 |
          
  |
|
|
A
federal judge has allowed
a preliminary injunction against the taxpayer funding of embryonic stem
cell research while the case is being decided.
The judge indicated that the plaintiffs had made a strong case that NIH
policies approved by President Obama violate the Dickey Wicker provisions of
federal law which “unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research
in which a human embryo is destroyed.”
NRO explains the significance
and background of this case. Steve
Chapman exposes some “inconvenient
truths” about stem cell research.
While
pro-lifers are cheering the
decision, the Obama administration has indicated it will
appeal. Also, a Democrat
Congresswoman who frequently champions the taxpayer funding of embryonic stem
cell research has proposed
legislation to overturn the decision of the federal court.
Check
out AdvanceUSA’s resources on stem
cells and cloning and adult stem cells.
In
Terry Jeffrey’s insightful
article on why liberalism is really all about “control” he comments on
President Obama’s decision to force taxpayers to fund unethical forms of stem
cell research that require the destruction of human embryos. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama played perhaps the
perfect role of the Control Freak last year when he issued an executive order
directing that federal tax dollars be used to fund stem cell research that
kills human embryos. Under Obama's program, the government will take money from
Americans who profoundly -- and correctly -- object to the deliberate killing
of any innocent human being because it is a violation of the inalienable
God-given right to life and gives that money to scientists who will use it to
assume God-like authority over the lives of others, reducing them to mere
instruments of their research.
The federally funded embryonic stem cell
researcher takes absolute government-approved control of the embryo surrendered
to his custody. The only difference between that embryonic human being and the
human beings reading this column is age. And the only reason a government that
uses tax dollars to kill human embryos would not use tax dollars to kill human
grandmothers and grandfathers is if the people running the government concede
there is a moment in time between when a human is an embryo and when a human is
a grandparent that they attain human rights the government has a duty to
protect.
Robert
George explains. Excerpt:
So what do progressives think? Has the
president embraced bigotry? Or has he lied to the American people about his
position on what marriage is and how it should be defined?
On either side’s account, the dispute over
the nature and meaning of marriage is profoundly important. Those who seek to
redefine marriage to include same-sex or even polyamorous relationships believe
that the historical definition of marriage as a male-female union denies people
who incline toward other forms of sexual partnership equality and fundamental
rights. Those who defend the historical definition — I am one of them — believe
that redefining marriage will further erode public morality and weaken the
already battered institution of marriage.
So if the president is lying, he is lying
about something that really matters. It is no innocent fib (like Robert Gibbs’s
fib that the president did not bow to the Saudi king).
So which is it? Is the president a bigot or
a liar?
Michael
Barone explains how Obamacare is unpopular because the American people still
feel more loyalty to the Founders than the progressives.
House
Oversight and Government Reform committee ranking member Darrell Issa (R-CA) is
continuing the push
to investigate allegations that Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) was illegally
offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping his primary
challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA).
Such an offer would constitute a serious violation of bribery law and
could constitute a “high crime or misdemeanor” as require by the Constitution
for impeachment proceedings.
The
AP and NRO
now report that a Colorado state house speaker might have also been illegally
offered a job in exchange for abandoning a primary bid.
Now
there are suspicions that such offers were made in other primary races
across the country.
The
Editors at National Review discuss the prospect of replacing
Justice Stevens and how conservatives should proceed in the nomination
battle sure to come. LifeNews reports that radical
pro-abortion groups are pushing President Obama to appoint a radical pro-abortion
nominee to the Supreme Court. Ramesh
Ponnuru calls the announcement of Stevens’ retirement a “good
day for conservatism,” while Carrie
Severino and Matthew
J. Franck look at the opportunities and dangers of the nomination process.
Wendy
Long discusses the broader issue of conservatism
and the courts.
ABC
News reports on the president’s likely short list of potential
replacements, including a new possibility.
Daniel Foster summarizes the list and concludes that they span the
spectrum of “left
to lefter.”
Professor
Richard Garnett of Notre Dame Law School weighs in on the Stevens retirement. Excerpt:
…no one who says this nomination doesn’t
really matter, because the president is simply “replacing one liberal with
another,” should be taken seriously. The very smart and experienced journalists
who cover the Court know that Justice Stevens’s retirement gives the president
a huge opportunity, one that will shape the Court’s work and direction for
decades.
David
Stokes previews the soon-expected vacancy on the Supreme Court and explains
what will be at stake. Will President
Obama nominate someone who respects the integrity of the Constitution according
to the original interpretation of our founders, or will he appoint a judicial
activist who believes in a “living constitution” that means whatever a liberal
judge says it means?
Charmaine
Yoest explains in the Wall Street Journal.
Excerpt:
It's now becoming clear that Barack Obama
is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who
passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding
for abortion.
Manny Miranda examines
President Obama’s Judicial agenda while ABC
News reports on the likelihood that the President will be faced with the
opportunity to make nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Star
Parker examines the Obama administration’s education policy and suggests that greater
school choice is what kids and parents need. Excerpts:
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said
recently, "Our K-12 agenda can be summed up in one word: reform."
If only it were true. But what Duncan calls
reform is indeed putting lipstick on a pig. In this case, the pig is
Washington's never changing formula for solving everything: spending
ever-increasing sums of taxpayer's money.
"Reform" means generating new
ideas about how to spend and coming up with clever new titles for programs.
…
In normal markets, customers drive the
quality of the product. In the case of the public education monopoly, the
customers -- kids and their parents -- are pawns in the game. Anything that
would give the customers power -- such as school choice -- government and union
bureaucrats fight.
The Obama administration, with all its
lofty rhetoric about reform, quietly has allowed congressional Democrats to
kill the successful Washington D.C. voucher program. The program has
demonstrably given 1,300 inner-city kids a better education in private schools
at a third of the cost their counterparts are getting in D.C. public schools.
Even the liberal Washington Post has
editorialized to save the program, as President Obama and Secretary Duncan turn
deaf ears.
Duncan was chastised for recently saying
the "best thing" to happen to education in New Orleans was Katrina.
But education has markedly improved there as parents were given school choice
in the wake of the disaster.
The best thing that could happen to
inner-city education nationwide would be a political Katrina that would give
birth to parental empowerment and school choice.
NRO
writers Mark
Steyn and Jonah
Goldberg describe their impressions of President Obama’s recent State of
the Union Address.
Ken
Blackwell explains the problems with President Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
Excerpt:
When not serving in government, Dawn
Johnsen has spent her career promoting abortion-on-demand. She denies there is
even such a thing as Partial-Birth Abortion. Even the term, she maintains, is
“intentionally provocative.” She does not think that “progressives”—that’s
PC-speak for liberal—should suggest that abortion is ever a tragedy.
The AP reports
the Senate passed the massive and controversial health care bill this morning. Meanwhile, the AP also reports
that abortion funding could still pose a problem for final passage by both
houses of Congress. Bloomberg
reports that the Congressional Budget Office is contradicting
Democrat claims that the health bill would save the Medicare system.
The
final vote is unavailable but will eventually be posted
here. The bill passed on a straight
party-line vote (60-39).
NRO’s
Ramesh
Ponnuru and Jeffrey
Anderson explain that there still is hope that the abortion-funding health
care ‘reform’ bandwagon can be stopped.
Visit
StopJennings.com to find out what President
Obama’s Safe School Czar wants to teach your children.
Curt
Levey reports on the brand of activism of Judge Hamilton, President Obama’s
nominee for the 7th Circuit.
Excerpt:
This week, the Senate votes on President
Obama’s nomination of District Court Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh
Circuit. Because of Hamilton’s fundraising activities for ACORN, his leadership
positions with the Indiana branch of the ACLU, his statements supporting judicial
activism, and most importantly, his rulings putting liberal ideology above the
rule of law, he is the first and only Obama circuit nominee to draw heated
opposition.
There are many examples of Judge Hamilton’s tendency towards liberal judicial
activism (see letter
from Sen. Sessions). However, the most bizarre and controversial instance
is Hamilton’s 2005 ruling prohibiting prayers that mention Jesus Christ in the
Indiana House of Representatives, but allowing prayers that mention Allah.
While troubling in any context, the religious double standard in Hamilton’s
ruling is particularly deserving of close scrutiny in light of Major Nidal
Hasan’s recent shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
Investor’s
Business Daily reports on the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals. LifeNews also reports,
highlighting Hamilton’s pro-abortion stance.
Jack
Park explains Judge Hamilton’s dangerous brand of judicial activism. Excerpt:
In other words, Judge Hamilton thinks that
the decisions of federal district courts amend the Constitution, just as the
amendment process does. This is unacceptable.
Judges act appropriately when they apply
the law, not when they make it. And they certainly shouldn’t be in the business
of trying to amend the Constitution by the whim of their decisions. Any judge
who says that he or she makes law or amends the Constitution has a skewed
vision of what the proper role of a judge is.
Fox
News reports. Excerpt:
Obama chose Hamilton, a U.S. district judge
in Indiana, as his first judicial nomination in March. The White House has
characterized Hamilton as a moderate pick whose judicial record would temper
criticism from conservative and liberal extremists -- bringing an end to the
political confirmation wars that have long accompanied such judicial
nominations.
But Republican opposition to Hamilton's
nomination has emerged over rulings in a host of cases -- from barring
Christian prayer in the Indiana Legislature to blocking enforcement of certain
state abortion statutes.
In a letter penned Nov. 3 to his GOP
colleagues, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama blasted Hamilton for using
his position to "drive a political agenda." Hamilton stated in a 2003
speech that the role of a judge includes "writing footnotes to the
Constitution" and believes "empathy" should influence a judge's
decision making, Sessions wrote.
The
AP also analyzes the significance of the nomination of Judge Hamilton. Excerpt:
Sessions made it clear his party will put
up a fight against confirming either. He cited Hamilton's position in the late
1980s as a vice president for litigation and board member of the Indiana
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sessions also complained about
Hamilton's judicial rulings.
"Instead of embracing the
constitutional standard of jurisprudence, Judge Hamilton has embraced this
empathy standard, this feeling standard. Whatever that is, it is not law. It is
not a legal standard," Sessions said.
Reuters
relays the official press release.
Our friends at FRC point out that the fact that the Obama Administration
is willing to spend millions of dollars on a LGBT program in the midst of
recession shows where it’s priorities lie.
HT:
FRC
The
Washington Times editorial board explains.
Excerpt:
We know that "safe schools czar"
and "Queering Elementary Education" essayist Kevin Jennings failed to
oppose homosexual man-boy relationships and that science czar John Holdren has
written, without objection, that "laws requiring compulsory abortion could
be sustained under the existing Constitution." We know that one-time
Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Daschle had to withdraw because
of a failure to pay his taxes. But what has not been adequately tallied is how
many of President Obama's nominees and appointees are radical or just plain
embarrassing.
When radicalism and ethical shortcomings
reach such a critical mass, it's time to broadcast the dishonor roll.
Therefore, in addition to Mr. Jennings, Mr. Holdren and Mr. Daschle, please
consider the ramifications of an administration manned by the likes of the
following.
Read
the
rest here.
The
AP reports that the fears of pro-lifers that the proposed health care “reform”
would permit taxpayer support of abortion are well founded. Excerpt:
…taxpayer funds [would] mingle with some
insurance plans that, one way or another, pay for abortions.
The
Weekly Standard reports. It is
becoming increasingly clear that someone is lying about abortion funding in the
health care overhaul plan, and it doesn’t appear to be pro-lifers.
The
Hill reports how President Obama and his accomplices in the Senate could
use underhanded tactics to force socialized medicine and taxpayer funded abortion
on the American people.
CBN
reports. Excerpt:
While President Obama was just outside
Washington, D.C., Tuesday, telling kids to stay in school, inside the city
protestors were accusing him of hypocrisy.
They are upset over Obama's decision to end
D.C.'s school voucher program-- a decision opponents claim has endangered the
education of hundreds of students.
CNBC also reports.
HT:
AACS
Michigan
Live reports. President Obama issued
a statement in response to the murder of late-term abortion doctor George
Tiller recently but has not yet responded to the murder of this peaceful
pro-life activist.
The
Politico reports on the effort of liberal members of Congress to repeal the
Defense of Marriage Act. With the recent
indications that the Obama administration would like to see the law overturned,
this development represents a serious threat to traditional marriage in
America.
Aryeh
Spero explains. Excerpt:
Aside from the blatant entanglement of
religion and politics, the President is wrong in asserting that national and
collective health control is a moral and ethical prescription. Everyone agrees
that the President's plan will cause a new rationing of health care. There’s
also the danger that the President’s “comparative effectiveness research” will
set cost-effectiveness standards to be used against Medicare enrollees to deny
them life-extending new drugs or operations because it’s not “worth it.”
FactCheck.org
reports. Excerpt:
Despite what Obama said, the House bill
would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally
subsidized private plans.
HT:
National Right to Life
To
see the famous diagram of the proposed health care “reform” in detail click
here.
Fox
News reports. Excerpt:
A government-funded, public health
insurance plan may allow taxpayer money to go to pay for abortions, the White
House budget chief said Sunday.
Office of Budget and Management Chief Peter
Orszag told "FOX News Sunday" he is not ready to say whether abortion
services would be part of a final package Congress is considering to provide
taxpayer-funded health care to about a third of the nation's 50 million
uninsured. Lawmakers are considering a package that could cost as much as $1.5
trillion over 10 years for health care.
"I think that that will wind up being
part of the debate. I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It's
obviously a controversial issue, and it's one of the questions that is playing
out in this debate," Orszag told "FOX News Sunday." "I'm
not prepared to rule it out."
Already, the Obama administration has
demonstrated its support for federal funding of abortion. The president
rescinded the Mexico City Policy on Jan. 23, the day after the 36th anniversary
of the Roe v. Wade decision. The policy had been in place to prevent U.S.
funding being used for abortion services in clinics abroad.
The
New York Times and LifeNews
also report. National Right to Life
also examines this
problem.
Pro-life
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) wrote a letter to his colleagues
warning them of the abortion funding provisions in this bill.
Douglas
Johnson of National Right to Life explains how ObamaCare could require your
tax dollars to support abortion.
FRC’s
Tony Perkins also explains the abortion-funding problems with the proposed “health
care reform” bill in a special
video report. The video shows Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) exposing the bill’s abortion-funding agenda in Senate
hearings.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama opened the White
House to hundreds of gay activists Monday, promising them that by the time he
leaves office they would "have pretty good feelings" about his
administration.
During an event to celebrate the 40th
anniversary of what gay activists consider the launch of their political
movement – several nights of violent riots in and around a New York gay bar –
Obama rattled off several policies he plans to implement to please his
homosexual constituency.
"I want you to know that I expect and
hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises
my administration keeps," he said. "We've been in office six months
now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over … you guys will
have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
Among those promises the president is
pursuing, he said: Overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passing a
law to mandate health-care and other benefits to homosexual domestic partners,
repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and even "rescinding the
discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status."
OneNewsNow also
reports.
Tony Perkins explains
at Human Events. Excerpt:
Kevin Jennings has neither the temperament
nor the ethical standards needed for public service. His history suggests a
commitment to serving only one narrow part of the student population, not all
students. He is unfit for the post to which he’s been assigned, and Secretary
Duncan should withdraw his appointment at once.
The
Washington Post reports. As
does Fox News. Excerpt:
The extended benefits include an option for
employees' domestic partners to be added to a government insurance program that
pays for long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease. They also would be
allowed to take sick leave to care for a sick partner or non-biological child.
CtizenLink
explains how the action threatens traditional
marriage and the rule of law.
Excerpt:
Family advocates say Obama’s action is a
direct violation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a big step toward
redefining marriage.
“The president thumbed his nose at the rule
of law and continues to undermine marriage as society’s most pro-child
institution,” said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public
policy for Focus on the Family Action.
Not
long after his embassy staff in Iraq held a gay themed party in Baghdad,
President Obama has declared an official “Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” It is not known if these “gay pride” events
were coordinated intentionally to coincide with his Middle East tour.
During
the presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama said America’s reputation
in the world (particularly in the Muslim world) had been gravely tarnished and
promised to improve our nation’s image abroad if elected. Perhaps the Obama administration’s public
relations outreach to Muslims needs a little work. The
Washington Post reports that the U.S. Embassy in Iraq recently held a party
in which participants were encouraged to dress in drag or come as their
favorite homosexual celebrity. Though it
comes as no surprise to see the Obama administration promoting “alternative
lifestyles,” the administration's decision to hold a gay party in the heart of the
Middle East seems somewhat ill-advised.
Kathryn
Jean Lopez explains another reason to support the DC Opportunity
Scholarship school voucher program which Congress and President Obama are
trying to kill.
Ed
Gillespie gives a preview of the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight
and urges Senators to take their Constitutional “advise and consent” duties
seriously, even if that means vocal opposition.
Senator
Jeff Sessions (R-AL), now the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
explains in
the Washington Post the kind of Justice President Obama should appoint to
the Supreme Court and warns against nominating a liberal extremist. Excerpt:
If President Obama nominates to the Supreme
Court a highly qualified individual with a distinguished record that
demonstrates judicial restraint, integrity and a commitment to the rule of law,
his nominee will be welcomed in the Senate and by the American people.
But if the president nominates an
individual who will allow personal preferences and political views to corrupt
his or her decision making, he will put before the public a central question:
Are we willing to trade America's heritage of a fair and neutral judiciary --
anchored in the rule of written law that applies equally to all people -- for a
high court composed of robed politicians who apply the law differently based on
their personal feelings toward a particular person or issue?
LifeNews reports. While Curt
Levey explains what the failure of Dawn Johnsen’s nomination means for the
kinds of judges Obama will or will not be able to get confirmed. Excerpt:
Dawn Johnsen’s troubled nomination is
emblematic of at least three obstacles that Obama’s High Court nominee will
encounter if she is as unabashedly supportive of judicial activism and liberal
causes as Johnsen…
Click
here to read Levey’s three reasons.
Jill Stanek
catalogues President Obama’s bad positions on pro-life issues, but also finds
encouragement from the fact that the President might be making pro-abortion
policies less popular with the American people.
The
Washington Post reports that President Obama is promising a so-called
compromise on the DC school voucher program.
Congress and Obama approved a budget which destroyed the popular and
successful DC Opportunity Scholarship which allowed low-income children in our
nation’s capital to attend the school of their choice. Obama is now saying he will allow the program
to continue for the currently enrolled students but will not allow new students
to apply for or enter the program.
The
president’s hypocrisy on this issue is galling.
If the voucher program is good for the current students, why does the
president not want more underprivileged DC residents to benefit from the school
choice program? Perhaps he just wants to
silence opposition.
 The brilliant economist and author Thomas Sowell talks about the proper role of judges in light of the impending opening on the US Supreme Court which President Obama will fill in a recent two-part column (read part one and part two here). Sowell warns of the dangers of “activist” judges who ignore the Constitution and make decisions based on personal bias and “empathy,” while promoting impartial judges who will understand their limited role and make decisions based on the law as written and not personal whims. Here are some excerpts:
From part 1:
In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.
…
The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues-- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law-- what has been called "a government of laws and not of men."
From part II:
"The criterion of constitutionality," he [Oliver Wendell Holmes] said, "is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good." That was for other people to decide. For judges, he said: "When we know what the source of the law has said it shall be, our authority is at an end."
 NPR reports that liberal Supreme Court justice David Souter will soon retire giving President Obama his first opportunity to nominate a judge for the high court (The Atlantic also reports). In recent decades the courts have amassed unprecedented and unconstitutional power and often used that power to radically change American justice and social structure. Who a president appoints to the Supreme Court will affect our nation for years after that president leaves office.
Concerned citizens need to be watchful and be sure to voice their opinions on the proper role of judges (especially to both your senators, who will be tasked with approving or rejecting Obama’s nominations).
Ed Whelan and Wendy Long provide some initial thoughts on what to expect at the Bench Memos blog at National Review Online.
Check out the judicial nominations category for more information on this important issue.
Our
friends at FRC have released
a video grading President Obama on his first one hundred days in
office. The president doesn’t make high
grades on pro-life and family issues. LifeNews also reviews Obama’s
100 days on pro-life issues.
Neal
McCluskey grades the president on education reform. Excerpt:
If you look just at dollar signs or
rhetoric to measure the education success of Barack Obama’s first one-hundred
days, then the President should get an A. Base it on meaningful reform,
however, and he’d be lucky to get a passing grade.
In
a post on his blog entitled “Obama’s
Outrageous Sin Against Our Kids,” black journalist Juan Williams criticizes
President Obama for allowing the successful school voucher program in
Washington, DC to be killed. Excerpt:
This reckless dismantling of the D.C.
voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the
effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the
promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed
primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority
children.
And its time for all of us to get outraged
about this sin against our children.
George
Will also comments on this and other misguided
budgetary priorities here.
FoxNews
reports on the growing opposition to Obama’s nominee Dawn Johnson, the
president’s radical pro-abortion nominee for the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Justice Department.
Dr.
David Prentice and Clarke Forsythe have written a helpful
opinion piece on President Obama’s push to invest our tax dollars on
unethical stem cell research with very little prospect of success. Excerpt:
Despite his talk of economic hardship,
President Obama has been on an ideological spending spree -- expanding
government, increasing taxes, and doubling the national debt. New money pits
are dug daily. Consider Obama's commitment to government controlled health care
and the possible nationalization of banks. But little discussed has been the
financial ramifications of taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research.
The morality of such life-destroying
science aside, it is a prime example of pork barrel spending as it funds the
kind of stem cell research that has the least chance of leading to real
therapies for real patients. While it's "only" a billion dollars so
far -- chump change, perhaps, out of a $3 trillion budget -- at a time of fiscal
crisis, it's an "investment" in failure.
The
American Thinker reports. Excerpt:
President Obama's statement that human
cloning is "dangerous and wrong" is a non sequitur in its context,
because there is no material difference between abortion, embryonic stem cell
research, and cloning. They differ in appearance, they sometimes differ in
ends, but they differ not one whit in essence. Each is an instance of
deliberately destroying an innocent human being at a certain stage of
development. If the first two are OK, then the third is OK as well. Let's see
why.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
During the campaign, then-candidate Barack
Obama claimed he would reduce abortions. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of
the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said that is a major
reason why he backed the Democratic nominee.
"I believe there is a definitive contradiction
between campaign rhetoric and campaign promises and public-policy
execution," Rodriguez told Family News in Focus.
Rodriguez's frustration stems from Obama
overturning the Mexico City Policy that prevented U.S. taxpayer dollars from
funding international groups that promote or provide abortions. He also
expressed concern about Obama's decision to remove restrictions on tax-payer
funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
Daniel Herbster reporting
We again have the privilege to hear from Dr. David Prentice about important bioethical issues. Dr. Prentice has years of teaching and research experience, and he now works for the illustrious Family Research Council in Washington, DC. With President Obama’s recent actions on taxpayer funding of embryo-destroying research, I thought it would be good to hear from our friend and my former teacher.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what exactly did President Obama do in his recent executive order? How will it affect the sanctity of life in this country?
DP: President Obama has removed any restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The previous Bush policy restricted federal funds for those lines (dishes) of human embryonic stem cells that were already in existence on Aug 9, 2001; this allowed funding for the research to proceed, but did not provide any incentive for more embryo destruction. Now, any lines can receive federal funding, no matter when the embryo was destroyed, and no matter how the embryo was produced. This would mean even for cases in the future, and for embryos created by cloning, or for human-animal hybrid embryos.
DH: It seems ironic that the President would chose to announce his new policy on embryonic stem cell research a matter of weeks after a major breakthrough in ethically produced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Could you tell us what exactly these researchers accomplished and how does it relate to the push for more embryonic stem cell research?
DP: Recently scientists at MIT showed that they could produce these induced stem cells (iPS cells) directly from a Parkinson’s patient, and make the type of neurons in the lab that are missing in the patient. They are still years or decades away from ever using these cells in a patient, but it illustrates the ease with which these iPS cells can be produced, producing cells for study in the laboratory, and all without the use of embryos, eggs, or cloning.
DH: In his remarks President Obama claimed to oppose “human cloning.” What do you think he meant by this statement and do you believe he is being completely accurate?
As
if forcing Americans to support embryo-destroying research with their tax
dollars wasn’t enough, President Barack Obama has also overturned Bush guidelines
which sent research money to ethically obtained adult stem cells which, unlike
embryonic stem cells, are actually producing real results and treatments. LifeNews
reports. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama did more on Monday
than just force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research that requires
the destruction of human life. He also rescinded an executive order President
Bush put into place funding adult stem cells and new research with iPS cells.
 The ability to make nominations to the Supreme Court and other federal benches is probably the most important responsibility a president possesses. There is mounting concern over the kinds of judges Obama will appoint, as the New York Times reports.
Curt Levy with the Committee for Justice considers Obama’s vaunted political pragmatism and contrasts that with the radical agenda he’s been pursuing to date and the radical appointments he’s been making to the Department of Justice asking the crucial question “which Obama will pick judges?”
Jonah
Goldberg explains at NRO. Excerpt:
Imagine a child falls down a well. Now
imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they
promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to
waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable
in this space?
I ask because I’m trying to come to terms
with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.
“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,”
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the
election. “They are opportunities to do big things.”
LifeNews reports. Just the fact that Snowflake Babies exist
belies to oft-repeated notion that there is such a thing as “leftover” human
beings (human embryos).
The
Washington Post reports that President Obama is planning to overturn
important conscience protections which allow medical personnel to refuse to
perform operations or dispense drugs which they find unethical (such as
abortions and abortion drugs). The
New York Times also reports.
Excerpt:
The Obama administration moved Friday to
undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to
health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health
care that goes against their consciences.
 Fox News reports that President Obama has stated that he opposes the so-called “fairness doctrine” which would hamper broadcasters with unconstitutional restrictions and endanger conservative and Christian radio broadcasting. However, our friends on Capitol Hill inform us that we are likely to see an incremental strategy to institute the fairness doctrine with increased regulations (including community review boards). Stay alert for updates on the efforts to institute the stealth fairness doctrine and trample real free speech rights.
President
Obama has made several startling appointments to the Justice Department. CitizenLink and
Judicial Confirmation Network’s Wendy
Long report.
 It has recently come to light that President Obama’s pick for Deputy Attorney General is radically pro-pornography and holds to a loose, activist interpretation of the Constitution. In this post at the Justice Department, David Ogden would be required to enforce obscenity laws (including laws protecting children from the exploitation of child pornography). Having someone in this position who has actively supported pornographer’s (PDF document) supposed “free speech rights” and has opposed common-sense restrictions on obscenity, would be a slap in the face to all citizens with moral decency and would put innocent children at grave risk of exploitation and abuse.
The pornography business is extremely excited about Ogden’s nomination which should make every citizen opposed to obscenity wary. Click here to read a press release from an adult media news service applauding the Ogden nomination (Warning: while there is no pornography at this last link, readers should be warned that it is a pro-pornography news service and other news stories may link to highly offensive and objectionable content).
As if his promotion of pornography wasn’t bad enough, the Heritage Foundation has raised grave concerns over Ogden’s infidelity to the U.S. Constitution.
Also, FRC’s Change Watch website has thorough background information on David Ogden and other Obama nominees.
Gallop
has released a poll showing that only 35% of Americans approve of President
Obama’s decision to allow groups that promote abortion as a means of “family
planning” to receive taxpayer dollars. LifeNews also reports.
We
encourage the president to take note that sometimes doing the right thing is also
politically expedient and do the right thing when it comes to making sure
taxpayer dollars (many of whom oppose abortion) don’t support abortion or
unethical research.
Alan
Sears of Exodus International explains.
Excerpt:
No sooner had he finished speaking of his
fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope
over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff
posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those
who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in
homosexual behavior.
 Yesterday President Obama signed
an executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy which had prevented
American tax dollars from supporting organizations that provide or promote
abortion overseas (especially organizations which participate in brutal
one-child-only forced abortion programs).
This action is a slap in the face to pro-lifers everywhere.
National Right
to Life responded immediately.
We
urge President Obama to reconsider this decision and to remember that he is
being watched by a holy God before whom he will one day give an account of how
he used the enormous power given to him.
President Obama should also remember the words of our third president
Thomas Jefferson.
Indeed, I tremble
for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep
forever.
Thomas
Jefferson
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Wesley
J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career
to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of
bioethics and justice. He is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics
and Culture. He has also written a
number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand
Smoke. Smith was kind enough to
share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society
today and about his work.
DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?
WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical
ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human
endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed,
the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care
rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper
medical service? Is it right to create
cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they
test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance
their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and
animals? What should happen if a nurse
refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted
life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of
life?” These and other equally important
bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they
establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society
beyond the policies themselves. Indeed,
I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind
of society we shall become in the 21st century.
DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does
it relate to issues of life and justice?
WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer
moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human
exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed,
whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important
issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to
ask a second question: What does? That
second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide
which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who
don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which
denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally
is being a “person,” a status earned
by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing
as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost
these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo.
Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value,
they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical
experimentation or as sources of organs.
Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ
transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised
people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to
make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human
exceptionalism.
The Star Tribune
reports. Only time will tell what
will happen to Bush’s important pro-life regulations after the Obama
administration “reviews” them.
 New White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel
AdvanceUSA has learned from friends
on Capitol Hill that the Obama administration is expected to quickly overturn
Bush policies limiting taxpayer funding of unethical embryonic stem cell
research and taxpayer funding of overseas abortions (ex: Mexico City Policy) soon
after the inauguration. Please contact President-elect Barack
Obama through his transition website to tell him you want him to preserve
these important, common sense pro-life policies.
We
must preserve the executive branch restrictions on taxpayer funding of
embryo-destroying research and overseas abortions.
If
you’d like to keep tabs on who president-elect Barack Obama is nominating to
his cabinet and administration and you want to know more about their background
and experience, check out the Family Research Council’s Change Watch Website.
LifeNews reports. Excerpt:
"Anyone who has bought into the myth
that Obama is 'moderating' his positions should notice that the first section
is entitled 'Steps for the First Hundred Days.' Groups that have spent millions
supporting pro-abortion members of Congress, including Obama and Biden, aren't
in the mood to wait," he writes.
"Nowhere is there any of the
pre-election rhetoric about 'dialogue' or 'lowering' the number of abortions.
Hudson says the proposals would entrench
the unlimited abortion policies that currently guide the U.S.
"Taken together, the proposed policies
would accomplish three things: 1) treat abortion as a health care right, 2)
provide funding for abortions by insurance carriers or the government, and 3)
put judges and political appointees in place who will protect the abortion and
government-funding from future challenges," he explained.
The
illustrious Heritage Foundation has been issuing policy memos to
president-elect Obama in an effort to work together for bipartisan solutions to
our nation’s urgent problems. One such
memo discusses
education reform. Dan Lips and
Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage foundation write in their conclusion:
You were right to say during your campaign
that "we cannot be satisfied until every child in America...has the same
chance for a good education that we want for our own children." But four
decades of experience with increasing federal involvement has shown that
Washington cannot deliver on that promise. Instead of further expanding federal
authority in education, your Administration should empower those who have more
power to make a difference in children's education, especially parents.
Lips
and Marshall emphasize that the most important component of meaningful
education reform is greater school choice for parents. Now that’s “change we can believe in.” Read the full text of this
important policy brief here.
|
|
|
| |