USA Today, Beck misleadingly claimed Bush is first president to fund embryonic stem cell research
SUMMARY: USA Today uncritically reported that President Bush "has pointed out that he is the first president" to provide federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Similarly, Glenn Beck stated that "[i]t was George Bush who opened the doors for federal funding [for stem cell research]. He was the first president to fund it," and that "Bill Clinton in 1995 opposed" research on embryos. In fact, the Clinton administration proposed federal funding and, later, drafted guidelines to fund embryonic stem cell research, but those rules had yet to take effect when he left office.
In a July 20 article by reporters Richard Benedetto and Andrea Stone, USA Today uncritically reported that President Bush "has pointed out that he is the first president" to provide federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Similarly, on the July 19 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck stated that "[i]t was George Bush who opened the doors for federal funding [for stem cell research]. He was the first president to fund it." Beck also asserted that former President Bill Clinton "in 1995 opposed" research on embryos. In fact, after Congress passed a bill that included a provision that allowed federal funding on human embryo research, the Clinton administration convened a panel that proposed federal funding for obtaining stem cells, which would entail the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics. It was the Republican-controlled Congress that, in 1995, included a ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in an omnibus appropriations bill, derailing the Clinton administration proposals. The Clinton administration drafted guidelines to fund embryonic stem cell research consistent with the law, but those rules had yet to take effect when he left office. Those rules were suspended by the Bush administration in favor of its own, stricter set of rules.
While Congress passed a bill that contained a general ban on research in which human embryos are damaged or destroyed each year beginning in 1996 (the legislation was first proposed in 1995), and Clinton signed the bill each year he was in office, Clinton did not have the ability to separately veto the general ban language, as each year the provision was part of a larger omnibus budget reconciliation bill and/or part of a larger bill funding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Moreover, in criticizing Clinton for "oppos[ing]" stem cell research, Beck also neglected to mention that Clinton pushed for federal funding of such research as the science behind it became more promising, a move that then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush criticized.
The Dispaches weblog, on the website for the PBS program NOVA scienceNow, documented on April 13, 2005, the evolution of federally funded embryonic stem cell research in the mid-1990s and noted Clinton's 1993 effort "to fund human embryo research for the first time":
Recall the political context. In 1993, with something called the National Institutes of Health [NIH] Revitalization Act, Congress and President Clinton gave the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time -- ushering in what seemed like a new era. In response, the NIH established a panel of scientists, ethicists, public policy experts, and patients' advocates to consider the moral and ethical issues involved and to determine which types of experiments should be eligible for federal funding. In 1994, this NIH Human Embryo Research Panel made its recommendations -- among them, that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, with the goal of obtaining stem cells, should receive federal funding. Embryos at the required stage are round balls no bigger than a grain of sand.
[...]
President Clinton rejected part of these recommendations and directed the NIH not to allocate funds to experiments that would create new embryos specifically for research. But for the Gingrich-era Congress that took up the matter in 1995, funding any work with human embryos was going too far, and the recommendations created an uproar. Within a year, Congress had banned the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is either created or destroyed.
But a breakthrough occurred in November 1998, when scientists discovered that embryonic stem cells could be isolated, and a compromise on federal funding was reached when, according to an American Association for the Advancement of Science policy brief, "[i]n January 1999, HHS concluded that public funds could be used for research on [embryonic stem] cells as long as derivation of the cells -- which results in the destruction of an embryo -- was carried out with private funds. NIH thus began drafting guidelines governing funding for [embryonic stem] cell studies."
The Clinton administration drafted new guidelines in August 2000 through NIH to allow, according to the AAAS, "federally funded research on [embryonic stem] cells derived in the private sector, and providing for stringent oversight of such research." Neither the USA Today article nor Beck noted Clinton's efforts. As The Washington Post reported on August 10, 2001, the day after Bush's nationally televised speech announcing his new stem cell policy, "the new policy will replace guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health a year ago under the Clinton administration that would have allowed the first federal subsidies of human embryo cell research."
The Washington Post further explained that Clinton's 2000 guidelines were a response to this newly emerging field of research in an August 24, 2000, article:
President Clinton strongly endorsed new and controversial guidelines released yesterday by the National Institutes of Health that will allow the first federal funding of human embryo cell research.
Research on human embryonic stem cells, obtained from frozen embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics, offers "potentially staggering benefits," Clinton said at an impromptu news conference yesterday morning as he left the White House.
Clinton acknowledged that some are opposed to the research because embryos cannot survive the retrieval process. But he said it would be wrong not to follow up on the "breathtaking" evidence that the cells can help cure spinal cord injuries and a wide variety of diseases.
"I think we cannot walk away from the potential to save lives and improve lives, to help people literally get up and walk, to do all kinds of things we could never have imagined, as long as we meet rigorous, ethical standards," Clinton said.
The stem cell debate also spilled over into the presidential campaign, as Republican nominee George W. Bush made clear his opposition to the administration's guidelines. "The governor opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo," said campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan.
The new guidelines forbid the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos directly, but they permit federal research on stem cells taken from embryos by privately financed researchers. In Bush's view, Sullivan said, that arrangement still amounts to federal support of embryo destruction.
Scientists and patient advocates took issue with that perspective yesterday, and some expressed fear that if elected president, Bush might sign an executive order banning the research.
The Bush administration suspended the draft Clinton administration rules in favor of funding rules that were more restrictive than those proposed by the Clinton administration because it limited the number of stem cell lines available for researchers to those lines already created.
The NOVA scienceNow website characterized Bush's repeated claims to be the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research as "not accurate":
[Bush] has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.
From the July 20 USA Today article:
Bush staked out his position in August 2001 when he announced a policy to fund research on 78 existing embryonic stem cell lines but banned taxpayer dollars for those created later.
Bush has pointed out that he is the first president to fund such research, now a total of $90 million since 2001.
Criticism for the veto came from prominent Republicans such as former first lady Nancy Reagan and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. They note that the original stem cell lines have been whittled to about 20, all of them contaminated. They urged that the policy be loosened, even as private foundations and states, including California, funded their own research.
From the July 19 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: One day after Congress sent him a bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, George Bush decides to do something he hasn't done in five years as president.
BUSH [video clip]: This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.
BECK: Here's what you may not know, a little forgotten fact: It was George Bush who opened the doors for federal funding. He was the first president to fund it, just not research that destroys living human embryos.
Side note: Bill Clinton in 1995 opposed funding some stem-cell research on embryos specifically created for experimentation on moral and ethical grounds. Aren't these two guys, Republican and Democrat, saying exactly the same thing?
Nobody has been talking about banning it. The only issue is whether America [sic] taxpayers should be forced to pay for it. Call me crazy, but I seem to recall that we have this little system called capitalism that can fund the research.















...won a Bronze Star in Vietnam as well..
I thought Beck was living on the Bizarro World when he was a local guy here in Tampa Bay. Now I see he's showing his backward views everywhere.
Clinton proposing funding would've been no big deal, there was plenty of money in the bank.
Bush is doing it the hard way-with his credit cards all jacked up. I think he's inspiring, like one of those single moms working as a seamstress raising three kids.
No wait, not really, because he's doing it on a loan in the kids name.
" Bush is doing it the hard way-with his credit cards all jacked up. I think he's inspiring "
It's good to see people, here, support their president once in a while. I didn't think I'd see that happen from any of the regulars.
Beck is correct. Clinton did NOT fund stem cell research. The MMFA articles states that several times and nothing has been shown to disprove that. So, why the fuss? Besides, what "breathtaking" new evidence has been furnished in the past 10(?) years of stem cell research? Have any mice been able to walk again? Have any humans gotten any benefits, yet? With all the "potential" knowledge that will be gained from stem cell research, why haven't they found any? Like I hear from the anti-war crowd....it's time to cut our losses and get out of that research. "Cut and run"...there obviously isn't as much knowledge to be gained as they thought, it's just a money funnel for scientists to waste as they please. Billions of dollars being wasted from the death of human fetus's. I wonder if more than 2500 fetus's have died to supply those stem cells yet? What's the official count? How many billions have been spent? What's the official tally? Come on people...I thought you cared about lives and money!
The technology is eight years old. If you think that eight years is enough time to judge the merits of a new technology, you set a ridiculously high bar for proving the usefulness of new technology.
" The technology is eight years old. If you think that eight years is enough time to judge the merits of a new technology, "
The war on terror is only 5 years old and many think the merits of that have expired their usefullness. What's your point? The scientists claimed to have sooo much potential with this "new technology", what have they given us to this point? Something? Anything?
Cut and Run! Let's get out of this quagmire before more fetus's are killed to appease the greedy scientistific society. How many more have to die?
You would be absolutely correct IF war and science were the same thing. They are not. But it's a darling analogy. *pats head*
Interesting comparison. Stupid, but original. First off, we were only supposed to be in Iraq for "six weeks, I doubt six months" if I remember the phrase correctly. There was no such promise made for stem cell research. Cures for disease should take longer than wars, just based on history, which makes your comparison plain silly.
Secondly, embryos are not people. They're not even "fetuses" as you said. These are frozen embryos that are going to be destroyed even if not used for research. If you honestly believe they have souls and are going to hell, then you have issues with your God. Have a little more faith in His wisdom. Amazing that everything will be fine for them when they're discarded, but if we were to use them to make life better for people? Well then God won't be so happy. Hmmmm.
Thirdly, who are the people who judge what the merits of a project are? The scientists seem to believe it has great promise. Oh, but they're lying because they want to clone people, right? Meanwhile regarding Iraq we've had several prominent generals criticize our execution and say we should begin redeployment. And they're lying because...well nobody knows why, I guess they're Al Queda infiltrators.
And before you jump in with "the war in Iraq is different from the war on terror", Bush himself said you can't distinguish between the two.
stem cells in Bush's brain to try and jump-start it.
"it's wrong for the administration to fund this research, as it involves the destruction of innocent life. however, if those handsome men with the deep pockets want to get in on the action, let them. after all, we're big strong capitalists, not weedy little socialists with their 'reservations' and 'objections', aren't we?"
Zork,
I don't believe that the ethics go completely out the window when the idea of "private funding" comes up.
Much like abortion which is still legal, people can oppose federal funding of abortion, while at the same time fighting the bigger battle. It is that simple.
The same holds true with embryonic stem cell research.
ps. This argument may one day be moot as scientists are developing methods to reprogram adult stem cells so they revert an adult cell to its embryonic state.
" ps. This argument may one day be moot as scientists are developing methods to reprogram adult stem cells so they revert an adult cell to its embryonic state. "
And what would you do with THAT knowledge Dr. Sigmund Rascher? Or, would Dr. Josef Mengele be more fitting? You stem cell supporters all have the same "end result theories", that a little research will "cure" all illness's and deformaties. How long will it be before these scientists start doing what was done back in the 40's? (if they aren't already!)
how much the "pro-lifers" love the lie that Bush is really a friend to stem cell science. I guess they think it's a way to regain credibility with the majority of ordinary Americans who support stem cell research and don't share their extremist beliefs. Maybe it is, I don't know. Sure seems like bearing false witness though.
I did a quick read above and did not find anywhere where Clinton funded stem cell research. So it seems to me Beck and the USA today are correct.
Here's what I think is an apt analogy:
James Buchanan was the 15th president of the United States (1857 -1861).
After Lincoln had been elected in 1860, but not yet inaugurated, South Carolina seceded. One of Buchanan's last acts as president was to ask Congress to call a Constitutional Convention and to give him men and money to enforce the laws while avoiding war, but Congress had no faith in his leadership and rejected his request. By the time Lincoln took office in March 1861, seven slaveholding states had seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America.
So Buchanan is the President who first proposed enforcing the laws to keep the Union together. But is he credited with doing actually doing it? Nope. He was out of office when the time came to actually save the Union. I guess that is why we read about Lincoln to this day and not Buchanan. ;-)
It seems Clinton had eight years to get his guidelines past the "draft" stage but for whatever reasons, did not. Clinton may have had far more liberal guidelines than Bush, but if they were not in effect, then the it is obvious that Clinton did not fund embryonic stem cell research. Therefore the statement about Bush being the first President to fund the research is correct. To say Clinton did, seems to me, to be.. uh.. a bit misleading.
If this is an example of conservative misinformation, MMFA needs to go back to the drawing board.
ps. Did Clinton, as Beck said in his side note, flip-flop from 1995 to 2000 on the issue?
As the item above notes, embryonic stem cells were not isolated until 1998. The NIH guidelines for federally funding research on them were finalized two years later (very fast, for the federal government). There was no way for federal funds to be distributed before Clinton left office. However, his administration set the funding process in motion. Then Bush severely restricted funding in 2001.
Beck said "Bill Clinton in 1995 opposed" research on embryos. That is misleading. Clinton voted for omnibus funding legislation that had a rider on it that was put there apparently by members of the opposing party that banned funding stem cells.
Beck was not correct as you have asserted. If Beck knows the truth, he is lying. If he didn't know the truth, he is deeply mistaken.
I can agree that MMFA's title is a bit misleading, but this is indeed worthy of their attention.
Thanks for the clarification by both Rusty and yourself.
Regarding your point, I too would have thought MMFA would take that tack regarding Beck's statement that Clinton opposed it in 95 than than the one above.
I think Rusty and I can agree on the larger point that no funding for ESCR took place during the Clinton years.
But when Beck says "It was George Bush who opened the doors for federal funding" he is lying. The Clinton administration opened the doors.
I guess you just won't admit it.
We both agree the Clinton Administration did not provide funding for embryonic stem cell research before Bill left office.
Bush did.
It is not lying to say that Bush "opened the doors" when ESCR funding was for the first time allowed during his administration.
It seems to me that sometimes people on the left are looked at as simply Bush haters because, like you in this instance, you won't accept what is patently obvious. Federal funding for ESCR began during the Bush Administration and not before.
Yes, the actual transfer of dollars began during the Bush administration, but the "door was opened" by the Clinton administration. I suppose the right's hatred of Clinton prevents you from admitting that. The transfer of dollars could not have occurred while Clinton was in office because he had to leave office in January of 2001.
Beck is using that fact misleadingly to paint a picture of Bush as a supporter of ESC research, when in truth all Bush has done is restrict federal support in accordance with his extremist beliefs. It may sound harsh to you, but Beck is lying when he says Bush "opened the doors," and he is being misleading in his other statements (which is all the MMFA headline claims).
Okay. I guess we'll leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.
You're welcome.
I wonder if the suits and CNN have actually watched his show. It sucks. It is actually worse than Tucker! Anybody know what his ratings are?
Oh my, the Beck-has-a-point-crowd has been reduced to one sucker. Sheesh!