U.S. Senate to vote on Stem Cell Bills tomorrow

[jrcskb]

The Senate will have further debate on stem cell research on the morning of 7/18/06, and will vote in the afternoon. Again, by agreement, 60 votes are necessary to pass. The most controversial bill is H.R. 810 (The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005).

Should you support this research, this may be your last opportunity to let your Senators hear your voice!

[spike]

The Senate will have further debate on stem cell research on the morning of 7/18/06, and will vote in the afternoon. Again, by agreement, 60 votes are necessary to pass. The most controversial bill is H.R. 810 (The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005).

Should you support this research, this may be your last opportunity to let your Senators hear your voice!


Number one: I hope it passes.

Number two: No one listens to me in the goverment, so I won't call them. :)

[Lex4153]

Pres Bush said he would veto any bill that was passed. Isn't that some crock of sheeeeeet?

[spike]

Pres Bush said he would veto any bill that was passed. Isn't that some crock of sheeeeeet?


sigh. yes.

[JediSkipdogg]

Pres Bush said he would veto any bill that was passed. Isn't that some crock of sheeeeeet?

Unfortunately it's **** that that's how the US is set up. We elect hundreds of people to write the bill, but then one person can veto it and stop it and then it takes a larger amount to override the veto. I do find it odd that one person can have so much power.

[duck]

A bunch of old curmudgeons in the 18th century felt it just fine to give one man that much power...

[spike]

A bunch of old curmudgeons in the 18th century felt it just fine to give one man that much power...

At least he doesn't have the position for life, like a judge. I voted for the guy, but he's been letting his constituency down. I'm already wondering what Republican will be running in '08. Like the weather, if you don't like it, wait around for a while--it'll change. :)

[duck]

At least he doesn't have the position for life, like a judge. I voted for the guy, but he's been letting his constituency down. I'm already wondering what Republican will be running in '08. Like the weather, if you don't like it, wait around for a while--it'll change. :)

Again, those curmudgeons knew what they were doing.

I have the feeling that it will get about 64 votes. Some of the undecideds like Byrd will almost assuredly vote for it (and the people of WV would re-elect him no matter what). If it gets 64 votes, I wonder how likely W will be to veto it, it will set up an institution vs institution battle, and I would bet at least two Senators who voted against the bill would vote to over-ride the veto, out of principle.

I'm not too caught up in it all, though. I don't see stem cells being the miracle everyone else here seems to think it is. Certainly, it hasn't been in the rest of the world.

[jrcskb]

Pres Bush said he would veto any bill that was passed. Isn't that some crock of sheeeeeet?

Short and obvious answer...YES!

The majority of people (with and without diseases), religions, scientists, politicians, etc. support this bill. Not just a "simple" majority (>50%), we are talking a "super" majority (about 70% or more). Not that he may care, given his lame duck status, but a veto here is not going to do much for his legacy!

Anyway, we will worry about a veto only after the bill passes today!

[jrcskb]

At least he doesn't have the position for life, like a judge. I voted for the guy, but he's been letting his constituency down. I'm already wondering what Republican will be running in '08. Like the weather, if you don't like it, wait around for a while--it'll change. :)


Yes, one thing we definitely got right was term limits! In some countries, you get a ruler in that doesn't go away until he/she is "forced".

[jrcskb]

Again, those curmudgeons knew what they were doing.

I have the feeling that it will get about 64 votes. Some of the undecideds like Byrd will almost assuredly vote for it (and the people of WV would re-elect him no matter what). If it gets 64 votes, I wonder how likely W will be to veto it, it will set up an institution vs institution battle, and I would bet at least two Senators who voted against the bill would vote to over-ride the veto, out of principle.

I'm not too caught up in it all, though. I don't see stem cells being the miracle everyone else here seems to think it is. Certainly, it hasn't been in the rest of the world.

The vote on all counts (pro/con) appears to be very close + or - to 60 votes. Of course, your point above is well taken...if I was against this bill - given the President is going to veto (or at least he publicly is saying this) I might vote in support knowing I win anyway. An override is very difficult - currently the House would be about 50 votes shy of the 67% needed. Additionally, although some may vote on principle, some may back out so as to not further slap a member of the same party in the face. Politics!:hmmmm:

[BriOnH]

I do not support embryonic stem cell research. The answers lie in adult stem cells, not the ones aborted by careless mothers.

[JediSkipdogg]

I do not support embryonic stem cell research. The answers lie in adult stem cells, not the ones aborted by careless mothers.

Isn't the current Bush ban banning ALL Federal funding of Stem Cell research, whether adult or embryonic? And this bill allows for both fundings if passed?

[BriOnH]

Isn't the current Bush ban banning ALL Federal funding of Stem Cell research, whether adult or embryonic? And this bill allows for both fundings if passed?

I am under the impression that it's mainly embryonic. The only arguement that I believe that would concern some religious, and moral practicionars is cloning with adult stem cells. Other then that adult stem cells, from the patient, are where I (and many other scientists) believe the cures lie.

[spike]

I do not support embryonic stem cell research. The answers lie in adult stem cells, not the ones aborted by careless mothers.

Let me play devil's advocate for just one moment. IF those cells are availabe and the "careless" mothers aren't gaining anything, WHY NOT use them, rather than dispose of them? Just wondering what your logic is in your statement.

[duck]

Let me play devil's advocate for just one moment. IF those cells are availabe and the "careless" mothers aren't gaining anything, WHY NOT use them, rather than dispose of them? Just wondering what your logic is in your statement.

To some, it's sort of adding legitamacy to a crime. I don't think those who are opposed to using them favor "disposing" of them either. Senator Brownback, who is opposed, paraded out "snowflake" children the other day to show what can actually become of frozen embryos. So...

[duck]

Isn't the current Bush ban banning ALL Federal funding of Stem Cell research, whether adult or embryonic? And this bill allows for both fundings if passed?

The opponents of "embryonic" stem cell research tout "cord stem cell" research as a viable alternative (I think that's what its called...the stem cells from umbilical cords) and adult stem cells, so I assumed those were allowed to be funded. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research will argue that those stem cells are of better quality and potential for research.

[jrcskb]

Isn't the current Bush ban banning ALL Federal funding of Stem Cell research, whether adult or embryonic? And this bill allows for both fundings if passed?

There are three bills being debated and voted on:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/15061296.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

The two bills other than 810 will pass overwhelmingly and Bush will not veto either. Those bills are basically cover for Senators that oppose this research, but feel that they can support the alternatives and satisfy advocates of the research.

[spike]

To some, it's sort of adding legitamacy to a crime. I don't think those who are opposed to using them favor "disposing" of them either. Senator Brownback, who is opposed, paraded out "snowflake" children the other day to show what can actually become of frozen embryos. So...


I don't think that encouraging the use of something that's the byproduct of an unwanted pregnancy is tantamount to "adding legitimacy" to a "crime". If the goverment was encouraging women to get pregnant so that they could abort and use the fetus, that's a different story. do you see the distinction?

[duck]

I don't think that encouraging the use of something that's the byproduct of an unwanted pregnancy is tantamount to "adding legitimacy" to a "crime". If the goverment was encouraging women to get pregnant so that they could abort and use the fetus, that's a different story. do you see the distinction?

I'm not defending them, I've just heard a lot about this debate. Personally, I think abortion is a crime, despite being close to people who have had them done. If I had to lean one way or another, I probably land more on the don't use the embryonic stem cells side than the let's use them side. But I also see the point in that some good could come from these tragedies, why not take advantage of that (something akin to organ donation, in my mind).

I agree with you in regards to your "government encouraging" argument. But if the government funds research using the by-products of abortions, then that opens up the argument that they are indeed sanctioning it.

[BriOnH]

Let me play devil's advocate for just one moment. IF those cells are availabe and the "careless" mothers aren't gaining anything, WHY NOT use them, rather than dispose of them? Just wondering what your logic is in your statement.

Duck summed it up really well and would like to echo those words and add; I believe it is just an incentive to get an abortion done, and help, albeit hopefully not much, the woman feel better for the choice she made. In the end Embryonic stem cell research falls apon your choice on abortion, and I don't think everyone is aware of the differences between adult and ebrryonic stem cell research.

[Lex4153]

There is a big difference between abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I really don't see how they're tied other than the argument that life starts with that embryo. In my opinion, it's the same as aborting a fetus that is already dead in the womb. My argument stems from the fact that people who enlist invitro to help become pregnant typically have 26 embryos. Of course, they cannot use them all if they are viable. The others are thrown out. If you think stem cell use is equivalent to abortion, what do you propose is to be done with those embryos? Typically they are held for a time but become useless and must be discarded. A few are adopted by other infertile couples but this is very rare, said to be a few cases a month in the U.S. I say, if these are to be discarded anyway, why not use them for good? Such as curing diseases and helping people? I think there can be a good middle ground in this involving regulations and making sure that no one wants the embryo before using it for stem cell research, that way pro-lifers cannot argue that an unborn baby was killed, because it never would have been given the chance anyway.

[JediSkipdogg]

Lex, like I said before they are worried people would sell their embryo's off. At least that's one of the main ideas of those voting against the bill. They feel that people would then be able to get pregnant just so they could sell off the embryo's. People already do it with kids, get pregnant to have kids, then sell the kid off and go have another one. It mainly happens in lower class areas, but it happens.

[JasonJayhawk]

I'm from Kansas, and I know Brownback quite well. When Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project, came to my school, Brownback showed up for the "parade." A lot of biologists were rolling their eyes at his careful wording, basically saying that we had sure as heck better not get "too far" with interfering with religion.

I think a lot of his voters have strong religious roots, so he sides with them.

[Lex4153]

Jedi, I just don't see how that can be an argument against stem cell research. I can understand the fear of that but, like anything, there will certainly need to be regulations so there isn't a "black market" of embryos. Even if embryonic stem cell research was only limited to the embryos that would be discarded by couples seeking invitro treatments, we would still have a surplus of embryos to use for research.

[JediSkipdogg]

Jedi, I just don't see how that can be an argument against stem cell research. I can understand the fear of that but, like anything, there will certainly need to be regulations so there isn't a "black market" of embryos. Even if embryonic stem cell research was only limited to the embryos that would be discarded by couples seeking invitro treatments, we would still have a surplus of embryos to use for research.

Don't tell me, tell those Senators that voted against it that voted no because of that above reason. Personally, there needs to be a law that an abortion no matter how far along it is is death unless it directly affects the mother's chance of living. Ok, now everyone go ahead an bash me. That is just my opinion which I guarantee you people here won't agree with.

[duck]

Don't tell me, tell those Senators that voted against it that voted no because of that above reason. Personally, there needs to be a law that an abortion no matter how far along it is is death unless it directly affects the mother's chance of living. Ok, now everyone go ahead an bash me. That is just my opinion which I guarantee you people here won't agree with.

You talk like it didn't pass...

[JediSkipdogg]

You talk like it didn't pass...

It basically didn't since the President will veto it and I highly doubt enough people will override a persidental veto. It needs 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes to override a presidential veto. The last time was 6 yeas ago on October 12, 2000 for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill under President Clinton. So it's possible it could happen, but this is a very tricky Senate and House this time around with many support the President over themselves.

[duck]

It basically didn't since the President will veto it and I highly doubt enough people will override a persidental veto. It needs 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes to override a presidential veto. The last time was 6 yeas ago on October 12, 2000 for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill under President Clinton. So it's possible it could happen, but this is a very tricky Senate and House this time around with many support the President over themselves.

Meh. Election year, a President whose poll numbers are somewhere between the gum on the bottom of your shoe and the lip of your toilet bowl...Same pollsters show an electorate that is either pro-stem cell research or indifferent. I suspect many reps and Senators will weigh all that and make careful consideration to override a veto...I can't stress enough how serious a veto is to the Congress, override votes aren't as cut and dry as the initial vote that sent legislation to the Whitehouse for signature.

One way or the other, the cure for all the ailments of the world are not in the cells of unborn babies. I would love to be wrong about that, and I'll let you all make me eat my words. But, I promise I won't rub it in if in forty years we're all running around with implanted, self-correcting/self-adjusting/self-monitoring artificial pancreases because stem cells fizzled like many other promising biological/genetic advances have fizzled.

[gettingby]

Too bad they can't take out some of the stem cells we already have and revamp them (or whatever it's called). Why can't all of these biologists, scientists, whomever, come up with a way to change the stem cells we have? Sort of like make our bodies accept these changed cells and not reject them. It works with cancer patients, why not diabetics?

[someone]

I'm already wondering what Republican will be running in '08.

Giuliani???