« Mysteries | Main | Just when I think... »
October 19, 2004
Big Tent Trumps Culture of Life
...again.
Schwarzenegger endorses Prop. 71
In a statement released today by the Office of the Governor, Schwarzenegger said, "I am, of course, a supporter of stem cell research. Research that we do now holds the promise of cures for tomorrow. California has always been a pioneer. We daringly led the way for the high-tech industry and now voters can help ensure we lead the way for the bio-tech industry. The creativity and resources are right here in California. We are the world's bio-tech leader and Prop. 71 will help ensure that we maintain that position while saving lives in the process. I encourage Californians to join me in voting for Prop. 71."
An interesting, contrarian op-ed from the SF Chronicle on the issue:
The $3 billion would be awarded and overseen by the so-called Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC) -- a 29-member group composed of representatives of California universities, nonprofit research institutions, private life science companies and disease advocacy organizations. The ICOC would have broad new powers to define the trajectory of human cloning technology (somatic cell nuclear transfer) over the next two decades. It would also rewrite ethical guidelines for human-subjects research and for allocating patents to the private sector.
This structure of governance is a recipe for trouble. When we mix big money, big science and new biotechnologies with the state, stronger mechanisms for public accountability are required.
Contrary to what its name suggests, the ICOC is neither "independent" of interest-group politics nor does it include any "citizen" members. Hard- driving university scientists, disease group advocates and private industry executives who will make up the ICOC all have vested interests in how the money is to be used. Scientists want to cure disease, but they may be focused on building institutes and generating papers. Companies want to make money, and charge the public high prices for therapies. Advocates for research on particular diseases, although they deserve to be at the table, do not represent the collective public interest when they battle to make their diseases the highest priority for the public.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83439eab853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Big Tent Trumps Culture of Life:
Comments
Of course, given the Gov's known pro-abortion stance, this comes as no surprise.
But the news from California is not all grim. After Mass this past Sunday, a local physician gave a moving and science-based talk on stem cells--embryonic and otherwise. She is the mother of 5, though one child died in infancy and another is unlikely to live beyond age 2.
Both of these children have or had a condition for which stem-cell therapy might hold promise. Yet their physician-mother stands firm.
So, pray for us out here--and if you live in California, get out and vote no on 71.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Oct 19, 2004 9:42:25 AM
Yet, next general election, California Catholics must vote for the Governor as uniformly as they now must support the President -- since, after all, he will not be as bad as the Democrat would be. Right?
Posted by: Celine at Oct 19, 2004 10:25:17 AM
I wonder if that's clear - that he wouldn't be as bad.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 10:31:55 AM
"Big tent trumps culture of life?"
Do tell.
Ignatius aka "This year's Willie Horton"
Posted by: Ignatius at Oct 19, 2004 10:35:28 AM
This sounds like the N.I.C.E.
Posted by: Sydney Carton at Oct 19, 2004 10:36:00 AM
I share this excerpt from a recent ZENIT interview with George Weigel on Pope John Paul II in light of the 26th anniversary of his pontificate....
ZENIT QUESTION: In a world that often has difficulty dealing with sickness or suffering, what lessons can we learn from the way in which the Pope is living with his physical limitations?
Weigel: The Pope is teaching the world that there are no disposable human beings: everyone counts, infinitely, from conception until natural death.
Are the late Christopher Reeve or Michael J. Fox the only people to whom we should look for counsel on embryo-destructive stem-cell research? Why not look at John Paul II, who has not arranged his convictions to accommodate his personal circumstances? Isn't his witness to the truth as compelling and forceful as the others'?
Posted by: ep at Oct 19, 2004 10:39:55 AM
ep: Amen!
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 10:41:44 AM
Just curious. Has anyone filed an episcopal suit charging the gropinator with scandal, as some wingnuts have done against John Kerry?
Did Pope Karl have anything to say during the recall election for his own Governor?
And does the gropinator receive Communion?
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 10:49:00 AM
Hey, Ig
The reference is to two ways various elements of the GOP likes to describe itself. Leadership has in the past trumpeted the "big tent" which accomodates the pro-lifers and pro-choicers, Prez goes on about how important the "culture of Life" is to him and, by implication, the GOP.
There you go.
Posted by: amy at Oct 19, 2004 10:54:48 AM
Being a happy denizen of Sodom-by-the-Sea (the San Francisco Bay Area), I was surprised to see the Chronicle essay on Prop 71. It's much more moderate than one would usually expect to read therein.
But, then, I do agree with them, so I'm not complaining.
The Arnold is a smooth carpetbagger, but his true persona has been coming out regularly recently. He'll go down in flames in the not-too-distant future.
But deny him the Eucharist? Come on, now ...he's a REPUBLICAN! He has a "pass" on these things ... didn't you know that? Silly people!
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Oct 19, 2004 11:06:11 AM
Right, JM. That's why Balestrieri has now added Susan Collins to his list - because GOPers have a pass. Sheesh.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 11:07:45 AM
Sweet Jesus Kevin, do you really consider Susan Collins anything other than a Republican in Name Only? A Republican front group (Citizens for Sound Economy or some such drivel) actually ran an ad against her with a French flag waiving in the background. She's as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat.
If this lowlife was non-partisan, he'd go after Guiliani, or Pataki, or the gropinator (you know, someone who actually got a primetime spot at the Republican National Convention).
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 11:10:43 AM
Esqire,
It's just "Kevin." Not "Sweet Jesus Kevin." My parents had better sense than that.
And many of us GOPers don't think Guiliani or (especially) Pataki or Ahnuld are much more than RINOs, either.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 19, 2004 11:17:46 AM
Kevin, they're the frontrunner for the next nomination (the gropinator only if Orrin Hatch follows through on his promise to try to amend the Constitution).
By the reasoning on this board, they are, however, Catholics in Name Only. But we haven't heard much about that.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 11:19:34 AM
Esquire,
I think on this board, the presidential election is the focus right now. I think during the GOP convention there was plenty of conversation about Arnold, Pataki, Guiliani and the like.
Probably more discussion about them than discussion we hear from you about the humanity of unborn kids.
Which is part of the reason why your posts are getting really, really boring.
Posted by: jen at Oct 19, 2004 11:25:58 AM
Hey Esq, remember to have a soft boiled egg with your Kerry toast on Nov 3d! ;)
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 11:47:21 AM
Wel perhaps the presidential election is the focus, but here in California we have a senatorial cadidate (Barbara Boxer) who makes John Kerry look pro life. Yet, I suspect that me, John Hearn and about three other people will vote agaisnt her.
Posted by: Joe McFaul at Oct 19, 2004 12:00:08 PM
Here's hoping the word "one-termer" describes Schwarzenegger's political career.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 19, 2004 12:06:12 PM
Esq.,
Let me get this straight. When Catholics criticize pro-abort Democrats, they're partisan. When Catholics criticize pro-abort Republicans, they're really going after Democrats, so they're still partisan.
When you flip a coin, are your rules "heads I win, tails you lose"?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 19, 2004 12:09:34 PM
Hey Joe, I forgot that you are a fellow Golden Stater! What do you make of Barb's ads making her look like some nice cookie-baking grandma? I wonder why she bothers as I have yet to hear from her opponent - I can't even remember his name! Maybe she's angling for a spot on Kerry's cabinet.
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 12:15:22 PM
Shwarzenegger is truly miserable on the pro-life and stem cell issues. As a Catholic he should be denied communion for his embrace of the culture of death. I trust that the Democrats in California will run a pro-life candidate against him when he runs for re-election. (I suspect I will die of old age before that happens.)
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 19, 2004 12:24:28 PM
Well, I'm just trying to be a really, really serious Catholic. And Pope Karl tells me that to be a really, really serious Catholic, things like stem cell research are "non-negotiable". And he even bought alot of space in USA Today to remind me about that. So I'm wondering about the deafening silence about the Catholic presiding over perhaps the State with the most abortions per year, who also endorses state funding for ESCR. I'm just wondering. So I can be serious.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 19, 2004 1:08:33 PM
Esquire,
When you show that you're serious about the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and not just about making silly debaters points, then I'll know that you're serious indeed.
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 19, 2004 1:29:40 PM
I hope Esquire doesn't go into deep shock, but I think he's basically right on this. If, as I believe, receipt of the Eucharist by a pro-abortionist both desecrates the sacrament and misleads the public about Catholic moral teaching, then the evil is just as grave when done by a Republican. The argument that Kerry is running for POTUS and that his derelictions are therefore worse can only take us so far. After all, Republican Catholic offenders include the governor of the nation's largest state, the former mayor of its largest and most important city (also a potential candidate for POTUS), the governor of New York (ditto) and the head of the Homeland Security Department (to name only a few). We ain't talking county commissioners here, folks. And what about Deal Hudson's statement that the Eucharistic embargo should "begin and end with Kerry?" That position simply cannot be explained in terms of reverence for the Sacrament or concern for the Church's integrity. If we Catholic Republicans keep looking the other way about this stuff, it seems to me that we need not complain when others question our bona fides.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Oct 19, 2004 1:38:52 PM
I am not a commen poster here although I read this site everyday.
I Just wanted to say that I might be a registered Republican but I did not vote for Arnold, my vote isn't tied to my political party.... Prolife issues are at the top of my list. I have a whole conspiracy theroy about Aronld running for office. Anyways, Joe McFaul, you can add me to your list of No on Boxer voters.
Posted by: Cali Girl at Oct 19, 2004 1:50:53 PM
