Senators push stem cell bill

WASHINGTON – In an emotional session marked by tales of death and hope, the Senate debated on Monday whether the government should pay for new embryonic stem cell research, pushing a measure to do it toward passage and President Bush’s first veto.

“He would veto the bill,” the White House declared in a written statement, underlining the words for emphasis.

That quieted speculation by supporters that Bush, perhaps persuaded by new science and strong public support for embryonic stem cell research, would reverse course and sign the legislation into law.

Though several Republican Senate leaders support the measure, many GOP lawmakers oppose it, as do conservative voters in a midterm election year.

“The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the president’s policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction,” the White House said.

Behind the scenes, former first lady Nancy Reagan lobbied lawmakers on the bill’s behalf. Her husband, President Reagan, died in 2004 after a long deterioration from Alzheimer’s disease, one of several illnesses that researchers say stem cell research might eventually cure.

“She is still restless on this issue,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. “We all know this debate has moved further down the road toward a hopeful conclusion because of her work.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a cancer survivor, said his disease is one of many that might be cured sooner with the engine of federal funding behind embryonic stem cell research.

Specter compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to space travel and landmark vaccinations “to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous.”

“There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a transplant surgeon whose negotiations permitted the bill to come to the floor after being stalled for a year, attributed the opposition to “fear (that) can also delay scientific advances that are out there before us.”

“We’ve got to work together to allow science to advance” within ethical boundaries, he said.