In August 2001, President Bush limited federal funding to what turned out to be just 21 embryonic stem cell lines and later twice vetoed bipartisan legislation to expand government funded stem cell research. Today, in a rebuke of Bush policy, President Obama lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits.

In response to Obama’s executive order, some conservatives — determined to carry on Bush’s legacy — falsely argued that lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research would undermine more promising stem cell research:

- Karl Rove: “I hope it does not diminish the amount of money going into the non-embryonic stem cell research… What we have learned over the last seven or eight years is that there are many avenues, promising avenues to drive these stem cells that do not involve a troubling questions involved with the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying human life and harvesting the cells that were made by it.” [Fox News, 3/9/2008]

- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical.” [FirstRead, 3/9/2008]

- Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions.” [FirstRead, 3/9/2008]

But as CAPAF senior fellow Jonathan Moreno explained during an interview with ThinkProgress, “embryonic stem cell research actually has made possible the advances in alternative forms of stem cells, including the so-called pluri-potent stem cells”:

Without these embryonic stem cell lines, the work that’s been done so far on pluri-potent stem cells wouldn’t have been possible….One of the problems is that people are putting this dividing line between embryonic stem cells and other cells. Biology doesn’t recognize those kinds of divisions. We really need to ask the question ‘what is going to work for this medical problem or what is going to work in developing this drug or what is going to work in answering this basic biological question?’ it needs to be driven by the questions they are asking and not about the sources of the cells.

Watch it:

Obama’s order gives incoming HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and yet-to-be-announced NIH director 120 days “to create a set of guidelines to govern the funding of research on embryonic and non-embryonic stem cells.” Federal officials are expected within weeks to “release a draft document that will be made available for public comment before being finalized.”

In the lead up to last week’s White House Health Care Summit, Republicans publicly repudiated President Obama’s proposal to give Americans the choice of enrolling a new a public health plan.

Despite a show of bipartisanship and openness for debate, the GOP sent a letter to Obama, effectively taking this option off the table. At the summit, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, warned Obama that “there’s a lot of us that feel that the public option that the government is an unfair competitor.”

Over the weekend, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — the chairman of the Republican party’s health care task force– doubled down on this opposition and dedicated the Republican radio address to opposing so-called “government run programs”:

Some people are spending a lot of time talking about how to spend more of your money on bigger government run programs…That’s why real competition is the key – it encourages innovation so that the health care treatments and services available to you are the ones that you need and you want. Republicans are committed to common-sense solutions that promote competition and innovation…Republicans will lead the effort to make health care work for Americans.

Watch it:

If Republicans plan to “lead the effort” on health care reform, their current approach leaves much to the imagination. In fact, Blunt’s so-called health care task force is concerned about messaging, not policy; rhetorical flourishes, instead of real workable solutions and compromise.

But on a larger scale, government workers complaining about government-sponsored health care is a bit like governors complaining about the stimulus, but then accepting the funds. If Republicans are really concerned about subpar care or rationing of treatments, then they should publicly abandon their government sponsored insurance (which they receive through The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program) and try their luck in the individual health insurance market. Until that exodus occurs, the Republican message sounds like hypocritical ideological stubbornness.

The FEHB, it should be noted, does not include a public option and is not a model for lowering health care costs. As Jacob Hacker points out, “the growth rate for FEHBP is virtually identical to that for private health insurance…This suggests that simply replicating FEHBP on a broader scale—without public plan choice—would be unlikely to provide the long-term cost restraint essential for successful reform.”

Government involvement in health care is certainly an uphill climb for the GOP. Most Americans support government involvement in health care and a large majority support a public option. After all, injecting competition into the health insurance market (in the form of a public plan) is a uniquely “American solution” — the very thing conservatives seem to be asking for.