Latest posts  
March
10
  12:23:25 PM

A closer look at that stem cell order

….and the reporting on it. It’s all so Orwellian.

This Reuters article is just one random example of the general tenor or news coverage on President Obama’s executive order yesterday to expand embryo destructive research for unsuccessful stem cell applications. But they didn’t put it quite that way…

President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research on Monday, angering abortion opponents but cheering those who believe the study could produce treatments for many diseases.

Pause and look at the language here. This is how the media form public opinion, which Walter Lippman wrote about so incisively in his compelling book Public Opinion. Obama “lifted restrictions”, which of course sounds freeing, doesn’t it? And “angering abortion opponents” immediately calls to mind the negative image of angry people who oppose instead of support something, never mind that something is abortion which ends human life. Furthermore, we have the positive mental image of “cheering” people who believe “the study could produce treatments for many diseases”. Sounds hopeful, right? Intentionally.

That’s a generalization the press and politicians keep using to sway thought and policy. The “study” means the production of human life in early embryonic form in order to harvest cells and end that human life to work on all sorts of ways to treat diseases, none of which have yet yielded any success, which of couse isn’t mentioned.

Back to the story…

“We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research,” Obama said to vigorous applause at a White House gathering.

“We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.”

That’s all rather lofty, multiple uses of the cheery word “vigorous”, the “promising” research, the goal of pioneering the way into the brave new world…so to speak…

What happened next explains a lot.

Shares of companies specializing in stem cell research burst upward on the news, with Geron Corp up by as much as much as 35 percent and StemCells Inc up 73 percent at one point. Other related company shares rose, too.

The bio-tech industry has a huge stake in this specific research, and profiteers stand to make a ton of money.

Of course this is important to get in there, as all the news stories did…

The decision was a clear repudiation of the approach taken by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. U.S. law limits the use of federal money to make human stem cells,

(they finally slipped and admitted this is dealing with making humans to get their stem cells)

but Bush tightened the restrictions even further to include work using such cells.

Why? Here’s how you’re hearing it reported:

Bush’s decision prompted charges that he was basing his decision on politics and religion rather than science. Religious conservatives who supported Bush generally opposed embryonic stem cell research because it involves destruction of embryos, which they view as human life.

Which they view as human life?

Obama rejected that view.

It’s not a view. And his rejection of the facts of life is absolutely chilling, given that it’s now his pay grade to make these decisions.



 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to Sheila's newsletter
rss Subscribe to Sheila's RSS feed

 Recent Posts
Dozens of Catholic institutions sue Obama
22 May 2012
Seeing the human face in mass media
15 May 2012
Motherhood
13 May 2012
First Lady fashion
11 May 2012
Obama’s unsurprising marriage epiphany
10 May 2012

 MercatorNet blogs
Population issues: Demography is Destiny
Family social policy: Family Edge
Style and culture: Tiger Print
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2012 | Apr 2012 | Mar 2012 | more >>

  From MercatorNet's home page

Sensing the sacred
25 May 2012
Is there a sense of the sacred that even the non-religious can share?

Could geoengineering save the planet?
25 May 2012
And who is thinking about the ethics of a technological quick fix?

A thought experiment about marriage
24 May 2012
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.

Australia’s lifeline: its precarious sea lanes
23 May 2012
Large, isolated and rich, Australia needs to cultivate a friendship with the US to survive in an dangerous world.

It’s only natural
22 May 2012
The bitterest debates today in the public square often turn on what is "natural". The Chinese sages had a lot…


 Tags
Constitution, Department of Education, humanitarian relief, big government, Dr. Alveda King, informed consent, Taxes, conscience protection,