Stem Cells: Big in 06

I found this article in Monday's NY Times very interesting for a couple of reasons. First off, it deals with the hot button social issue of embryonic stem cell research. Secondly, given the recent coverage of the NYT of the PA senate race where they basically say Bob Casey will get the nod even with staunch opposition from within his own party; this stem cell article doesn't bring up Casey's position on embryonic stem cell research. It's the same as BushCo.

I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research and would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research... As a U.S. Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo. [Ignatius Insight 7.29.05]

Unfortunately, Bob doesn't seem to be aware that embryonic stem cell research is the future and those embryos have to be destroyed. Also, the embryos that are to be worked on have already been discarded and will be destroyed anyways.

Some more reporting on the Castle bill here from 7.29.05 by the same reporter as this newer article.

Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.

But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist says in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."

On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."

The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.

Today's story focuses on the potential using of the issue of embryonic stem cell research as a new wedge issue.

Democrats are pressing their support for embryonic stem cell research in Congressional races around the country, seeking to move back to center stage an issue they believe resonates with voters and to exploit a division between conservatives who oppose the science and other Republicans more open to it.

The question of whether the government should support or limit stem cell research has cropped up in Senate races in Maryland and Missouri, and in House races in California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, especially in suburban swing districts.

I let out a laugh as Pennsylvania was listed in the House races and left off the Senate list. In what the NY Times has already started to highlight [here and here] as one of the most important Senate races to get back majority in Congress, the issue that Dems are supposed to be using as a new wedge issue is moot.

This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans

says Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. The first real wedge issue and what has Sen. Chuck Schumer done? Kissed it goodbye here in PA. Schumer promissed his Congressional colleagues that while this guy was pretty far Right, he'd never back extremist SCOTUS nominees, but then Bob goes out and says he'd vote to confirm both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Oh, and he said he would've also voted to go to war in Iraq and doesn't feel a need to withdraw anytime soon. Let's not even touch on the whole anti-universal healthcare, anti-living wage, anti-choice thing. This candidate Casey is just a shitty choice who just falls short everywhere except for having a dad who was the governor, a popular one at that.

And then there's the candidate I'm volunteering more and more hours every week, Chuck Pennacchio. On the issues, he's a knight in shining armor compared to Bob. Chuck is pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-embryonic stem cell research, anti-war, anti-extremist SCOTUS appointments, pro-balanced budget amendment, pro-living wage, wants to renew the assault weapons ban... The list just goes on and on and you can read more about his stances on the issues here.

There's only one choice for me in the primary and that's Chuck Pennacchio. A Casey victory would push back the progressive movement six years [his full Senate term]. It would plant another Zell Miller / Joe Lieberman in the Dem side of the aisle undercutting the efforts of the entire party and being BushCo's new favorite Dem lapdog. This guy can't be trusted to vote for a Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

Comments

[steph]

I definitely agree: Stem cells are going to be a huge issue this fall. The DCCC released several web ads last month against anti-stem cell research Republicans, including Mike Fitzpatrick.

http://www.dccc.org/video/fitzpatricks_choice.wmv

Which also illustrates your point: Democratic House candidates in Pennsylvania have been running hard on this issue, but the media keeps quiet on Senate candidates.