In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Congressional Democrats Debate How to End Stem Cell Research Ban

Cara

Congressional Democrats, at least apparently and thankfully determined to end the ban on stem cell research, are debating how to best go about it:

Both President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have made repealing Bush administration restrictions announced in 2001 a top priority. But they have yet to determine if Mr. Obama should quickly put his stamp on the issue by way of presidential directive, or if Congress should write a permanent policy into statute.

The debate is not academic. Democrats who oppose abortion say such a legislative fight holds the potential to get the year off to a difficult beginning, even though the outcome is certain given solid majorities in both the House and the Senate for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

“It is a very divisive issue, and it is a tough way to start,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat from Nebraska. “You don’t want to stumble out of the box.”

In addition, many of the Democratic gains in Congress, particularly in the House, have come in more conservative areas, with strategists estimating that up to 70 Democrats could find themselves in competitive races in 2010. Those potentially vulnerable lawmakers provide another consideration for leaders weighing whether to set an early test vote on what for some is a politically sensitive subject back home.

At the same time, officials note that increasing federal spending on stem cell research is widely popular and has been a signature issue for Congressional Democrats in the last two elections, helping them defeat Republicans opposed to the concept. Many lawmakers would like to see it through to its legislative conclusion.

All I can say is that if the Dems are currently wringing their hands over an issue that can only be considered quite peripheral to the abortion debate, and worrying about whether to take an action that is overwhelmingly favored by Americans of all stripes but especially Democrats — largely because before the term has even begun they’re already concerned about reelection — well, wow.  We’re in for a bumpy ride.

Really, the idea that we’d rather just sit back and let people die than do research on cells that that get passed by women all the damn time without them even knowing about it, the same cells that were often going to get thrown away anyway, makes me want to weep for humanity.  But still, Congressional Democrats are worried to upset the “Sanctity of Life” asshole minority?  It never ends, does it?

I guess this is what happens when the Democrats run anti-choice candidates, now isn’t it?

17 thoughts on Congressional Democrats Debate How to End Stem Cell Research Ban

  1. Yeah, this does seem pretty wimpy. What good is a majority if you’re going to spend all your time wringing your hands?

    Anyway, it seems like early in a term would be a good time to get controversial issues out of the way.

  2. The opposition of some “pro-life” people to embryonic stem cell research is ironic. Without research, those embryos would be discarded, right? With research, people’s lives and quality of life could be improved. Surely the true “pro-life” stance would be to oppose infertility treatment, which creates these embryos in the first place, rather than stem cell research, which prevents some embryos from being discarded. I’m no psychologist, but I’d like to know how they deal with the cognitive dissonance. In addition, I’d like to point out that embryonic stem cells are superior to adult SCs because embryonic SCs are totipotent (at least to the 4-cell stage), meaning that they can differentiate into all of the different cell types in the body, and indeed can become a complete individual if seperated. I’m pretty sure that adult SCs are pluripotent, meaning that can differentiate into some, but not all, of the cell types.

  3. Surely the true “pro-life” stance would be to oppose infertility treatment, which creates these embryos in the first place, rather than stem cell research, which prevents some embryos from being discarded.

    Well actually, the really hard-liners do oppose fertility treatment. Which is fun, and at least consistent — like those anti-choicers who also oppose abortion for rape victims.

  4. It’s actually a difficult issue, I think… I mean, either way, we’re getting stem cell research, so yay (unless they spend all their time hemming and hawing and stalling for time, which will piss me off endlessly), but I DO think the dems are likely to lose one or both houses in 2010. When the economy hasn’t magically risen to Clintonian levels of growth by Nov. 2010, there are going to be plenty of “fiscal conservatives” cropping up to sell trickle-down bullshit once again, and I suspect far too many people will be buying.

    However, I don’t think the prospect of tough re-election campaigns for the democrats is germane to a discussion of possible legislation. There are only a devoted few crazies strongly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and the democrats need to accept that they aren’t getting those fucking votes, anyway.

    The only issue, as far as I’m concerned, is whether we want to put embryonic stem cell research on the legislative table, or leave it with the executive. Once it’s established as a legislative issue, it’s liable to serve as a big flashy distraction every time control changes in Congress. Of course, my personal take is that once the research begins and bears fruit, opposition will shrink to exclude all but the most die-hard pro-lifers (on an issue for which public support is already overwhelming.) The risk of a future Congress overturning a legislative mandate that embryonic stem cells are a-okay is effectively nil. The risk that we’ll again have a president with the IQ of a grapefruit and the EQ of a stone is much greater, in my estimation. Also, leaving the issue to the executive now does not bind future Congresses to do likewise.

    Politically speaking, with the utmost cynicism, this is a great opportunity for the pro-life cabal within the Democratic party to seize a shield from criticism from pro-choicers. When we scream that they have no business in our party with their religiously-motivated patriarchal horse shit, they can point to their support of stem cell research and call themselves “moderates”. God, I hate politics.

  5. I love it when, in the process of typing a comment, I come to realize I began by talking out of my ass and adopt the opposite thesis, but forget to go back and change the beginning.

  6. “…up to 70 Democrats could find themselves in competitive races in 2010. Those potentially vulnerable lawmakers provide another consideration for leaders weighing whether to set an early test vote on what for some is a politically sensitive subject back home.”

    Tell me, when and where is this NOT a sensitive subject? Abortion rights and related concerns have long been some of the most divisive issues on the table, and in my opinion, if politicians are waiting for the right time to address stem cell research, they’ve already missed it – Not sure what I mean? Just ask anyone who has lost someone to a potentially preventable disease. What’s the point of having a party majority capable of turning over these issues if Democrats are too afraid of stepping on more moderate toes to use it!

  7. I agree that this is an extremely complex issue. However, if Democrats will only follow the following flowchart, they can get it done. I realise that there are many steps, but it will work!

    [instructions]

    1. Repeal the damned ban.

    [/instructions]

  9. Time for Obama to step up and take a leadership role. Gee, I wonder when that will happen? Well, just so long as we can agree to disagree agreeably I’m sure everthing will be fine. After all, who can doubt the post-partisan okey-doke!?

  11. This is why I hate the Democrats. Their relation to power is like the relation of a dog to a car it’s chasing. They know what they want to do in theory, but once they manage to actually achieve their objective they’re lost. This really isn’t that hard of an issue; the dems have overwhelming support for the issue, they have control of the presidency and both houses, and you can buy copies of “The Art of War” and “The Prince” at just about any bookstore in the country.

    Wait for a busy news cycle when Obama is already doing something else thats getting a lot press, reverse the current ban with a presidential directive late on a Friday, let the storm die down, and then a few months later sneak a legislative provision into an omnibus bill at the 11th hour. If the Dems are really worried about members from more conservative districts, let those members show some token opposition. Haven’t they learned anything from 8 years of bush and 6 years of Contract With America?

  12. “There are only a devoted few crazies strongly opposed to embryonic stem cell research, and the democrats need to accept that they aren’t getting those fucking votes, anyway.”

    I wish the Democrats would figure that out!

    I think they are too petrified to act because of what happened to Clinton when he tried to do too much too fast and ended up with the horrific “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.

    I think the loud republican talk radio and fox assholes make the democrats think the country is more right than it is. So that just means, like Naomi Klein says, we have to get as loud and obnoxious as possible to move the center back to the left.

  14. I think the loud republican talk radio and fox assholes make the democrats think the country is more right than it is. So that just means, like Naomi Klein says, we have to get as loud and obnoxious as possible to move the center back to the left.

    Loud and obnoxious just drives civil people out of politics, increases acrimony, and leads to policy being made by the most aggressive voices in the room. Loud and obnoxious also pushes a very narrow, very two party system because you need “enemies” to fight against; it fosters an us vs. them mentality that makes dissent and discussion and act of betrayal. Also, lets be realistic, the Democratic party has a history of throwing minority groups of all stripes under the bus the very second it becomes politically expedient, after all, who else are they going to vote for? I’m not at all confident that a more obnoxious left is going to care as much about civil rights as a lot of people would like to hope.

    It is, to my mind, more likely that they’ll lean right to try to poach the more fertile center-populist vote and all the sound and fury will just serve to silence people who threaten the acquisition of more power. Cheerleaders will question the loyalty of anyone who dares to question the platform, discussion and careful consideration will be seen as signs of weakness, and the most influential voices in the movement will never be the most intelligent but always the meanest and most base. Complicated ideas will fall to the wayside because they’re too difficult to turn into a snidely catchy slogan. Eventually, twenty or thirty years down the road, a past-their-prime presidential candidate will play to a generation weaned on the kind of speech that only appeals to decerebrated apes and offer the VP position to someone who represents everything wrong with their movement. Then they’ll lose power.

    At least, thats what happened with the GOP.

  15. It would be nice if the new DNC chair favored ending the ban, wouldn’t it?

    Tim Kaine, appointed by Obama, is anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and anti-stem cell research. You have to put the pressure where it matters. It’s not “the Dems”. It’s the leader of the Democratic party who’s already walked back repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA and appointed Kaine as DNC chair. Not to mention all his other failures on gay rights. Railing against “the Dems” is crap. Go after the man who matters, the one who’s setting the agenda. That’s Obama.

  16. yeah William, you maybe right. I go back and forth on that. But by trying to always be reasonable, the left often gets screwed.

  17. I think its going to get screwed either way. I’ve always felt that the biggest problem with the left wasn’t that it lacked the volume of the right but that it lacked the political acumen and had a habit of aping successful behaviors on the right without really understanding the theory behind them. Whether you agree with them or not, its hard to argue that the right in America doesn’t run a good game. The left tends to be blessed with a handful of great politicians but, as a movement, is generally far less skilled at politics.

Comments are currently closed.