House passes stem cell research bill.
By on Jan 11th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
House passes stem cell research bill.
“The House of Representatives fell short of a veto-proof margin in approving legislation today to lift President George W. Bush’s 2001 ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem-cell research. Lawmakers voted 253 to 174 to expand federal funding for stem-cell research using discarded human embryos.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
at last an american stem cell is worth as much as an iraqi – nothing
January 11th, 2007 at 3:56 pmThank God it wasn’t veto proof. This type of research is very important, but the Fed’s shouldn’t be funding it. Many in this country are against it. Currently, the research is legal and letting the private sector do the investment would help satisfy everyone. Taking tax money to do research the free market would do is wrong on many levels.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThey need to pass as many of these popular proposals as possible, whether they will be vetoed or not. Any popular bills that Bush vetoes will become ready-made issues for who becomes the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate. Congress will be doing the “people’s work” and Bush will be the obstructionist. Fine.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#4 Why would the people want to pay for research the free market would do for them? Seems illogical to me. The Fed’s shouldn’t be monkeying in research anyways. We have industry for that. Isn’t there job security and education afterall?
January 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm#3 Free Market my ass.
You should do your research before you comment.
I won’t go into it, as I’m sure other’s will. A huge amount of research is done in many areas by the government. Some of our gov-sponsored labs are the best in the world, and the research and development they do typically gets adopted in some way by the private sector.
Jeez…
January 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pmAt least voters will be able to see who all the “save a discarded embryo!” jerks are so we can get rid of them.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:09 pmPelosi is keeping her word…so far so good.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pmThe 110th Congress has clearly done more in their first week than the 109th did all last year…
January 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pm“Taking tax money to do research the free market would do is wrong on many levels.”
Yeah, that tax money should only be used for oil company subsidies, ill-conceived military invasions, and interest on the ever increasing national debt.
Reality check:
January 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWe the people form a government so that we can do things collectively for the benefit of our society that we are incapable of doing individually. Funding long overdue research into medical procedures that may save thousands of lives and improve the quality of life for many others is a good use of my taxes. It’s certainly a better use of my taxes than invading countries that don’t pose a serious threat to us resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people..
i’d bet that when/if it gets to that point, there will be enough votes to override that veto…
January 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pmwe have industry for that. Isn’t there job security and education afterall? Comment by Roger_Roger — January 11, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Without government research, you wouldn’t be talking on the *tubes* of the internet you dumba$$ idiot.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThis argument that the free market should take care of stem cell research is obviously posed by people completely unfamiliar with how the funding of basic science research functions. Biotech companies are oh so profitable due to their business model that has academic researchers doing all of the “understanding” for them. Then, once that level of scientific knowledge is reached, they dedicate their capital to the profit-driven goal of coming up with treatments. We will not get meaningful progress in the field of stem cells without NIH funding.
Also, while we are on the subject of the free market, it is interesting to point out that the global economy being what it is, if we wait on funding stem cell research, the probability of other nations excelling at it becomes higher, and when it becomes the industry unto itself that it WILL be, our economy can kiss those dollars goodbye. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, pipe down and let people who do explain things to you.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:26 pmBang on, Mike. Basic research is a significant source of university funding and activity. Much of the drug and medical therapy that we currently enjoy had its start in the publicly-funded arena.
Those who oppose this bill because “we shouldn’t be paying for it” are clueless. Many of them likely support GDumbya’s dirty little war even though it is a complete and total waste of taxpayer dollars.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#14 So your saying that the Free market or some other country completely will do this research for us if we don’t decide to pay for it with Taxes. Am I missing something or does that not sound to bad at all? Afterall, the private sector would have to buy this research from the Univerisities anyways. Let them barter with others in the private sector and retarded countries that waste tax money on research the free market would do anyways.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmRoger, you keep talking about the “free market.” According to Public Citizen, 55% of all drug research conducted by pharmaceutical companies is tax-payer funded. Pharmaceutical companies, because of special tax breaks, pays on the average, 40% of the taxes other corporations pay. Big pharma gave $65 million to republicans over the course of 8 years from 1996 to 2004.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:53 pm#16
Since you’re not quite getting the larger scope of my argument here, let’s try another approach. As you may know, the US is the center of the oil industry. Why? Well we just happened to be the nation to discover its usefulness and developed the industry. While we once had a very small amount within our borders, we really don’t anymore. Its all abroad. Here’s the kicker. WE STILL RUN THE WORLD OIL MARKET. Why? Because the capital that funded its inception is based here, and is what keeps it rolling. Now, apply this same scenario to any other capital and research intensive industry (stem cells). Are you so arrogant in your views to suppose that another country would invest in something by which it would not profit? The US is not the only nation with business schools.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pmRoger, what an idiot you are.
When russians put Gagarin in space, they caused a conmotion in the US, changing the way engineering was taught and rushing the space race. That has nothing to do with free market.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:22 pmYES, WE MUST PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND MAKE SURE THEY MAKE THEIR JOURNEY TO THE TRASH BIN UNMOLESTED BY SCIENCE!!
January 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pm#10
The 110th Congress has clearly done more in their first week than the 109th did all last year…
Comment by unbelievable
“House Democrats cancel opening session so that members can attend the Ohio State-Florida State football game. Iraqi war to be continued…”
January 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHeh right
It is not necessary to use embryos to gather stem cells.
The cells gathered from umbilical cords and the placenta, which are disposed of are likely more beneficial than embryonic stem cells.
For is not the placenta only like the shell of an egg, yet flexible and clear?
January 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmCan humans, or chickens, procreate without this, what we discard, and forget about?
What did come first the chicken or the egg?
Was it not then the universe, the womb or the shell?
Is not the universe your shell, mankind, who is still in creation?
Do you not yet realize this?
It’s never been a particularly hard question to answer. The egg came first. Living things emerged from eggs for hundreds of millions of years before the first chicken.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pmIt’s never been a particularly hard question to answer. The egg came first. Living things emerged from eggs for hundreds of millions of years before the first chicken.
Comment by Bluedog49
But yet the egg needed a universe to first exist in, a placenta of matter, if you will. The womb of space and time came first.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmhe egg came first. Living things emerged from eggs.
Eggs have shells, without a shell it wouldn’t be able to become an egg. Without a placenta, a shell, the egg couldn’t be.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:29 pmZep, the question is not whether it is necessary to use embryonic stem cells. The question is whether we should simply throw away unused blastocysts produced by fertility clinics or use them for the advancement of science and the human condition. They either go down the toilet or help science find cures for diseases. Period.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:35 pmZep, the question is not whether it is necessary to use embryonic stem cells. The question is whether we should simply throw away unused blastocysts
I understand what you say, and agree, but by what I have read, we don’t need to use them.
I think this debate only serves to divide us as a nation.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:39 pmThe scientific community wants them. The medical research community thinks they can use them to cure diseases. I’ll go with their recommendations, thank you. You may live in a spiritual world or a magical world. I don’t know. But, in my world, this looks like the way to cure a variety of diseases. That’s all I care about.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pmWhile you’re thinking about the nature of the universe or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, parents all over the country are sticking their toddlers with needles and taking blood 4 or 5 times a day, people with Parkinsons are struggling to communicate without shaking, people with spinal cord injuries are struggling to walk again, and so on. Talk is talk. If we have the ability to alleviate some of this suffering, not doing it is a crime against humanity.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pmYou may live in a spiritual world or a magical world.
The universe, space and time, is not magical or spiritual. The cells that can be gotten thru umbilical cords and the placenta can possibly be injected directly into patients. Do not confuse my belief in God with science.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pmYou may live in a spiritual world or a magical world.
That what you call magical or spiritual is only methods unlearned. What we today call ’science’.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmWhile you’re thinking about the nature of the universe or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin,
Wherefore do you get this? I do not imagine how many angels can fit upon a pin, Do not think that you know what I think.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pmHave I told you bluedog what you think?
January 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pmMy point is that while people are sitting around splitting philosophical hairs about this, people are struggling with challenges which could be helped by this technology. No disrespect intended, but I tend to be a real-world kind of guy, and I want this technology funded and available to the medical community as fast as possible. It’s a personal with me.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pmMy point is that while people are sitting around splitting philosophical hairs about this, people are struggling with challenges which could be helped by this technology. No disrespect intended, but I tend to be a real-world kind of guy,
I have spoken of real world technology, the chicken and the egg is, of course, philosopical. I di not disagree with technology, I live it and work in it. It is, as I said, a tool used by politicos to divide and conquer when embryonic stem cells are not really needed. I speak technically and not metaphysically.
We agree much more than we disagree bluedog. We are only a hair apart, I consider you a friend. =)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:01 pmGood. We’ll agree to disagree on this one and thank you!
January 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmGood. We’ll agree to disagree on this one and thank you!
Comment by Bluedog49
Ah, but yet we have both advanced. =)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:08 pmAnd I, sir, thank you as well.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pmI’m asking this question because I don’t know the answer. I have also heard the non-embryonic stem cells are more promising regardless of the moral implications. If this is the case, is this non-embryonic stem cell research getting significant private backing that would support the claim free market scenerios?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:12 pmI also believe that using the unused blastocysts for research initially made sense to me, although I have begun to question that if we use the unused blastocysts, it could cause incentive not to develope blastocysts that may have been developed if the research weren’t being conducted.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pmIf this is the case, is this non-embryonic stem cell research getting significant private backing that would support the claim free market scenerios?
The free market funds college level non enmbryonic research.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pmbut here is the crux of the argument, and it is not pretty, the longer we can extend life, the less chance our children have to progress into those positions.
We then enter into a brave new world scenario.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:27 pmthat would support the claim free market scenerios?
Now you have entered the unanswerable argument. That what is complex now becomes simple. And that what is simple becomes unexplicable.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:29 pmYour post reminds me of the irony I experienced the day I was hiking and came upon a deficating bear that was unexpectedly hit by a falling tree that nobody heard.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“I have also heard the non-embryonic stem cells are more promising regardless of the moral implications.”
Comment by paul — January 11, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
You heard wrong, paul. This is exactly the opposite of what is true based on scientific facts. But “non-embryonic stem cells are more promising” is what neocons say with no facts to back it up. Where did you hear this???
January 11th, 2007 at 8:08 pmhttp://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/category/15/122/100/
January 11th, 2007 at 9:16 pmhttp://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/category/15/122/100/
Wow. Could you pick a site that was more obviously biased? A single source? A pro-life source? Tell you what. Gimme 6 sources (a good assignment for a basic College Level English Course), of which you’ve already got your biased source in the form of ‘physiciansforlife.org’, and give us a real consensus saying that most physicians, and not just most pro-life physicians, say that adult stem-cells are as useful as embryonic cells. BTW, if you can also refute the position that adult cells have used up a portion of their genetically allocated divisions, and therefor are functionally older than their embryonic versions, you’ll get bonus points.
Later…
January 11th, 2007 at 11:37 pm#47. and #48. It is one site. I will admit that the probabililty of bias is high. Let me ask you this. If pro-life advocates can be guilty of bias, can the information that you are getting and using be biased by pro-choice advocates?
January 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm