|
All sides are abuzz over the flip flop of Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist regarding embryonic stem cell research,
the abortion issue’s upscale cousin. Opposed a month earlier, Frist
now advocates federal funding for experiments on embryos that would
“otherwise be discarded.”
The Tennessee senator is widely believed to be
interested in a 2008 presidential bid; if so, he is tiptoeing
parallel to the path of other southern politicians with national
ambitions. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were reportedly pro-life while
running for office in their home states but flipped before seeking
national office (other politicians have flipped the other way).
Frist is attempting to nuance his switch by claiming to still be
pro-life, but the tactic is the same. While it arguably worked for
Mr. Clinton, who was appealing to a largely abortion-friendly base,
Frist, a Republican, apparently hopes to appeal across party lines
without losing his core voters.
I wish him luck – bad luck. In a speech on the Senate
floor, Frist claimed “I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at
conception,” a sentiment most pro-lifers will find at odds with the
notion of experiments on, or the commercialization of, human
embryos. If Frist really believes life begins at conception, then
by his own logic he is proposing making medicine from dead babies.
I suspect most pro-lifers will find the idea nauseating.
Frist may be depending on widespread confusion on the
issue, a condition he, a practicing surgeon, is unlikely to suffer
himself. The media now largely drops the word “embryonic” from
reports on opposition to embryonic stem cell research, leading to
the impression that the Bush administration and others oppose stem
cell research per se. I know of no such person or persons; the most
a Google search turned up were allegations by pro-abortion groups
that unnamed “social conservatives” or “Catholics” oppose all stem
cell research. In fact the pope has spoken out only against
embryonic stem cell experimentation and the Bush administration is
the first to fund stem cell research of any kind.
A second misconception is that embryonic stem cell
research has shown more promise than that on adult, placental, or
umbilical stem cells. To the contrary, I found no cures and few
positive results from the use of embryonic stem cells – which do,
however, cause cancerous growths in some cases. Researchers using
non-embryonic stem cells are reported to have cured diabetes in
mice, repaired brain damage in animals, repaired cartilage damage,
shrunk tumors, and grown a human cornea.
The cruelest fallacy is the overblown claims of miracle
cures that allegedly await only the surrender of misguided opponents
and trainloads of taxpayer cash. Those flogging such promises got a
boost from former first lady Nancy Reagan after the death of Ronald
Reagan last year from Alzheimer’s disease. She and son Ronald Jr.
have become outspoken advocates of embryonic stem cell research,
often invoking the late president’s name.
In fact there is virtually no prospect of a treatment
for Alzheimer’s from any kind of stem cell therapy due to the nature
of the disease. According to Associated Press, no less than the
Marilyn Albert, chair of the Alzheimer's Association’s Medical and
Scientific Advisory Council, feels several other therapies hold
greater promise and deserve more funding. Unfortunately for
Alzheimer’s patients, those have not become political causes.
Which brings us back to Sen. Frist. It has been said
that the only people who believe you when you change political
positions are those who agreed with you in the first place. Even if
that’s not so the “pro-life” Frist has to convince voters that
fetuses are human beings, human beings whom may be killed or
commercialized for medical purposes. I’m no political strategist,
but as a platform that strikes me as a loser.
|
