In 2001, President Bush was under enormous pressure to allow federal funding for stem-cell research that involved the destruction of human embryos. Many Republicans in Congress favored the funding, and so, reportedly, did various White House aides and Cabinet secretaries. Among those Republicans who added to the calls for funding was former Speaker Newt Gingrich.
On July 10, 2001, talking to Paula Zahn on Fox News, he said,
My hope is that [President Bush] will draw a sharp distinction between research on fetuses, which I think would be abhorrent and anti-human, and research on cells that are in fertility clinics that have never been in anyone’s body, in terms of being — becoming a person, and which, frankly, are currently unregulated and will disappear. And I think that’s a different kind of question. These are not prehuman cells in the sense they’re going to be implanted. . . . I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record, but I’ve always drawn a distinction at implantation. And I think there’s a real difference in the two kinds of cells. I notice that former senator Connie Mack, who is himself is a Catholic, takes the same position. And I think people who’ve looked at this issue can honorably disagree. But for many of us, there’s a very, very real distinction between doing something with an unborn child, a fetus that is implanted, and doing something with cells in a fertility clinic that are otherwise going to be destroyed.
Nine days later, speaking to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, Gingrich said,
I think that there are ways to have appreciation for life, to recognize the sanctity of life, but nonetheless to look at fertility clinics where there are cells that are sitting there that are not going to be used to create life. They literally today, they’re unregulated, they can be thrown away. And I think the president, I hope the president, will find a way to agree that there ought to be federally funded research. Every major disease group in this country is passionately hoping that the president will find a way to open the door to science. And I think when you at the potential that we’re told by scientist after scientist exists in looking at these cells, that it is absolutely worth our doing. And it enhances and enriches life, I think. It doesn’t diminish it.
In a 2006 interview with Discover, Gingrich said that the federal government should not fund research on “stem cells from abortion.” Asked about research involving embryos from fertility clinics, he said, “I think the federal government needs to set an example by making sure that when it is the funding source for such research, it is subject to serious ethical guidelines” — which was the line taken by advocates of expanded funding for embryo-destructive research at the time.
More recently, Gingrich has had, at the very least, a different rhetorical emphasis. He recently said that he was against “killing children” for stem-cell research and that adult stem cells were just as promising as embryonic stem cells. But that leaves several questions unanswered. Does he still favor federal funding of stem-cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos obtained from fertility clinics? Does he still believe these embryos are “prehuman”? Does he still believe that the right to life depends on implantation? And if he now thinks he was mistaken in the past, when and how did he come to this realization?
Newt Gingrich backed the destruction of human embryos.
Mitt Romney as governor of Massachucetts vetoed funding for stem cell research.
Which makes Romney far more pro-life in deed as well as word than Gingrich.
Yet, it is Romney who is constantly denounced....very curious...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally Ponnuru? Really??
This post is a good example of how the pro-life set alienates moderates. You REALLY want to interrogate Gingrich on this, don't you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, really. Of course.
My position would always hold true, but, as it happens, we will be less gingerly around moderates than usual in this election. But please, please, please don't go away alienated!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomneyCare allowed funding for planned parenthood. Spare us the talking points.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRamesh won't investigate anything about Romney's record. Romney is his guy. It leads to laughable hypocrisy like this.
Newt Gingrich has a lot less blood on his hands than Mittens does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBlood on his mittens, even...
Still, as I recall, Romster vetoed legislation in MA that Newt evidently would have supported. And Romney didn't actually advance the cause of abortion at any point, did he? He just didn't do jack to roll it back, which is quite enough to make us (rightly) distrust him.
Incidentally, I really hate the idea of choosing a nominee whose hands are "least bloodsoaked" when we have several perfectly decent candidates -- Santorum, Paul, arguably Perry -- whose hands are 100% board-certified blood-free. Here's hoping for one more Not-Romney before Iowa Day, I guess!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's conversion to Catholicism in 2009 is a relevant fact in this story. But, sadly, a relevant fact omitted from the main post.
Must we have hit pieces on every new non-Romney front runner? Et tu, NRO?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt was not Catholic in 2001 or 2006. I wonder if he still believes life begins at implantation, which is an odd and wrong position, and not conception. I would like answers to all of the questions the articles asks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is normal for a fertilized ova to not implant in the uterine wall and to be lost naturally. Implantation is not an unreasonable guideline for viability.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"viability"? Who said anything about viability? Regardless of how a person feels about embryonic stem cell research, calling an embryo "prehuman" is absurd; depending on your position, it is chilling or worse. That's not even using the stupid "person" argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am sympathetic with your argument, but you are very emotional, and I suggest that you might benefit by viewing the subject without emotion, as a clinician might view it. I did my best to do this, and I believe that it gave me some insights into the nuances of the issue. Clinicians bring great benefit to humanity through their medical knowledge, and we should work to understand their viewpoint. However, they need to understand that their viewpoint is merely one among many, and that there are many important considerations that they might not be considering.
(captcha: get a better game)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am unemotionally saying your response is wrong. The original post effectively and correctly states that an embryo is a person at an early stage--versus the PPH dictionary of abortion-gold-mine,thug semantics, including embryos as "pre-human".
Your attempt to 'soft-ball' a comment of scientific fact in favor of PPH sanctioned 'dodge words' is emotional on your part. There is no middle ground in the facts. The recent Mississipi rejection of complete abolition of abortion, in part because of the issue of stored embyos as human beings indicates that the stage of personhood is clear, albeit inconvenient to your position---and that of many others.
'Inconvenient' is different than devoid of fact. thank you for registering in on such a misunderstood issue with how blatantly misunderstood it is. best regards, maureen
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe ethical question of when an embryo becomes a "person" doesn't depend on viability.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom a clinical perspective viability is certainly an issue. When a large percentage of fertilized ova are lost naturally, it is a reasonable question to ask: if these lost fertilized ova can be used for medical benefit, shouldn't we do it? That is a reasonable question to be considered in any ethical discussion of this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI respectfully disagree.
Just because some human embryos (or zygotes, if you prefer) are going to be lost naturally does not make it reasonable to consider using them (prior to their natural death) for medical research, even if that research may benefit others.
If that position were defensible, then why not use anencephalic fetuses or newborns for research, since they will be "lost naturally" in a matter of hours or days. Same goes for certain trisomies.
"Viability" is a mighty slippery slope.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour addition of the word "clinical" to your analysis actually changes nothing. The "large percentage of fertilized ova [that] are lost naturally" are different "lost fertilized ova" from the ones that are killed for their stem cells.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate to keep repeating myself, but I am hopeful that continuing to insist on a basic scientific literacy on early embryology will eventually bear fruits in this forum and in public policy more widely.
First, there is no such thing as a "fertilized ovum." During fertilization -- and, indeed, specifically at the moment of first interaction between ovum and spermatozoon -- "egg" and "sperm" cease to exist as independent cellular-level organisms. Out of their combinatory destruction a new organism is created -- a human blastocyst, a member of the species homo sapiens. The phrase "fertilized ovum" is a bizarre oxymoron that is perpetuated only by careless thinking and (on occasion) deliberate imprecision to avoid the implication that our actions are destroying living human beings.
Second, while death is normal for all human beings, and while many human beings are less viable than others (consider, for example, the infant stricken with terminal leukemia), this in itself has no bearing on their biological status as human beings. Concluding that human life begins at implantation because many human lives do not survive past it is as scientifically well-grounded as tarot and as arbitrary as personal taste in movies. (Moreover, carried out to its logical conclusions, it is self-contradictory: all persons die, therefore no persons are persons. But I promised to restrict my complaint to scientific, not logical, literacy, so I will leave that to one side.)
Gingrich was absolutely wrong. His position was not only unreasonable, but (given that he had already acknowledged universal human rights in the mid-1980s) unreasoning. This is a serious problem for those who believe in universal civil rights for all humans. He must address this, and we must decide whether we believe his explanation. (The latter, of course, is the more difficult proposition.)
And so my top choices remain Santorum and Paul, the only two conservatives who *haven't* had a surge yet. Sigh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is not a blastocyst until it is implanted. Your type of argumentation from scientific authority is helpful with details but is extremely unhelpful when dealing with ethical issues. I believe that knowledgable people such as yourself should avail yourselves of knowledge in all of the issues, especially the ethical ones, and not just the clinical ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI apologize; you're right. It is a zygote. I... don't know why I wrote "blastocyst." It's too many letters apart for me to blame it on a typo, but will you accept "brain f*rt?"
I agree that the ethical arguments ultimately are where this question has to be settled, but we cannot even have the ethical conversation until all participants acknowledge certain basic facts, including especially the humanity of the zygote. That humanity is not the end of the argument, but it is necessarily the beginning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must say, RNCCritic, you readily switch around among arguments you deem "clinical," those you deem "emotional," and those you call "ethical" -- all while failing to join issue with your opponents. Sometimes you deem their argumensts too clinical and sometimes not clinical enough. How about some straightforward arguments without worrying about which category to put them in? If you are arguing logically, it won't matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse