Snowflakes, Science & Soul-Searching
Dr. James Dobson discusses President George W. Bush's stem cell decision.
September 2001
Dear Friends,
A warm September greeting to you!
I’d like to comment this month on some important developments in the ongoing debate over embryonic stem cell research. As you know, last month (on Thursday, August 9, to be precise), President George W. Bush made his first prime-time TV address to the American people. The purpose of the speech was to announce his long-awaited decision on the question of whether or not federal funds should be used to underwrite scientific research on stem cells taken from embryos—one of the earliest forms of human life. An embryonic stem cell is a cell with the potential to grow into various forms of tissue—like blood cells or brain cells. If you’re familiar with the basics of embryonic stem cell procedures, you know that the harvesting of these stem cells from human embryos results in their death 100 percent of the time. We are adamantly opposed to any form of medical research that results in the taking of human life. (For more technical information about this practice, see our Web site at www.citizenlink.org.
As some of you may know, my own mother suffered from Parkinson’s disease. She wasn’t able to speak during the final five years of her life, nor did she even recognize me or the other members of my family as she wasted away. She weighed scarcely 80 pounds when she died. Having witnessed firsthand my mother’s suffering, I can certainly understand the passionate hopes of people like Christopher Reeve, Mary Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox and others who are looking to stem cell research as their last great opportunity for physical health. But in our zeal to find cures for a range of catastrophic illnesses, we must not do so at the expense of other human beings — even those who are too tiny for us to see. Once we become willing to sacrifice even one life to benefit another, there is no place to stop. It will lead inevitably to the growing of babies in order to cannibalize their body parts, and other horrors.
Let me say it another way. When Hollywood celebrities describe how their diseases and injuries may benefit from the sacrifice of embryonic life, we are touched by their personal circumstances. But there is another compelling story that must also be told. It is what we would hear if the tiny babies we are about to kill could by some miracle be transformed into a mature adult state, and then begin to plead for their lives. Tens of thousands of voices would blend into a chorus, each saying, "Please let us have our chance. We are human beings, too!" That "other story" would be just as compelling, or more so, as the deeply moving appeals of Mr. Reeve, Ms. Moore and Mr. Fox. It is up to us in the pro-life community to give voice to the voiceless.
Perhaps you were watching "Larry King Live" immediately after the President’s statement. I was one of several guests on the show that night who were asked to comment on Mr. Bush’s decision. Thankfully (and indeed, astoundingly, considering the fervor with which members of the entertainment industry and media establishment were speaking out in favor of embryonic stem cell research), our President made the courageous decision to allocate no federal funding for research that would destroy human embryos!1 Mr. Bush’s bold statement of moral principle was truly one of the most remarkable moments in recent memory.
The pro-life community does have reason to be concerned about certain aspects of the new policy on stem cell research, and I will address those concerns in a moment. Nevertheless, what is good about the President’s policy is very good. It represents a defining moment, not only for Mr. Bush’s presidency, but also for those who believe that human life, beginning at conception, is sacred and worthy of protection.
Before discussing its implications, I’d like to take a moment to explain why the President’s decision was so gratifying, especially from our perspective here at Focus on the Family. Early last month, I felt led to host a broadcast on the issue of stem cell research, even though the President's decision on the issue wasn't expected to be made public until at least August 21.2 Accordingly, on Tuesday, August 7, Dr. Walt Larimore, our vice president of medical outreach, co-host John Fuller and I recorded a broadcast during which we encouraged listeners to pray for wisdom for Mr. Bush as he grappled with his difficult decision. That program was aired on Thursday, August 9, which, unbeknownst to us when we recorded it, turned out to be the very day that the President chose to make his public statement! Some would call that a coincidence, but I firmly believe that the Lord laid it upon my heart to tape that program before we knew what would happen just 48 hours later.
When I heard the news Thursday morning, I began monitoring various reports coming out of Washington throughout the day. Gradually, a sense of dread came over me as it appeared that the President might be planning to make a disastrous decision — namely, extending full federal funding to the destruction of tiny human embryos in the name of science. Several of my colleagues here at Focus felt the burden as well. We called our 1,300 employees together that afternoon for a time of earnest prayer. Corporately, we knelt before the Lord, asking Him to grant President Bush wisdom and crying out to Him on behalf of the tens of thousands of innocent embryonic human beings in frozen "orphanages" across the country.3
A few minutes before Mr. Bush made his speech, Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor, called and gave me a "heads up" on what was about to take place. Needless to say, I was elated to learn that, contrary to our fears, Mr. Bush was planning to act on behalf of unborn life! To quote directly from his speech, he stated that his policy "allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos. . . ."4
The President reportedly spent a great deal of time in prayer about this issue in the days leading up to his announcement, and I believe that his comments represent an answer to our prayers, as well.
The most remarkable aspect of Mr. Bush's speech was the public recognition of his belief that human life begins at conception. Never before has an acting president made such a bold national address in support of the sanctity of unborn human life. (Mr. Bush also affirmed his belief that life begins at conception during a campaign interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 1999.)5 Columnist Robert Novak went so far as to say that "the pro-life rhetoric of his 11-minute speech surpassed anything Ronald Reagan or Bush's father ever said."6 That is true. My friend Chuck Colson was similarly impressed with Mr. Bush's moral fortitude when he wrote, "For the first time, in my memory at least, a sitting president has grappled publicly with a critical moral issue and, unapologetically, drawn a line in the sand. . . . Human life is sacred."7
Another positive aspect of the President's policy is his calling for the creation of a council on biomedical ethics. Bush's choice to head this commission is Leon Kass, M.D., Ph.D., a leading biomedical ethicist at the University of Chicago who has a strong record on opposing cloning and other morally questionable forms of medical experimentation.8 In addition, the President issued a strong call for the medical community to step up its efforts to conduct research involving adult stem cells, placentas and umbilical cord blood — all of which can provide stem cells without necessitating the destruction of human life. It is critical that we turn our focus toward these non-embryonic sources because, as Mr. Colson said, this is "where we can make the greatest medical advances without trampling the moral boundaries."9 You should also know that so far virtually all of the current benefits to patients have come from non-destructive stem cell sources. In fact, the very same week that Bush made his speech, there were reports of four different medical studies showing early success with adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood.10
Still, as I mentioned earlier, there are elements of the President's policy that are troubling to those of us in the pro-life community. Most notably, we were disappointed by Mr. Bush’s decision to allow federal funding of research on 60 or so existing stem cell lines. The president has concluded that "we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made."11
As members of the pro-life community, we cannot endorse that. The killing of embryos — even if it happened in the past — is never justifiable for scientific gain. Powerful evidence of the humanity of these frozen embryos is found in the story of John and Lucinda Borden, a California couple who, after learning that they couldn’t have children of their own, adopted several embryos through the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program.12 In case you’re not familiar with either that term or that program, please allow me to explain.
In a typical in-vitro fertilization procedure, many frozen embryos may be "left over," and the couple involved has the choice of either putting the embryos in cold storage, donating them for research or having them destroyed. There are literally tens of thousands of these embryonic human beings currently stored in clinics across the country, and the Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program brings them to birth in families that want them. The embryos are called "snowflakes" because they are unique, fragile and, of course, frozen.
For Mr. and Mrs. Borden, two of those embryos survived and grew into the couple's twins, Luke and Mark. When testifying before the Congress on stem cell research this July, Mr. Borden proved in no uncertain terms that destroying these little human beings for the sake of research is wrong. "Which one of my children would you kill? Which one would you take?" he asked as he held his beautiful babies up in front of the Congressmen.13 Likewise, I recently had an encounter with another of these precious little ones. Some of you may have heard the radio broadcast on which 2-year-old Hannah Strege, also born as the result of embryonic adoption, sat on my lap and sang "Jesus Loves the Little Children."14 That precious little girl is all the proof anyone would need to realize that the destruction of embryos is unthinkable.
With this in mind, we must not forget that even the existing stem cell lines to which Mr. Bush referred were created at the expense of innocent, helpless babies in the embryonic stage. We would prefer that there be no federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research, even with these existing stem cell lines. In retrospect, I regret that in my brief interview with Larry King, I was not able to place greater emphasis on our concerns about this issue. Nevertheless, we are still very thankful that the President did not authorize the killing of more babies and that he remained true to his campaign statement that taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that "involves destroying living human embryos."15
It's worth mentioning that many conservative voices in the country felt that the President's decision represented the best possible solution at this point. Senator Rick Santorum noted that if Bush had banned all embryonic stem cell research — including that on existing cell lines — "he very well could have gotten rolled in the Congress. This cuts off the attempt to do that at the pass."16 Other pro-life members of Congress have told us privately that Mr. Bush would surely have been presented with a veto-proof bill that would have allocated federal money for embryonic stem cell research. If that had happened, little preborn children could have been killed.
Conservative commentator George Will hailed the President’s decision as "measured and principled,"17 and Representative Dick Armey expressed his encouragement with Mr. Bush's advocacy of other, non-lethal forms of stem cell research. He told The New York Times, "We must not lose sight of the non-embryonic stem cell research that will avoid these moral and ethical dilemmas."18 We will join with the President and our friends in Congress in pushing for a dramatic increase in federal funding of research on stem cells derived from adult stem cells, placenta and umbilical cord blood.
Some of you may have read conflicting reports from the media on the critical issue of the 60 existing stem cell lines that will be studied using federal funds. Not surprisingly, the liberal press endeavored to create the impression that there was a terrible rift in the pro-life community between those who supported the President's statement and those who did not.19 In fact, it seems clear to me now that the secular media was expecting a strong backlash from the pro-life community, and felt compelled to create controversy when that backlash wasn't as volatile as they had hoped it would be. The morning after my appearance on "Larry King Live" (after the President’s remarks), no fewer than three major news outlets withdrew their requests for interviews with me after learning that I was cautiously optimistic about Bush's statement. ABC News admitted to us that they were looking for a critical voice and that they had thought I would provide it. So much for journalistic integrity!
It is true, of course, that some of our friends in the pro-life community felt called to highlight the negative aspects of the President's decision and less inclined to celebrate the positives. I support their right to do so. These differences aside, the news media's sensationalistic cries of "division" within the pro-life camp were grossly exaggerated. Members of the pro-life community were unanimous in their belief that there are complex ethical questions surrounding the use of the existing stem cell lines from destroyed embryos and that additional ethical issues will likely be raised as research progresses. Still, a number of pro-life groups and leaders, including Focus on the Family, National Right to Life, The Wilberforce Forum, Christian Coalition, Chuck Colson and Jerry Falwell, chose to commend the president for keeping his campaign promise and for speaking so powerfully and eloquently about the humanity of those frozen embryos.20 The fact that others in the pro-life community chose not to praise these encouraging signs does not mean that a war has broken out among our ranks. We're still all working toward the same goals, no matter what the secular media tells you!
Now that the President's speech has been on record for about a month and the dust has begun to settle, the question in many people's minds is "Where do we go from here?" In practical terms, the federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, will oversee the implementation of President Bush's policy. Hopefully, the presidential council on biomedical ethics will also provide strong moral leadership on the questions raised with regard to research on the existing stem cell lines.
But make no mistake: the battle is far from over. Proponents of unlimited embryonic stem cell research are already hard at work promoting legislation that would remove any restrictions whatsoever on the destruction of human embryos for research, to be funded by your tax dollars. Now is the time for our friends in Congress to meet the challenge and prevent any such legislation from passing. On an encouraging note, the President has already pledged to veto any bill that crosses the line he set last month. Mr. Bush recently reiterated his firm conviction that stem cell research is a "moral" issue and told reporters, "I laid out the policy that I think is right for America. And I’m not going to change my mind."21 He also gave me the same assurances a few weeks ago.
In addition, pro-life leaders in Congress will attempt the annual renewal of the "Dickey Amendment" — language first implemented in 1996 which forbids the use of federal funds for research that harms or destroys human embryos. However, they will have their work cut out for them as they confront liberal members of the House and Senate who continue to advocate unrestricted research on embryonic stem cells. You should know that there are bills on both sides of this debate. Legislation has been proposed that would allow embryos to be destroyed for research with tax dollars.22 Conversely, there are other proposals to increase federal funding for research using non-destructive sources, such as umbilical cord blood.23 You can find more information about stem cell issues and contact information for your elected officials on our CitizenLink Web site.
Finally, please know that Focus on the Family and other organizations that are involved in bioethical discourse will continue to evaluate the ramifications of conducting research on the existing stem cell lines. We promise to keep you updated on the latest developments within the scientific community as new questions and concerns arise. Please pray for us as we endeavor to separate fact from fiction, and as we seek to promote medical research that is morally acceptable while simultaneously opposing that which pompously allows man to "play God." Many critical battles on this issue surely lie ahead.
That's all for this month. As you may have noticed, our emphasis throughout September is on young families. Each of our daily radio programs this month deals with some practical aspect of raising kids. If you know of young couples that are not acquainted with this ministry, I hope you will give them a call and suggest that they check us out.
On a final note, my new book called Bringing Up Boys will be released in October, and, God willing, I plan to give you a special preview in my next letter. Until then, please remember the staff at Focus on the Family in your prayers, and don't hesitate to let us know if there is anything we can do for you and your loved ones. God's blessings to you all.
Sincerely,
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
President
*(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)