| ASSISTED SUICIDE |
Broken promisesHow the compromises of President Bush on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning has damaged the pro-life movement
A White Paper Executive Summary Over the last three years, since George W. Bush first announced his intention to run for President of the United States of America, the pro-life community rallied around him and hailed him as "their candidate." Even though it was well known that his opposition to abortion was only partial (President Bush condones the practice of abortion in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother in all three trimesters), pro-lifers supported him. The support stemmed in part from the argument that he was the only "viable alternative" to the Democratic candidate for president, Al Gore, who is known to be unabashedly anti-life. Some also believed that "pro-life with exceptions" really constitutes a pro-life position. It does not, and President Bush has proven that compromises on the value and dignity of life can only engender more compromise, and inevitably lead to outright betrayal. Though Bush made some impressive statements with regard to his feelings on the dignity of human life and our duty to protect life from the moment of conception/fertilization, his actions have indicated that his promises to the pro-life community are nothing but empty words. Throughout his term in office, Bush has consistently betrayed the same pro-life community he courted in order to get elected. Beginning with the breech of his promise to oppose federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research and moving onto fetal tissue research funding, Bush has left a trail of bad decisions and broken promises. The first red flag should have been raised within the pro-life community upon Bush's nomination of Tommy Thompson, an avid supporter of research on stem cells derived from human persons in their earliest stages of development, to director of Health and Human Services. Suspicions about Bush's position on the value of human life should have been confirmed with his nomination of Dr. Elias Zerhouni, also a supporter of human embryonic stem cell research who has shown leanings toward supporting human cloning, to director of the National Institutes of Health. Furthermore, Bush's bioethics council appointees lay a foundation for the allowing human cloning despite his spoken opposition to this practice. Bush's Presidential Council on Bioethics was handpicked to generate a variety of decisions with regard to cloning among council members, and also to create debate and confusion among the general public on a clear-cut issue in which there can be no plurality of legitimate opinions. George W. Bush knows that in order to win re-election, he must garner support from the pro-life community. His public speeches, statements and promises gave much hope to a starved movement. However, his actions have rendered all his beautiful words devoid of meaning. President Bush has not succeeded in making any real strides to protect a single unborn human life. He has, however, been extremely successful in duping and blinding his supporters and dividing them against those who would take an uncompromised stance in defense of the babies. In the face of all the evidence we have compiled here, any sincere individual must call into question what Bush's real agenda is with regard to the protection of innocent human life. Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research In November of 1998, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison reported that for the first time ever, human embryonic stem cells had been successfully isolated. The discovery was made by Dr. James A. Thomson, a biologist at the university.1 The stem cells were removed from four-day-old embryos, killing them. Researchers claimed that the ability isolate human stem cells would open wide the doors of medicine to discovering the cures and treatments of a host of diseases and conditions. However, the scientists working on the stem cell breakthrough were frustrated by a lack of federal funding for their project. Congress had placed a ban on human embryo research funding in 1995. The stem cell discovery prompted the National Institutes of Health to seek legal counsel from the Department of Health and Human Services to help determine if the congressionally imposed ban on public funding applied to stem cell research. In January of 1999, HHS concluded that NIH could fund research on stem cells but could not use funding toward the process in which the stem cells were derived from the human embryos, and NIH began drafting guidelines to govern stem cell studies. Soon following Dr. Thomson's stem cell announcement, President Bill Clinton requested that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) review the bioethics issues surrounding the research and advise the federal government on the matter. The ultimate purpose of the NBAC was evidently to further President Clinton's intended agenda for funding ESCR. His elected bioethicists were all clearly in favor of the research prior to their appointment.2 The NBAC reported in September of 1999 that the federal government should fund research on human embryonic stem cells as well as the procedure for their extraction, provided that they only use "leftover" embryos from fertility treatments. A Solemn Promise Prior to his election as president of the United States, George W. Bush declared: "I oppose federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." As president, George W. Bush could overturn the NIH funding guidelines put in place by the Clinton administration as one of his first acts as president. Instead, Bush chose to appoint Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson to review the guidelines drafted under Clinton. In nominating Tommy Thompson as the director of Health and Human Services on December 29, 2000, Bush showed where his sympathies lay: Tommy Thompson: When I was governor of Wisconsin, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin conducted groundbreaking research into embryonic stem cells. I worked hard to provide funding for his research, and was gratified when, last year, the President authorized research on existing embryonic stem cell lines.3 Kristin Philipkoski: Thompson…was very vocal in his praise of embryonic stem cell research after a biologist at the University of Wisconsin isolated the first embryonic stem cells in 1998…CEO of Geron, Tom Okarma, predicted that Bush will uphold Clinton's decision. "Bush has nominated Tommy Thompson as director of Health and Human Services," he said. "Yet when (researchers) isolated the first embryonic stem cells, I was invited to a celebration at Tommy Thompson's house. Explain that."4 Family Research Institute: Much of where we are today in Wisconsin on [embryonic] stem cell research is because of the efforts of former governor Tommy Thompson. In his January 1999 State of the State address, Thompson praised the work of James Thomson, a bioresearch biologist at the UW-Madison. James Thomson had just that past November been the first scientist to isolate human embryonic stem cells and to direct them to develop into specific types of cells. Tommy Thompson also actively pursued a close relationship with the biotech research department at the UW.5 Secretary Thompson has vested financial interest in stem cell research. On August 16, 2001, just days after Bush's fateful stem cell decision, Dr. Ramsey Harris commented on the inevitability of stem cell funding based on Bush's appointment of Thompson: The University of Wisconsin is one of the nation's academic leaders in ECS research, and holds the patents on at least five of the known ESC lines, cultivated by faculty member, Dr. James Thomson. It is also home to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF)…WARF has created an endowment that returns on the order of $20 million annually to UW-Madison for unrestricted use…Stem cell lines are one of their big products…WARF established the WiCell Research Institute in October 1999 specifically to advance their stem cell research…The Institute's only faculty member is Dr. Thomson…Of the current US approved patents for human embryonic stem cell lines, two are held by Dr. James Thomson from the UW…Clearly, Mr. Thompson's [Secretary Tommy Thompson] home state institute will benefit enormously, perhaps even exclusively from the $250 million set aside currently for stem cell research.6 Strategic Stalling During Bush's initial months in the White House, he postponed making a decision on the guidelines and refused to address the issue with reporters. His stalling to make a decision and refusal to discuss stem cells in public allowed media curiosity and rumors to buzz until they reached a fevered pitch in the summer of 2001. The delay also gave plenty of time for intensive lobbying campaigns to flare on both sides of the debate. Pro-funding groups had the opportunity to tug at the heartstrings of Americans and garner contrived pity, over and over again sending the message to the public that if the president decided not to give federal funding to this research, lives would be lost-completely ignoring the fact that countless lives were, in fact, lost as a direct result of this research. Their propaganda proved successful in swaying general public opinion in favor of funding human ESCR. In the face of intense pressure from the media and sob-story crowd to fund the research, Bush reiterated his campaign promise in May of 2001 in a letter to the Culture of Life Foundation in which he repeated: "I oppose Federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." He went on to say that he would fund adult stem-cell research, which seemed to hold much promise.7 But it appeared his delayed response was indicative of crumbling resolve. And the extended deferment allowed the president the time he needed to devise a nuanced and subtly crafted compromise. Reports of meetings with "conservative Catholic scholars" who advised him on a "morally acceptable compromise" hit the media in early July. Robert P. George, a moral philosopher at Princeton University; Rev. Robert Sirico, head of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty; and Deal Hudson, editor and publisher of Crisis magazine, were reported saying that a compromise to fund research on stem cell lines derived from embryonic humans who had already been killed would comport with Catholic moral teachings.8 President Bush's prolonged stalling also allowed scientists more time to develop stem cell lines that would be eligible for federal funding. When the discussion surrounding federal funding for human ESCR first began, there were 12-known stem cell lines in existence.9 There were approximately 30 human pluripotent stem cell lines in existence as of June 2001.10 By the time the President made his decision in early August, the number of lines jumped to over 60.11 Promise Broken On August 9, 2001, the president finally announced his decision in a primetime address to the nation: As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist…I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made…12 Divided Pro-Life Leaders Respond President Bush's decision split the pro-life community. Some pro-life leaders rightly condemned the president's stealthy arrangement to fund human ESCR, while other leaders unduly praised him for a job well done in choosing a less obvious evil over a plainly obvious evil. Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops The trade-off he has announced is morally unacceptable: The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for possible benefit to others. However, such a decision is hedged about with qualifications, it allows our nation's research enterprise to cultivate a disrespect for human life. We hope and pray that President Bush will return to a principled stand against treating some human lives as nothing more than objects to be manipulated and destroyed for research purposes.13 Judie Brown, president of American Life League By refusing to stand firm on his previously stated principles, President Bush has stepped aside and cleared the path for those who demand unrestricted freedom to dissect and discard the tiniest and most vulnerable of our fellow human beings.14 Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International … we cannot endorse any decision that funds research on human beings, albeit limited in scope. The President's decision to fund embryonic research, even in this limited fashion, undermines the fundamental principle of the sanctity of human life and devalues the very life that we are hoping to assist through medical science.15 Kenneth L. Connor, president of the Family Research Council On Thursday night President Bush announced his long-awaited decision on the use of taxpayer funds for research on human embryos. The impact of his decision on the fate of hundreds of thousands of embryos and on progress toward medical treatments will not be clear for months or even decades. Its impact on the character of his presidency, however, is clear now: He has made a breach of faith in the service of an untenable compromise.16 Charlotte Allen, columnist for National Review Online Bush missed a chance to take an unequivocal stance on a clear-cut issue that resonates strongly with faithful Catholics. He also broke a campaign pledge, reiterated as recently as last May … In his speech on August 9, Bush merely modified the Clinton policy, giving the scientists the research money they crave although only for work on cells from embryos that had been destroyed as of the date of his speech. The main difference between Bush's stem cell plan and Clinton's: Our embryos have been dead longer than your embryos. As for the religious conservatives, they got…nice words…17 Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum President Bush made the wrong decision morally, scientifically, legally, and politically by approving federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.18 And on the other side… Dr. James Dobson-president of Focus on the Family We breathe a sigh of relief that President Bush has upheld [the] pro-life policy.19 Daniel P. Sulmasy, MD, Franciscan Brother, director of the Bioethics Institute at New York Medical College I think pro-life advocates should be supportive of the president's position as the best we could have hoped for under the circumstances. This decision itself violates no pro-life principles.20 Janet E. Smith, associate professor of philosophy, University of Dallas …I believe it is morally permissible for some scientists to do research on the cells generated from these embryos unjustly killed. Certainly, one should never do evil to achieve good, but this does not mean that one cannot bring good out of evil actions already done. Hospitals and schools have undoubtedly been built, on occasion, from money donated by those who acquired the money by immoral means. If we were to learn that the chief benefactor of a hospital was a mafia don, should we therefore close the hospital?21 Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine It will be interesting to compare the Catholic reaction of Bush's stem cell decision to Bill Clinton's on partial birth abortion. There will be some who will want to use the Bush decision as a wedge issue to divide him from his Catholic constituents; others will simply express disappointment in a man they believe is a pro-life president. David N. O'Steen, executive director, National Right to Life Committee The National Right to Life Committee commends Bush's decision to prevent the federal government from becoming involved in research that would require the destruction of human embryos. In so doing, the president acted to save the lives that he could. We mourn the children who were destroyed to derive these stem cells, but there is nothing the pro-life community or the president can do to restore their lives…The line may not have been drawn where some pro-lifers would have drawn it, but we should all stand with the president in defending that line against anti-life forces. Jerry Falwell …only Solomon could have improved on the what the President did and said. He clearly maintained his integrity regarding the protection of unborn life. He also manifested his concern for the health and welfare of all Americans by allowing science to proceed unfettered but within reasonable moral boundaries. This was George W. Bush's finest hour thus far."22 Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice The President said 'no' to the most troubling aspect of this issue - the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos-to destroy human life. The President has reached the correct decision concerning one of the most serious ethical and moral issues of our day.23 Pro-Life Fallout The Washington Times "The pro-life groups long associated with GOP politics no longer speak with one voice on 'their' issue. I think an equivalent rift in the Democratic Party might be a split between the National Organization of Women and the National Abortion Rights Action League over partial-birth abortion-a very big deal."24 An Unacceptable Compromise Contrary to the claims of the president's supporters, President Bush's compromise constituted a broken promise to pro-lifers. Any attempt to justify President Bush by way of hair-splitting semantics is reminiscent of Clintonian excuses for bad behavior. Pro-life leaders who praised the president's decision, saying: "at least he won't allow the use of federal funds to kill any more embryos," overlooked the fact that funding research on stem cells killed before August 9 makes him morally complicit in their deaths. It is never permissible to accept the fruits of ill-gotten goods. To do so is to say that you give consent to the immoral acts committed in obtaining them. Evidently, the president was advised by Catholic ethicists with regard to a thorny question involving the legitimacy of using vaccines derived from fetal cells that ultimately came from an elective abortion. Three days following the announcement of his decision, the president claimed a moral similarity between his decision regarding stem cells and the vaccine question. In an article written August 12 in the New York Times OP/ED section, the President says about his decision: "There is a precedent. The only licensed live chickenpox vaccine used in the United States was developed, in part, from cells derived from research involving human embryos. Researchers first grew the virus in embryonic lung cells, which were later cloned and grown in two previously existing cell lines. Many ethical and religious leaders agree that even if the history of this vaccine raises ethical questions, its current use does not."25 Some Catholic theologians have concluded that when there is no alternative, one may use the vaccines to protect their health or the health of their loved ones without serious sin. The Vatican has not yet spoken on this matter definitively, and it is unlikely that they will do so any time soon. However, he failed to point out that Catholic teaching clearly requires an absolute rejection of any complicity in the immoral practice of abortion. The Church has and does oppose any collaboration-private or governmental- with regard to abortionists obtaining fetal tissue for vaccine research. The embryonic stem cell issue poses an even more serious problem, as live human embryos were directly destroyed for the purpose of research. The decision was also immoral in the sense that it gives scandal. Donum Vitae, the document by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Catholic teaching with regard to particular questions of bioethics, declares: "It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research." Respect for human embryos, from Catholics or anyone, requires nothing less. In giving financial reward to scientists who have killed human embryos for research, the president could hardly be construed as living up to his "duty to condemn." Furthermore, the day after the president announced his decision, stem cell company stock increased in value. His decision will encourage more privately funded research that destroys human embryos as it removed the ethical stigma. And, by providing money for the early stages of the research, the discovery of possible treatments will make it difficult to resist the demand for many thousands of cell lines with different genetic profiles. We know that the number of cell lines more than doubled from June to August, and when the proposal was first discussed, there were said to be only 12 existing cell lines.26 This would tend to imply that word of impeding public funding was given to scientists who worked hard to produce the cell lines in anticipation of receiving federal funding for further research. In late July 2001, Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, warned that a compromise such as the one the president was rumored to be favoring was a sell-out of his campaign promise. Following the stem cell decision, Mrs. Brown declared that if the President had no problem re-negging on such a critical pro-life commitment as this, we could all be certain that his other pro-life commitments would soon fall victim to his lack of conviction and resolve to do what is right.27 This warning proved prophetic. The legacy continues U.S. President Bush said on Friday that federal money should not pay for research on fetal tissue or stem cells derived from abortions…"I do not support research from aborted fetuses."28 --January 2001 Once again, President Bush was commended for promising to defend innocent human life. And once again, President Bush broke his promise. In 1993 Congress passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act that placed the decision of whether or not to conduct or support research using fetal tissue from aborted babies up to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services: The Secretary of Health and Human Services may conduct or support research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes…29 As stated previously, Tommy Thompson is no friend of the babies, as he strongly supports all embryonic stem cell regardless of the source. This was well known at the time of his nomination. Therefore, it was no surprise that in February 2002, the National Institutes of Health offered to pay researchers to develop courses on the "how-to" of embryonic stem cell research: Short Term Courses in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Culture Techniques: The NIH invites applications for grants to develop, conduct, evaluate, and disseminate short-term courses on laboratory research techniques for human embryonic stem cell lines.30 Not only did Bush nominate an anti-life director of the Health and Human Services, who did not shut-down ESC-fetal tissue research, in April of 2002, President Bush appointed Dr. Elias Zerhouni to the position of Director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Elias Zerhouni was the executive vice dean of the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. Under his approving eye, Dr. John Gearhart of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine co-discovered human stem cells in 1998 by using cells derived from aborted fetuses.31 Judie Brown of American Life League warned in March of 2002: President Bush broke a promise when he authorized public funding for destructive human embryo research. Now he is compounding that breach of trust. His nominee for NIH director is a man who has pushed embryos destruction at Johns Hopkins University and will undoubtedly promote embryo killing on the federal level.32 In April of 2002, Dr. Zerhouni gave his opening statement at the Senate Hearings for his nomination: I was instrumental in creating an institute for stem cell engineering primarily because I was concerned about the lack of any federal funding to advance the fundamental research still needed in this promising but fledgling field. This is why I believe that, in the current state of science, the August 9th policy set by the President was an important advance. For the first time it allowed NIH funding for [embryonic] stem cell research, something which had not been done under previous administrations.33 In May of 2002: The Bush administration…approved the first federally funded project using stem cells obtained from fetuses aborted up to eight weeks after conception…[The] first funds for research on stem cells from fetuses [went to] cell pioneer John Gearhart at Johns Hopkins University school of Medicine.34 President Bush has enshrined his approval of embryonic stem cell research derived from fetal tissue and embryos by nominating a Director of NIH who has a vested personal interest in the continuation of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has also ensured that embryonic stem cell research flourishes by allowing the NIH to promote the study of embryonic stem cell research. More Compromises on Human Cloning Now that the future of embryonic stem cell research, including fetal tissue research is assured throughout the Bush Administration, the President is allowing human cloning to become a reality. President Bush, true to form, made a pro-life promise; he called on the Senate to back a human cloning ban: Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications; and that's not acceptable. I believe that all human cloning is wrong, and both forms of cloning ought to be banned.35 However, actions always speak louder than words. Bush's own nominee for NIH Director did not give any assurance that he supported a ban on all forms of human cloning: Asked whether he [Zerhouni] agrees with Bush's call for legislation that would criminalize all forms of cloning…Zerhouni said, "To me, the science is so early that what we need to do is develop the scientific field, get more people into doing the research that needs to be done."36 Bush's anti-cloning statement lost even it's tenuous credibility when The White House blocked Senators Sam Brownback and Mary Landreiu's amendment to ban the patenting of human embryos. [The White House] lobbied…to kill a Senate Republican effort to effectively stop commercial human cloning in the United States, [said] Senate sources…Although President Bush has endorsed a complete ban on human cloning sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mary Landreiu (D-La.), White House Lobbyists contacted Republican senators June 18 to ask them to vote that morning for coture on the Senate's terrorism insurance bill (S 2600), thus preventing an up-or-down vote on a human cloning amendment that Brownback wanted to attach to the bill…"The vote on the Brownback amendment would likely have been the most significant pro-life vote in this session of Congress," [Ken] Connor [the President of the Family Research Council] said in a written statement. "The White House had an opportunity to lead on an issue of critical importance to pro-family/pro-life groups, but instead chose to dissemble."37 And yet perhaps the most obvious sign that President Bush did not really mean, "all human cloning is wrong, and [that] both forms of cloning ought to be banned,"38 was his appointment of The President's Council on Bioethics. Before assessing Bush's council, it is necessary to examine the purpose of former President Clinton's Commission. When President Clinton was in office he created The National Bioethics Advisory Commission to look into the matter of cloning humans. Former President Clinton's NBAC was hand picked to clarify and explain to the public his position on human cloning. The NBAC made a unanimous proposal: A five-year moratorium on use of cloning to produce a "child," meaning a live-born child. This would allow unlimited cloning to produce human embryos, so long as the embryos were then destroyed. Such experiments could be used to refine the procedure and test its likelihood of causing birth defects. After years of destructive experiments, the ban on allowing live birth could be reconsidered. So NBAC's proposal is not a ban on cloning but a permission slip for experimenting on embryos and a mandate for destroying them. This approach is reflected in S. 1602, a bill introduced by Senators Kennedy and Feinstein to prohibit transferring a cloned human embryo to "a woman's uterus." Under S. 1602, researchers could clone embryos and experiment on them without limit; they would violate the law only if they failed to throw away the embryos afterwards.39 Diane Gianelli of the American Medical News, when asked by Bob Abernethy of PBS whether it was a surprise that anything so controversial could have been unanimously decided by 17 people, remarked that: It's a presidentially appointed commission, which means that President Clinton gets to choose who will be on this commission, and he's a pro-choice Democrat, liberal-leaning president, so really, it's not a surprise that he's going to pick at least the majority of people who reflect his viewpoint on this.40 President Bush's Council should have clarified his promise that he was against all forms of human cloning. Instead, the President's Council was composed of members with dissenting viewpoints and morals. President Bush obviously did not want a clarification of his "strongly held" belief; he wanted political compromise in an attempt to satisfy everyone. Conservatives who hailed Bush's appointments such as Dr. Gilbert Mileander, Dr. Leon Kass and Mary Ann Glendon, likewise chose to ignore the appointments of people like Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn who stated that: A moratorium can only be counterproductive to the good that can come out of this research. The thoughtful application of current regulations to all SCNT research…will allow this research to proceed with its risks minimized and its benefits maximized for all.41 Dr. Rebecca S. Dresser who stated that, "there are a few cases in which cloning to have a child might be morally acceptable…"42 Dr. Daniel Foster who stated that: There is no doubt that a five or six day embryos is potentially human, but it cannot become a human by itself as would occur in normal human conception. The one or two hundred cell organism, the blastocyst, is neither viable nor feeling; there are no organs and there is no brain. There is nothing it an do without external help and implantation. From the standpoint of science it is potentially human but biologically pre-human.43 Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga who stated that: It seems only right that those adults [needing organ transplants or tissue donations] not needing leftover IVF embryos or eggs, neither of which have a brain at all, should have the same right to will them for use in biomedical research. The no-brained blastocyst that can develop from these tissue gifts, from both IVF and biomedical cloning technologies, is ready to help the suffering of brain-alive children and adults.44 Not surprisingly, this Council decided that a moratorium on cloning was more appropriate than the ban that the President had said that he wanted. In a long-awaited report to be released today, the President's Council on Bioethics has endorsed a moratorium on therapeutic cloning and a ban on reproductive cloning… The panel's decision was far from unanimous, however, as 10 of the individuals in the 18-member groups supported a four-year moratorium on therapeutic cloning, while seven members recommended that therapeutic cloning research be allowed to proceed under government regulation. [Dr. Leon Kass wrote that] a moratorium would give time to debate "whether we should cross a crucial moral boundary: creating cloned human life solely as a resource for research."45 A moratorium means that the ethics of cloning are up to debate. A moratorium means that President Bush's statement that, "Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications; and that's not acceptable,"46 is nothing but empty words. President Bush did nothing to ensure that cloning would be unacceptable. The President's Council on Bioethics was markedly different from Clinton's Commission: When the membership of this Council was first announced, some critics complained that Bush had stacked the Council to ensure a particular outcome. I believe that this report, if carefully read, will put that charge to rest. The president could have easily stacked this Council to guarantee support for a ban on cloning for biomedical research, but he didn't do that. He wanted a group of independent minded people…so the best arguments on all sides could be placed before him and the American people.47 President Bush has been advised that a moratorium is the most lucrative option. And therefore his President's Council and his cloning policy has joined ranks with his nominations of Tommy Thompson and Elias Zerhouni, who helped him to enshrine his embryonic stem cell research decision and assisted him in carrying out his tacit approval of fetal tissue research. The President has made many pro-life promises, but has broken them all. President Bush calls himself "pro-life," and even though many affirm this self-proclaimed label, the string of broken promises and broken bodies lying in his wake, do not give witness to his many words.
Footnotes
|