Tag: Barack Obama

Don’t put your faith in science

TBLeave a comment

To me, it is deeply disturbing when the president puts his faith in scientists, saying things like “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry.  It is about letting scientists like those here today [on March 9] do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.  It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

To divorce any kind of ideology from science is to give science a free rein that leads to frightening results. In a review of Pamela Winnick’s book “A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion,” Wesley Smith points out what kind of work scientists are capable of when human life is disregarded. From his review published in the Discovery Institute’s First Things:

Early on, Winnick wrenchingly demonstrates the potential antihuman consequences of pursuing scientism’s view of scientific research. During the late 1960s and into the 1970s, scientists conducted human experiments on living fetuses, justified by the philosophical assertion that fetuses are only “potential” human life. 

One such experiment, which won the Foundation Prize Award from the American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is described by Winnick in sickening detail: “In a 1968 study called the ‘Artificial Placenta,’ a twenty-six-week-old fetus, weighing more than a pound, was obtained from a fourteen-year-old girl, presumably from a therapeutic abortion. Along with fourteen other fetuses, it was immersed in a liquid containing oxygen and kept alive a full five hours.” The study itself explains that the fetus made”irregular gaspmg movements, twice a minute, … but there was not proper respiration.” Once the pumping of oxygenated blood was stopped, however, “the gasping respiratory efforts increased to 8 to 10 times a minute …. The fetus died 21 minutes after leaving the circuit.”

So, for those of you who feel squeamish or think I’m overstating it when I mention Nazi doctors in regard to therapeutic stem cell research, I’d ask you to read that last paragraph again and remember that we’re talking about 1960s America and not 1940s Nazi Germany. Smith notes that the experiments were stopped when an outraged public and Congress — led by Ted Kennedy — demanded they be stopped. But we live in a different age where the drumbeat call for cures has drowned out any thought of human exceptionalism. In other words, it matters not that embryos are human, it only matters what cures can (possibly) be found.

The idea that science is somehow benign and trustworthy left untethered from any kind of ideological guidelines is naive and will lead to situations like the one described above. Smith, in his review of Winnock’s book, says science of is not the target in “A Jealous God” but rather a belief (scientism she calls it) that “promotes a stark materialistic utilitarianism as the way to achieve progress.” Science is not our savior, and we can never forget that.

One little problem for Obama: Dickey Amendment

TBLeave a comment

The other day I posted about President Obama’s executive order on March 9 overturning restrictions on embryonic stem cell research put in place by former President Bush. In it, I said that Obama had carefully constructed his words to allow for the scientific destruction of embyos (killing of humans) for research.

A reader pointed out that, two days later, Obama signed an omnibus spending bill containing a clause which seemed in direct contradiction with his executive order. Like others, I wondered what this meant since the president’s words on March 9 were explicit about where he stood.

After his press conference last night, when he was asked about stem cell research he seemed ready to leave the issue to scientists — that is, those who are strongly in the embryonic stem cell research corner. What is clear is that, despite his words, the only thing he’s wrestled with is on this issue is with what political constituency he wants to keep his allegiances .

The complicating part is the Dickey amendment, which was part of the Omnibus bill. Found of page 280 of the bill, its says:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

The White House said the  amendment, which has been in appropriations bills since 1996, only means that federal funds can’t be used for the killing of embryos, it can still be used for research on embryos that are killed with private funds. Others, however, say that it’s not that simple. Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told CNSNews.com the White House is too narrowly defining the amendment:

It does not merely say you can’t use federal funds to kill an embryo, it’s much broader than that. It says the federal government can’t fund research in which embryos are harmed. We should interpret that to mean the federal government can’t fund any research project if that project involves or requires harm to human embryos.

It is not consistent with the Dickey amendment for NIH to say, ‘OK, we’re going to approve this study, which involves taking 100 embryos out of the freezer in some in vitro lab and killing them and taking their stem cells, and using their stem cells in the federally funded study, and by the way, we’re going to pay for all of that, and we approve it in advance. The only part we’re not going to pay for is the part where you kill the embryo.’ That’s not what the Dickey amendment says.

And, because there is this doubt out there and actual law is at stake, Congress has already started acting on the possibility of repealing Dickey. Already this month, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said lawmakers may look at passing a stem cell research bill before the April 4 recess. You can bet that getting rid of Dickey will be part of that measure, as Colorado Democrat Diana Degette told the N.Y. Times that they will look at how Dickey restricts research. In other words, it would mean the government could once and for all pour money into research that kills humans for the sake of science. Again, Josef Mengele would approve.

Embryonic snake oil salesman

TBLeave a comment

Charles Krauthammer, who doesn’t come off as a religious right wingnut, says Barack Obama’s address while reversing Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research was unserious:

This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.

Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama’s pretense that he will “restore science to its rightful place” and make science, not ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand — this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as authentically “scientific.”

Read the rest here.

The Associated Press: Your one-way news service

TBLeave a comment

The Associated Press reported Friday that President Obama is expected to sign on Monday an executive order reversing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

After reading this article, you may wonder what’s missing. The answer: Any kind of reaction from those opposing reversing restrictions. Instead, we are given the views of an anonymous senior administration official (the quote fragment “scientific integrity” which gives you an idea of how this administration totally misunderstands the issue), a stem cell researcher who favors embryonic stem cell research, Obama himself (from his views on the campaign trail when he announced his opposition) and a spokesman for a group that advocates embryonic stem cell research.

What can be said that might give pause for reversing the policy? Two paragraphs give the entire argument against it:

Such research is controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells; they typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. Once a group of stem cells is culled, it can be kept alive and propagating in lab dishes for years.

There are different types of stem cells, and critics say the nation should pursue alternatives to embryonic ones such as adult stem cells, or those found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form – and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.

This is followed by a comment by an embryonic stem cell research advocate saying that “science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal.”

And I’m sure Josef Mengele would agree.

It’s disappointing that it took two writers, Ben Feller and Lauran Neergaard, to write an article that is basically propaganda for the embryonic stem cell research position. It’s not like there are no scientists to be found on the other side, but Feller and Neergaard didn’t make the effort to talk to them. Here would have been a good start, at least as far as better framing the argument from the other side. Instead, we get cheerleading from the AP.

Obama to roll back Bush policy on abortion

TB1 Comment

Attention to all you evangelicals who voted for Barack Obama. This was reported today by the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.

A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

The rational behind the Obama move is that it could also hinder access to birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions. If the Obama administration is really concerned about access to health services, it wouldn’t be pushing for nationalized health care. Rather, this is all about not only maintaining abortion services, but forcing others who would have moral objections to offer them as well.

Since the story notes that administration is looking for input from the public, we should do our part and ask them not to trample the rights of Americans who feel that abortion is murder.

ABC News’ misreporting of stem cell research

TBLeave a comment

Watching the ABC World News Sunday, anchor Dan Harris reported that there are indications that President Obama will soon be “freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.” He then went on to say that this would reverse the policy under President Bush who “banned funding for stem research.”

That’s not just misreporting, it’s untrue. Before President Bush, federal funds were nonexistent for research on embryonic stem cells. In fact, what ABC News is not reporting is that President Obama and those who think like him would expand funding and research. In other words, this would not only give the go-ahead to kill more embryos in the name of scientific research, it would devote more federal funds to do this. To compare, the Bush policy devoted federal funds for research on embryos that already existed. Nothing was cut, it was just that federal funds weren’t devoted to the increase. Also, it should be noted, nothing was restricted as far as private funds going to this type of research.

But, the reporting by ABC News and others totally obscures this in a way that is diabolical. They are lying to you, the listener. This television report even misrepresents what’s reported on their own site. These kind of episodes either represent journalistic laziness or, worse, intentional misleading. They deserve the scorn directed their way by outraged viewers.

Gallup poll: Most disagree with president on Mexico City policy

TBLeave a comment

A new Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans disagree and only 35 percent agree with the president about his decision to reverse the Mexico City policy:

Obama’s decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it.

Not surprisingly, this was the one early decision he made that didn’t get wall-to-wall media coverage. Likewise, there was scant coverage when 250,000 marched in Washington to mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and call for change.

Obama appointee has interesting take on the law

TBLeave a comment

From the blog of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) comes this shocker: James B. Steinberg, President Obama’s nominee to be the next Deputy Secretary of State, claimed in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. Mr. Steinberg stated that the Mexico City policy, which bars taxpayer funding of abortions overseas, “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.” Here is the Q&A:

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

DeMint explains in the same post that this statement is a direct contradiction of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Rust v. Sullivan, in 1991. But then again, this is all about change, not about laws and things like that.

HT: NRO’s The Corner

Despite what we see, AP assures us that Obama is a uniter, not a divider

TBLeave a comment

Even though Barack Obama has confidently asserted that he doesn’t care what millions of people believe is morally wrong, the Associated Press wants us to know that he has done better than former President Bush:

Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

“What an opportunity we have to change this country,” the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. “The American people are really counting on us now. Let’s make sure we take advantage of it.”

And he has changed it, as evidenced by his executive order to overturn the ban on using taxpayer funds for international organizations that promote abortions or give information about them, the so-called Mexico City Policy. The AP noted that Obama went this direction, but downplays its significance:

In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.

The rest of the article, by Democratic cheerleader Liz Sidoti, goes on to explain that Obama’s decisions have muted most criticism because they were long-expected. You see, he’s popular so we really shouldn’t worry about anything he does.

Sidoti’s breathless prose, which seems suited for an analysis piece or a column, goes on to include this gushing passage:

A picture of poise, Obama didn’t get rattled when Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office, an exercise repeated a day later to ensure constitutionality. He breezed through his speech – which repudiated Bush’s tenure though never personally attacked him – without a misstep. Even with the weight of the country’s troubles now on his shoulders, he was relaxed as he twirled his wife, Michelle, at celebratory balls.

“I don’t sweat,” Obama said on the eve of his inauguration – a comment meant literally, and, perhaps, figuratively.

People who disagree with the president will have a hard road to hoe over the next four years. The idea that this president can do little or no wrong, perpetuated by the people who have gone from being attack dogs over the last eight years to lapdogs, will make dissent harder.

Obama reverses Mexico City Policy

TB1 Comment

In a move that wasn’t unexpected, Barack Obama lifted a ban on giving federal funds to international groups that perform abortions and provide abortion information, known in some circles as the Mexico City policy. In contrast to his high-profile announcement of the plan to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist camp, this order was done quietly. As one person put it, Obama is friend of the terrorist, not the terrorized. Here is the report from the Associated Press:

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world’s poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.

Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.

The story also said that the new president plans on adding funds in the next federal budget for the UN Population Fund. So, as Obama has made clear, he respects those who disagree with him on abortion but that apparently means he doesn’t bother to listen to them.