Congressman Boehner Opposes New Stem Cell Regulations

July 9, 2009
Boehner Statement on Administration’s New Embryonic Stem Cell Regulations

Washington, Jul 6 – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement on the Obama Administration’s final regulations on taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research:

These final regulations represent a troubling development for those who believe that taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy human life.  The Administration’s decision to dramatically expand the number of stem cell lines derived from human embryos and create incentives for the destruction of human life is a provocative step beyond what the President proposed just months ago and yet another sign that he has quickly retreated from his promise to ‘be a President for all Americans.’  House Republicans support methods of stem cell research that have actually yielded results, and I urge the President to reconsider this decision and instead join Republicans in supporting bipartisan solutions such Rep. Randy Forbes’ Patients First Act, which would promote proven stem cell research that does not force taxpayers to aid in the destruction of human life.

“As Congress continues to consider the issue of health care reform, I urge the President not to adopt the same course that he used in the development of these disappointing stem cell regulations.  Health care reform should not be a vehicle to advance controversial pro-abortion policies.  Rather, it should be an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to give Americans better access to affordable, high-quality health care.”


Print version of this document

Link to Patient First bill mentioned in press release

Vatican Authority to Reject Diplomats – a wide ranging dialog.

May 6, 2009

We (Laura and I) are exploring some interesting ground on the Internet.  Please see the debate and discussion at:

Pope rejects all of Obama’s ambassadors for being pro-choice

Someone commented “at” me.  (Here’s their entire post #1639 so I can be properly accused of editing them.
Arrogant… Gee, that word keeps coming up, doesn’t it?

I replied:

I agree. You should at least use a thesaurus or something when insulting me. I’m not offended. I’m a volunteer here to teach. By definition the vernacular includes vulgar language. We don’t formally have High English and Low English like German has Hochdeutsch and local dialects. English does however have what your mother used to call “polite conversation.” Try it.

Now back to the real argument.
1. Does the state have the right to decide that a baby in utero is “human enough” to have human rights?
2. How do you propose that be measured in law? Is it gestational age, viability, implanted or not?
2a. What about healthy human embryos in vitro?
2b. What about selection in vitro or in vivo for gross abnormality? Downs Syndrome? sex? hair color?
(Later I added: 2c. 50% out of the birth canal?  99% out of the birth canal?  When the village elders check that it has no deformities?)
3. How do we decide? What decisions are her’s alone? Her parents’ if a minor? Her husband’s? Her boyfriend’s? Her sperm donor’s? Her anonymous sperm donor’s? Her doctor’s? Her school’s? Her university’s? The courts’?(here’s a tough one) Her statutory rapist’s?
4. What current laws are just? Which are unjust?
5. What social attitudes do not conform to the reality of the ethic you propose?
6. Who should pay for the legal procedures for citizens? legal residents? non-legal residents? residents of foreign lands?(ie via foreign aid)
7. What professions should be required to participate as part of their job?(pharmacists, doctors, nurses, aid workers, diplomats, etc.)
8. Just to get back to the point of this forum: What political and diplomatic actions are justified for the Vatican State to see their Choices on these matters are respected?

Answer these and we’ll be getting somewhere. Paint your picture and I’ll paint mine. Your’s looks pretty ugly and presented in this light – not behind the cover of democratic-sounding “Choice” – will be offensive to most Americans.

Defending Life – a Report

April 23, 2009

Americans United for Life has created an excellent summary of the issues and legal situations in the nation and the various states.  Use it to reply to an argument or to those who claim to be “scientific” without evidence.

Defending Life Home

Defending Life 2009

AUL’s State-by-State Legal Guide Available Online: Defending Life 2009: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America

Or for Purchase at

At what price gratification?

April 12, 2009

Local news is reporting of a couple seeking to end infertility with another attempt at in vitro fertilization. Is there anyone anymore who doesn’t know that in vitro fertilization involves the removal of a woman’s ova (eggs) and fertilizing them outside the body? Then, as this report admits, some of them are returned to the uterus to (hopefully) implant and develop regularly.

However, I have some issues with this report, which I won’t be able to post until the comments section opens, tomorrow morning.

The implication is that all that is returned to the uterus are fertilized eggs. First of all, a fertilized egg ceases to be an egg, immediately becoming the earliest stages of an embryo, a far more complex being than just an egg. Moreover, that embryo is an embryonic human being, not the non-entity the media names it.

The left-over embryos – fully human beings in their embryonic stage of development – will be frozen until another attempt at achieving pregnancy is made… or they will eventually be destroyed.

The destruction of human life at any of its phases – whether prenatal or post- – is murder.

Did the doctors discuss this with their patients? Did they sit down with their patients and say, “Now, you realize that this procedure is going to have some really uncomfortable moral issues connected with it? We always fertilize multiple eggs because, frankly, this procedure is a crap shoot, and some of those embryos simply won’t attach to your uterine wall and we’ll have to try again. And if we’re lucky enough to achieve a pregnancy for you, then you’re going to have to decide what to do with the remaining embryos.

“And since we implant several embryos at one time, hoping one of them sticks, you might have the opposite problem of too many of them implanting – in which case – unless you want to be another Nadya Suleman and have fourteen children and be publicly ridiculed and castigated by millions – you’ll be facing ‘selective reduction.’ That is, we’ll go in and remove some of those older embryos/fetuses so they don’t get in the way of their siblings… and your comfort level, of course.

“Oh – and, by the way, every one of those fertilized eggs we’re talking about, here, is a real little living human being, your son or daughter, and we are boldly instructing you on killing them ….”

Do medical teams really discuss things with the women who come to them so desperate to have a child?

This leads to the need for deeper, more abiding ethics: at what price is anyone entitled to have their wishes gratified?

What kind of a woman, or couple, is so eager to have a baby (which, by the way, will grow up some day, if they’re lucky, to become a teenager they will frequently want to sell to a zoo, and cause them to wonder WHY they ever so blindly idealized parenthood) that they will be willing deliberately to kill their children in order to have one?

Someone with greater sense needs to step in and say “Enough is enough!” It’s hard to see anyone disappointed in a desire so natural and so profound as the desire for a child. Children bless and enrich our lives in immeasurable ways – even as they also complicate our lives and sometimes cause us great frustration and grief.

However, we simply are not entitled to have our every whim and desire gratified. Life is full of disappointments, great and small. We must learn to accept, gracefully, those things we cannot control with reasonable diligence, and to create a life for ourselves with that other, uninvited reality. We cannot manipulate the forces of the universe to get our way over every thing – nor should we be allowed to.

Certainly not at the cost of human life.