Decision ‘08

Did Bill Frist Betray His Principles?

Did he misrepresent himself to pro-lifers? In a word, no.

With a touchy issue like embryonic stem cell research, our passions sometimes obscure reality. When I review the remarks of Bill Frist on the floor of the Senate, I find it even more difficult to credit the proposition that he has somehow sold out. An excerpt:

…Adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds — while embryonic stem cell research is. Right now, to derive embryonic stem cells, an embryo — which many, including myself, consider nascent human life — must be destroyed. But I also strongly believe — as do countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors — that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.
I’ll come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I believe today — as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the establishment of current policy — that the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.

Let me read to you my 5th principle as I presented it on this floor four years ago:

No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7847).

I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that consent should be granted under a careful and thorough federal regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds within accepted ethical bounds.

My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined in 2001 (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851) are as follows:

1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research;
2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation;
3. Ban Human Cloning;
4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding;
5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded;
6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process;
7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines;
8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System;
9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical Review;
10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research Restrictions.

That is what I said four years ago, and that is what I believe today. After all, principles are meant to stand the test of time — even when applied to a field changing as rapidly as stem cell research.

This is from CNN on July 18, 2001:

Bush is being urged to allow federal funding for the research by such anti-abortion political figures as Nancy Reagan, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, and now the very influential Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.
Q: What is the effect of Frist’s announcement of his support for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: Frist’s announcement Wednesday in support of federal funding for embryonic stem cell studies will have a huge impact on the debate and perhaps on Bush’s decision. Frist was a top heart and lung transplant surgeon before joining Congress, and as the only physician in the Senate he is the GOP “go-to” man for all issues relating to health care policy.

The Tennessee Republican is a key political ally of Bush. Frist was Bush’s liaison to the Senate during his presidential campaign and is in charge of the committee to elect Republicans to the Senate. On medical policy he is arguably the most influential Republican in the country. Just last month Frist led the charge for the White House on patients’ rights legislation.

Although Frist’s office and the White House said the Tennessee senator’s announcement was not coordinated, he has so much influence as a doctor steeped in science and as an anti-abortion lawmaker that he hopes, and most believe, that his opinion will sway Bush.

Q: What do conservatives say about the influence of Frist’s announcement?

A: Conservatives who have been fighting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research concede Frist’s announcement was a major blow to their cause. Republican Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, both of whom consider such research to be the taking of a human life, admit Frist’s support makes their fight much harder, if not nearly impossible.

Why? Because conservatives who have been afraid to come out in favor of funding such research now have the political cover do to so because of the weight Frist carries on this issue.

Q: What did Frist say in announcing his support for the research?

A: Part of the reason Frist’s decision has such an impact is because of the detailed conditions put on his support for the controversial studies. The Tennessee Republican issued 10 principles he said must go hand-in-hand with any taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research. Those conditions, meant as a compromise approach, are set to allay many of the ethical and moral concerns people have with using human embryos for research.

Frist’s principles include banning human cloning and allowing taxpayer dollars for research only on embryos created for in-vitro fertilization and not from abortions. The only way the embryos can be used, according to Frist’s proposed guidelines, would be if donors have already decided to discard them and have approved their use in research.

I can’t see how his position could be stated with any more clarity than that…

15 Responses to “Did Bill Frist Betray His Principles?”

1 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 31st, 2005 at 6:13 pm
I have never been proud of or happy about Bill Frist… until right now. He has acted with the sort of principle that might make me actually think about voting for him, something I couldn’t have done even a week ago.
2 fatman Says:
July 31st, 2005 at 11:39 pm
To continue where I started on the other thread:

Dennis, I don’t vote Republican or Democrat. I vote for that candidate who most closely adheres to my political agenda. Of course you sometimes have to compromise or vote for the lesser of two evils (as I did twice for Bush the Elder and twice again for Bush the Younger). But there are some issues for which there can be no compromise. This is one of them.

As to whether Frist has betrayed the Republican party and it’s history and principles, I don’t care, though I would say yes, at least since Roe v. Wade. He has definitely betrayed the pro-life movement, which he’s been courting in his attempt to become a viable presidential candidate and I promise you that won’t soon be forgotten, at least by me. And yes, I know that the late Paul Coverdale was pro-abortion when he was elected to the Senate from Georgia in 1994. And the Christian Right and pro-life groups help put him there because he was the lesser of two evils, and at least he was up front about his views (unlike Frist). That was their decision. I personally would have boycotted that race.

As for Frist’s ten “principles”, does anyone want to start a pool on the likelihood of them being enacted into law in their entirety? Or another pool on how long it will take for some ivory-tower-living test tube pusher to decide that the ones that have been enacted are too restrictive and work to have them repealed or declared unconstitutional or just ignored altogether?

Now I don’t know if Frist really believes in his ten “principals” or if he’s just trying to eat his cake and have it too. And I don’t really care. He showed leadership skills akin to those of Jimmy Carter during the judicial filibuster mess and I probably wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. This just makes it definite. And (I hope) drives a stake through the heart of his presidential aspirations, cuts off it’s head and stuffs garlic into it’s mouth (the traditional way to kill a vampire).
3 Mark Coffey Says:
July 31st, 2005 at 11:54 pm
fatman, I take it you’re unhappy with the decision? Just kidding…I respect your opinion. My only point throughout is that Frist didn’t betray his principles, he’s been upfront about where he stands for four years. In other words, I don’t take issue with people being upset with him…but I do with the notion that he has ’sold out’.
4 algiga Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 1:55 am
One of the things I most admire abt the US political system is that people elected do seem to do a better job at standing up for issues they believe in even if they go against party policy. I don’t know the ins and outs of Frist’s background or of any realpolitik reasons for his choice. What i do know is that in countries with a westminster system, like Australia and the UK, people are expected to always follow party line. Which to me makes a mockery of the whole voting system. Occasionally, they are allowed to give a “conscience vote” which frees them from the obligations of party line. In Australia the current PM has practically outlawed such a vote in his party. I always wondered what is the point of having candidates representing you if they don’t have any independence. Why not just vote for party tickets. Whilst it can be argued that Frist’s decision is courageous or a betrayal, depending on your ideology, in Oz it would just be branded political suicide. No chance for him to be preselected for the next elections.
5 Mark Coffey Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 2:45 am
Interesting points - are you one of our Australian friends? I didn’t know that, if so…I must say, I do love the Aussies. Only thing I would add is Frist very well may have committed political suicide…we’ll see.
6 fatman Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 6:05 am
Mark:

Okay, so he read his ten “principals” into the Congressional Record. In the middle of July. Four years ago. Two months before 9/11. When he was still a relatively obscure senator from Tennessee, not the majority leader. I for one had never heard of them before this. And I like to think that while I’m not exactly a political junkie, I do keep up with new developments, especially with hot-button issues like the pro-life movement.

I also got the impression (correct me if I’m wrong) that Frist’s ten “principals” came as a bit of a surprise to you as well. If I’m right and neither one of us ever heard of Frist’s exceptions to the pro-life rule, imagine the surprise of pro-lifers who don’t follow it as closely as you or I might. Pro-lifers that Frist has been courting for the last four years in his bid to become President.

One final question: where in his ten “principals” does Frist talk about funding for umbilical stem cell research? It was my understanding (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that this was the most promising area of research, well ahead of adult or embryonic stem cell research.
7 Mark Coffey Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 12:32 pm
fatman, you’re correct; I had never heard of his ten principles. I also must confess my ignorance of the facts regarding umbilical stem cell research…by the way, please don’t think I’m attacking your position; I’m just attacking the ‘Frist has no principles and he’s a traitor’ talk I’m hearing from some quarters…
8 Dennis Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Fatman, I can certainly understand voting on principle, and I don’t blame you for not wanting to vote for Frist for that reason. I wouldn’t want to vote for him for president either, but that’s mostly because I think he’s a lousy leader.

But the thing that particularly bugs me is the bandying about of words like “traitor.” My goodness, we’re fighting an honest-to-goodness war these days, with young American men and women getting shot at by people who want to see our entire nation destroyed. Let’s reserve words like “traitor” for people like Johnny Walker Lindh. Using to describe opponents in an intraparty dispute, as Redstate did, cheapens the term.
9 fatman Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Mark:

I didn’t take your reply to my comment as an attack; if it seemed like I was counter-attacking, it’s just that I do tend to get a little worked up on the subject. Sorry.

Dennis:

While I agree that the word “traitor” should not be used indiscriminately (particularly in time of war), I honestly cannot think of a word that more accurately describes what Frist did. To lead us (the pro-life movement) on while quietly holding a position that is anathema to most of us…

I’m starting to splutter. Time to take a happy pill and do a weather check.
10 Mark Coffey Says:
August 1st, 2005 at 10:31 pm
fatman, it’s all good; we’re friends here and can disagree civilly (unlike certain other people who have hijacked my blog to make the same point over and over again about what a lying coward I am)…
11 Andy Says:
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I’m pretty much in line with fatman. There are 3 types of stem cells and as he pointed out USC is the one going like gangbusters.

I was asking earlier just what is it that Frist is espousing, well now I have his 10 principles. On the face of it - fine and reasonable.

However, if history is any indication (abortion - we went from 1st trimester in the beginning to partial birth), if we ‘give’ an inch on ESC, the slippery slope is that sooner or later the marked-for-discard ESCs won’t be enough and we’ll start hearing and seeing the push to include created-for-research/therapy ESCs.

Slightly OT, anyone see The Island? Classic example of slippery slope for cloning. Considering the underlying political message, no wonder the film isn’t doing so great as there are parallels to ESC & abortion. In my book, a good movie
12 Mark Coffey Says:
August 2nd, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Andy, haven’t seen it - it’s got a political undertone, you say?…
13 Andy Says:
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:46 pm
A cautionary tale of cloning. Do you really want me to spoil the plot?

There’s two halves: the hi-tech action comes in the second half, some good, some low budget in terms of props. IOW, they want us to think it’s in 2050 and apparently the props director misread it as 2005 and supplied a bunch of product placement for 2005/06 vehicles

I can say it’s well worth the matinee price.
14 Mark Coffey Says:
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Andy, I think it’s that the props director thinks the current crop of products is absolute perfection and thus will be maintained far into the future…
15 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » A Candidate Preview Says:
August 28th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]