Comments

This is an example of a technically correct report creating a completely false impression.

This is NOT Pres. OBAMA's council. They were appointed in 2001 by Pres. BUSH. No wonder they disagree!

So, while their term expires later this year and they are still officially part of the "President's Council," it is completely misleading to report their objections without telling who they really are. See this post on National Review Online.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRiZWQ1NmI0NzA5YjJlZmEzNzkzMzNhYWUxZjA0MzE=

Christian lawyer,

I agree that this report would have been better if Sarah had identified that Bush appointed them (though I figured that to be the case anyway). But you have failed to address whether their objections are accurate in themselves and instead have attempted to undermine their position through a sort of guilt by association tactic. That is unworthy of you.

Stan

Stan -- contrary to popular opinion, just because I'm a lawyer does not mean I have an opinion on everything. It's not unworthy. What's unworthy is when the blogger doesn't correct the post so that readers have to scroll down the comments to find the truth.

I didn't comment on whether the objections are accurate or not because I think they are probably a little of both. But, it's not "undermining their position" or "guilt by association" to ask that they be properly identified. "President's Council" sure sounds like it was appointed by President Obama, and actually the h/t that the author gave to the Emily Belz post actually incprrectly states that it was "President Obama's Council." Now, it would be surprising if it had actually been President Obama's "Council," but, as I said, it's not so surprising that some of those who drafted Pres. Bush's policy now object when Pres. Obama changes the policy.

As to the substance, my recollection is that the Council is technically correct that Pres. Bush did not "ban" federal funding of embryonic stemm cell research but that, due to the degraded nature of the existing stem cell lines, there were many fewer lines available and so the Bush policy came very close to a ban in effect. Why doesn't CT do some actual reporting on this rather than just posting one side of the story.

Christian lawyer,

All that you have said has been extensively reported elsewhere. We see CT's role as reporting info and perspectives not readily available elsewhere. I agree this post could have been better, and you did readers a service to point out where we fell short in providing the context in this instance. Now I would like you to apply the same scrutiny, as a Christian lawyer, to some of the policies of our pro-choice president.

Stan

Stan -- First you say it's unworthy of me to have not commented on whether the objections were correct. Then I give you my perspective and you're bored because that's all been reported elsewhere. The whole stem cell issue has been reported on at length, so the Council's concerns are nothing new either. But if CT is going to wade into the debate on this issue by merely summarizing the Council's words without perspective, how is that useful, especially without all the relevant facts? Why can't the post be corrected, or updated, or clarified, or however you'd like to phrase it? I'm a reader. CT should do the reporting on this and on Pres. Obama's policies, not me.

And, you don't address the substance of my objection to the Council's objections, which is just the same as my objection to this article -- that while it's technically true, it is materially misleading. If you did that in a commercial transaction, it could amount to fraud if you knew or were reckless in not knowing the complete truth. At the very least, in this context, it's unprofessional.

Christian lawyer,

No, what the council has said is new. I find it remarkable that you are bored that because this council was appointed by Bush that it has nothing to say to Obama. It is still the president's council, even though we have changed presidents. You seem to be saying that what it says is entirely political and has nothing to do with bioethics because of who appointed it. I don't believe that is the case, especially since the objections were at least partly over the factually erroneous or misleading statements of Obama.

Again, I find your own emphasis on this disappointing, to say the least. It seems to be: because Obama didn't appoint them, he doesn't have to listen to them. That's like saying because I didn't vote for Obama I don't have to consider him my president. There is a certain dignity and authority in the office, don't you think?

This will be my last post on this item, but I sure hope that you will focus on the actual substance of what Obama is doing. Regarding correcting or updating this item, I think your comments have done that, but I will mention it to Sarah and see what needs to be done.

Stan

Stan, your ability to misstate my point in an effort to create a strawman argument is remarkable. I DID comment on what Pres. Obama has done. You just completely ignored it (twice).

As I said, he used imprecise language (that Pres. Bush had "banned" federal funding of embryonic stem cell research) to point to an essential truth (because of how few existing lines were available and of how degraded they were, there were really almost no cells available for use, resulting in essentially a "de facto" ban). The Council, without acknowledging the actual facts, merely claimed Pres. Obama made a false statement. While they were technically correct (there was no "ban"), they gave a false impression (that there were in fact a meaningful number of stem cell lines available on which to do federally funded research).

All in all, I'll take the imprecise but essentially true statement by the President over the technically true but essentailly false statement by the Council. Thus, I'm not ignoring them because they were appointed by Pres. Bush. I'm saying their statements were essentially false and so they should be disregarded. And, given Pres. Bush's unfamiliarity with the truth, especially as it relates to matters of science, the fact that they made false statements, given their provenance, is not a big surprise.

I believe Pres. Obama's change in policy is likely the right decision. And, that decision is not yet finalized. I'll wait to see what the NIH comes up with for guidelines.

And, if you're asking whether I agree with other decisions made by Pres. Obama, well, yes, I do -- I agree with (i) the repeal of the Mexico City policy (the money cannot be used for abortion as that is prohibited by federal law just as Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using their federal funding here to provide abortions and, no, giving them money for one thing does not support the rest of their mission, otherwise the faith-based initiatives would be unconsitutional support for religion), (ii) the repeal of Pres. Obama's last-minute so-called "conscience" rules because sufficient rules have been in place (and, contrary to your blog post, remain in place) for more than 40 years even after repeal of the new and unnecessary rules) and people shouldn't take jobs they don't feel commfortable doing -- just like I chose not to become a prosecutor because I oppose the death penalty. and (iii) I believe repeal of Roe v. Wade is one of the least effective ways to reduce abortion and will cause more harm than good. See Saturday's NYT's article on abortion in Brazil. Despite it being illegal, estimates are that about 1 MILLION are performed illegally EACH YEAR. Perhaps the pro-life community should face facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/americas/28brazil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=brazil%20abortion&st=cse

And, yes, I believe all these are all consistent with my Christian beliefs. Christianity is much bigger than your little slice of it. CT has no progressive voice on your staff and you treat even Rev. Jim Wallis, who by no means is a liberal, as some sort of mutant space alien. See your snarky "One Cheer for Jim Wallis" as a prime example. CT treats the Episcopal Bishop Jeffers Schori like she's the Pied Piper of Hell.

And, if Sarah Pulliam thinks the Obama Administration has been "in your face" on the abortion issue, she needs to get out more. Fred Phelps is in your face. Code Pink is (somewhat less, since they're not ad hominem attacks) in your face. Pres. Obama quietly signed executive orders putting us back to where we were under previous Democratic administrations. The vast majority of Americans support family planning and stem cell research. I don't need to "scrutinize" what he did. I've read all about it, in great detail, and I agree with it. Why doesn't CT write articles about Christian theologians who agree with Pres. Obama's policies. Then if I disagreed, I could comment. Again, not my job to do your reporting. I'm just a reader.

Stan says "All that you have said has been extensively reported elsewhere."

Perhaps that is true, but when I read the "headline" in my e-mail it certainly clearly stated "President's . . . Bioethics Council" and as far as I know we only have one president at a time; therefore, I presumed it was a council appointed by President Obama. Until I read the comments I continued to think that. I have only recently subscribed, so like many others, this is the first time I have read the comments. Do not presume what people know or do not know or what they have read or have not read.

Many,many women have spontaneous abortions. Is using the stem cells from these embryo somehow different from a heart transplant?

Fight nice, children.