Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Guy Benson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Stem Cell Disgrace
by Guy Benson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

With a great deal of fanfare, President Obama signed an executive order on stem cell research last week. The most controversial element of his new directive is a short, harmless-looking clause that you probably haven’t heard about. People on all sides of the stem cell controversy should call this particular decision what it is: A disgrace.

Last August—back when President Obama was still just Senator Obama—I wrote a column with a very similar title to this one, detailing a series of indefensible votes Obama cast as an Illinois state senator. At issue was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a piece of legislation designed to affirm the full human rights of babies who managed to survive abortions. In short, Obama voted repeatedly against the provision, and then offered a string of evolving, profoundly dishonest excuses for those votes. This episode worried pro-lifers, many of whom correctly concluded that despite his conciliatory rhetoric and overtures to voters on both sides of the issue, Obama would actually govern as the most pro-abortion president in history. They were right.

When Obama reversed the Bush-era policy on embryonic stem cell research funding on Monday, he was flanked by a bevy of smiling activists and legislators who burst into applause when he attached his signature to the order. Like many Americans, the group assembled at the White House seemed to genuinely believe Obama’s act would open research avenues that could help find a cure to devastating diseases. Who can blame them? For years, Democrats portrayed the previous policy as a triumph of narrow-minded religious dogma imposed by zealots who would rather see human suffering continue than surrender an inch on ideology.

Of course, the reality was much more complicated. President Bush’s 2001 executive order did not “ban” embryonic stem cell research, as much of the public believes. He simply ensured that the privately funded destruction of new human embryos—nascent human life—would not be encouraged by the promise of taxpayer dollars for future research. In other words, embryonic stem cell research could continue, but the government stopped short of providing cash incentives for an unproven practice that many taxpayers believed to be morally abhorrent. Obama’s order ends that paradigm. Now researchers who engage in this specific form of stem cell research will be handsomely rewarded with federal funds. (Direct taxpayer funding of embryo destruction is explicitly banned by the 1995 Dickey Amendment, so the new policy allows the government to subsidize the practice while outsourcing the dirty work to private entities).

Perhaps you agree with this new policy. Most Americans, including some who are generally anti-abortion, believe embryonic stem cell research represents a gray area with a lot of potential scientific upside. Many are also willing to allow some tax dollars to further research in this vein. It’s a complicated, difficult issue on which reasonable people can express honest disagreements.

Obama, as he is inclined to do, tried to have it both ways at the signing ceremony. He first acknowledged that, “Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their views, and I believe we must respect their point of view.”

Mere seconds later, he assailed the previous administration for crafting policy that, well, understood and truly respected the views of those aforementioned “thoughtful and decent” people. Obama congratulated his administration for having the sophistication to ensure that scientific decisions are “based on facts, not ideology.” Remember that phrase. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Guy Benson is the host of The Guy Benson Show on 560 WIND-AM in Chicago.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
to NTLB
"Obama and the Unborn
When President Obama was running, he stated something to the effect that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he didn't want her punished with a baby. I have thought long and hard about what he really meant by this. Does he think of himself as the product of a mistake? Does he see himself as a punishment visited on his mother for her "sins"? Does he consider himself and others like him, born out of wedlock as punishments, as something evil? This could be an explanation of his attitude, his seeming hatred for the unborn".

It's important to evaluate his comment in context. He was supporting sex ed to prevent teen-age pregnancy, so kids realize the possibility of pregnancy and if not abstinent don't find themselves in a difficult situation, in fact punished with not knowing. The comment had nothing to do with abortion or babies being a punishment. 1 I think we can all agree children having children is not a good thing.
For all we know, Obama's mother, while young and unmarried, wanted to get pregnant, which is totally different. He doesn't hate the unborn, says he is personaaly not for abortion.

1
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12231

Obama and the Unborn
When President Obama was running, he stated something to the effect that if one of his daughters made a mistake, he didn't want her punished with a baby. I have thought long and hard about what he really meant by this. Does he think of himself as the product of a mistake? Does he see himself as a punishment visited on his mother for her "sins"? Does he consider himself and others like him, born out of wedlock as punishments, as something evil? This could be an explanation of his attitude, his seeming hatred for the unborn.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.