right. Dr. Healy obviously doesn't speak for the entire medical community. As I said, I hope some day all is happy and healthy and we have no need to research anymore.

these pro-lifer/ creationist need to take a back seat, stem cell research is necessary!!!