Dishonesty Piled Upon Dishonesty by Obama Administration on Stem Cells
It wasn't bad enough that President Obama stealthily removed a pro science/pro ethics pluripotent Bush stem cell policy, pretending that he was fighting the forces of anti-science. Now Melody Barnes, the president's domestic policy adviser, has written an article extolling the President's decision. That's fine. But what is quickly becoming the norm for this administration, it is deeply disingenuous, based on crucial factual omissions and straw man put downs. From her column:
From this time forward, decisions about federal funding of stem cell research will be based on scientific principles. In the Obama administration, the scientific community will be empowered, but not unaccountable. Scientists who wish to conduct stem cell research must do so in a responsible manner and the president Obama will not allow scientists to leave our shared values at the laboratory door. But unlike the past eight years, political ideology will no longer trump sound science.Get it? When they agree with an ethical regulation, it supports science. When they don't it is anti science.
Then she mentions adult stem cell research, leaving out the thousands of human trials for all ranges of diseases and afflictions that are showing such great promise.
We have already seen the benefits of cell-based therapies in areas such as bone marrow transplantation. Today, we do not know and should not overstate the full potential of this research, but we have an obligation to move forward. We have an obligation to our parents and grandparents who suffer from degenerative conditions such as Parkinson's disease. We have an obligation to our children who suffer from chronic diseases such as juvenile diabetes. We have an obligation to veterans who suffer from spinal cord injuries they sustained defending our nation. Stem cell research could cure Parkinson's and diabetes, and help those who thought they would sit in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives walk again.The clear implication here is that bone marrow is fine, as far as it goes. But to get the real cures we need ESCR--leaving out the fact that adult stem cells have shown tremendous promise in early human trials for most of the conditions she mentions.
Then she seems to be tough on preventing ethical slippery slopes:
The president will vigorously oppose cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, it is wrong, and it will not be tolerated. The National Institutes of Health will continue to be prohibited from funding research during which an embryo is destroyed.Reproductive cloning can't be done yet, and besides, that isn't a ban on cloning. Moreover, the NIH remains "prohibited from funding research during which an embryo is destroyed," not because of Obama's policy, but because it is against existing federal law (the Dickey Amendment) that he didn't have the power to change via executive order. Notice she does not promise a veto of any attempt to change that law, which as I noted in an earlier post, is already being advocated by the Left's primary media outlet, the New York Times.
Then comes the straw man:Americans may never reach a unanimous decision on the best way to fight disease and improve the health of all Americans, but doing nothing while millions suffer and die is not an acceptable option.Who ever advocated "doing nothing?"
This administration promised to be transparent: Instead it is opaque. It promised to heal divisions: Instead it is worsening them. It promised honesty, but its policy arguments are profoundly misleading to the point of mendacity.
The only reason he can get away with it is that the media remains immersed in the tank. If that ever changes, Obama could be in deep political trouble.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:39 PM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
"The only reason he can get away with it is that the media remains immersed in the tank. If that ever changes..."
Ha! Don't bet on it.
Can Deb address this in one of her columns? Isn't it the same newspaper?
We avoid cross pollinating as a general rule. Thanks.
If they're dumb enough to tout him how would they get smart enough to doubt him?
I still don't understand why no one has said "impeach" yet after all these executive orders.
Hearing him on the radio right now saying we have to have a civilian military is really scary. A military is a military. A national youth service would be a national youth service. But this is something else, and it reminds one of the blurring of the line between politics and science that is going on.
This executive order is all about payoffs and nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics!
Well wouldn't that be reason enough to bring up the question of impeachment then? Not only how many executive orders, and their nature, but their integrity, and it's not hard to cast light on such things. I don't understand why no one is doing anything. It's as if people are stunned like prey of one of those creatures that stuns its prey before killing them. He's not presidential; there's a certain presidential bearing, reflecting respect for the office as well as for the citizenry, that is part and parcel of the office and that he doesn't have, and his bearing is an accurate reflection of what's going on. Why doesn't anyone speak up about it? Are people afraid of him?
"We avoid cross pollinating as a general rule."
'Twas just a thought...
Well, do you ever do op-eds for publications other than the ones for which you write regularly (NRO, STANDARD, etc.)?
bmmg39: That has become increasingly more difficult as the openings shrink and some in the media become more and more one-sided.
That being noted, I have one in the works now for a CA newspaper (not the Chronicle)in which I have occassionally appeared. If it is published, I will link it here. Thanks for asking.
great post...
I heard you on the radio yesterday. (Vicki Mckenna's show)
As always, I love what you say.
Thanks for being that voice.
Thanks Rhonda. I like doing Vicki's show. She's a real pistol.
Good luck!
"This executive order is all about payoffs and nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics!"
Who Bush?
Two SCOTUS appointees who have shown support for Roe and still no meaningful changes on Abortion after 6 years of controlling the Congress and Executive. What a political let down that must have been. I tell ya, who can you trust?
Under Bush, abortion remained “legal” and was no less “rare” than under Clinton. And it is also true that federal funding to Planned Parenthood increased at a faster rate under Bush than it did under Clinton.
At least Obama is not deceptive in his stance on being Pro Choice to lead the masses of one issue voters. The Pro-Life vote got Bush elected Twice, and what kind of thanks did you get in return?
Dark Swan is right that this is all about politics and nothing about science. But then the comments take swipes at Bush as if having a known evil is better than having someone who will talk to us and listen on the critical issues.
Obama has a passion in favor of abortion that has now been revealed not just to the pro-life movement who has always known of his extreme pro-abortion position but now to the American public. Will it matter? there are still apologists for this guy even after the damage he has done in just 53 days.
Bush and his administration may not have done everything we wanted. The Senate may not have done everything we wanted. The Congress may have stymied efforts to get what we wanted done. But Bush's vetoes stopped money from being used for destructive embryonic stem cell research. Bush's executive orders put back into place the Mexico city policy and prevented abortions from being done on military base hospitals. bush promoted and encouraged efforts with adoption organizations. I can find a host of things his administration did wrong or did not do well, but i will not consider it the same as the current disaster in the White House.
I'd say Obama is damned deceptive. Who expected all these executive orders in the first few weeks, for example? Who expected that we'd end up with a President who was "too tired" and "too preoccupied" to meet with a foreign head of state? Who expected Wall Street to tank with him in the White House? For starters. For the love of God someone do something about impeaching this dangerous stooge.
Conservatives are too concerned about re-inventing the party! What principles they claim have been tossed aside to win over moderates and the undecided voters.
Abortion went down during Bush's first 5 years or 6 years by 8 percent or so. In light of the things that Obama is doing to unravel them and how important they are to pro-lifers, I think he was pretty big. I agree that not everything was done that could be done. They screwed up big time on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. They should have run at that much earlier than late summer 2006. But overall, they benefitted us a lot and abortion continued it's slide.
Is it just me or is it becoming more and more apparent that the Obama administration has taken political Newspeak to heights only dreamt of by Orwell?
Yesterday I ran across an article about Obama on the internet that a world authority on narcissism had wrtten in 2007, warning of how much damage he would do. Narcissism and the death culture do go together.
You are missing the point: Obama is committed to doing whatever he wants to transform America into his vision.
The majority - whoever they may be - no longer matter to Obama. He got their vote; he's finished with them.
Are you offended that federal funding can now be used to fund stem cell research? And are you offended by the hypocrisy of Obama? Join the club. Just don't expect your wishes to be considered by the Obama regime.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home