Shrub's first veto?
President Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. "The president is emphatic about this,"said Karl Rove .
The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. If the Senate approves the bill it would go to the president's desk. Rove said that he believes the legislation will pass the Senate with more than 60 votes this month, "and as a result the president would, as he has previously said emphatically, veto the Castle bill." "It is something we would, frankly, like to avoid," Rove said when asked if the White House would welcome, or dread, vetoing legislation passed by a Republican Congress, especially on so emotional an issue as embryonic stem cell
"I'm appalled that Bush would use the first veto of his presidency to veto a bill that could help 110 million people and their families," DeGette said today after being informed of Rove's remarks.
posted by John Good @ 9:50 PM
9 Comments:
You have to actually veto something before people take your veto threats seriously...
In Bush's position, I would certainly veto such a measure ... not only because it is hideously wrong to "grow" young humans for the purpose of disassembling their bodies in search of useful spare parts, but also because it's unconstitutional (I must have missed the text in that document that empowers the FedGov to spend money on medical research, ghoulish or ordinary). On constitutional grounds, as far as that goes, I suppose I'd be vetoing 99+% of what hit the Oval Office desk.
Of course, I'd say the probability of my ever being "in Bush's position" is pretty much infinitesimal.
It looks like the Republican congress is trying to distance itself from Bush. Rove probably arranged to have this bill pass so Bush could veto it and look like the bad guy.
I agree with Bartleby in that medical research should be privately funded. As Barney Frank said "We're not doctors, we just play them on C-SPAN." Except Frank probably voted for this bill anyway. But Ron Paul, who IS a doctor, voted against it.
But I do think that an embryo that doesn't have a nervous system, that cannot think or feel, isn't a person and doesn't have rights.
Bartleby/Robert,
I think an argument could easily be made that "providing for the general welfare" covers medical research. In fact leaving it up to the individual states and/or corporations is a terrible idea for certain medical issues.
The government sponsers research in many fields, such as defense and medical, in order to spur innovation that companies might not otherwise undertake due to it being cost-prohibitive. I've never understood why Libertarians object to this type of government function. I tend to think most Libertarians are just hypocritical anarchists running for government.
Do you think privately funded research could've eradicated smallpox like the WHO did? Please explain how that would've worked. Better yet, don't waste your time trying because it won't happen anyway...
Jeff: please don't confuse me with a libertarian.
Not only can a "general welfare" argument be made; it is made almost incessantly. However, the trouble with such arguments is that if Article I, section 8, clause 1 is read that way, the entire rest of the constitution makes no sense whatsoever. Why enumerate any powers of the central government, if the "general welfare" phrase empowers the government to do anything it wants?
And OK, I won't waste my time trying to explain how "private research could have eradicated smallpox like the WHO did." I will, however, observe that WHO is not a part of the U.S. government; and I will also suggest that liberty is even more important than good health, as least in my view. Your mileage may vary.
Mr. Enders: let's just say that your limited view of personhood is not surprising to me, and leave it at that.
Why veto it? He can just ignore any law anyway. He is the Glorious Leader afterall. He can leave it unfunded by one of his diktats.
Now if anybody is opposed to this research please take a pledge not to use any result be it medicine or other intervention from this research to save your own life.
Any takers?
This challenge goes out to others who oppose animal testing too. Please do not take any medicine. It just enables animal testing.Not even an aspirin.
Live up to your convictions.Or die up as the case may be.
1st one to go to the ER is a rotten egg. Hey eggs, see how that came full circle.
On the subject of our National Treasure being spent on research - Take a week of the cost of the American-Iraq War and we could pay for it. We have enough revenue genned. Tax the Oil Companies like we are. Make the rich pay their fair share. It's just that we are robbed daily folks.
Peace.
Human said ...
... Now if anybody is opposed to this research please take a pledge not to use any result be it medicine or other intervention from this research to save your own life.
Any takers?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact. Be sure to keep me posted on what new miracle therapies I must avoid, and be assured that I will do so. I may die, but I'll die clean.
In fact, I'm quite sure I will die. As Jim Morrison is reported to have said, back in the day, "nobody gets out of here alive." You may wish to consider that you'll die, too. I don't think the Soylent Green industry has promised immortality quite yet.
Not all "animal testing" is the same, as you will realize if you let your thinking grow beyond the bumper-sticker domain. Some is justified, no doubt, by the importance of what's being studied, the humane precautions that may or may not be taken to minimize the suffering of the animals involved, and the availability (or not) of alternative methods. I assume that there's some animal testing that even you might not approve of. Dripping new 'n' improved shampoos onto rabbits' eyeballs until they're blinded comes to mind here.
If you re-read my comment above, you'll see that my concerns about the constitutionality of the FedGov's funding the Soylent Green research has nothing to do with the magnitude its cost, either in absolute terms or relative to other anti-constitutional abominations such as the Iraq invasion and occupation. Nor is the availability of easy taxation victims. Once again: time to leave the bumper-sticker sloganeering behind.
Or not.
Peace.
Oh Gee, you totally convinced me with your in depth argument and extremly skewed representation of my position Bartleby.
Somehow I find your offer of "Peace" just as disingenuous as the above.
You may also want to switch philosophers to someone a bit more longer lived and who did not overdose and found dead in a tub.
I have my own path and way of looking at life.
May today be your best so far and you learn something new.
Peace.
On the contrary: I hereby certify that my "peace" is exactly as sincere as yours ... however sincere that might be. No more, no less.
And I'm not here to try to convince you of anything. Think what you will; I'm just hear to bear witness to a little bit of truth. You will still let me know what great medical advances of tomorrow I need to avoid, though, won't you? I hope so.
Post a Comment
<< Home