New GOP platform to ban ALL embryonic stem cell research

[aerosolben]

from The Daily Dish:

When the committee reached the stem-cell language, North Carolina delegate Mary Summa offered what appeared on the surface to be a small change. Summa sought to change the sentence:

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of and experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

to read:

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

thus severing experimentation on human embryos from their creation for that purpose. It's just one word, but it has huge implications. It is a call for a total ban on embryonic stem-cell research, including privately funded research using frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.

I know we have at least a few members who favor embryonic research but oppose public funding, or at least feel the GOP position has not previously placed unreasonable hurdles in the way of research.

Legitimate cause for concern, or overreaction to a minor grammatical correction?

(Had some debate about where to put this - since it concerns the GOP platform for this election year, this seems an appropriate location).

 

[dudalb]

The main reason I am voting for Obama in this election is not that I think he is going to be such a great president, but that the GOP seems to be going in for crap like this. I am really disssapointed that McCain is rolling over and playing dead for the Religious Right.
Obama is the better of two weak choices at this point.

 

[Jimbo07]

The main reason I am voting for Obama in this election is not that I think he is going to be such a great president, but that the GOP seems to be going in for crap like this.

I voted Conservative way back when I believed that they were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government...

... the extent to which the tentacles of this socio-religious conservatism has invaded the parties (in the US and Canada) really frustrates me.

 

[not_so_new]

I voted Conservative way back when I believed that they were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government...

Me too... and stopped when I realized that, after elected, the GOP is completely backwards on both points.

Here is an old but pretty interesting article on wealth, spending and economic growth of the GOP over the last few election cycles.

... the extent to which the tentacles of this socio-religious conservatism has invaded the parties (in the US and Canada) really frustrates me.

I agree. The stem cell stuff really really pisses me off.

If the idea is to defend lives isn't the line a little more grey than the GOP supporters say / think it is? By blocking stem cell research they feel they are saving lives (let's not even touch the whole "debate" on research harming the "unborn") but they are also letting people die by blocking research into potential cures for life treating illnesses.

 

[headscratcher4]

If you allow people to look for cures they might find some. If they find them, it could undercut the US Healthcare industry. This is a good way to start the battle needed to stem the tide of all of this silly healthcare and medical research and to bolster the future prospects of our healthcare infrastructure.

 

[headscratcher4]

BTW...some of those GOPers have other clever ideas. For example this McCain advisor knows how to end the problem of 46 million without health care insurance ... you just define it away. So long as there are emergency rooms that must treat everyone (by law) it is the same as having insurance. Ergo: no problem. Neat huh?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...insured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html

 

[gdnp]

Not clear to me how changing and to or makes much of a difference

 

[mrbaracuda]

Christianist? What the hell is a Christianist? Some crappy term like Islamist?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not clear to me how changing and to or makes much of a difference

Surplus zygotes are created for the purposes of IVF which might be used to develop life-saving therapies, or which might alternatively be thrown into a garbage can.

By changing "and" to "or" the Republicans are voting that the garbage can option should prevail.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Obama is the better of two weak choices at this point.

How dare you say that about a man who promises to give you a rainbow-colored pony?

 

[aerosolben]

Not clear to me how changing and to or makes much of a difference

The implication is that the original wording allowed for experimentation on existing embryo lines (such as form IVF treatment) that otherwise would be discarded, as long as embryos aren't being created for the specific purpose of research. The new wording appears to forbid any research on embryos for any purpose under any circumstances (although there may be some debate as to what "experimentation" is construed to mean).

More broadly, it appears to be a further step for the GOP towards the religious right and against science, something that I would expect to worry most sceptics.

 

[chipmunk stew]

BTW...some of those GOPers have other clever ideas. For example this McCain advisor knows how to end the problem of 46 million without health care insurance ... you just define it away. So long as there are emergency rooms that must treat everyone (by law) it is the same as having insurance. Ergo: no problem. Neat huh?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...insured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html

This deserves its own thread.

 

[gdnp]

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of and experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

to read:

We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

Both statements call for a ban on the creation of human embryos for research purposes.

Both statements call for a ban on experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

Neither statement specifically addresses the currently available stem cell lines.

Neither statement would allow experimentation on embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

There is no difference.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Neither statement would allow experimentation on embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

It seems to me that the original statement did allow that; and it must have seemed so to the Republicans too, or why else would they have amended it?

At the very least, the fact that they bothered to make the change suggests that it is a change, rather than the substitution of a sentence with identical meaning, 'cos otherwise why would they bother?

 

[gdnp]

It seems to me that the original statement did allow that; and it must have seemed so to the Republicans too, or why else would they have amended it?

At the very least, the fact that they bothered to make the change suggests that it is a change, rather than the substitution of a sentence with identical meaning, 'cos otherwise why would they bother?

It seems to me that the first statement calls for a ban on the experimentation on embryos for research purposes and does not make any distinction on why they were created in the first place. Unless you read the first statement to mean "creation of and subsequent experimentation on...", thus exempting from the ban those embryos created for other purposes. Perhaps they thought the first statement was ambiguous and wished to remove the ambiguity. I doubt it signals a true shift in policy.

The point remains moot, since political platforms are not binding even on members of the party. McCain and other Republicans can continue to vote as they choose.

Its poorly phrased in either version. Experimentation for research purposes? Are there people doing experimentation for other purposes? Why not just call for a ban on embryo experimentation or embryo research? My guess is that they do not wish to preclude experimentation for the purposes of better outcome for fertility treatments, although a strict reading of their statement would ban of that as well.