Email me at [email protected]
Read Rovere’s “Gifted Cells” for the full story on how stem cells work.
So what does it mean that Obama was way ahead of Congress on the transformative power of stem cells? For starters, the interpretation of the legislative language is rather different.
The now infamous drug policy bill of President Reagan, released in 1983, is titled the National Stem Cell Research Act. Yet the language actually suggested how research on such things would be conducted. But, notwithstanding this set of provisions, the Reagan administration was restricted in the use of stem cells due to the lack of a specific recognition of scientific status. See citation to Document1A above.
Unfortunately, Congress pushed the President’s legal authority back to the 1996 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Here, too, the Department of Justice, backed by the President’s office, released “forward-looking” guidelines that could be followed in advance of legislation. One of those guidelines called for the rejection of select research on embryonic stem cells if it involved mixing non-embryonic cells.
Now see “Press Conference By The Office Of The Executive Secretary Of US Bioethics Commission” dated Oct. 16, 1996, on Executive Orders 13808 and 13103, particularly and particularly where the expression of moral propriety and respect for human life are concerned. These Executive Orders, in fact, mention prohibitions on research based on the enhancement of human life by manipulation or destruction of human embryos in the absence of the President’s formal designation as to the specific branch of human life that will be subject to the restrictions. See Document#1A.
See Document#2A for even more evidence of White House winking and nodding to the world that the re-classification of embryos “new human life” was not attached to any executive order. And see document #3A.
The President’s executive order to designate embryonic stem cells as “new human life” failed because there was no signed presidential directive to the contrary. Fortunately, the science fiction theory of “New Human Life” propelled by stem cells could be answered by simple biology and a human genome program. A similar program will guide the selection of embryo stem cells for the birth of new human life.
Section 942’s explanatory note includes several affirmations of the principles of justice that have shaped the White House policy. These principles, according to document #1A, include respect for all human life; acknowledging that the right to life is a universal principle; relying on those who have given the greatest benefit in creation; and seeking to honor the human person who was created in God’s image.
Clearly, the fantasy theory of the “New Human Life” was wrong for 2016. And when human life is born in of the womb of a 14-week-old unborn child, we are well on our way to confirming science has vindicated President Obama’s policy to follow scientific evidence and the law in the protection of human life at every stage, because science and science alone.
As with childless women’s right to have genetically modified food, feminist’s right to transvaginal pap smears, organic animal foods and the right of parents to select the gender of their children, the federal government’s position should be indistinguishable from the scientific consensus that human life begins at conception.
That is the essence of “human life,” regardless of the emotional, religious or political means. Dr. Peter Green, a distinguished authority on genetics, the practice of genetics and stem cell biology in medicine, and bioethics was inspired to explain why no mere advance in science could overcome the very clear constitutional separation of church and state that the Founders placed at the heart of the Republic. He first published his proposal in the Wall Street Journal in November, 2007. See the interview, clip in full below, with Dallas Salisbury.
The global effort to clone humans as a means of therapeutic cloning is held up as “useless” by those who claim cloning humans can only be done by religious or political groups. In addition to the moral and ethical issues this assumes, it also ignores the fundamental question of whether a society is for or against the destruction of human embryos in the quest for the truth about human life, science and the preservation of our precious and limited number of remaining precious life forms.
Whether on abortion, genetically modified food, and the pre-emptive ban on minor abortion providers and medics, we can put aside talk of what is right or wrong and more important, we can all agree that the world desperately needs more life. President Obama was the right man at the right time to make it right.