Will Bush really use the veto?

[Accountable]

Do you really think Bush will use his veto pen, considering that he's never done it yet?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush Likely to Make First Veto Since Taking Office

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
BOB KEMPER July 18, 2006

Washington --- President Bush's administration warned the Senate on Monday that if it passes a bill today expanding the kinds of stem cell research that can receive federal funding, Bush will issue his first veto since taking office.

"The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells," the White House said in a statement.

The bill, which received approval in the House, is expected to pass, though supporters appear to lack to the 67 votes needed to override a veto, which could come as early as Wednesday.

Bush in 2001 restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to the limited number of stem cell lines available prior to his order --- a decision scientists say greatly hampers their development of therapies that could lead to cures for conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.

As debate on the bill opened Monday in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a physician and potential presidential candidate in 2008, called on colleagues to lift the ban on federal spending on new lines. "I feel that the limit on cell lines available for federally funded research is too restrictive," Frist said.

The bill would allow federal funding for research on embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics that were not implanted and were slated for disposal.

A number of other prominent Republicans, including Nancy Reagan, support expanding stem cell research, despite the concerns of anti-abortion advocates who equate the destruction of the embryos with the taking of human life. Among leading opponents is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who in a statement Monday said that "while researchers in the private sector are free to destroy young human lives through embryonic stem cell research, the government should not be in the business of funding this ethically troubling research with taxpayer dollars."

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson sought to introduce a compromise but was unable to get Frist to include it in the legislative package. The Republican from Cobb County said he spent the past year developing a proposal with the help of professors at Emory University and the University of Georgia that would allow federal funding only for embryos that fertility clinics determine are incapable of developing into fetuses and therefore would never be implanted.

He said such an arrangement would eliminate the conflict between scientific goals and moral concerns.

"I respect human life," Isakson, who backed Bush's restrictions in 2001, said in a speech on the Senate floor. "I also respect the wonder of science and innovation and the great discoveries that brought. And I stand here today believing you can do both."

Three such lines of stem cells, developed with private funding, exist at the University of Georgia, and other lines have been developed at other universities. Yet, before Isakson's proposal, neither the administration nor Congress has considered drawing distinctions between viable and unviable leftover embryos.

"It's out there. People for one reason or another are not paying attention or not wanting to pay attention," said Steve Stice, director of the Regenerative Bio-Science Center at the University of Georgia.

This week's debate is the only one the Senate will have on stem cells before the November elections, but Isakson's aides said he will introduce a compromise bill after the election, or possibly after Bush issues his veto.

"This debate won't be over," Isakson said.

[Marie5656]

On this point, I think he will, as he has always strongly opposed stem cell research.

I, for one am in favor of it, but then, what do I know..I am not the president.

How much of what the president does or does not veto, do you think, should be based on his personal feelings, or shold the voice of the majority be taken into consideration??

How much of what the president does or does not veto, do you think, should be n\based on his personal feelings, or shold the voice of the majority be taken into consideration??

If I may say so, that's an excellent question. I'll be interested to read responses.

As I understand it, the presidential veto can be overcome by a vote of the Congress, is that correct? I don't know the details (I could google it of course but that would defeat the multi-layered purposes of my asking in the first place) but I believe it requires a pretty decent vote of the legislature to overcome the veto.

[Marie5656]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

If I may say so, that's an excellent question. I'll be interested to read responses.

As I understand it, the presidential veto can be overcome by a vote of the Congress, is that correct? I don't know the details (I could google it of course but that would defeat the multi-layered purposes of my asking in the first place) but I believe it requires a pretty decent vote of the legislature to overcome the veto.

Yes, I think Congress can override a veto..with a certain majority

[Lulu2]

The articles I'm reading this morning say that 70% of citizens polled felt stem cell research should be explored/funded by the government. I'm no Bush fan and I'm delighted to see him in the position of having to either placate his conservative religious buddies or follow the wishes of the American people and recommendations of scientists.

Do I think the needs of people with debilitating diseases/conditions outweigh the (alleged) "rights" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue? Do I think the needs of those same people are less important than the (alleged) "soul" of an unwanted bit of embryonic tissue?

Do you need to ask me that question? No, I didn't think so. (As someone who lives daily with considerable pain, doing everything possible to delay replacing both deteriorating knees, I'm solidly in favor of any technology which might make regrowth of cartilege possible.)

But, I digressed. You asked if Bush will really use the veto? Even though I imagine his staff has spent sleepless nights trying to extricate him from this mess, I believe he'll ultimately climb on his sanctimonious soap box and veto it. If there's not enough support to override him THIS TIME, I believe that time will come.

[Marie5656]

70% Lulu? Interesting. Did not think it was that high. I am definatly in favor, too.

[chonsigirl]

Bush is prepared to veto it, this afternoon at 2:15 pm.

I am properly in the minority, and am supporting Bush's decision. I am against embryonic stem cell research. I base this on my religious beliefs.

I may have to in the future think of this, if stem cell research is proposed as a possibility for treatment for my husband. At this point in time, it would be a tough call for me to make. Another reason for people to leave Living Wills so loved ones do not have to make these decisions.

[Adam Zapple]

First Bush will use the veto and in this case he should. Even President Clinton did not authorized the funding of stem cells to the extent that Congress has authorized. But let's just make a few points clear.

#1. Bush is not against stem cell research and neither am I. Other forms of research, other than embryonic, have shown more promise without the ethical concerns. A couple of examples of these are adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research which has resulted in 74 medical breakthroughs for diseases ranging from brain cancer to MS to lymphoma. Embryonic stem cell research has not provided any known benefit to date and in the process destroys a human embryo.

#2. Federal funding for existing lines of embryonic stem cells is available but funding does not allow new stem cell lines to be created or new embryos to be destroyed.

#3. The law coming out of Congress will allow the harvesting of embryos as I understand it. Research labs can actually create embryos for the purpose of using them for stem cells. In other words, create life just so they can destroy it.

Why the insistance on controversial research that has not shown as much promise as non-embryonic stem cell research? Have you noticed that so-called supporters of stem-cell research focus almost exclusively on embryonic stem cells? Notice they never mention the promise and success of adult stem cell research and umbilical stem cell research? What about the promise of bone marrow stem cells? These are stem cell lines available in abundance.

Stem cell research is still in infancy itself. Initial research focused on embryonic but it is not showing the results that adult and umbilical stem cells are. However to researchers and pharmaceuticals, the name of the game is funding and profit. Opening up stem cell research that could lead to human cloning for the purpose of research, along with federal funding, will mean almost unlimited dollars. What scientists would oppose that?

[cherandbuster]

AZeeee

Thank you for your informed post.

I usually learn something when I read your stuff

Marie - thank you for the information.

chonsigirl - your adherence to your principles in a situation like that is testament to your deep faith.

Bush is a politician, he shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of something that can enhance the lives of millions of people based on his personal principles. He is in a very powerful position though the Congress can and should override his veto on this. But the position he occupies means he must decide for all not just for his political base or according to his personal beliefs. He holds a position in trust, he is not an absolute monarch.

If embryonic stem cell research is the only effective or even the most effective method of research which will result in the enhancement of the lives of millions then it's right that it should proceed. The religious views of individuals don't trump the right of people to gain from this research. If there are other equally as effective or even more effective ways of carrying out this research using other than embryonic stem cells then it would be right to do so and avoid upsetting religious sensibilities. But only if the other methods and sources for research were as or more effective.