I disagree with this press release from the Ayn Rand Institute:
Bush Vetoes Medical Progress
Thursday, July 20, 2006
By: Yaron Brook
IRVINE, CA--"President Bush’s veto of a bill to remove restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is immoral," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"It is revealing that Bush has used his first veto to oppose potentially life-saving research in the name of the dogma that microscopic embryos are sacred. Clearly, Bush and other ‘compassionate conservatives’ are not concerned with the well-being of humans, but with sacrificing them to clumps of cells in the name of religion. Such opposition is rooted in the perverse worship of human suffering.“Anyone who truly cares about human life must condemn this religious assault on medical progress.”
Now, I have no doubt that President Bush probably does see his veto as a "religious assault on medical progress."
Further, I agree with everything Dr. Brook writes in his second paragraph.
But vetoing this stem cell research bill is not at all immoral. All that is involved here is -- as indicated in the "immoral" statement, above -- the question of federal funding for such research. Is funding such research constitutional?
No.
Is President Bush charged with upholding the Constitution of the United States?
Yes.
I believe Dr. Brook has correctly surmised President Bush's motives on this whole matter: like many other Bible-thumpers, Bush no doubt objects to scientists or doctors "playing God." Such creatures objected to the use of anesthesia in an earlier era. And there have been any number of previous bills deserving of a presidential veto, and, had he possessed any principles, President Bush would have vetoed them. Of course, he didn't.
None of this matters. What does matter is that the funding of scientific or medical research is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and so federal monies should not be spent on such research. At all.
The fact that George W. Bush is an unprincipled follower of a particular form of witch doctory is also irrelevant. Like Dr. Brook, I do not respect the president's motivations. He did the right thing for entirely the wrong reasons. But, with this veto, he did the right thing.
I agree that the press release is not one of ARI's better efforts. It confuses the issues. But I disagree with you that the veto is right. Harry Binswanger has made this convincing argument on HBL. He has said that since the Federal Gov't undertakes the funding of a whole range of scientific research (which of course it shouldn't), it can not exclude some forms of research for funding based on religious grounds. So if it is going to fund cancer research it mus also fund stem cell research. To not fund stem cell research on religious grounds can be argued to be a violation of the seperation of church and state barrier.
That is the argument that ARI should have made. I am suprised that they didn't.
Posted by: D Eastbrool at July 20, 2006 09:26 PMAlso, ARI issued a second press release emphasizing that this whole issue is caused by government support of science and calling on it to privatize all such support. It's a bit of a tricky issue. How to do something that one should not do right, given that at present there's no prospect of stopping to do it completely? I voted against a California initiative to fund Stem cell research for much the same reasons you have but it passed anyway.
Posted by: Gideon Reich at July 21, 2006 11:14 AM