Don C. Reed says:

# 342 Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - THE NEXT PRESIDENT: A HELPING HAND, OR A
CLENCHED FIST?

Who will be the next President of the United States of America?
Will he or she be a friend of stem cell research?
As I see it, in the bound-to-offend-practically-everybody category, there
are 5 acceptable candidates, (among the majors) and a couple of "under no
circumstances".

In no particular order, those candidates who would vote yes on Senate Bill
5,  the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (the absolute minimum for
acceptability) are:
 McCain, Edwards, Clinton, Giuliani, and Obama.

As a life-long Democrat, I am delighted to be able to choose among three
outstanding individuals: my personal favorite is Mrs. Clinton. I heard her
speak at the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act rally in Washington DC and I
literally dropped my notebook. She was so strong and caring at the same
time; it was as though she could stand in a whirlwind, and not be moved from
her convictions-but yet she also had the courage to care, and the ability to
think, to reason-well, I was impressed, and she is my hope for the next
President.

That being said, I would also be delighted with a President Obama or
President Edwards, both men having the intelligence and leadership ability
for the most difficult job in the world. The Democratic party is lucky
indeed to have three such outstanding individuals, and I will absolutely
support any of these three.

McCain and Giuliani also deserve respect from the other side of the coin,
the right wing of the political spectrum. An eagle needs two wings to fly,
and these are responsible men with whom I personally disagree on most
issues-but who would at minimum vote correctly on Senate Bill 5. In other
words, each would be a huge improvement over the man currently occupying the
White House. Here is a brief cutting from the recent Republican candidate
debate.

"All ten candidates were asked for a "yes" or "no" answer on support for
embryonic stem cell research -- a question complicated by the fact that
former First Lady Nancy Reagan, a strong stem-cell research advocate, was in
the audience.

Frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and John McCain offered similar views on
embryonic stem-cell research. (AP)
McCain and Giuliani were the only ones who said they would support embryonic
stem cell research although they both hedged their answers by saying that
was true only as long as cells weren't being created for the express purpose
of destroying them. (In other words, they are against SCNT-DR)
On the unacceptable side, we have the Romney/Thompson/Brownback clones.
There is virtually no difference between the three in their stem cell
research positions.  Each one wants "alternative methods"-in other words,
keep doing what is being done today-and each opposes embryonic stem cell
research and would criminalize SCNT.

Brownback wants to put stem cell research scientists in jail. He sponsored
legislation advocating ten year jail sentences for anyone having anything to
do with Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic
cloning), including doctors, scientists, patients and parents. (President
Bush supported Brownback's bill.)

Former Governor Mitt Romney is the slickest of the three, but he is so
anti-research, he had to be overridden by his own state.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Massachusetts lawmakers override Romney veto of stem cell bill
Tom Henry at 7:36 PM ET

[JURIST] The Massachusetts legislature Tuesday overrode a Friday veto by
Gov. Mitt Romney [official website] on a bill [Senate bill text] allowing
scientists seeking to do stem cell research in Massachusetts to bypass
approval from the local district attorney. The new law does, however, give
the state Department of Public Health [official website] some regulatory
controls and prohibits human cloning. Both the state House and Senate
defeated the veto by the two-thirds vote necessary to override a
gubernatorial veto but the vote in the House was close at 112-42. The Senate
vote was 35-2. Critics claim the new law is a slippery slope to human
cloning, a claim supporters see as unfounded.

Romney apparently once supported embryonic stem cell research, but changed
his mind, and now opposes it completely. He votes the way Brownback votes on
stem cell research, just talks about it with bigger words. There is no
difference between his position and that of President Bush.

And now the wild card. So far, TV actor Fred Thompson has gotten a free ride
from the press. I have seen no substantive investigations on his position.
He is a skilled communicator with a beautiful voice, melodious, mellifluous,
reassuring.and wrong. He is about the worst possible candidate imaginable
for stem cell research support.

Any questions you may have about his stand on stem cells might be answered
by remarks he just made (June 14, 2007) before the National Right to Life
Convention:

"In 1994, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. I was proud to receive
the National Right to Life endorsement. I've been with you ever since. You've
been with me ever since. On abortion related votes I've been 100 percent. We've
had a lot of different kind of issues come up in the Senate from federal
funding to stem cell research..

"On stem cell research, I'm for adult stem cell research, not stem cell
research where embryos of unborn children are destroyed. It looks to me like
there is a lot of promising developments as far as adult stem cell research
is concerned anyway and we don't need to go down that other road."

In other words, if you like Bush and Brownback policies, you will love Fred
Thompson. Given the chance, he will continue their anti-research policies.

    Senator John Edwards took a lot of unfair criticism for standing up for
stem cell research in 2004.     He  was endlessly misquoted as guaranteeing
that paralyzed Superman Christopher Reeve would have walked if embryonic
stem cell research had been supported-here is what he actually said:
Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell
research and change the lives of people like him.
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do
when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out
of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.-October 12, 2004.
This is a courageous, intelligent, and caring man, definitely in favor of
the research.
And Senator Obama?
Obama Renews Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ben LaBolt
Says proposed alternatives are not substitutes
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following
statement during the debate on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act:
I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did
when this bill was introduced and sent to the President's desk in the 109th
Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.
I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has generated and saddened that
we are preventing the advancement of important science that could
potentially impact millions of suffering Americans. The study of stem cells
holds enormous promise for the treatment of debilitating and
life-threatening diseases. However, in order to reach this level of medical
achievement, much more research is necessary to understand, and eventually
harness, the amazing potential of stem cells. Instead of creating
roadblocks, we must all work together to expand federal funding of stem cell
research and continue moving forward in our fight against disease by
advancing our knowledge through science and medicine.
Each year, 100,000 Americans will develop Alzheimer's disease, with impaired
memory, ability to understand, and judgment. Over 1 million adults will be
diagnosed with diabetes this year, and risk complications that include
blindness, damaged nerves and loss of kidney function. We all know or have
met individuals with spinal cord injuries, including national celebrities,
local war heroes and loved ones from our own families and circles of
friends, who are struggling to maintain mobility and independence.
For most of our history, medicine has offered little hope of recovery to the
100 million individuals affected by these and other devastating illnesses
and injuries.
Until now.
Recent developments in stem cell research may hold the key to improved
treatments, if not cures, for those affected by Alzheimer's disease,
diabetes, spinal cord injury and countless other conditions.
Many men, women, and children who are cancer survivors are already familiar
with the life-saving applications of adult stem cell research. Patients with
leukemia or lymphoma often undergo bone marrow transplants, a type of stem
cell transplant, which can significantly prolong life, or permanently get
rid of the cancer. This therapy has been used successfully for decades, and
is saving lives everyday.
Yet this breakthrough has its serious limitations. Adult stem cells, such as
those used in bone marrow transplants, can only be collected in small
quantities, may not be a match for the patient, which can lead to rejection,
and have limited ability to differentiate, or transform into specialized
cells.
Similarly, the promising advances of stem cell use from a patient's own cord
blood, as illustrated by the success stories of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from
Duke University, also have their limitations. If, for example, a young cord
blood recipient's condition should deteriorate after his or her initial
treatment, or should develop another illness, there simply are not enough
cord blood cells left for a second use. The few remaining cells would have
to be cloned to get enough cells for future treatment, or stem cells would
have to be obtained from another source.
Two of my constituents, Mary Schneider and her son Ryan, are well aware of
the potential of cord blood treatments. Her son, diagnosed with cerebral
palsy at 2 years of age, has made what appears to be a full recovery after
treatment with his own cord blood. Despite the compelling results witnessed
by the Schneider family, they also firmly believe and support expanded
research of embryonic stem cells to combat disease.
A recent scientific paper about stem cells derived from amniotic fluid has
drawn much attention. While this offers an exciting alternative to
regenerative medicine therapies, the author of that report, Dr. Anthony
Atala, has himself urged that his work on amniotic stem cells will not
replace the continued need for investigation into treatments with stem cells
derived from embryos.
All of these alternative treatments are just that, alternatives, and are not
substitutes for embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, including in
vitro fertilization. At this very moment, there are over 400,000 embryos
being stored in over 400 facilities throughout the United States. The
majority of these are reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these
embryos will go unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or
disposal. We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos, just
as we should continue to explore the viability of adult stem cell use, cord
blood use, and amniotic fluid use.
The promise of embryonic stem cells has come to light in a recent
achievement by researchers at Johns Hopkins. They were able to repair
damaged nerves and restore mobility in paralyzed rats through embryonic stem
cells. One can't help but wonder when, not if, this research will be
translated into techniques that will help human patients who have lost the
ability to walk.
Of course any work in this area must have appropriate oversight. Embryonic
stem cell research demands comprehensive, thoughtful and carefully crafted
ethical and scientific guidelines. We must not only look to guidance from
the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration but
also to our reason, our morals and our compassion.
The President's veto of the stem cell bill proposed in the last Congress
prevents government funding beyond 78 previously established stem cell
lines. However, recent estimates on the number of viable cell lines bring
the numbers down closer to 20. Clearly, we are moving backwards in our
efforts with these current restrictions. Stymieing embryonic stem cell
research is a step in the wrong direction. It closes the door on many
Americans awaiting new treatments that could potentially provide a better
quality of life, or, perhaps, even save their life.
My hope, and the hope of so many in this country, is to provide our
researchers with the means to explore the uses of embryonic stem cells so
that we can begin to turn the tide on the devastating diseases affecting our
nation and the world."
And Hillary Clinton?

Clinton speaks out on stem cell research
By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 15, 6:52 PM ET
Clinton addressed the issue just days after the House voted to ease limits
on the federally funded research despite President Bush's veto threat.
Joining her at Dartmouth College were Alex Walter, 10, of Londonderry, N.H.,
who has Type 1 diabetes, and Laura Clark of Antrim, N.H., who has been
paralyzed since a car crash three years.
Walter's father, Steve, said he is a registered Republican but supports
Clinton because he is frustrated with the Bush administration's stance on
stem cell research. His son has endured 10 to 12 blood tests a day and about
100 insulin injections a month since being diagnosed at age 4.
"This is not a religious issue," he said. "It's really about a little boy
who's 10 years old, and another 100 million Americans who could benefit from
this research."
Clark's mother, Kathleen, also a Republican, said her daughter's experience
has been life-shattering for the family. But she also made a practical
appeal, noting the billions spent on people with chronic spinal cord
injuries. Even modest advances through stem cell research - allowing
quadriplegics to regain the use of their hands - would lead to a significant
savings in health care costs, she said.
Clinton said the administration's position was part of its general contempt
for science and disregard of evidence in favor of ideology.
"Every day that passes, we have families like the Walters and the Clarks
waiting and wondering whether their government is really on the side of
helping and saving the lives of their loved ones," she said. "Where we are
now is, we're going backward. We're not just stalled. We're going backward."
Bush says the legislation would compel taxpayers to support "the deliberate
destruction of human embryos." Lawmakers lack the votes to overturn a veto.
But Clinton emphasized that the bill would permit funding only for research
on embryonic stem cells donated from in-vitro fertilization clinics - with
the donor's approval - that otherwise would be discarded.
"We do take seriously the ethical concerns," she said. "This is not
something that has been done in a quick, poorly thought out way."
The Presidential race is well on its way; and where do the candidates stand,
in terms of voter support?
Senator Clinton leads the Democrats in national polls-but in some state
polls Obama and/or Edwards lead.
Similarly, in the national arena, former New York Mayor Giuliani leads the
Republican nominees-but in some state polls Romney is ahead.
In other words, it is still wide open.
Whatever our political persuasion, we in the stem cell research support
community need to make sure that the next President will not be an obstacle
to progress.
Our voices must be heard.

By Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com


Los Angeles - Hollywood director Jerry Zucker has created and launched a
stem cell ad aimed at President Bush's veto threats of the bipartisan Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act overwhelmingly passed by the US House of
Representative and the Senate.  These votes echo public opinion.  This ad
directly addresses the question of what to do with the thousands of
fertilized eggs which are discarded every year at fertility clinics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QiO6cl8WOk
Jordan D. Markwith
CGC | Chad Griffin Consulting, Inc.
Public Affairs, Strategic Communications & Advertising

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn