c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) President Bush’s announcement that he would veto any effort to expand embryonic stem cell research puts his Republican Party between a rock and a hard place politically, making the GOP appear morally and ethically out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The hard line Bush and his conservative allies have taken on the stem cell issue could backfire just as the hothouse politicizing of the Terri Schiavo case did. In the latter instance, the White House and some GOP members of Congress took an unequivocal stand on a volatile end-of-life issue. Surveys showed it was unpopular with the general public.

In Friday (May 20) comments to reporters, Bush said that while he is a “strong supporter” of research using adult stem cells, he had “made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save live is _ I’m against that.

“And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it.”

Bush’s comments were prompted by a bill pending in the House that would ease restrictions he imposed on stem cell research in 2001. The bill, which has collected 201 sponsors, including a significant number of Republicans, is expected to be voted on this week.

It comes as South Korean scientists announced that they produced human embryo clones of injured or sick patients and harvested individualized stem cells. In addition, lawmakers in several states _ most recently, Massachusetts _ are pressing ahead with plans to bypass federal restrictions and fund their own stem cell research.

Bush’s veto threat ratchets up the conflict on one front in the culture wars that seem to pit self-described “pro-life” and “pro-choice” forces against one another, as in the longstanding and essentially stalemated abortion debate. Indeed, Bush’s language _ “science which destroys life in order to save life” _ plays to that stark dichotomy.

But the stem cell issue, perhaps because it is of more recent vintage, perhaps because the pros and cons are more complex and nuanced, has yet to harden into the type of ideological, take-no-prisoners dispute the three-decade old abortion debate has become.

As the wide range of sponsors of the House bill suggests, supporters of expanding the research include such anti-abortion stalwarts as Nancy Reagan and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

“I do not believe that life begins in a Petri dish and, like many others, hope that these excess embryos can benefit mankind. … For me, being pro-life means helping the living,” the Los Angeles Times quoted Hatch as saying after the Bush veto threat.

Another supporter of the bill, Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., a doctor and abortion opponent, told the Times, “I think this is the most pro-life thing you could do.”

A Gallup poll released earlier in May found 60 percent of those surveyed said embryonic stem cell research is “morally acceptable.” A December poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found as many as 40 percent of self-described social conservatives backed such research compared with 45 percent who thought it was more important to protect the embryo.

The House bill would allow federal financing for studies on stem cells taken from days-old embryos stored in fertility clinics and donated by couples who no longer need them. Its main co-sponsors are Reps. Michael Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

Embryonic stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell or tissue, are considered to hold great promise for research into a variety of diseases including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

Opponents, however, argue that such research is morally unacceptable because embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted.

“Government has no business forcing taxpayers to become complicit in the direct destruction of human life at any stage,” Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ committee on pro-life activities, told Congress in a May 17 letter opposing the House bill.

“Nor is there any point in denying the scientific fact that human life is exactly what is at stake here,” Keeler said.

While the House bill may well pass _ and a similar measure in the Senate also has strong bipartisan support _ it is unlikely to have enough support to override what would be Bush’s first veto in the five years of his presidency.

For Bush and the Republicans, however, such a veto runs the risk of alienating _ as happened in the Schiavo case _ not only a large segment of moderate America but also less ideologically driven conservatives.

MO/RB DEA END RNS