Analysis: Senate Stem Cell Debate Set
By TODD ZWILLICH
Lawmakers are expected to support repealing President Bush’s limits funding of embryonic stem cell research when the Senate takes up a series of bills beginning Monday.
Backers of the research are expressing cautious confidence they’ll succeed in passing the bill. But they also expect Bush to reject the measure, using what would be the first veto of congressional legislation in five and a half years as president.
Let’s put it this way, it’s going to be close, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, one of the bill’s chief backers, said in an interview.
There’s a lot of maneuvering on the side, a lot of the pressure from the White House to deprive us of the votes, said Hatch, who years ago broke with anti-abortion allies by supporting the research. But I think we are going to be able to secure it.
The conventional wisdom is we have enough votes, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,the bill’s lead sponsor told United Press International.
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to become any tissue in the body. That could gives them great promise in treating a wide range of health problems, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, or spinal cord injuries, scientists say.
The research is highly popular with the public, spurred on by vocal backing from the late actor Christopher Reeve and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband, President Ronald Reagan, suffered from Alzheimer’s before his death.
But many anti-abortion conservatives oppose the research because it requires destruction of embryos for harvesting stem cells.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, an opponent of the research and a physician, accused supporters of promoting myths about the promise of embryonic stem cells to treat diseases.
I’m going to be there to answer it with science every time somebody says something that’s untrue, he said.
The Senate bill, which passed the House last May with wide bipartisan support, would put NIH in charge of nationally-funded research using excess embryos left over from fertilization treatments as a source of stem cells. Supporters say research can derive benefits from the embryos, which other wise are destroyed when no longer needed.
Politically, it would be a blow to President Bush by repealing limits he set for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in August, 2001. The order confined government support to roughly 70 stem cell lines already created at the time. Bush said the decision would allow research to progress without spending taxpayer money on studies that destroy embryos.
Even if the supporters muster the 60 needed to pass the bill Tuesday night under a Senate agreement, lawmakers on both sides expect President Bush will veto it.
We expect a veto as early as Wednesday afternoon, said a Democratic aide.
I’m counting on him to veto it, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an opponent of stem cell studies that destroy embryos.
Still, Bush could pair his veto with support for two other bills also scheduled for Senate debate Monday and Tuesday. One would ban the implantation of an embryo in the womb of a woman or animal for research purposes.
Another would open federal funding for experimental methods of extracting stem cells without damaging embryos.
Probably there is more potential in the use of embryonic stem cells, so we want to offer an alternative that allows us to do research without death or destruction or harm to a living embryo, said Gingrey, who is a physician.
Hatch accused opponents of embryonic stem cell research, including Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., of backing the alternative bill to pull away votes from the bill repealing federal funding restrictions.
Santorum denied the strategy, saying alternative stem cell extraction methods are worth pursuing.
But Gingrey said the alternative bill would offer lawmakers — and the president — a way to support some stem cell research popular with voters without violating their vows not to support studies that harm embryos.
I think it definitely could be a political liability if we didn’t have the other bill as an alternative, he said.