Life issues are not ‘ideology’

Many who favor President Barack Obama’s executive order to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research hailed it this week as a triumph of science over a narrow brand of faith-based politics.

But many see the president’s action as deeply troubling and flawed, and most certainly a decision placing politics over morality and good science.

While Candidate Obama made it clear that he favored embryonic research, he also spoke repeatedly about listening to all sides before making critical decisions that can divide Americans.

In speech after speech, he emphasized the point that, even if one disagrees with any of his ultimate decisions, one should feel confident that various points of concern had been taken into account before he made his decision.

So it’s particularly troubling to hear that the president has, in the words of Sen. Edward Kennedy, achieved “an extraordinary medical breakthrough with the stroke of a pen,” yet has broken another promise made to those who voted for him.

On March 9 the president pledged that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” as if concerns about life issues are nothing but political arguing points. This philosophy suggests that science can operate without any moral or ethical compass, and that the means always justify the end.

But what the president labels an ideology is most often a reflection of the deeply-held moral convictions of many Americans.

When the president on Jan. 23 reversed the so-called Mexico City policy denying federal funding to organizations that promote abortions abroad, he offended not only Americans who don’t want to fund a procedure they find morally objectionable. He also risked alienating foreigners who don’t like Americans undermining their societies’ moral values.

With his Feb. 27 decision to remove federal regulations allowing for medical professionals to refrain from participating in abortions on conscientious and moral grounds, our new president not only turned a deaf ear to those who fundamentally believe all human life is worthy of the government’s protection. He also made it more difficult for those who are offended by abortion to continue their careers in secular health care institutions.

Hopefully, many on Capitol Hill may still understand the importance of keeping a moral component in our nation’s science policy. The Congress may continue to limit embryonic research to existing cell lines and prevent the destruction of additional embryos, and give even more funding to the non-embryonic stem-cell research that has already proven so promising.

These actions would be real ways of funding science over ideology.