[paula_w]

i would like to know the details behind obama's granting of expanded ESCR. i always knew there was a DickeyWicker Amendment so i just assumed these embryos would be destroyed with private money and then given to researchers. That's how Bush got around it.

so what has been happening in research? Have they been breaking the law, which is really an amendment that keeps staying on to whatever bill it's attached to?

The outrage is hardly the judges fault nor is it David Prenctice's, altho he does have trouble with the science and his work has many inaccuracies. He was calling gdnf a part of adult stem cell progress or something like that that we disputed.

Why was the promise made in the first place, did obama know about the amendment but just going to ignore it? Or did he make the promise, knowing it might get thrown out?

Perhaps the biggest question is....why wasn't that amendment either modified or changed or dropped before he made the annnouncement ? This isn't a moral issue like everyone will make it out to be. Yes the person who got it put on hold is an avid antiESCR person but it couldn't have beeen easier for him.

So why the outrage? i think the outrage should be over the incompetence with which it was dealt - i can't believe that nobody would inform obama about that amendment. if not incompetence, then why?

people act like it came out of nowhere. it was signed on to a bill by bill clinton 14 years ago.

so wouldn't this be an interesting chord to unravel to see just what all took place. They may as well have handed the key to locking up the embryos by not repealing or not acknowledging that amendment.

careful who you blame this time.

[pkell]

It is my understanding that Dickey and Wicker attached the amendment to an appropriations bill, the way in which many things become enacted without ever coming before the congress for debate or public input. Originally the amendment was meant to prevent the use of federal funds for the creation of in vitro embryonic cells specifically to be used in research if it caused the distruction of those cells. It did not address the use of embryonic cells that were going to be destroyed anyway. The amendment has since been expanded to include use of embroyonic cells used for research regardless why they were created. The researchers have used a sort of round about method to avoid violating this by using private money to culture the stem cells and then passing thrm along to the federally funded researchers who deal only with stem cells and not embryos.

My opinion is it is a chicken *&*** way of handling it. The issue should be brought up, debated vigorusly, both sides bring in witnesses to testify as to where we are, what the downsides are and what the particular benefits are. Then every one of the cowards in the congress should have to vote (one would hope) his/her concience and go home and defend it to his/her constituants. Every one of them, on both sides, are afraid to face the hard questions with open debate and up or down votes. They hide behind amendments having nothing to do with bugetary matters being attached at the last minute and signed into law because no one has time to fight it as they have already taken so long to get any agreement on the massive budget in the first place.

Wherever you stand of this subject, can we agree the truth about stem cells is something we should know? That we should be informed the difference between the facts, the myths and the downright lies? Can we at least agree that there should be open debate and votes by our congressional representatives on this subject as a stand alone idea? And can we finally agree that each of them should have to vote out loud either yes or no and be accountable for that vote?

I don't see how it is possible to make an informed decision regarding the morality of the issue until we are able to make an informed decision about the science of the idea. That knowledge is neutral. Knowledge does not and cannot hurt anyone. We may disagree about the usage of the knowledge but the knowledge itself is a bell that has been rung and cannot be unrung. The least we can do is make sure we are aware of the falsehoods we are being fed about both the merits of using stem cells as well as the dangers. Without all the information we cannot ourselves make informed decisions.

If we cannot civilly discuss this subject with each side showing respect for the views of the other side how on earth can we ever expect to agree on anything? The progress of human development will come to a scretching halt and we will deserve it.

[SherylJ]

I have posted my letter here not to get into an argument with anyone, but to encourage everyone who has strong feelings on this topic to share their views with their neighbors, friends, and elected officisls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embryonic stem cell research has once again come to a grinding halt in labs across the country following a federal district judge’s ruling that President Obama’s expanded guidelines for ESCR violated a ban on using federal money to destroy embryos. The claims of the original plaintiffs in the suit that led to this ruling, however, revealed a desire to protect their own self-interests, while continuing to paint their motives as pure and altruistic, and portray themselves as saviors of the unborn.

Nightlight Christian Adoptions cried foul, claiming that Obama’s new guidelines would reduce the number of embryos available for adoption and implantation, presumably hurting the nonprofit agency’s business. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee an adequate supply of embryos to meet the demand of those who want to adopt healthy, white babies? Fewer available embryos could serve a greater good by spurring increased adoptions of the thousands of less than perfect non-white children currently doing time in a broken foster care system while awaiting loving families that never come.

Two researchers who work exclusively with adult stem cells argued the guidelines will increase competition for limited federal stem cell research money. If they can’t stand up to the competition perhaps they don’t deserve the funding. Isn’t this the essence of a free market economy?

No one is stealing the embryos leftover from invitro fertilization. Those who created them decide their fate. More often than not they opt to discard them, eliciting little if any protest from those who seemingly prefer destruction that benefits no one to destruction that occurs during potentially life saving research that could benefit millions. So, what is this issue really about?

[mamagoo]

Just throwing this out...there are millions of babies born each day and in their cord blood is stem cells... that get disposed of as "waste of delivery" Perhaps, there needs to be a national collection service set up instead of just private cord blood banks and doctors be taught to tell their patients of this Gift of Life. i have been working with "become mandis hero dot org", to try and find cord blood donors for her that would be a match, there is a private bank that is involved and they are accepting cord blood and the collection kits can be sent out at no cost to the parents of the newborn. This does not hurt anyone just makes use of what is put in the trash on a moment by moment basis. The cord blood is collected after the umbilical cord is severed so mom and babe are never at risk.
If ALL the cord blood were to be collected that is currently disposed of as waste then embryonic stem cell research could possibly be done away with, hence ending any debate. But the word needs to get out that there are places that will collect the cord blood and used for whoever it matches. It is call public donation.

[pkell]

I would like to say that my previous post should be considered as criticism of no one's belief or position. I only think the subject matter is too important not to be given the respect of open debate so that we can each one listen and decide what the real deal is. This is America after all and we are allowed our own belief system. My only concern is the "truth" is not available and our lawmaking representiatives are obfuscating to avoid taking responsibility for their own positions.

This is true on both sides and is a subject that I believe is worthy of rational, respectful debate in this or any other venue.

[paula_w]

As the emphasis shifts to blaming others who this time have the legal standing with the amemdment, i wonder how much time will be wasted arguing it. Did obama know about the amendment or didn't he? what were his plans if so.
Pam adding that i do agree with you about need to know. I guess i have lost faith in them but maybe we'll get some knowledge out of it.

[pkell]

Don Reed, who is a fine human being, IMHO, likened it to being at a red light that is broken. You wouldn't sit there the rest of your life because it's against the law to run a red light, you would ease out carefully, look both ways and proceed. The law sometimes takes a while to catch to the realities of daily life. In Connecticut it was illegal to use birth control (I repeat, USE BIRTH CONTROL, not manufacture it or distribute it) until 1965. I daresay that law was broken with some abandon for many years.

I still believe the real problem here is not should we or shouldn't we but rather what is the truth about the issue and are the chiefs of lilly livers ever going to stand up and be counted or are they going to continue to hide (not just this issue but pork galore) inside bills to which they are totally and completely unrelated?

We don't send these people to Washington for self agrandizement but to cast votes representing the wishes of their constituants or at least to cast votes based on their belief that they well represent what is best for their constituants and the nation, but insteat we get the cowardly and greedy who cast votes in secret to line their own pockets.

Rant end.

[indigogo]

Paula - I have to double check because my conversation with him took place several days ago, but .... Greg said that the reason that this decision is so crucial is because they were abiding by Dickey-Wicker (they were using private funds to destroy the embryos and create the stem cells - then NIH money was used for the follow up research), but this decision says that private money can't be used to make the stem cells any more. So the way they had been using to finesse Dickey-Wicker no longer stands.

[paula_w]

so does this mean it's going to be decided in the courts? is that an option? just not quite understanding yet how that amendment ended up so open for bringing everything to a halt. guess i better read it haven't looked at it in a long time; thought this battle was at least partially resolved.

paula

[indigogo]

Apparently it's thrown the whole thing open; no one expected the decision to be so far-reaching as to actually reach back to who was funding the stem cell production. It is now in the courts.