Charlie Butts’ Back Door Opening
As we’ve seen recently with the Texas School Board, fundies who can’t get their agenda passed through blatant front-door channels will often invent some euphemism that allows them to sneak their anti-science agenda in through the back door.
Our old friend Charlie Butts of OneNeuronNow tells us about another attempt to rape science in this manner. The article is titled “Bill Focuses on Effectiveness of Stem-Cell Research“. Let’s have a read:
GOP Congressman Randy Forbes is co-sponsoring “The Patients First Act” with Democratic Congressman Daniel Lipinski.
With a title like that, you know this is some sort of Republican double-speak. Before continuing, let’s check out those two co-sponsors. Wikipedia tells us this about Randy Forbes:
Forbes has made a major issue out of the “culture war,” by forming the Push Back Team, basically a fundraising measure for Forbes’ campaign. As part of this campaign, Forbes is the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, formed for the purpose of encouraging prayer through legislation, and opposing laws such as those banning collective prayer led by school officials.
OK. Pretty much the standard anti-freedom fundie nutjob. Wikipedia tells us next to nothing about Daniel Lipinski, other than saying he is a moderate Democrat. It isn’t clear to me why a moderate Democrat would go along with the fundie agenda.
Let’s continue with Charlie Butts’ article:
The Republican from Virginia contends the debate over embryonic stem-cell research versus adult stem-cell research often loses sight of the most important aspect — the welfare of the patient.
If Republicans were really interested in the welfare of patients, they wouldn’t have been blocking socialized medicine in this country for the last 40 years. If they were really interested in the welfare of patients, they wouldn’t constantly be trying to ban abortion, even in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. If they were really interested in the welfare of patients, they wouldn’t tie U.S. foreign aid to a country’s stance on abortion.
His bill would direct federal money to the most effective source.
You mean as determined by scientific review panels that could judge research grant proposals based on their scientific merits, instead of a political agenda? Somehow I don’t think that’s what he means.
The article then quotes Randy Forbes:
“To date, despite the fact that they have to create and destroy human embryos in the process of doing research — which is very unethical in that process…”
But lying about the process isn’t the slightest bit unethical, is it? Embryos are not created for stem-cell research. Researchers use embryos that were created by fertility clinics and then never used. Embryos that would be destroyed anyway.
What is truly unethical is destroying something that could have been used to help people.
“…they have not created one peer-review study that shows that they have successfully treated a single illness from embryonic stem-cell research,” he points out.
That’s because they were blocked from conducting most research for the last eight years!
And besides, why is this the only case of fundies even being aware of the concept of peer-reviewed research?
On the other hand, Forbes argues adult stem-cell research has been quite successful. “We find that we have now successfully treated over 73 different illnesses, all with peer-review studies to document them — anywhere from diabetes to Parkinson’s disease to spinal injuries to heart failure,” he adds.
But how many more illnesses could have been treated by now if embryonic stem-cell research had been allowed to continue unimpeded these last eight years?
This so-called “Patients First Act” has nothing to do with putting patients first. It’s just a back-door attempt to put the “rights” of medical waste above the best interests of patients.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I’m tempted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume that they didn’t know that this apparent lack of progress on embryonic stem cells is the direct result of government road blocking.
Then again, I may simply be choosing to believe that they’re stupid rather than outright evil.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
The snowflake babies!
April 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I did a quick research on Daniel Lipinski’s district and it’s not that conservative, but that’s only based on the vote record. There could be a lot of anti-abortion Dems in the mix and it doesn’t show up. Why does abortion matter? Because fundies like to falsely tie abortions to stem cell research. Okay, so why does abortion matter? Oh yea, because Lipinski’s daddy was congressman of that district before he was and he was very anti-abortion, apparently, although still a Democrat. Sounds to me like Danny boy is trying to follow in daddy’s footsteps by jumping on the first stupid pro-blastocyst bill he could find.
Besides, did you see his picture on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Lipinski
Okay I know it’s bad to make fun of people by the way they look, but holy crap!
April 16th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Yes, snowflake babies. But there are many more frozen embryos created by the fertility industry than there are willing snowflake adopters. Will there ever be that many women willing to carry to term a snowflake embryo? Are there that many genetic parents of frozen embryos who would consent to their genetic progeny being given to a random stranger?
There will always be many more snowflakes than willing wombs, and genetic snowflake parents will often deny those willing wombs.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I understand where anti-abortion people are coming from, but to deny large numbers of people medical treatment that could save their lives for the sake of a bunch of zygotes—I don’t think the sources are even developed enough to be called embryos—is irrational.
“Smithers, I would have said anything to get your stem cells.” Mr. Burns
April 19th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Step 1: Deny research into a particular field of inquiry
Step 2: Claim that because no research has been conducted that there is no benefit that can be derived from that same research.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: err… Can someone help me with this?
Step 5: Profit?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:27 am
That’s right Parrotlover77,
It is very insensitive to make fun of the way a person looks. They can’t help it. Those people have to endure ridicule from insensitive individuals who are not willing to understand the emotional suffering that some people have to go through because of unfortunate circumstances that they had no control over.
So that picture again…
Let’s take a look at Dan Lipinsky….
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!