Rick Majerus' Marquette Education

The Rick Majerus controversy rolls on....

Majerus Is Criticized for Pro-Choice Stance

A Roman Catholic archbishop said Tuesday that he would ask officials of St. Louis University to take “appropriate action” against its basketball coach, who said in a television interview that he supports abortion rights.

Rick Majerus, one of the game’s winningest coaches, made the comment at a weekend rally for the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke declined to say what the action against Majerus should be, saying it was a decision for officials at St. Louis, a Jesuit university.

“I’m concerned that a leader at a Catholic university made these comments,” Burke said by telephone as he attended March for Life anti-abortion events in Washington. “It can lead Catholics astray. I just believe that it’s of the essence for people to understand as a Catholic you just cannot hold these beliefs.”

In an interview with KMOV-TV at Saturday’s Clinton rally in suburban St. Louis, Majerus identified himself as a Catholic and called himself pro-choice. The St. Louis University spokesman Clayton Berry said Majerus was at the rally as an individual, not as a representative of the college.

I would bet that St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke could have a full-time job trying to police all the Catholic staff and faculty at St. Louis University uttering views that run counter to Catholic teaching.

It's a Jesuit university. It would be shocking to learn that Catholic faculty and staff weren't challenging the Church's teaching.

I think it is important to note that Rick Majerus is a basketball coach. He's not teaching theology. Furthermore, Majerus was not speaking on behalf of St. Louis University. He wasn't speaking on behalf of Catholics. When he voiced his pro-choice stance, he was speaking for no one but himself.

In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Majerus spoke out for the first time since all the uproar.

Surprised by the reaction to his pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research comments made Saturday night at a Hillary Clinton political rally, St. Louis University basketball coach Rick Majerus spent part of Wednesday morning on the phone, trying to calm his elderly mother.

"She was upset, thinking I was going to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and that I would be denied Communion during Mass," Majerus said Wednesday night, in his first public comments over a controversy that included a strong rebuke from St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. "But she told me to keep doing what I thought was right, just as my parents taught me."

I feel sorry for Majerus' mother.

It's often forgotten that these public controversies involving public figures touch private people, too, impacting them personally.

...[I]f Burke is expecting an apology or silence from Majerus, it won't happen. If Burke hopes Majerus will fall in line with the Roman Catholic church's official positions on these two issues, it won't happen.

During an exclusive 90-minute conversation Wednesday, Majerus was civil and respectful in his comments made about Burke. But make no mistake: Majerus is unyielding, and defiant.

"I'm very respectful to the archbishop," Majerus said. "But I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. And that Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop's.

That sounds like a Marquette education.

I don't know if Majerus did Marquette any favors by stating, in effect, that "Marquette made him to do it."

"I do not speak for the university or the Catholic Church. These are my personal views. And I'm not letting him change my mind. I think religion should be inclusive. I would hope that all people would feel welcome inside a church, and that the church would serve to bring people together, even if they happen to disagree on certain things."

...Majerus said he has not heard from Burke, or the SLU president, the Rev. Lawrence Biondi. But Majerus is confident that Biondi supports his right to express personal views. Attempts to reach Biondi on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Majerus said he would welcome a visit, or a conversation, with Burke.

"But in the end, it wouldn't make a difference," he said. "Because the archbishop would still believe in what he believes, and I would still stick with my beliefs."

I can't imagine these comments going over very well with Archbishop Burke.

The fact is Majerus' beliefs regarding abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not consistent with the stance of the Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, I'm sure Fr. Biondi will support Majerus' right to speak freely, in the Jesuit tradition.

And I don't think the university will reprimand him in any way.

It's up to Majerus to reconcile his identity as a Catholic and his beliefs that are not in line with the Catholic Church.

I think Majerus should meet with the Archbishop and discuss the matter privately rather than via the press. This war of words is a bit unseemly.

In the end, both Archbishop Burke and Majerus have to answer to God.

Embryos Survive Stem Cells' Creation?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is trumpeting another stem cell research breakthrough.

The problem is the article on the latest technique is somewhat sloppy and misleading.

It begins with the claim that stem cells can be created from embryos without destroying them.

In the latest feat of stem cell wizardry, researchers have been able to create viable new lines of embryonic stem cells from human embryos that were not destroyed in the process.

The accomplishment is the newest wrinkle in a rapidly evolving effort to find ways to develop prized human embryonic stem cells without the ethical baggage that has plagued the field since its inception nearly a decade ago. Already, the new method is generating controversy.

The five new lines of human embryonic stem cells that were created using the process are genetically normal and have the ability to become any of the more than 220 cell types in the body, said Robert Lanza, senior author of the paper published online Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

"We could send these cells out (to researchers) tomorrow," said Lanza, chief science officer at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "If the White House approves this methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months."

...But it appears that the federal government is not likely to approve funding for stem cells obtained using the method, at least not anytime soon.

That's because under an executive order by President Bush last year it must be proved that embryos not only were not destroyed, but also were not harmed in the process of obtaining stem cells.

The process used by Lanza and his co-authors involves extracting one or two cells from surplus embryos, a technique that is similar to a relatively common practice used to test for genetic abnormalities in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. But an earlier study suggests that when genetic testing is done, the rates of pregnancies and live births are reduced somewhat.

In order to prove that no harm was done to embryos, doctors would have to implant them into the wombs of women and babies would have to be born.

"I don't think that is a reasonable experiment," said Story Landis, who leads the stem cell task force of the National Institutes of Health.

But she added, "I can't think of a feasible study to prove embryos aren't harmed."

In other words, there's reason to believe that the embryos may be harmed in this new process.

Researchers can't be sure that stem cells are, in fact, obtained without damage to the embryos. Terms need to be defined here. For instance, when does damage become destruction?

This technique is still dragging around "ethical baggage."

It's false to suggest otherwise.

...[T]he new method is a highly efficient way to obtain stem cells, similar to rates found with conventional techniques, Lanza said.

"The approach utilized by the authors definitely does make the case that lines of human embryonic stem cells can be isolated without having to destroy embryos," said John Lough, a stem cell researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

But Lough said that while new cell lines created by the process would help bolster the dwindling supply of stem cell lines used in basic research, the process would not be feasible for stem cells that someday might be implanted in patients.

For clinical use in patients, doctors will need stem cells that are genetically matched to the patient, he said.

So, this process would be completely useless in the actual treatment of patients.

These stem cells could help in "basic research," but not in clinical use.

That's very different from the breakthrough reported last year, genetically engineering skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, which would have the potential for implantation in patients without being rejected.

Rather than clearly reporting on the new process, the article emphasizes the politics of the "ethical baggage."

Landis said Lanza and his co-authors should submit a request for funding to NIH "and see what happens."

Short of that, they could wait for the next president to rescind Bush's order, she said.

Bush is standing in the way of scientific progress again -- typical Journal Sentinel spin.

I don't think an order to protect life is an obstacle or inconvenient "ethical baggage." Defending the sanctity of life is a moral obligation and a cornerstone of a civilized society.


"[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."

--George W. Bush

Moral Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

An instance of "learning how to turn lead into gold"--

Here's yet another stem cell breakthrough that doesn't destroy embryos:

By genetically manipulating human skin cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a separate team in Japan were able to reprogram those cells to act like embryonic stem cells without the need of using human embryos.

If these new cells truly do have all the beneficial qualities of embryonic stem cells without hidden hazards, it could pave the way to therapies that do not raise the moral concerns associated with destroying embryos or therapeutic cloning. At the same time, the new approach could avoid problems of immune rejection because the cells could be matched to the DNA of the patient.

"This is truly the Holy Grail - to be able to take a few cells from a patient - say a cheek swab or few skin cells - and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory," said Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer with Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold.

"If perfected, there will no longer be any need for human eggs, or any of the controversy associated with destroying embryos."

This sounds extremely promising.

I trust that phrases like, "turn lead into gold" and "truly the Holy Grail" aren't bandied about recklessly.

Of course, EMBRYONIC stem cell proponents have tossed the obligatory wet blanket tossed on the breakthrough.

But Lanza and other scientists not associated with research said there are major caveats that must be addressed. And there was a danger that scientists might abandon the contentious field of embryonic stem cell research, wiping out work on promising therapies, he said.

As with many new findings, there are caveats that need attention.

The part about the DANGER of scientists abandoning the "contentious field of embryonic stem cell research" seems very political.

Why would scientists continue to destroy embryos for therapies if it would be totally unnecessary, if there would be a way to avoid the destruction of life?

These scientists remind me of pro-abortion supporters, the ones clinging to partial birth abortion as a supposedly necessary procedure.

Some of the article reads like propaganda for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

...So far, no one has treated using embryonic stem cells. Part of that may be due to federal restrictions for funding involving embryonic stem cells that has limited research in the field.

Indeed, Thomson and other have complained that the ethical debate surrounding the use of embryos had limited research in the field.

"The political controversy set the field back four or five years," Thomson said.

The stigma surrounding the use of embryos caused many young scientists to shy away from the field, he said.

What's the point?

Ethics shouldn't be considered?

This isn't Nazi Germany. There are ethical limits to medical experimentation.

Still, even the lib media can't deny the positive nature of the study's findings.

...The new genetically modified cells had many of the features of embryonic stem cells, including pluripotency, or the ability to become any of the 220 cell types in the human body.

"These induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do," said UW Thomson, senior author of the paper. "It is something that can proliferate forever and form every cell in the body. The big question will be, are they normal cells or funny mutations?"

At this point, however, "These really do appear to be the cells that give rise to everything."

In addition to eventually being able to use the cells as replacement cells, Thomson said researchers might be able to figure out ways to use similar processes to induce damaged or diseased cells in the body to repair themselves.

...Thomson said much more research needs to be done using this approach, and it could take a couple years before it is certain that the new cells work the same way as embryonic stem cells. He said it is premature for scientists to step away from ongoing embryonic stem cell research.

Still, he added, "I believe this is the beginning of a great change. This changes things in a big way. We started a field (in 1998). Now we might have come up with the best thing to go on to. It creates a nice book end to 10 years of controversy."

UW's findings are published in the journal Science.

The Japanese researchers published their findings in the journal Cell.
______________

Read more.

Stem Cell Research: Bush Vetoes Culture of Death Legislation

[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts.

--President George W. Bush

Conservative critics of President Bush for his weak and wobbly stance on ILLEGAL immigration can pause from their outrage over that for a moment.

They can praise the President for making good on his steadfast pledge to defend the sanctity of life.

WASHINGTON -- Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president's decision.

"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

I can't stand it when libs like Hillary Clinton twist the principled position of Culture of Life proponents.

Bush didn't put ideology before science. He didn't veto science.

He prevented additional federal dollars from being used to clone human life and destroy it.

He vetoed unethical science.

Apparently, Hillary's reality includes cloning human life and using it as raw material for research and experimentation. That's her vision for America.

It's not mine.
____________________

Fact Sheet: Advancing Stem Cell Research While Respecting Moral Boundaries

____________________

Transcript of President Bush's remarks.

More Good News on Stem Cell Research

This has to be tough for the Culture of Death crowd to swallow.

It's yet another breakthrough in stem cell research that does not require the destruction of embryos.

From The Washington Post:

Three teams of scientists said yesterday they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.

In work being published today, the scientists describe a method for turning back the biological clocks of skin cells growing in laboratory dishes. Thus rejuvenated, the cells give rise to daughter cells that are able to become all the parts needed to make a new mouse.

If the process also works with human cells, as scientists suspect it will with some modifications, it would mean that a person's own skin cells could be converted directly into stem cells without having to collect healthy human eggs or destroy human embryos -- steps that until now have been required to obtain embryonic stem cells.

Those stem cells could then be used to make a wide variety of personalized replacement tissues.

The findings have generated tumult on Capitol Hill, where the House is set to vote today on a bill that would loosen President Bush's 2001 restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research.

Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics.

The researchers are "acutely aware" of "key political goals"?

Are they scientists or lobbyists for libs?

Destroying innocent human life is morally wrong.

It's absolutely repugnant that embryos, AKA genetically complete human beings, are created at fertility clinics and then just tossed out like trash.

There should be outrage over the fact that the embryos are going to be destroyed at these clinics, not that they aren't being used as material for medical experimentation.

Although the embryos have been sentenced to death, that doesn't make their destruction by researchers morally acceptable.

President Bush should veto any legislation that dismisses the sanctity of human life.

Stem cells hold promise. Absolutely.

That promise doesn't have to come via immoral acts.

"[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."

--George W. Bush, May 24, 2005

_______________________

What a surprise!

The New York Times runs damage control for pro-death EMBRYONIC stem cell research supporters.

While intriguing, a new approach for producing embryonic stem cells faces considerable hurdles before it can be used to develop medical treatments, executives from stem cell and other biotechnology companies said yesterday.

...“Once you muck around with the genome, all bets are off,” said Dr. Thomas B. Okarma, chief executive of Geron, a company trying to develop medical treatments from human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Okarma said getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration would become “enormously more complicated.”

In scientific papers published yesterday, scientists in the United States and Japan said that by inserting four genes into mouse skin cells, they could change those cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells.

The method does not involve the destruction of embryos, thereby circumventing ethical issues that have led to restrictions on federal financing in the field. That controversy has also deterred some pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Yeah, right.

I don't buy that ethical issues have stopped any company from trying to find a magic bullet, a stem cell-based cure or treatment, that would surely reap enormous profits.

Profit is the bottom line.

Joydeep Goswami, vice president for stem cells and regenerative medicine at Invitrogen, a company that sells tools for stem cell research, said the new technique could get more companies interested in stem cells.

Not only does it eliminate the ethical issues, he said, but it also might provide a way around stem cell patents held by the University of Wisconsin that some scientists and corporate executives say have hindered work in the field.

Oooh! A swipe at UW-Madison and Governor Jim Doyle's plan to make Wisconsin the clone capital of the world!

So Doyle, EMBRYONIC stem cell champion, has hindered work in the field.

Did anyone tell Michael J. Fox that before he did the campaign ad for Doyle?

Another ADULT Stem Cell Breakthrough

It's a pattern.

When a stem cell treatment breakthrough is reported by the lib media, there is a concerted attempt to minimize the fact that the cells used are not from EMBRYOS.

Worse yet, some reports take a slap at those opposing EMBRYONIC stem cell research, suggesting that even greater medical breakthroughs are being thwarted by pro-life opponents.

It should be noted that NONE of the stem cell treatments and cures in use so far come from EMBRYONIC stem cells. ZERO.

There's the rub for the libs with a stake in promoting the Culture of Death.

They just can't seem to report the good news without suggesting that there could be better news if only EMBRYOS were being used. Stem cell medical breakthroughs that don't require the destruction of human life are diminished by those convinced that EMBRYONIC stem cells are the magic bullet.

The latest advance in the use of stem cells comes in the treatment (cure?) of Type 1 Diabetes.

From the U.K. Times:

Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again.

In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.

The results show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition, which affects more than 300,000 Britons.

While this report is clear and upfront about the stem cells being derived from the patients own blood, not EMBRYOS, it goes on to bash President Bush.

...But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.

What is that?

Clearly, an anti-life political agenda is being spoon fed to the public.

The message: "If you think this is good news, think of what miracles could be happening if only people like Bush and his minions weren't against the wholesale farming and destruction of EMBRYOS, human life, for medical purposes."

These accounts never mention that EMBRYONIC stem cell research hasn't yielded any medical treatments or cures to date.

Here's another report on this latest stem cell study on Diabetes:

LOS ANGELES -- Researchers have demonstrated for the first time that the progression of Type-1 diabetes can be halted -- and possibly reversed -- by a stem cell transplant that preserves the body's diminishing ability to make insulin, according to a study published today.

The experimental therapy eliminated the need for insulin injections for months or even years in 14 of 15 patients who were recently diagnosed with the disease. One subject, a 30-year-old male, hasn't taken insulin since his stem cell transplant more than three years ago, according to the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study suggests a new avenue for treating the intractable disease, in which the immune system destroys insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas.

The article continues explaining the details of the new treatment, potential risks, and the results of the study.

While it does state that the patients "were infused with their own hematopoietic stem cells," it doesn't highlight that EMBRYOS have nothing to do with this promising new treatment.

It makes no mention of the fact that the research that produced this breakthrough in the treatment of Diabetes is the product of ADULT stem cells, the sort of research that President Bush and Culture of Life proponents support.

You can bet that if this advancement involved EMBRYONIC stem cells, this promising new treatment for Type 1 Diabetes would be used as fodder to bash the President and promote the Culture of Death agenda.

This breakthrough couldn't come at a worse time for those invested in EMBRYONIC stem cell research, as the stem cell debate is about to be revisited by the Senate.

No doubt, they'll fall back on their tired, old, and utterly baseless lines that EMBRYONIC stem cells can produce better treatments and cures, even though that hasn't happened.

Politics aside, everyone should welcome the promising results of this medical breakthrough, courtesy of ADULT stem cells.

Dog Lab and the Medical College of Wisconsin

More here.

No Dogs in Medical School

Animal advocacy groups are planning three days of protests at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

The problem? The use of live dogs in a lab for first-year medical students.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Sixty dogs are scheduled to be killed as part of a first-year medical school physiology lab that begins Monday at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Additional labs are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.

The Wisconsin Humane Society and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., are coordinating a large protest for Monday on the medical school grounds. They will stage smaller protests for Tuesday and Wednesday.

They hope to persuade medical students to opt out of the lab.

...Attendance at the laboratory is optional and not recorded, said Richard Katschke, associate vice president of public affairs at the Medical College. Twelve of the 204 first-year medical students have already officially opted out.

The college will go into "lockdown" Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, only allowing employees, students and registered guests into the building. Some doors will be staffed by security guards, and others will be locked.

...Although many medical schools once used live dogs to teach human physiology, pharmacology or surgery, only two U.S. medical schools still do, according to the Physicians Committee: the Medical College of Wisconsin and the New York Medical College in Valhalla, N.Y. And only one of the top 20 rated medical schools - Washington University Medical School in St. Louis - still uses any live animals, according to the committee.

Clearly, this article is very slanted.

It fails to present the reason that the school has the lab. It fails to explain what happens to the dogs.

All it does is announce that sixty dogs are scheduled to be killed at the Medical College this week.

To provide balance, here is some information from the other side of the issue:

The cardiovascular laboratory for first-year medical students at the Medical College of Wisconsin provides students with an exceptional learning experience. It brings together all of the information they have learned in their coursework to date, and applies that knowledge in a real-life situation. It is the only opportunity that students will have in their medical education to experience the cardiovascular function of a large animal with similar responses as humans before they begin clinical work with patients. The use of live animals in this course is strongly endorsed by the American Physiological Society.

The JS article makes it sound like the Medical College of Wisconsin is hanging on to a practice not recommended or beneficial for students, a pointless killing of animals.

The reader isn't informed that the "use of live animals in this course is strongly endorsed by the American Physiological Society."

The laboratory experience involves the use of dogs. All animals are treated humanely and are fully anesthetized during this laboratory. The cardiovascular system of a dog is remarkably similar to that of humans. That is why so many medical advances in cardiac care and our understanding of the cardiovascular system of humans are traced to medical research using dogs.

The animals are treated humanely and fully anesthetized.

That's important.

One would think that the protests are being staged because the animals are experiencing pain.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Wisconsin Humane Society regularly is forced to put down dogs and other animals.

Animals are euthanized because they are unwanted. There are too many animals and not enough homes.

So, the WHS is protesting the Medical College for doing what it routinely does. Moreover, when the WHS kills animals, future doctors aren't being educated to treat human beings and save lives.

The dogs used in the lab are purchased from a licensed, USDA vendor. None of the dogs have been pets and would have been euthanized, if not made available for this course.

Here is another critical piece of information.

The dogs haven't been pets and they would be euthanized anyway if they weren't used in the lab.

The article doesn't say that.

More facts about what happens to the dogs in the lab:

Dogs are humanely treated and are under heavy anesthesia at all times during the lab. The animals do not suffer nor are they ever conscious. They are anesthetized by veterinarians and professional staff members before the students enter the laboratory. At the completion of the lab, the dogs are euthanized with an overdose of anesthesia.

It's evident that the Medical College isn't just engaging in some sort of animal cruelty exercise.

The dogs are serving an important purpose in the students' coursework.

Most important, these are dogs that would be euthanized if they were used in the lab or not.

In a real sense, the Wisconsin Humane Society is organizing a protest of one of its own procedures.

That doesn't make sense.

When the animal advocacy groups finish their protest at the Medical College, they should head over to the Humane Society and protest there for its practice of killing dogs.

I'm not writing this as an advocate for the use of animals in medical training and experiments as much as I'm pointing out the double standard applied by the protesters.

Another thing that came to mind--

In the case of EMBRYONIC stem cell research, proponents often use the excuse that the embryos would be destroyed anyway. That's supposed to make it morally acceptable.

Since those human lives would be tossed out as garbage, the EMBRYONIC stem cell supporters claim that those worthless embryos should be put to use to find treatments and cures for diseases and disorders.

Well, in the case of the dogs, they are going to be put down anyway. Why not use them to give medical students a valuable learning experience?

It makes me wonder how many of the protesters that will descend on the Medical College are supporters of EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

How many support silencing a beating heart through abortion?
_____________________

I love animals. I've adopted pets from the Humane Society. I support the Wisconsin Humane Society with significant financial contributions every year.

As much as I adore and want to protect God's creatures, there's a dramatic qualitative difference between an animal and a human being.

EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Races

The competition is heating up.

New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer is challenging Wisconsin's pro-clone Governor Jim Doyle to be the EMBRYONIC stem cell research Grand Poobah.

From The New York Times:

Five years ago, the Bush administration decided to severely limit federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that set off vigorous competition among the states to provide support for a research field that many scientists say could bring about major medical advances.

New Jersey was first out of the gate, pledging millions of dollars for stem cell research in the state. California raised the stakes with a huge $3 billion bond initiative, and other states followed with ballot initiatives or legislation to give scientists grants or to build research centers. Those efforts, supporters promised, would also bring in new jobs and tax revenue.

But New York — home to leading research universities, medical centers and biotechnology companies — has remained absent from the list. Legislative efforts in recent years to direct state money to embryonic stem cell research have stalled, and then fizzled.

...In his first address to the Legislature, Gov. Eliot Spitzer called this month for passage of a $2 billion 10-year bond initiative for research and development, at least half of which would be set aside to pay for stem cell research. And the project is being tailored as an economic development effort in the hopes of attracting support from upstate Republican lawmakers.

Advocates for stem cell research say that if successful, the initiative — by pledging a sizable investment over a sustained period — would catapult New York to the forefront of the field. They also say that bringing the state’s academic and scientific institutions more into the research mix could have significant ripple effects across the country.

...To win support for the initiative from upstate lawmakers, the administration is promoting it as primarily an economic measure. In his speech, [Lt. Gov. David A.] Paterson cited upstate research universities and centers in Albany, Buffalo and Rochester, whose officials have lobbied heavily for more state money for the research.

“The best stem cell researchers in the country are in California, Wisconsin and New York,” said David A. Carmel, a supporter of the research who helped create the Spitzer administration’s proposal. “To have major restrictions on federal funding, and no state funding here — many talented researchers in New York are disgruntled with this state of affairs.”

This has to be making Doyle nervous.

He wants Wisconsin to be the nation's leader in cloning embryos and destroying them. He wants to be the Embryo king.

It's bad enough that California took away Wisconsin's title as America's leading milk producer and is knocking on the door when it comes to producing cheese.

Now Wisconsin may take a back seat to New York and California when it comes to creating life to kill it.

Poor Doyle.

Mr. President, Veto the Culture of Death

The lib media are trying to hide the fact that they're in mourning.

The new Dem Congress isn't all-powerful.

There aren't enough votes to override a veto by President Bush on the Dems' EMBRYONIC stem cell bill.

WASHINGTON -- The House voted to expand government-financed embryonic stem cell research Thursday, but for the second time in two years lawmakers were unable to muster enough votes to overcome a promised presidential veto.

Still, the 253-174 vote was a high watermark in the stem cell debate, drawing advocates closer to the two-thirds vote threshold needed to override President Bush's objections.

Translation: It's a defeat, but we'll call it a win for the Culture of Death.

...Addressing "those who do not have the will to stand up against a presidential veto," freshman Rep. Zach Space, D-Ohio, described his 16-year-old son's battle against juvenile diabetes and wondered aloud what awaited him as an adult.

"This research represents the only meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime," Space said.

Not true. Not even close.

...Thursday's vote set another milestone in the new Democratic leadership's march toward passing a string of campaign promises in the early days of the new congressional session.

Not really.

The votes to override a veto aren't there.

This isn't "another milestone in the new Democratic leadership's march toward passing a string of campaign promises."

It's a loss, a loss for the Dems and EMBRYONIC stem cell advocates.

It's a win for the Culture of Life.

More Stem Cell Promise

Once again, there is progress to report on stem cell research.

And once again, the progress does NOT involve EMBRYONIC stem cells.

Has anyone contacted Michael J. Fox for his reaction to the new findings?

What about the Dems?

I want to hear a comment from pro-clone Jim Doyle. He so desperately wanted Wisconsin to be the leader in destroying embryos. This sort of takes the wind out of his sails.

I also want to hear from Nancy "Rosie the Riveter" Pelosi. Her "100 hour agenda" includes increasing federal funds for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

What does Pelosi, the self-proclaimed most powerful woman in America, think about the research advances being made that don't require the destruction of human embryos?

She must be just a little disappointed. Each NON-EMBRYONIC stem cell breakthrough rips the issue out from under the Dems.

Yes, good news for humankind is bad news for the Dems.

From The Washington Post:

A type of cell that floats freely in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women has been found to have many of the same traits as embryonic stem cells, including an ability to grow into brain, muscle and other tissues that could be used to treat a variety of diseases, scientists reported yesterday.

The cells, shed by the developing fetus and easily retrieved during routine prenatal testing, are easier to maintain in laboratory dishes than embryonic stem cells -- the highly versatile cells that come from destroyed human embryos and are at the center of a heated congressional debate that will resume this week.

Moreover, because the cells are a genetic match to the developing fetus, tissues grown from them in the laboratory will not be rejected if they are used to treat birth defects in that newborn, researchers said. Alternatively, the cells could be frozen, providing a personalized tissue bank for use later in life.

The new cells are adding credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular distinction between embryonic and "adult" stem cells -- those isolated from adult bone marrow and other organs -- is artificial.

Increasingly, it appears there is a continuum of stem cell types, ranging from the embryonic ones that can morph into virtually any kind of tissue but are difficult to tame, up to adult ones that can turn into a limited number of tissues but are relatively easy to control.

The newly analyzed fetal stem cells, scientists said, have many of the advantages of both.

"They grow fast, as fast as embryonic stem cells, and they show great pluripotentiality," meaning they can become many kinds of tissues, said study leader Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C. "But they remain stable for years without forming tumors," he added, something that embryonic cells are not very good at.

This is a tremendous development!

Absolutely tremendous!

These cells are "versatile," "readily available," and most importantly, ethically available.

But The Post is quick to point out that it's still important and very necessary to kill human embryos.

Atala and other scientists emphasized that they don't believe the cells will make embryonic stem cells irrelevant.

"There's not going to be one shoe that fits all," said Robert Lanza, scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "We're going to have to see which ones are most useful for which clinical conditions."

George Daley, a Harvard stem cell researcher, echoed that sentiment. "They are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells," he said.

But in the past, even hints that non-embryonic cells might have medical potential similar to embryonic ones have complicated the political push to expand federal funding for the controversial field. And accordingly, opponents quickly pounced on the new results.

EMBRYONIC stem cell "opponents quickly pounced on the new results" -- GIVE ME A BREAK!

All human beings should pounce on the new results. It's terrific news. It's a medical advancement that could mean cures and treatments. It could potentially alter so many lives.

It's reason to rejoice.


The libs don't see it that way.

The Culture of Death crowd just isn't happy unless it's able to treat life as a commodity. They view life as expendable rather than sacred.

That's why it's very important for The Post to counter the news of this exciting advancement with the comments of pro-death promoters.

Their rallying cry: WE MUST BE FREE TO CHOOSE TO KILL.

The libs will fight to destroy embryos. It's their mission. It's what they do.

"This is wonderful news," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes research that depends on embryo destruction. "It doesn't require harming anyone or destroying life at any stage."

It is wonderful news.

It's not just wonderful news for pro-lifers.

It's wonderful news for everyone interested in alleviating human suffering in an ethical manner.

It's really sick that some people will not welcome the breakthrough. Instead, they'll see it as a threat to their agenda.

Really sick.

Ethical Stem Cell Research Advances

Two stories exhibit the promise of stem cells in treating and curing disease.

1. Stem cells help dogs with dystrophy

NEW YORK -- In promising new research, stem cells worked remarkably well at easing symptoms of muscular dystrophy in dogs, an experiment that experts call a significant step toward treating people.

"It's a great breakthrough for all of us working on stem cells for muscular dystrophy," said researcher Johnny Huard of the University of Pittsburgh, who wasn't involved in the work.

Sharon Hesterlee, vice president of translational research at the Muscular Dystrophy Association, called the result one of the most exciting she's seen in her eight years with the organization. Her group helped pay for the work.

She stressed that it's not yet clear whether such a treatment would work in people, but said she had "cautious optimism" about it.

Two dogs that were severely disabled by the disease were able to walk faster and even jump after the treatments.

The study was published online Wednesday by the journal Nature. It used stem cells taken from the affected dogs or other dogs, rather than from embryos. For human use, the idea of using such "adult" stem cells from humans would avoid the controversial method of destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells.

2. Heart valves grown from womb fluid cells

CHICAGO -- Scientists for the first time have grown human heart valves using stem cells from the fluid that cushions babies in the womb — offering a revolutionary approach that may be used to repair defective hearts in the future.

The idea is to create these new valves in the lab while the pregnancy progresses and have them ready to implant in a baby with heart defects after it is born.

The Swiss experiment follows recent successes at growing bladders and blood vessels and suggests that people may one day be able to grow their own replacement heart parts — in some cases, even before they're even born.

It's one of several sci-fi tissue engineering advances that could lead to homegrown heart valves for infants and adults that are more durable and effective than artificial or cadaver valves.

"This may open a whole new therapy concept to the treatment of congenital heart defects," said Dr. Simon Hoerstrup, a University of Zurich scientist who led the work, which was presented Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference.

Also at the meeting, Japanese researchers said they had grown new heart valves in rabbits using cells from the animals' own tissue. It's the first time replacement heart valves have been created in this manner, said lead author Dr. Kyoko Hayashida.

"It's very promising," University of Chicago cardiologist Dr. Ziyad Hijazi said of the two studies. "I don't doubt" that it will be applied one day in humans, he said.

...Valves made from the patient's own cells are living tissue and might be able to grow with the patient, said Hayashida, a scientist at the National Cardiovascular Center Research Institute in Osaka.

The Swiss procedure has another advantage: using cells the fetus sheds in amniotic fluid avoids controversy because it doesn't involve destroying embryos to get stem cells.

"This is an ethical advantage," Hoerstrup said at the meeting.

Very promising advances indeed.

But wait a minute.

I thought that only EMBRYONIC stem cell research could yield the really big and best payoffs.

Michael J. Fox said so. Jim Doyle said so.

However, in both of these instances, the stem cells utilized in the procedures did not come from embryos.

Life was NOT destroyed to achieve the desired results.

Bottom line:

Medical breakthroughs do not have to come at the price of cheapening life.

Embryos, genetically complete human beings, do not have to be viewed as some expendable raw material.

The ethics of research methods do matter.

We should all be encouraged by the news of these advances and the hope that they bring.

Medical progress is not necessarily obstructed by rejecting the Culture of Death.

"Clear Choice on Stem Cells": Vote Green

In today's installment of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board's slow-motion endorsement of Jim Doyle for governor, the topic is stem cell research.

Despite the fuss over the ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox, embryonic stem cell research is hardly a bellwether issue in the race for governor. For this Editorial Board, it's an easy call.

Gov. Jim Doyle and Wisconsin Green Party gubernatorial candidate Nelson Eisman have the right idea.

Doyle has embraced this research and done everything in his power to support it, committing millions of state dollars.

Republican Rep. Mark Green, on the other hand, has consistently voted with President Bush to continue the unreasonable restrictions the president imposed in 2001 on new federal funding for such research. Green has maintained that stance even while a growing number of fellow conservative Republicans have split with the president because they, like Doyle, appreciate the tremendous therapeutic possibilities of embryonic stem cells.

Why are there restrictions on new federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research?

There are ethical considerations, considerations that even Bill Clinton acknowledged.


In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning, Doyle's pet project, a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Obviously, Doyle and The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board do not share the concern that President Clinton harbored in 1997 about the morality and spirituality of playing with human embryos.

Green points out that he has no objections to private funding. But as one researcher put it, the private dollars available are "a drop in the bucket."

Now, why would the private dollars available be only "a drop in the bucket"?

Wouldn't private investors jump at the chance of making millions or billions of dollars in stem cell research, the new frontier for miracle cures?

Of course they would.

So why aren't the private dollars there?

It's not a wise investment.

At this point, EMBRYONIC stem cell research is problematic. It's been unsuccessful. The promise lies in adult stem cells and cord blood.

...Green fully supports adult stem cell research, which has delivered some therapeutic benefits. But embryonic cells hold more promise because they can become any tissue in the body.

Correction: Adult stem cell research has delivered the ONLY therapeutic benefits of any stem cell research.

In spite of the promised promise of EMBRYONIC stem cells, they have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses. None.

He objects because the current research requires the destruction of the embryo. But because the embryos used are from fertility clinics and scheduled to be discarded anyway, that argument lacks credibility.

To the contrary, an argument should be made that those embryos scheduled to be tossed away like yesterday's trash should not be discarded.

A case should be made for the ethical handling of human life. Green is right to object to the destruction of the embryo.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board lacks moral grounding. Respect for life doesn't enter into the Board's arguments. They are shallow and uniformed and inhumane.

Green proposed using $25 million in state money to look for ways to extract stem cells without killing the embryos. But developments in this area have been called into question, and far more research is needed to know whether such procedures are viable.

Yes, and developments in EMBRYONIC stem cell research have been called into question.

For example:

--In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.

--Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

Simply put, EMBRYONIC stem cells are currently not viable for treatment purposes.

Between the two major-party candidates, this issue has been muddied by rhetoric, but the bottom line couldn't be clearer: Doyle is right.

The stem cell research issue hasn't been muddied by rhetoric of the two-major party candidates.

It's been muddied by the liberals' dishonesty.

It's been muddied by lies -- from the likes of the Doyle camp, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, Michael J. Fox, and the intentionally deceptive Old Media.

The most productive research and beneficial results have come from adult stem cells.

The bottom line couldn't be clearer: Green is right.

Michael J. Embryo

Watch this!

JIM DOYLE IS PRO-CLONE

Jim Doyle is PRO-CLONE.

If you believe that human clones should be created in labs for the sole purpose of doing experimentation that demands their destruction, then vote for Doyle.

He's on the record as PRO-CLONE. He vetoed AB 499, a bill that banned human cloning in Wisconsin.

Doyle's position on human cloning is so extreme that members of his own party are at odds with him.

In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Doyle disagrees with Bill Clinton on cloning.

Unlike Clinton, he supports replicating ourselves and using state and federal funds to do it.

Yes, indeed, Doyle is the PRO-CLONE candidate.

Come November, if you want to vote for someone who will fight to clone human life, vote Doyle.
_____________________________

Does that seem unfair, calling Doyle a supporter of human cloning?

Would you say it's wrong to be going around saying that Doyle is a PRO-CLONE extremist?

You might argue that it's misleading to leave out any reference to the distinction that Doyle and others make between therapeutic cloning (embryos cloned for research) and reproductive cloning (embryos cloned to be brought to full term and born.)

So, is it wrong to label Doyle as PRO-CLONE?

If one follows the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's techniques of labeling -- such as calling Mark Green ANTI-STEM CELL RESEARCH -- then, to be consistent, one would have to agree that it's fair to call Doyle PRO-CLONE.


(Just a reminder: An embryo contains the same genome, or total genetic content, that a living, breathing human being has throughout his or her life. The individual is a genetically complete human being as an embryo.)

The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox

I think a potent dose of reality is in order.

Mary L. Davenport, MD supplies the desperately needed medicine.

She writes:

The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,

“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s…. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”

Mr. Fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is “the most promising” is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.

Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?

The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust.

Read more.



Thanks, RJay.

Michael J. Fox Stumps for Jim Doyle

A lot has been said in recent days about Michael J. Fox's political ads for Missouri Dem Claire McCaskill. She supports EMBRYONIC stem cell research, so he supports her.

Some think that the ads are powerful and will convince people to vote for candidates backing INCREASES in federal spending for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Others question why Fox's symptoms appear to be more exaggerated in the ads than they are when he's acting.

Others are turned off by the "pity factor" that fuels the ads.

The debate is far from over.

In fact, it's intensifying. Fox's ad blitz is coming to Wisconsin.

MADISON -- Today, Governor Jim Doyle launched a new campaign ad featuring Michael J. Fox that highlights their shared support for lifesaving stem cell research.

Here's a newsflash:

I don't know anyone against stem cell research.

Do you?

Fox and Doyle fail to highlight that they are talking about EMBRYONIC stem cell research, the kind that demands the destruction of human life.

Also left out of the Doyle campaign's statement is that EMBRYONIC stem cell research has yet to save any lives.

“I'm honored to help out,” Michael J. Fox said. “I'm a one issue guy. Jim Doyle is a real champion of stem cell research, and this research could potentially lead to cures for diseases that affect you, your families, and your neighbors.”

In this new ad, Michael J. Fox, who lives with Parkinson’s disease, connects his own hope for a cure with Governor Doyle’s re-election campaign. In his words: "What you decide can affect millions of people. Like me. Like your family,” Fox said. "Wisconsin holds a special place in my heart, because it's where stem cell research was born. The cures we are looking for may come from here."

Again, the term "stem cell research" is recklessly thrown around.

There is a distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research. EMBRYONIC stem cell research requires the destruction of the EMBRYO.

Fox isn't stumping for stem cell research candidates; he's stumping for EMBRYONIC stem cell research candidates.

He rejects strong supporters of stem cell research like Mark Green, because Green supports research that does not destroy human life. That's not good enough for Fox.

As Wisconsin’s Governor, Doyle will continue to do his part for Wisconsin and the nation, by fighting for patients and families living with debilitating diseases and standing on the side of hope.

“Allowing our scientists to search for cures to the world’s deadliest diseases is not about being liberal or conservative,” Governor Doyle said. “It’s about being compassionate. And respect for human life means you don’t turn your back on cures that can save lives.”

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Does he abide by any moral boundaries when it comes to medical research?

Is there anything that would make Doyle "turn [his] back on cures that can save lives"?

Perhaps using animals in research -- would that be off limits?


The fact is Fox and Doyle do the same thing. They play with the truth.

They purposely confuse the public by failing to mark the distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Why?

Why are they afraid to be specific about the sort of research that they support?

I'm sick of them misrepresenting the position of candidates that wholeheartedly support stem cell research that respects life.

IT'S DISHONEST.

Stem Cell Research: Jim Doyle STILL Lying

It's been a while since Governor Jim Doyle has spent time misrepresenting Mark Green's stance on stem cell research.

I guess Doyle has been too busy focusing on trying to steal every penny from Green's campaign coffers to be bothered with lying about an actual issue.

It turns out that Doyle hasn't given up his campaign strategy of lying about Green and stem cell research.

At a Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce dinner last night, both Green and Doyle addressed the crowd of 1,200. They both commented on stem cell research. Doyle, of course, lied.

From WisPolitics:

Each candidate tried to stake out a claim to promoting stem cell research. Green talked about his plan to direct $25 million in state funding to WiCell to “advance promising stem cell research, research that would create new embryonic stem cell lines without destroying living human embryos, obviously that’s something that we all support.”

Funding promising research to find disease treatments and cures while respecting human life and not experimenting on it as if it were an expendable, plentiful raw material -- That is a plan that all Wisconsinites can support.

Doyle and the Culture of Death crowd can't be so demented that the only research they would support would be that which demands killing human embryos, right?

Doyle talked about stem cell research from a personal perspective, referencing his mother’s 30-year battle with Parkinson’s disease. Ruth Bachhuber Doyle died in May at the age of 89.

“To me it is unthinkable that we would stop the research that has the potential of having other people not have to suffer what my mother suffered,” he said.

MARK GREEN DOESN'T WANT TO STOP STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Doyle said in Congress, Green has voted against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He said it is the greatest difference between himself and his opponent, adding that he has launched a $750 million public and private investment strategy to fund biotechnology and stem cell research.

I would argue that Green's vote against federal tax dollars being used to kill human life is not the "greatest difference" between the two candidates.

It's hard to pin down the greatest difference, because there are so many.

Doyle is pro-abortion, pro-tax, pro-special interests, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-school choice, anti-business, and utterly bankrupt ethically.

The fact that Green is morally grounded and has principles that guide him stands in dramatic contrast to the hopelessly corrupt Doyle.

In that sense, perhaps their positions on stem cell research do reveal the greatest difference between them -- character.

“As long as I’m governor of Wisconsin, embryonic research is going to go on in this state,” Doyle said.

Green would say the exact same thing, but with an important caveat.

Doyle promotes the destruction of human life.

With Mark Green as governor, embryonic research will go forward in Wisconsin -- the kind that creates "new embryonic stem cell lines without destroying living human embryos."

Journal Sentinel Steps Over the Line

Today's editorial in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Green Steps Over the Line," slaps the wrist of Mark Green's campaign for putting out an ad that supposedly misrepresents the newspaper.

The JS editorial board whines:

The ad says the Journal Sentinel reports that Gov. Jim Doyle "secretly rigged a state Elections Board vote to try and steal the election."

Don't be fooled. The newspaper didn't write that. News stories reported on calls from a Doyle campaign attorney to Democratic members of the Elections Board before a key vote that was to determine if Green should return nearly $468,000 that went from his congressional campaign fund to his governor campaign. Another news report cited a call from the state Republican Party head to a board member on the same matter.

A Sept. 22 editorial mostly bemoaned the blatant partisanship of the Elections Board in that vote and urged reform that would remove partisanship from such decisions. Specifically, it urged passage of legislation that would have removed the partisanship.

Since the JS is parsing words, let's parse some more.

First, Green's ad doesn't quote the JS directly.

Moreover, the paper did cover the story that the Doyle campaign was in uncomfortably close contact with the Elections Board and strategizing. It cited damning e-mails.

The facts spoke for themselves.

In terms of partisanship, the reality is when Tom Barrett's case came before the board four years ago, Republicans did put partisanship aside.

But when the Dems on the board were to decide Mark Green's fate, they were given marching orders from Doyle's people and they went along in lockstep.

But the editorial also agreed with board counsel that there was likely nothing illegal about those calls, though it welcomed an investigation into whether open meeting laws were broken. So, "rigged?" "Steal?"

No controlling legal authority? That sort of thing? Give me a break!

"Steal" is a strong word. Agreed. But, it has shades of meaning. In the ad, I don't think "steal" is used to refer to broken laws. It's used to refer to dirty tactics and abuses that soil the electoral process; in effect, impacting the election in such a way that the people are robbed of a clean race.

The editorial goes on to pontificate about ethics, and how Green has ethical issues of his own.

Blah, blah, blah.

What bothers me about this editorial is that the JS is jumping down Green's throat for supposed inaccuracies in his ad.

Okay. So why doesn't the JS step all over itself to clarify Doyle's distortions of the paper's reporting?

Doyle can lie about Mark Green's position on stem cell research and the editorial board doesn't debunk how Doyle is trying to fool the public.

Throughout, the JS editorial board tries to appear above the partisan fray. Of course, the editorial itself proves otherwise.

Ethics is a worthy issue in this campaign. But misrepresenting what's reported won't help the cause.

How can the JS castigate Green for a debatable line in an ad when Doyle is the one who's clearly ethically-challenged?

STEM CELL RESEARCH ADVANCE

From the Washington Times:

A team of Texas and British researchers says it has produced large amounts of embryoniclike stem cells from umbilical cord blood, potentially ending the ethical debate affecting stem-cell research -- the need to kill human embryos.

The international researchers said the cells -- called cord-blood-derived-embyroniclike stem cells, or CBEs -- have the ability to turn into any kind of body tissue, like embryonic stem cells do, and can be mass-produced using technology derived from NASA.

"It looks very promising," said Dr. Randall Urban, an endocrinologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He stressed more research has to be done.

In a report published in the August issue of the journal Cell Proliferation, Dr. Urban and researchers at Kingston University in England described how they turned the CBEs into human liver tissue.

Scientists believe the ability to replicate tissue could lead to the development of ways to replace organs as well as treat life-threatening diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, which have been the focus of stem-cell research.

...Dr. Urban said he sees a need for both adult and embryonic stem-cell research, but recognizes the objections of the pro-life community. In contrast, he said, "cord blood is normally discarded tissue" after birth, so there are no ethical concerns.

In addition to the moral questions surrounding their use, embryonic stem cells are rare. The Texas and British researchers point out that cord blood is an attractive source for stem cells, given that 100 million babies globally are born each year, 4 million in the United States alone.

...[The research] is especially interesting because it comes just two weeks after scientists at the University of Pittsburgh announced they have discovered a type of cell in the human placenta that also shares the ability of embryonic stem cells to regenerate a wide variety of tissue.

This is good news, isn't it?

Great leaps are being made in stem cell research.

Cord blood is showing even more promise to fight disease than it has already delivered. Advances can actually be made without destroying human embryos.

Obviously, stem cell research is an emotionally charged issue on many levels. For those believing that life begins at conception (like John Kerry), destroying life to preserve life is a moral dilemma.

Putting the ethical issues aside for a moment, it is helpful to understand the state of research on embryonic and adult stem cells.

U.S. Florida Congressman Dave Weldon, an OB/GYN, said, "Adult stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the sources for the regenerative, miraculous medicine in the future. Embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results."

He's right.

While embryonic stem cell research has yet to cure a single patient, so far, more than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood.

There are no currently approved treatments being used on patients as a result of research on embryonic stem cells. No human trials are underway. Twenty years of embryonic stem cell studies reveal that they have produced tumors, caused transplant rejection, and have formed the wrong kind of needed replacement cells.

Because embryonic stem cell research has been shown to be problematic, private investors have put their money toward adult stem cell research.

It should be noted that no one has put the brakes on embryonic stem cell research in the private sector. Nothing stands in the way of privately funded research projects.

All of this doesn't begin to address the moral issues involved when experimenting on human embryos. (Keep in mind how vehemently some people oppose using animals in medical research and testing, finding the exploitation of animals to be morally objectionable, even when medical advances and cures are at stake.)

Politically speaking, the advances in non-embyronic stem cell research are so encouraging that it will be that much easier for President Bush to veto the bill to INCREASE federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Life does not need to be destroyed to find treatments and cures for conditions that threaten life.





"[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."

--President Bush, May 24, 2005