PRESIDENT BUSH?s opposition to embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) has suffered the unexpected defection of Bill Frist, the majority leader in the Senate and an obvious candidate for the Republicans presidential nomination in 2008.

William H. Frist, MD, a heart-lung transplant surgeon and Presbyterian from Tennessee, became leader of Republican senators in December 2002. Dr Frist proved a competent Bush loyalist until last week, when he surprised everyone by announcing that he was switching to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would expand federal funding for ESCR. The President in his first term limited public funding for such research to those stem cell-lines that had already been created from embryos which had already been destroyed.

Dr Frist told the Senate he had decided to support harvesting stem cells from embryos left over from fertility treatments, which are routinely destroyed anyway. He reiterated his opposition to abortion ?I believe human life begins at conception. An embryo is nascent human life. It?s biologically human. It?s living. This position isn?t just a matter of faith. It?s a fact of science.? He said a ?human embryo deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect?, and that any cure of chronic or degenerative disease through ESCR ?may be just a theory, a hope, a dream?. He also said he would far prefer to the destruction of embryos ?alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem cells? ? that is, cells which ?have the capacity to become any type of tissue in the human body?, as adult cells do not. None the less, he is persuaded that the promise of curing such diseases as Parkinson?s and diabetes ?is powerful enough? to warrant further research.

As a political manoeuvre, Dr Frist?s U-turn is part of a national pattern. It is exactly two years until the Republican convention nominates someone to succeed George Bush, and contenders are making their dispositions. The contemporary Republican Party is a coalition of old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, who are often middling on such social issues as abortion and homosexuality, and the religious Right. Presidential candidates have to stir both constituencies to be nominated.

Thus in the last week two aspirants to the presidency, George Pataki of New York (a Catholic) and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (a Mormon), both popular and efficient governors of overwhelmingly Democratic states, moved sharply to the Right on abortion and the ?morning-after pill?, shoring up their claims to social conservatism. Bill Frist, in moving to the Left on ESCR, is presenting himself as a social moderate. It remains to be seen whether his increased attraction as a centrist will balance the dismay of the religious Right, which has hitherto regarded him as one of their own.

Within hours, the United States bishops? conference had condemned Dr Frist?s speech, and urged Mr Bush to stick by his ?laudable pledge to veto? the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Cardinal William Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore and chairman of the bishops? Committee for Pro-Life Activities, insisted that ?destruction of innocent human life, even out of a desire to help others, rests on a utilitarian view that undermines human dignity. Neither sound ethics nor good government can rest on the principle that ?the end justifies the means?.?

Mr Bush this week said he supports teaching US science students ?intelligent design?, a God-centred alternative to the traditional theory of evolution, American media reported on Tuesday. He said that alongside traditional views about the origin of life, science instructors should teach intelligent design, which says random genetic mutations, central to Charles Darwin?s theory of natural selection were, in fact, guided by God?s hand.
Richard Major, New York |snip!|Prostitution bar to Aids cash. THE US Government is insisting that groups who receive US federal funding for Aids programmes commit themselves to oppose prostitution.

Under new rules urged on the administration by Protestant churches, the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which dispenses $2.2 billion annually, will no longer give any more money without such a pledge. Kent Hill, acting administrator for global health at USAid, said America was taking ?a stand against a degrading and debilitating life. Prostitution is not a positive for the people who are involved in it.?

But there has been resistance to the new rule on the grounds of free speech. Many argue that it makes work with prostitutes practically more difficult, and some countries resent what they regard as American squeamishness. Already Brazil, which spends $400 million annually on combating Aids, has decided to forswear the $40 million it receives from USAid rather than commit itself against sex traffic.

Even Catholic Relief Services, which supports the rule against prostitution in principle, is concerned about the bureaucratic burden of ensuring its 20,000 partners are sound. ?If we had to require the Archbishop of ?Ouagadougou? to sign a pledge against prostitution,? said CRS?s vice-president, Michael Wiest, ?that?s hard to do.?

Back to homepage