As Catholic News Service reported, "The executive order Obama signed permits federal funding of stem-cell lines created since [the signing of President Bush's executive order], but would not allow funding of the creation of new lines, leaving that decision to Congress." Since Obama had promised to sign such an order during his presidential campaign, the only people who were surprised by the move were those Catholics who had voted for Obama but did not believe that he would carry through on his promises.
In one sense, President Obama's executive order is simply a logical extension of President Bush's. In an article I wrote six years ago, I noted that, "By choosing to implement his 'compromise' by executive order rather than through legislation, President Bush left the door wide open to its repeal by a future administration." Both Obama and his Republican opponent, John McCain, had supported legislation in 2007 that would have expanded funding for additional lines.
In signing his executive order, President Obama declared that President Bush had made "a false choice between sound science and moral values." From the standpoint of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, there are many reasons to criticize President Bush's "compromise." For instance, in January 2007, Tony Snow, President Bush's press secretary, bragged that the administration had made embryonic stem-cell lines available for research, and the administration's budget that year called for an additional $74 million in funding for ESCR.
But President Obama's particular criticism of his predecessor's executive order could not be more wrong. In the seven-and-a-half years that have passed since President Bush signed his executive order, as many as 70 therapeutic uses have been developed using adult stem cells--research which the Catholic Church fully supports--but not a single one has been developed using embryonic stem cells.
"Sound science," in other words, is on the side of those who uphold "moral values" by opposing the destruction of human embryos for research. That makes it all the more clear that the political pressure for expanded funding for ESCR has nothing to do with actual scientific advances, and everything to do with an ideology that devalues unborn human life.
More on ESCR:
- The Catholic Church's Teaching on Stem-Cell Research
- Should the U.S. Government Fund Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?
- Where Do Barack Obama and Joe Biden Stand on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?
- Where Do John McCain and Sarah Palin Stand on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?
- Does Joe Biden Know His Science?
- Avoiding the Culture of Death
I was truly disappointed by Obama. Up to this point, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Today, I lost any optimism for the current President.
The title of this article is spot on. Obama has only proven he will only make the same mistakes of the past.
With so much wrong with our economy and our soldiers embroiled in Iraq in a false war of our own making, I find it so sad that your previous commenter is ready to write off our new President on the basis of one issue. It is this one issue politics perspective that threw us into the past destructive 30 years in the dark ages.
Ferne, I find it interesting that the phrase “single-issue politics” is only ever applied to the life issues. If a voter voted for Obama primarily on the basis of the economy, for instance, or on the belief that he would get us out of the war in Iraq, no one would ever call him or her a “single issue” voter.
Yet if someone is concerned about the most defenseless among us, that’s “single-issue politics” and somehow destructive. The charge is even leveled at such men as Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, both of whom opposed the war in Iraq (and the Gulf War) and who have spoken and written at great length on the greed that has led to the current economic crisis. (The latter, in fact, will be the subject of Pope Benedict’s next encyclical.) Yet if the Vatican today denounces President Obama’s executive order, you can bet that some will immediately accuse the Holy Father of engaging in “single-issue politics.”
Why are the life issues singled out for such opprobrium?
Possibly because a lot of us consider these issues a matter for private conscience. But then, this is an argument that is never ending and unwinnable – a real bottom-line, unbudgeable mind-set issue, so I guess I will back away from this discussion now.
Ferne, thanks for your comments, and please don’t feel that you need to remove yourself from the discussion. I think there is something to be gained for all of us by looking at this issue from this angle.
To say that “a lot of us consider these issues a matter for private conscience” may explain why people get upset when others preach the consistent teaching of the Church, going back to the New Testament, regarding abortion and contraception. But it doesn’t answer the question I asked: Why is the phrase “single-issue politics” only ever applied to life issues?
The only way that your answer might apply to my question is if you’re implying that the phrase is used as a way to stifle debate, because “a lot of us consider these issues a matter for private conscience.” Otherwise, no one could reasonably dismiss as “single-issue politics” a discussion of abortion in which, for instance, Pope Benedict XVI or John Paul II speaks of a Culture of Life, tying together respect for unborn human life with the Church’s social teaching and Her teachings on just war.
Yet people do that all the time, and I’m simply attempting to understand how “I think this issue should be private” translates into “If you discuss this issue, even in the context of many, many other issues, you’re engaged in ‘single-issue politics.’”
I’m separating this out into a separate comment, because I don’t want to derail the discussion about “single-issue politics.” But regarding your remark, Ferne, that “a lot of us consider these issues a matter for private conscience,” isn’t that an argument for not providing public funding? My tax dollars will now be spent on activities that I, in good conscience, consider immoral.
If such issues as abortion and ESCR and contraception are matter for private conscience, shouldn’t the private consciences of those who oppose them be granted the same respect as the private consciences of those who support them? Or is saying that these are matters for private conscience simply another way of saying, “Anyone who opposes these things is wrong”?
Doesn’t this decision come on the heels of the Freedom of Choice Act, as well? I’ve been reading that there are some Catholic hospitals who may have to close rather than comply with it.
I know that’s a bit off-topic, but it seems related somewhat.
The Freedom of Choice Act has not been reintroduced into Congress yet, though the principal sponsors have expressed their desire to reintroduce it sooner rather than later.
I suspect, though, that the Obama administration is in no great hurry to have a congressional debate on FOCA. Better, from their standpoint, to continue with a series of executive orders that will accomplish many of the things that FOCA would, without having a public debate.
Indeed, a number of abortion-advocacy groups have backed off on FOCA, declaring it unnecessary or less necessary now that they have a friend in the White House.
First of all, this “private matter” seems to not consider the biggest target at issue, the child. The Declaration of Independence states that out creator endowed everyone with the right to life. A civilized society stands up for innocent life that can’t fend for themselves.
But in regards to this legislation, not only does it fund destruction of life, I believe it is cutting off funding from the adult stem cell research that is actually producing results. All moral debate aside, this makes no sense at all!