Did Bush Break a Promise?
Media Monitor | By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | August 23, 2001
“I oppose Federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos.”
The president's decision on stem cell research provoked controversy and commentary. But regardless of where people stand on the issue, did Bush violate a campaign promise not to fund such research? If the press have any function in society, it is to hold politicians accountable for what they say and do.
In a May 18th letter to the Culture of Life Foundation, Bush said,
"I oppose Federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." On National Review online, Robert George said the key phrase was that he would not support federal funds being used for the destruction of human life. He added, "The wiggle room, of course, was that the funds could be used on cells that had been obtained from a previously destroyed embryo." Ken Connor of the Family Research Council, who condemned the president's decision, said that Bush attempted to finesse his May 18th statement by distinguishing "involves" from "involved." It sounded a lot like Clinton trying to debate the meaning of the word "is."
One authority on this matter might be Robert Best, president of the Culture of Life Foundation, who received that letter from Bush. Best said Bush gave his word to oppose such research. Best didn't make any distinctions based on future or past tense. He didn't see any "wiggle room" in what the president said. He was extremely critical.
The media made much of the fact that the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Bush's decision. "We are delighted that President Bush's decision prevents the federal government from becoming a party to any further killing of human embryos for medical experimentation," stated Laura Echevarria, director of Media Relations for the organization. This position was highlighted by Don Lambro in the Washington Times and on programs such as CNN's Capital Gang and ABC's This Week. Lambro called the right-to-life committee's support for Bush "surprising." But it wasn't when you consider that the NRLC has received $250,000 from the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Little attention was paid to the claim by the Christian Medical Association that Bush's decision is illegal. The group points out there is already a law on the books outlawing federal funding for experiments involving the destruction of human embryos. The "Dickey Amendment" prohibits federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death... "Ruth Hubbard, a professor of biology at Harvard, points out that Bush also did not address the continued creation of human embryos for research, a result of the lack of regulation of the U.S. fertility industry.
One day after the decision was announced, it became known that the administration was going back on a campaign promise to oppose racial preferences and would support them in a case before the Supreme Court. As reported in the Miami Herald on June 30th, 1999, Bush said, "If I am president of the United States, I will eliminate racial preferences, quotas." Perhaps now they will debate the meaning of the term "racial preferences."
Reed Irvine is the former Chairman of Accuracy In Media and Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
