Democrats Find Wedge Issue In Stem Cells?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General Politics, Science
Stem cells. The culture of life thinks they’re the moral equivalent of a human being, and therefore should have the same rights. The rest of us don’t seem to care about the rights of a few cells. We just care that our loved ones are needlessly suffering. And Democrats are FINALLY taking note.
From the NY Times:
COLUMBIA, Mo., April 19 � Democrats are pressing their support for embryonic stem cell research in Congressional races around the country, seeking to move back to center stage an issue they believe resonates with voters and to exploit a division between conservatives who oppose the science and other Republicans more open to it.The question of whether the government should support or limit stem cell research has cropped up in Senate races in Maryland and Missouri, and in House races in California, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin, especially in suburban swing districts.
“What Democrats want to do is gin up their turnout in the suburbs and divide Republicans, and right now they may do that,” said Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans.”
And this is a particular hot topic in Missouri, where Republican Jim Talent is in for the fight of his life this fall against moderate Dem Claire McCaskill.
On Tuesday, Ms. McCaskill appeared in the central Missouri town of Fayette, population 2,793, for a wine-and-cheese reception at an antiques shop and, later, for a dinner of roast beef and potatoes in the brightly lit social hall of St. Joseph’s, a Roman Catholic church. A Catholic church is hardly the kind of place where most politicians would talk up embryonic stem cell studies â€â€? church leaders are fiercely opposed â€â€? but Ms. McCaskill did just that.“There are people of principle who disagree with this form of research,” Ms. McCaskill told her audience. “I respect their principles. But what I don’t respect is someone dancing around science for political cover.”
It was a pointed barb at Mr. Talent, a first-term Republican who has publicly wrestled with the stem cell issue and has avoided taking a stand on the proposed amendment. The initiative, destined for the November ballot if supporters gather enough signatures, is intended to beat back efforts to ban the research in Missouri. It would permit stem cell studies as long as they remain legal under federal law.
Expect this to be one of THE races to watch this fall. Not just because it’s my home state, but more because of Missouri’s status as a swing state. If the Show-Me state goes for a Dem this time around, it could signal a sea change across the country. No doubt this is worrying the GOP more than just a little bit. But what to do? Their culture of life stances have backed them into a corner.
Interesting times ahead.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
With all the cultural issues coming up before Congress and various state legislatures in 2006, this at the very least looks to be the year we find out how far the Christianists’ influence really goes.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Its too bad the embryonic stem cell issue has become a non-scientific partisan squabble about abortion.
There is actually a Deus-ex-Machina for all of this. While republicans appear anti-progress, and democrats appear anti-life, it is now moot because adult stem cells have now been proven to bring all the benefits that embryonic cells promise (they can give rise to all 3 cell-types), with none of the downfalls (such as tumor formation and tissue rejection). They are also cheaper to produce.
The more money spent on embryonic research as opposed to adult stem cells, the less progress in developing effective therapies for degenerative disease. That is the truly scientific answer to this debate.
April 24th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Jimmy, can you point us to a source for that? I’d heard that adult stem cells were disappointing.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Not sure if it will be a wedge issue so much as a fire-stoker for people who already have made up their minds. To some, it will be more “proof” that the GOP is just a thin veneer on a pack of religious yahoos. To others it will be “proof” Democrats just want to kill more babies.
I tend to side with Democrats (and Nancy Reagan) on this one, but it’s not going to be a vote-switcher for me. Incompetence in running the Iraq war, in energy policy, even pollution and climate change are more likely to switch me over, if I can be convinced someone on the other side can do better.
“Vote for me, I’ll put more money into stem-cell research” isn’t doing it.
Besides, turning the suffering of loved ones into political capital without becoming ghoulishly vulgar requires a kind of finesse I doubt the modern Democratic Party can manage.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
I concur with Callimachus that cultural issues like stem-cell research aren’t likely to be a deal-maker, or breaker, with most voters, but they could definitely play the role of “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” As I’ve mentioned before, in a campaign this contentious, the tipping point could come where and when the GOP (and even the Dems) least expect it.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
amba:
There are several lines of research on this, you can read about some of them here, here, and here.
Also, adult stems cells have already been succesful in treating dozens of degenerative diseases, even spinal chord paralysis and heart disease. Embryonic stem cells have not been used to treat a single disease in humans as of yet.
Embryonic stem cells often form tumors, are rejected upon transplantation, or decay and become unstable after propagation.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Adult stem cells HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BRING ALL THE BENEFITS OF EMBRYONIC CELLS PROMISE. There are a few “Experiments” opponents of ESCR drag out. ESCR is new 1998 and the research has not been done; ASCR 50 years.
People like me with Parkinson’s Disease support ALL kinds of SCR, cures from which will not occur in our lifetimes, thanks to ignorance and religious opposition to cures.
April 24th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Rayilyn Brown, you may be interested in reading this. It is the recent testimony from a Parkinson’s patient who recieved an adult stem-cell transplant and alleviated his symptoms for more than 4 years.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
The Democrats would be well-served to hire you Callimachus.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:16 am
I was actually supposed to do a little post about this topic, particularly about what’s happening in Missouri, for Justin about a month back, but some fun Life happened to me, and I abandoned the project.
I will say that while many of you may not be swayed by this, many people in Missouri are. The reason is that Kansas City and St. Louis have fairly large and modern and expensive research institutes, which are equipped to research and are currently researching stem cells. People have been reluctant to invest and commit to these institutions however, because of the threat of making this type of research a felony, which is what pro-life groups are pushing for. If the Missouri constitution was amended to protect this research, many investors would be willing to go full-steam ahead on this, which would possibly make Missouri one of the states with the most cutting edge stem cell research technology facilities in the nation. This means money and jobs for Missourians, which would bode well for the Missouri economy.
And here, ladies and gentlement, is where there is already a split between Republicans in this state. Many “fiscal” conservatives are all in favor of amending the constitution to protect stem cell research (because of the aforementioned reasons), while many “social” conservatives are very much against it because they are in to the pro-life thing. Most Dems love the fiscal benefits, and they feel that the benefits of stem cell research far outweigh the drawbacks, if they are even concerned about the pro-life issue at all.
So, there it is, and the current gov. is not wanting to take a side – basically because he is stuck between a rock and a hard place with his own party in Missouri. (I somewhat take issue with the motion that Missouri dems are “trying to divide repubs” in the state, as I believe that they are already divided, all on their own – although, this can obviously be exploited, if a certain party is smart enough to do so).
BTW – The proposed amendment, which will almost surely be on the November ballot would not expand stem cell research beyond what is already allowed. It would merely protect the status quo, and allow anything that is allowed under Federal Law. Also, reproductive human cloning (where whole people or half-people, half-horses could be produced) would NOT be allowed. ONLY therapeutic cloning (where we would be making cells to cure diseases and stuff) would be protected.
Here are some links to more information if you’re interested:
http://www.missouricures.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/national/12stemcell.html?ex=1299819600&en=072a8b637e423c74&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400745.html
April 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
My issue with empryonic stem cells is the method in hwhich they are procured, not the purpose they are used for.
We should not be paying for abortions to create stem cells or asking women to get pregnant and then destroy the child just for science. Hitler did something similar, called human life expendable in the name of science. I have heard you can take embyonic stem cells from umbillicle(Sp?) chords, a practice with which I see no ethical dilemmas.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Brian,
Where are you getting your information? No where have I read that we would be asking people to get pregnant so that we can abort their babies for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Let alone would “we” be paying for that. The SCOTUS has already ruled, years ago, that the government will not fund abortions. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect you know damn well that this has never been suggested as a way to get stem cells, and you are just trying to be difficult by making this outrageous comment.
Most, if not all of the embryonic stem cells will (and do) come from frozen embryos that are sitting in freezers because they are not going to be used. They will eventually be destroyed after a certain amount of time if not used. What’s the difference between throwing a frozen embryo in an incinerator and thawing it out to harvest cells from it? If it’s going to be destroyed anyway, why not use it to help save another life. That seems like the most pro-life thing to do, doesn’t it???
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 am
I read that we would be asking people to get pregnant so that we can abort their babies for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. Let alone would “we†be paying for that. The SCOTUS has already ruled, years ago, that the government will not fund abortions. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect you know damn well that this has never been suggested as a way to get stem cells, and you are just trying to be difficult by making this outrageous comment.