THINKING CLEARLY ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH

On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush nullified the Clinton administration's guidelines that would have provided federal funds for stem cell research involving the continual destruction of human embryos. President Bush allowed funding only for research on existing stem cell lines because "the life- and-death decision has already been made" in these cases. The embryos from which these cell lines have been derived cannot be brought back to life. Like the millions of aborted children they are victims of the culture of death. We mourn their deaths as we mourn the deaths from abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.

In the speech announcing his decision, President Bush stated "I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world." Did we ever hear such words from President Clinton? And didn't the actions of the Clinton administration for eight long years reflect attitudes totally opposed to the right-to-life cause?

Given all that, you would think that President Bush would receive applause from all pro-lifers for overturning yet another anti-life policy from the deadly Clinton years. Moreover, the new policy puts President Bush in strong opposition to the vocal and sizable segment in the Congress that favors not only unrestricted stem cell research but also cloning to produce large numbers of embryos as raw material for the research laboratories. Yet President Bush's courageous and difficult decision has been met with opposition from some pro-lifers.

For the most part, these critics worry about whether the president's decision was morally defensible and whether an important "dam" has been breached. Let's consider these questions.

In a recent issue of the National Catholic Register (9/2- 8/2001), Franciscan Brother and Physician Daniel P. Sulmasy addresses the first question. Dr. Sulmasy, who is the director of the Bioethics Institute at New York Medical College, writes " First, research on embryonic stem-cell lines is not in itself evil. An embryonic stem-cell line created through the destruction of human embryos is not a human person. Second, the president's decision to prohibit further funding for the destruction of human embryos, along with his explicit condemnation of such destruction, is evidence that there is no formal cooperation or sharing in the evil intent. Third, [it cannot be said] that the embryos would not have been destroyed but for the president's action. [They already had been destroyed.] Fourth, the president's decision does not involve him or any scientist using these cell lines (except those who created them in the first place) in any physical way in the act of destroying human embryos.

"This decision itself violates no pro-life principles. But it does mean that we must be especially vigilant to hold the line and not allow the government to succumb to more pressure from the biotech industry and pro-abortion lobbyists who want to eliminate the principle that human life, in its embryonic and fetal stages, has human rights and is worthy of our profound respect."

In the same issue of the Register, Dr. Janet E. Smith, philosophy professor at the University of Dallas, concludes her analysis stating "Very possibly at considerable political cost to himself, Bush has made it clear that he opposes killing embryonic human beings in order to get their stem cells; thus, I do not think he can be accused of being complicit in the killing of the embryos who were killed to create the available cell lines. His decision seems to me to be truly wise and one that best serves the lives of embryonic human beings, both dead and alive."

As to the second point of concern, that a "dam" has been breached, we should consider this: The vote against cloning in the House of Representatives and the president's stand against stem cell research involving the continual killing of embryos came after months of intensive lobbying by the biotech industry and patient advocacy groups for federal funding and the removal of current restrictions on cloning and stem cell research. The voices in Congress, especially in the Senate, to lift the restrictions on embryo-killing stem cell research were (and still are) loud and plentiful.

The press was (and still is) filled with stories about the potential of stem cell research and with heartrending accounts of people afflicted by diseases that might be conquered as a consequence of such embryo-killing research.

In this context it is clear that rather than breaching the "dam" the vote against cloning and the president's stem cell decision have shored up the pro-life position. Now it will be harder for the anti-life forces in Congress to muster a veto-proof majority for unrestricted stem cell research and "therapeutic" or "research" cloning.

Of course a dam was broken--in 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand. That was the original and devastating breach in the dam. It was the Roe v. Wade decision that arrogantly and wrongly proclaimed that the child at any stage before birth is without rights and the protection of personhood. That is the breach in the dam that needs to be repaired.

Pro-lifers who want to effect a reversal of the culture of death and restore the respect for the sanctity of human life will repair the breach in the dam piece by piece. Each piece put into the breach does not fill the whole void but it is necessary for success.

I trust that you want to help put each piece in its place and not complain that it doesn't finish the whole job at once. And I trust that you are patient, determined, and clear about what it takes for the pro-life cause to succeed.