|
|
May 1, 2012 · By Ken Connor · 2 Comments
Human embryonic stem cells (Photo credit: Nissim Benvenisty)
With each passing day it becomes more apparent that President Obama has little respect for the intelligence of his ideological opponents. If you don’t agree with him, he assumes it is because you “don’t understand the issue.” In other words, you are ignorant, or misinformed, or both. We saw this attitude at work during the debate over Obamacare, and most recently with the conflict over his contraception coverage requirement and its implications for the First Amendment liberty of private religious employers. This week, we’re seeing it play out in the always contentious debate over government involvement in embryonic stem cell research.
Whenever he is challenged the President tries to ignore or discredit his opposition, and if this proves unsuccessful, he attempts to placate his foes with meaningless “compromises.” In the case of the birth control mandate, the President claimed to put the concerns of religious employers to rest by shifting the burden to their insurance companies. Never fear, he assured the religion-clinging, gun-toting opponents of his progressive insurance mandate, if you are a religious employer and oppose covering birth control costs for your employees, we’ll just make your insurance provider pay for it. Problem solved and conscience clear. Never mind that anyone with an iota of common sense can see this phony compromise for the rhetorical bait-and-switch that it is. At the end of the day, religious employers will still be required to offer health insurance policies that cover contraception, and they will still be footing the bill for said contraception in the form of higher premiums that are sure to result from insurance companies passing along the cost of the President’s mandate.
This week, another of the President’s infamous “compromises” is in the spotlight, namely his executive order expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Stymied by existing law limiting the government’s involvement in this ethically troubling area of “scientific” work, the President crafted a workaround based on rhetorical hair-splitting, issued his order, and the dollars began flowing. The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit to enjoin the funding and in 2010 a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the executive order. Judge Royce Lambert saw the President’s policy for what it was: a complete disregard for the law based on a distinction without a difference:
“The judge ruled that the Obama administration’s policy was illegal because the administration’s distinction between work that leads to the destruction of embryos – which cannot be financed by the federal government under the current policy – and the financing of work using stem cells created through embryonic destruction was meaningless. . . . In other words, the neat lines that the government had drawn between the process of embryonic destruction and the results of that destruction are not valid, the judge ruled.”
As with so many other issues, the President’s actions on ESCR illustrate his inability to identify with the moral and ethical concerns of anyone whose worldview differs from his own.
As incomprehensible as it may seem to President Obama, many Americans, myself included, view ESCR as morally repugnant and ethically flawed because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Tiny though they may be, each embryo possesses all the genetic material necessary to mature into a distinct human being. To take nascent life and destroy it for the sake of “scientific research” is to fly in the face of the self-evident truths articulated in our Declaration of Independence.
As Americans, we claim to believe that all humans are endowed with an inalienable right to life. Those of us that embrace this principle to its full extent believe that no human being should be the subject of such experimentation. We believe that human rights and human dignity are not diminished by the size of human subject. In other words, big people don’t have more rights than small ones. Neither should age be a factor, or cognitive sophistication. An embryo’s age and early stage of development doesn’t vitiate its humanity. Likewise, the circumstances of conception (in vitro vs. in utero, planned vs. unplanned, voluntary vs. involuntary) do not diminish our humanity. Once a human being is in existence, he or she has a right to the same constitutional protections as other human beings.
President Obama’s insistence on pushing this issue – despite the demonstrated success of non-controversial alternatives like adult stem cell research – reveals that he values advancing ideology over seeking unity through common ground. His administration advocates one point of view with regard to human embryos and their instrumental value to the scientific community, and from that point of view the Administration is unwilling to depart. Why else would they remove funding from a program that allows the adoption of surplus embryos, and why would they end funding for non-controversial alternatives to ESCR? As I’ve said before, if you want to know what a President values, just look at how he spends your money.
The fate of President Obama’s executive order now rests with a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. Hopefully, in this venue, the law will prevail over ideology.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
We have not forgotten the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that was killed in the face of intense outrage from the American people. This administration has engaged in criminal conduct by granting amnesty through presidential edict to certain illegal aliens. If we were outraged back in 2007 at the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, we are now outraged to the hundredth power at the latest attempt by Congress to shove amnesty for illegal aliens down our throats.
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard announced today that he will appoint Vern Larson of Vivian as Commissioner of School and Public Lands. Last month, Commissioner Jarrod Johnson resigned from office, effective Aug. 15. The Governor’s appointment of Larson will be effective at the same time.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley today released the testing results of the ignition interlock devices. The devices were added to the 24/7 Sobriety Program in October of 2012. Since being added, 119 participants passed 124,771 tests with a pass rate of 99.5%.
Just in time for Memorial Day, we’re being treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military. We erect monuments for those who die while serving in the military, yet for those who return home, there’s little honor to be found. Making matters worse, thanks to Operation Vigilant Eagle, a program launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are also being characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats.
In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, outgoing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Steven Miller’s suggested that the targeting of tea party and other groups was in part caused by Congress’ failure to provide “clear rules” on what constitutes political activity. But those rules are already clear, Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens noted.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
