That was a remarkable statement they put out, Kathryn–and, I’m afraid, a foolish one. There have always been pro-lifers in the all-or-nothing camp: people who object to our trying to ban partial-birth abortions when all the other abortions are just as bad. The bishops’ conference has thankfully not been among their number. Until now.

They object to the Kass council’s recommendation of a time limit for embryo research. They say it’s not good enough: There’s no good reason to allow the destruction of a one-day-old embryo but to prohibit the destruction of a fifteen-day-old one. That limited point is, in my mind, wholly correct. But that’s a reason to say that we should prohibit research past the fifteen-day mark while working toward a complete ban. It is not a reason to trash the idea of partial legislative action.

Keep in mind that what the council is proposing is not just an end to federal funding–it’s making research on embryos past a certain age illegal. The president has not even called for this. Sam Brownback hasn’t. The bishops themselves haven’t in any significant way been trying to do this.

The bishops also object to the proposal to make it illegal to clone an embryo with the intention of implanting it in a woman’s womb. They say this ban would not be enforceable–as of course it would not be, against a rogue scientist. It would, however, effectively prevent industries from arising out of certain kinds of biotechnological manipulation that the bishops themselves oppose.

In the interests of charity, let’s come up with an argument for the bishops’ position that they themselves do not articulate. Perhaps they are worried that the council’s proposals will undercut the momentum for more sweeping alternatives that they favor. But that clearly cannot be their reason for coming out against the date-certain proposal: Nobody has a stronger alternative. Nor is there strong momentum behind a stronger and better ban on human cloning.

The whole thing strikes me as a failure of political judgment.