TheBoss(DCA)
06-26-2006, 07:03 PM
Bush's stem-cell politics leaves Dad to wither ....OPINION USA TODAY ([Only registered and activated users can see links] 2MARtc2dJZAM1NzIzBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExNTEzMjc4MTI-;_ylg=1/SIG=1231ln5qn/**[Only registered and activated users can see links]) ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:01 pm (PST)
Posted 5/17/2004 6:56 PM
Bush's stem-cell politics leaves Dad to wither
By Jonathan Turley
OPINION USA TODAY
My father is dying from an American political disease. In a nation
divided evenly between red and blue states, governmental policies
have long been distorted by the gravitational pull of the extremes
of the two parties.
For President Bush, policies often have been shaped by his
fundamentalist and conservative religious base. While controversial,
many of these policies are largely symbolic, such as his unheeded
call for an amendment to ban gay marriage. The president's policy
opposing stem-cell research, however, presents a far more deadly
concession one that might secure votes, but at a prohibitive cost
of human life.
Stem-cell research is back in the news after former first lady Nancy
Reagan's call this month for Bush to drop his opposition to fully
funded research. Former president Ronald Reagan has advanced
Alzheimer's disease and may benefit from stem-cell research. More
than 200 members of Congress (including nearly three dozen abortion-
rights opponents) responded to the call and asked Bush to lift his
extreme limitations on federal funding in some instances. Former
presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also
joined the chorus.
Such a change may come too late for my father. The immediate threat
to him is an advanced-stage Parkinson's disease that is sapping his
strength, reducing his mobility and robbing his mind. However, it is
not Parkinson's, but politics, that has proved the greatest burden
in our fight for his life.
In his self-described "compromise," Bush said stem cells
(microscopic clusters of cells often discarded by hospitals) must be
protected as potential human life. The White House recently
reaffirmed that Bush would not allow research to "cross a
fundamental moral line." Bush has yielded to groups such as the
American Life League, which sees such research as a "deadly use
of ... human beings who are currently in their embryonic stage of
development."
The president has restricted federally funded researchers to using a
small number of existing "stem-cell lines," created before Aug. 9,
2001. From the outset, the compromise was a bit odd, because if the
microscopic cells are "human beings ... in their embryonic stage,"
Bush adopted the ultimate split-the-baby solution.
If they are embryonic humans, it should hardly matter whether they
were created before or after August 2001. If Bush accepts that they
are not human lives, as some abortion-rights opponents accept, then
the restriction is a callous political decision at the potential
cost of 130 million Americans with cancer, heart disease, diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis and other diseases
potentially treatable even curable by advances from stem-cell
research.
At the time of his compromise, Bush said there was an ample pool of
stem-cell lines for research demands. He insisted that there were
about 70 such cell lines, even though many researchers immediately
denounced that number as overstated. They have been proved correct.
The National Institutes of Health reported last week that there are
only 11.
Bush's policies have proved disastrous for American research that
once led the world in this field. Vital federal stem-cell funding
has been reduced to $17 million a year, forcing states to take the
lead in funding research. (In comparison, the Senate has approved
$50 million to build an indoor rain forest in Iowa.) The loss of
federal support has forced some states to try to make up the
difference despite crushing debts. Now, top researchers in the USA
are moving abroad, where they can fully pursue their research, find
breakthroughs and let European companies reap the profits.
In the end, however, the economics and the politics are matters for
presidents to ponder. Most of us are left as the ultimate single-
issue voters. My single issue has a name: Jack Turley.
An accomplished architect and one of a handful of students trained
by the famed Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, he now struggles to maintain
his dignity against a disease that first robs you of every ounce of
dignity and only then takes your life.
As my father sits in Chicago, 400,000 spare embryos sit in freezers
across the country. They could be used to radically speed up
research in Parkinson's and other diseases, but because of the
president's policies, these embryos are likely to be destroyed a
perverse result of protecting "embryonic humans" by discarding them.
Ultimately, every person can elect to accept or reject drugs based
on this research. However, the effective bar on federally funded
research imposes the president's religious views on all of us.
I have become blind to Iraq, environmental laws, civil liberties and
taxes. I have the myopia that comes with desperation. I cannot see
beyond a chair in Chicago where a man sits who once carried me on
his shoulders and protected me against every danger.
Part of me resents that suddenly politicians are scrambling for a
change in policy because Ronald Reagan has Alzheimer's and needs
help. My dad is one of millions of towering historical figures known
primarily to their families. They didn't beat communism; they did
something far more incredible and important: They raised families.
They now sit, like Dad, helplessly monitoring not the progress but
the politics of disease.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at
George Washington University.
Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:01 pm (PST)
Posted 5/17/2004 6:56 PM
Bush's stem-cell politics leaves Dad to wither
By Jonathan Turley
OPINION USA TODAY
My father is dying from an American political disease. In a nation
divided evenly between red and blue states, governmental policies
have long been distorted by the gravitational pull of the extremes
of the two parties.
For President Bush, policies often have been shaped by his
fundamentalist and conservative religious base. While controversial,
many of these policies are largely symbolic, such as his unheeded
call for an amendment to ban gay marriage. The president's policy
opposing stem-cell research, however, presents a far more deadly
concession one that might secure votes, but at a prohibitive cost
of human life.
Stem-cell research is back in the news after former first lady Nancy
Reagan's call this month for Bush to drop his opposition to fully
funded research. Former president Ronald Reagan has advanced
Alzheimer's disease and may benefit from stem-cell research. More
than 200 members of Congress (including nearly three dozen abortion-
rights opponents) responded to the call and asked Bush to lift his
extreme limitations on federal funding in some instances. Former
presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also
joined the chorus.
Such a change may come too late for my father. The immediate threat
to him is an advanced-stage Parkinson's disease that is sapping his
strength, reducing his mobility and robbing his mind. However, it is
not Parkinson's, but politics, that has proved the greatest burden
in our fight for his life.
In his self-described "compromise," Bush said stem cells
(microscopic clusters of cells often discarded by hospitals) must be
protected as potential human life. The White House recently
reaffirmed that Bush would not allow research to "cross a
fundamental moral line." Bush has yielded to groups such as the
American Life League, which sees such research as a "deadly use
of ... human beings who are currently in their embryonic stage of
development."
The president has restricted federally funded researchers to using a
small number of existing "stem-cell lines," created before Aug. 9,
2001. From the outset, the compromise was a bit odd, because if the
microscopic cells are "human beings ... in their embryonic stage,"
Bush adopted the ultimate split-the-baby solution.
If they are embryonic humans, it should hardly matter whether they
were created before or after August 2001. If Bush accepts that they
are not human lives, as some abortion-rights opponents accept, then
the restriction is a callous political decision at the potential
cost of 130 million Americans with cancer, heart disease, diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis and other diseases
potentially treatable even curable by advances from stem-cell
research.
At the time of his compromise, Bush said there was an ample pool of
stem-cell lines for research demands. He insisted that there were
about 70 such cell lines, even though many researchers immediately
denounced that number as overstated. They have been proved correct.
The National Institutes of Health reported last week that there are
only 11.
Bush's policies have proved disastrous for American research that
once led the world in this field. Vital federal stem-cell funding
has been reduced to $17 million a year, forcing states to take the
lead in funding research. (In comparison, the Senate has approved
$50 million to build an indoor rain forest in Iowa.) The loss of
federal support has forced some states to try to make up the
difference despite crushing debts. Now, top researchers in the USA
are moving abroad, where they can fully pursue their research, find
breakthroughs and let European companies reap the profits.
In the end, however, the economics and the politics are matters for
presidents to ponder. Most of us are left as the ultimate single-
issue voters. My single issue has a name: Jack Turley.
An accomplished architect and one of a handful of students trained
by the famed Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, he now struggles to maintain
his dignity against a disease that first robs you of every ounce of
dignity and only then takes your life.
As my father sits in Chicago, 400,000 spare embryos sit in freezers
across the country. They could be used to radically speed up
research in Parkinson's and other diseases, but because of the
president's policies, these embryos are likely to be destroyed a
perverse result of protecting "embryonic humans" by discarding them.
Ultimately, every person can elect to accept or reject drugs based
on this research. However, the effective bar on federally funded
research imposes the president's religious views on all of us.
I have become blind to Iraq, environmental laws, civil liberties and
taxes. I have the myopia that comes with desperation. I cannot see
beyond a chair in Chicago where a man sits who once carried me on
his shoulders and protected me against every danger.
Part of me resents that suddenly politicians are scrambling for a
change in policy because Ronald Reagan has Alzheimer's and needs
help. My dad is one of millions of towering historical figures known
primarily to their families. They didn't beat communism; they did
something far more incredible and important: They raised families.
They now sit, like Dad, helplessly monitoring not the progress but
the politics of disease.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at
George Washington University.