Stem cell issue not so clear-cut

The conventional political wisdom in the capital these days is that congressional Republicans returning home this fall to run for re-election will be in big trouble with their voters because President Bush vetoed the stem cell bill Wednesday.

That might be true. But then again, it might not.

The thinking is that since polls showed a solid majority of Americans favored expansion of embryonic stem cell research to give hope to millions who suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes and spinal cord injuries, Bush’s veto would dash that hope. And, the standard thinking continues, angry voters will flock to the polls to punish his fellow Republicans, especially those who voted against the bill and to sustain the veto.

Fifty House Republicans and 19 in the Senate broke with the president on the bill.

Democrats, most of whom supported the bill, accept that thesis and vow to make the stem cell veto an issue from one end of the country to the other.

They wasted little time living up to the vow. Within hours of the veto, challengers to Republican incumbents were issuing press statements slamming their opponents’ votes.

“Opposing this legislation is tantamount to deliberately standing in the way of a cure that could help a child suffering from diabetes or a grandmother suffering from Alzheimer’s,” said Democrat Sherrod Brown, who is running against Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio.

If this issue is so clear-cut, why would anyone vote against it? It would seem like a no-brainer. But as is often the case, issues that appear to be black and white become grayer upon closer examination.

The bill would have expanded federal funding for researchers who use human embryonic stem cells in their studies. The embryos are destroyed in the research process. The president is opposed to that on moral grounds, a position he staked out in 2001 and hasn’t changed since. Here’s what he said in announcing the veto:

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it.”

To illustrate his point, he surrounded himself at the East Room announcement with a gaggle of adopted babies, all of whom were once frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments.

“These boys and girls are not spare parts,” Bush said. “They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”

Democrats already tested this issue in 2004 when Bush ran for re-election against Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Kerry made Bush’s stand on stem cells a major part of his campaign.

He used celebrity supporters such as Ron Reagan, son of the late president who suffered from Alzheimer’s, and the late actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed from the neck down in a riding accident, to help make his case for the promise of stem cell research.

Bush won the election.

Exit polls showed that just 8 percent of those who voted in 2004 said health care issues affected their choice. They broke 77 percent for Kerry.

Those same polls showed that 22 percent of those who voted said moral values affected their choice. They broke 80 percent for Bush.

This is not to say that in the fall elections moral concerns will trump health care concerns. Only that the stem cell issue, when examined more closely, is not as clear, politically, as it may seem.

And voters are smart enough to sort that out.