I would like to begin by recounting the brief history of the stem cell debate as it has existed in the legislative branch. The issue came to the forefront of politics in 2001 with President Bush’s request that the National Institute of Health review its funding guidelines. He then outlawed any federal funding of Stem Cell research, but came to a compromise allowing the use of a few dozen lines of embryonic stem cells already in existence. This was due to resistance by lead congressional Republicans Bill Frist, and Orin Hatch. In 2005 a bill proposed by Senator Harry Reid entitled The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill passed the congress and was promptly vetoed by President Bush. An identical bill passed through congress this year, and President Bush is expected to Veto it as well. As this clearly shows the issue has become one which is focused on elections as legislatively it is deadlocked unless congress can muster the 2/3rds majority needed to overturn the presidential veto.
It is at this point that I would like to begin to summarize some of the positions taken by key policy actors in various print media sources. As I mentioned in my introduction the Democrats have united on the issue of Stem Cell research each voicing their own unique justifications for their support. I would first like to discuss congressional quarterlies like Roll Call, and the Hill which portray the Stem Cell issue as it exists in Washington. An article published in the hill in January of 2007 describes the extent to which the notion of stem cells has become a wedge issue for Democrats. It even notes how “two Republican House members with tough races ahead changed their views to favor an embryonic stem cell research bill”. Not all people are sold on the notion that Stem Cells research can garner or take votes from you depending on your position. As former rep. Talent noted in the same article “the issue probably "cost me votes in some places and got me votes in other places". However it can’t be denied that Republicans are flailing as Democrats stand steady on this particular issue. As a January 22 article in the Washington Post states researches are becoming increasingly critical of the Bush Administration, and those who oppose Stem Cell Research. These articles really characterize the issue in a non-partisan manner.
The question that still needs to be answered is who are the people pursuing these issues. In an article from The Hill on January 17th they describe the impact of one of the most important and famous Republican Senators Bill Frist. He is one of the conservatives who is dividing Republicans. As the party was trying to come together he came out supporting an increase in federal funding for Stem Cell research. This is a logical position considering his background as a heart surgeon, but makes it difficult for republicans to present a united message on the issue, similar to the difficulty Democrats had faced on Iraq.
I would now like to address the positions taken on the issue by Conservative and Liberal sources. Starting on the Conservative end of the spectrum you can see even in the media that lack of a cohesive message. If you look at a Wall Street Journal article published in May of 2005 around the time of the first legislation on Stem Cell research in congress you see that this particular author is trying to portray the Bush Administration as not actually banning stem cell research. The article states “there’s no Bush “ban” and research money is flowing. The fact is that this individual is right money is still flowing 566 million dollars according the author. The interesting thing is that these conservatives are not denouncing the policy of Stem Cell research as abhorrent like some of their colleagues, but arguing that in some way they aren’t opposing it. Contrast that standpoint with an article from Michael Fumento.com written by Michael Fumento in which he attempts to attack claims that adult stem cells ones that Republicans do not oppose are useless. He compares this standpoint with the notion that “Electricity appears worthless for illumination”. He continues in the article to try and prove the point that we don’t need embryonic stem cells, so the morality question can be avoided. In addition, An article published in the National Review on April of 2002 describes how the media is at fault for making the public believe that embryonic stem cells are needed. In actuality according to the author Wesley J. Smith Adult Stem cells continue to be incredibly successful. This is starkly different from the first article which claimed that President Bush was not banning Stem cell research at all, instead these authors are trying to justify that decision in a non moral way.
With all this disagreement within congress and in the conservative media, it would seem that Republicans were oblivious to what is going on. However, an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Stem Cell issue: Republicans Undoing” demonstrates that the conservative media is aware of the destructive power of the stem cell division. The article quotes a long time Republican Mr. Doyle saying “I think the Republican party is in the Dark ages on this”. That viewpoint is reticent of many other moderates throughout the country who feel alienated by the Bush administration’s policy toward stem cells.
While the conservative media is fostering the notion that stem cells are not necessary Democratic media is touting the opposite with equal fervor. In fact Democrats are so concrete in their message that an article in The Nation published in November of 2005 has skipped over entirely the debate over the ethics of Stem cell research, and instead focuses on protecting the rights of women donating eggs for the embryos used.
In addition, if Republicans are aware that the issue is hurting them so is the liberal media. An article in the Washington Post titled “Stem Cell debate puts Bush between a rock and a hard place” illustrates this clearly. Even Arlen Specter according to the article compared Bush to those who opposed Columbus, or rejected electricity, vaccines, or rail travel.
Policy Maker Name
Policy Maker Party
Policymaker Office
Media Appearance
Date
Senator Chris Smith
R
Senator from New Jersey
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Gordon Smith
R
Senator from Oregon
Crossfire
6/19/01
Senator Arlen Spector
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
Face the Nation
6/13/04
Diane DeGette
D
Representative from Colorado
News Hour with Jim Lehrer
8/9/04
John Edwards
D
Democratic Presidential Candidate
Larry King Live
10/25/04
Ken Mehlman
R
Chairman of Republican Party
Meet the Press
6/5/05
Senator Rick Santorum
R
Senator from Pennsylvania
George Stephanopoulos
7/31/05
Joshua Bolton
R
White House Chief of Staff
Meet the Press
6/19/06
I would now like to discuss the way that key policy makers have used the non print media to portray their message. As you can see by the dates in the above table the issue has been debated fairly steadily from 2001 when George Bush first restricted research up till the present. So what is each side saying, and how are they defending their position. Republicans are being interviewed coming in for stem cell research almost as much as they come in against it. This again hints at the party division which seems to characterize the Republican party regarding this issue.
The earliest interview I found took place between two republican senators one for stem cell research, and the other opposed. Senator Smith from Oregon argues that most people are in favor of stem cell research. He says that the feel this way because they want to be “pro-life”, and part of that is caring for the living. He goes on to say that he views the stem cell debate as a difference of opinion on “when life begins”. He argues that since 2/3rds of fertilized embryos never implant in the mother’s womb, that life has not really begun. On the reverse side Senator Chris Smith from New Jersey argues that these embryos are life basically because they have the potential to grow into a baby, and we don’t have the right to take stem cells from them.
As the issue progressed the next interview I found was around 2004 as the presidential election approached Democrats began representing their view on Stem Cell research as it is commonly believe to be a wedge issue for the party. In addition, they were preparing support for the bill being introduced in the house the following year. The first interview of significance was Representative Diane DeGette who introduced the house stem cell bill. In her interview with NewsHour she attacks the presidents stem cell policy saying the “policy was based on politics rather than science”. She argues that her legislation is justified because it would allow research on embryos made with invitro fertilization. These embryos of course if not used for research would simply be discarded. She argues that lives could be saved, and should be. The next interview occurred just a couple of months later on Larry King live with the Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Edwards largely mimics Representative DeGette’s argument that these embryos are already being made, and they should be used toward the greater good to save possibly thousands of lives. What is notably missing from these interviews is any discussion about the morality of throwing away embryos, or using them for research. This is perhaps because policy makers see the pro-life/pro-choice debate as a fairly intractable issue which people have strong opinions about that they won’t be swayed from.
One of the most fascinating policymakers in the Stem cell debate because of his precarious position Senator Arlen Specter was interviewed in 2004 on Face the Nation. It was on this program that he believes the true pro-life position is to take the 400,000 embryos that are frozen and will be thrown away and use them. He refutes Dr. James Dobson’s claim that congress is twisting the issue by pointing out that his subcommittee has had 14 hearings on the issue and has compiled overwhelming evidence that it can help cure Parkinson’s, and juvenile diabetes. The position of Arlen Specter is fascinating because he is a supporter of the Bush Administration on many issues, but as the head of the committee that deals with stem cell issues he has taken a stand against them.
The final interview of significance which I found in my research is the interview of Joshua Bolton, White House Chief of Staff in the summer of 2006. In this interview the white house spokesperson defended the president’s longtime stance on stem cells, and ensured that it will not change. The Bush Administration has become a fascinating road block to what has become an issue which could easily pass congress, and which the majority of the public supports. Regardless as these interviews have demonstrated there are still strong parties on both sides who each of legitimate defenses of their positions
The topic of Stem Cell research is a unique one for a variety of reasons, and doesn’t always follow the themes that we have discussed in class. However in key areas it does fit quite well. In class we discussed looking at public policy from a contextualist perspective or approach. In applying this to the Stem Cell debate you see that the Republican perspective is quite logical considering their base. The Republican base is generally considered to be of two parts, first traditional conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility, small government, and free enterprise, and the religious right who believe in family values, moral uprightness, and a right to life. With this kind of background it makes sense that Fiscal conservatives may find themselves on the side of stem cell research because of its practicality for business, and the health industry while the religious right would take a strong stance against it because of its moral ambiguity. Looking at the Republican party contextually one could almost predict the split that has occurred on this issue.
Another theme of class that I found interestingly applicable is our discussion of committee positions and their influence on public policy. In regards to the Stem Cell debate I found that Arlen Specter who formally chaired the Labor, Health and Human services committee had a very unique role to play in this debate. He is often a chief mediator between congress and the Bush Administration, and with congresses increasing alienation from congress this position becomes all the more precarious for the Senator. As a result of his position we often see Sen. Specter riding the fence on issues particularly Stem Cells. As I mentioned in the portion of my paper regarding televised media Specter has come out in interviews in favor of Stem Cell Research, but has always towed a careful line not to offend party leadership or the Bush Administration.
However issues like partisanship seem almost insignificant to the debate of Stem Cell research. A key theme to class seemed to be an increasingly partisan congress, and government. While on the whole this seems to be a true assertion, it certainly is not in the case of Stem Cell research. My question in this regards is whether this is truly an issue where Republicans and Democrats will step across party lines or if this bipartisanship is simply the result of an internal split within the base of the Republican Party. In consideration of where I see the Stem Cell debate heading, I believe it is clear that the public is coming to a consensus on the issue. Even congress has come to a clear conclusion by passing to pieces of legislation to lift restriction. However, all these unanimity cannot succeed in actual change because of fierce resistance by certain individuals in congress, and the Bush Administration, but as the 2008 presidential election begins to come under way I believe we will see this as a focal point, or a wedge issue for the Democratic candidates to undermine the Republican candidate. It is my contention that a candidate will not win the 2008 presidential election without coming out in support of Stem Cell research, and as a result we will see very soon comprehensive legislation passed allowing for expanded stem cell research.
In conclusion a divided republican party has created a wedge issue for Democrats, and a point of focus which they can capitalize on to take the presidency in 2008. This divisive issue has become a non issue for 2/3 of Americans. The question is how key players in Washington will respond to the opinions of the majority.
Works Cited
"George Stephanopoulos Interviews Sen. Rick Santorum." Think Progress. Sen. Rick Santorum. ABC, 7/31/2005.
"Interview with John Edwards." Larry King Live. John Edwards. CNN, 10/25/2004.
"Josh Bolten, Tom Ricks." Meet the Press. Josh Bolton. MSNBC, 7/23/2006.
"Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the Republcian Party." Meet the Press. Ken Mehlman. MSNBC, 6/5/2005.
"Senator Arlen Specter." Face the Nation. Arlen Specter. CBS, 7/13/2004.
"Should the Federal Government Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research." Crossfire. Senator Chris and Gordon Smith . CNN, 7/19/2001.
"Stem- Cell Lines." The Wall Street Journal (2005):
"Stem Cells, The White House And Rankled Researchers." Washington Post (2007):
"U.S. Representative Diane DeGette." NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. U.S. Representative Diane DeGette. PBS, 8/9/2004.
Allen, Jonathan. "GOP hopefuls getting more time to weight stem cell vote." The Hill 10/25/2005
Blake, Aaron. "Democrats seeking to drive stem cell wedge in Minn., N.H.." The Hill (2007):
Bolton, Alexander. "Senate GOP begins repair of messaging." The Hill (2007):
Calmes, Jackie. "Stem- Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing?." The Wall Street Journal (2006):
Fumento, Michael. "Celling Lies: More Spurious Stem Cell Claims." Fumento.com 9/25/2002 4/15/2007
Galpern, and Darnovsky, Emily, Marcy. "Eggs vs. Ethics in Stem cell debate." The Nation 11/29/2005 4/16/2007
Langer, Gary. "Public Backs Stem Cell Research: Most Say Government Should Fund Use of Embryos." ABC news 6/26/2001 4/16/2007
Noah, Timothy. "Party of Stem Cells." Slate magazine 8/3/2004 4/17/2007
Pickler, Nedra. "House Fails to Override Stem cell vote." Washington Post 7/19/2006 4/16/2007
Smith, Wesley. "Spinning Stem Cells." National Review (2002):
No comments:
Post a Comment