Deal considered in U.S. stem cell debate - Is the body part via abortion business on the way out?

According to the UPI, James Battey, chairman of a stem cell task force within the National Institutes of Health, told the New York Times that scientists currently know of no way to derive human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, but is that really a completely honest answer and/or an honest portrayal of Battey's response - knowing that there are very recent stem cell advances that indicate embryonic stem cells are more than likely on the way out?

- UPI via Science Daily

As President Bush vows to veto any bill allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, some Republicans are reportedly considering a compromise.

The New York Times said the Congressional Republicans -- including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- are considering alternative legislation promoting new, unproven methods of obtaining stem cells without destroying embryos.

Such a bill might represent a compromise between a bill passed by the House to expand federal financing for stem cell research and the president's insistence to permit federal funding only for studies on existing embryonic stem cell lines.

(...) The House proposal would set aside taxpayer money for animal studies that might lead to methods of developing human embryonic stem cell lines.

(...) James Battey, chairman of a stem cell task force within the National Institutes of Health, told the Times scientists currently know of no way to derive human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.

Jimmy Battey either isn't very forward looking, isn't be up on recent advances in stem cell research, or the UPI(possibly via the NYT) didn't get the answer it wanted to hear and caged Battey's response in order to write negatively on the probable future lack of need for embryonic-derived stem cells. However, I'll put my money on Batey being up on the status of stem cell advances, and the UPI and the NYT doing a little caging. After all, Batey is quoted in a WAPO article entitled "Stem Cell Advances May Make Moral Issue Moot?" in which he is quoted as saying:

"That would really get around all the moral and ethical concerns," said James F. Battey, chief of the stem cell task force at the National Institutes of Health. The techniques under study qualify for federal grant support because embryos are not harmed, he noted. And eventually the work could boost the number of stem cell colonies, or lines, available for study by taxpayer-supported researchers."

Sounds like a gotcha to me, and it's another moonbat journalist, or their moonbat editor, that's off the mark ...

After all, we wouldn't want abortion mills to go without product to sell! Moonbats might not, but normal humans favor life over the killing of an unborn child.

Related:

Human fetal “donors” provide tissues, organs and body parts at US abortion clinics to industry, academic and research facilities across the nation and abroad. Although buying and selling of fetal remains in the US is prohibited by federal law, money changes hands between abortion providers, fetal harvesting firms and recipients of fetal remains. Clients requesting specific fetal remains were shown to prefer later term fetus subjects who are screened for ideal health in which the harvesting is done immediately after fetal death. One aborted human fetus can be marketed for multiple fetal matter to multiple clients. Some aborted human fetal subjects are delivered still alive post abortion at abortion clinics to fetal harvesting labs on the premises. The marketing of aborted fetal dopamine-producing brain tissue for treatment of Parkinson’s disease patients is but one small submarket in this new industry.

Posted July 15, 2005 5:01 AM