We're not typically the ones you turn to when in need of Wing Nut Daily commentary, but this article fits in so nicely with today's happenings.

"Remember in June of 2001..."

Surplusses, doubling NIH budgets, clean air, viable forests, a respected foreign policy, Gary Condit...yeah, I remember.

"[President Bush] drew the line in the sand by saying no additional embryos would be destroyed for stem-cell research using our tax dollars."

That's it, sand. We've been drawing lines upon your kind in Iraq, and now it's time for this line to be drawn here: from now on, we only support research allowing women like Dr. Hollowell to produce copious embryos.

"It was supposed to be an acceptable compromise between opponents and proponents of this ethically challenged research."

Ethically chal...I've heard that phrase used recently...Speaking of ethics, Tom's against dismemberment of 100-cell stage embryos, it's just once they're out of the womb that it's OK.

"As predicted, proponents now claim the president's stem-cell policy is handcuffing our nation's top scientists, restricting medical research and holding back cures from our loved ones. They also claim that the stem-cell lines available for federal research dollars are inferior to the stem-cell lines created after August 2001."

ehhhrrr, yeah, we've been saying that for a while now. And with good reason that doesn't include fetus-oriented bloodthirst. But whatever, along comes this bill in the House:

"This has led to H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill is intended to overturn the Bush policy restricting government funding of ESCR. It is expected to come up for a vote in the House in the next two weeks. And according to D.C. insiders, it is also expected to pass with bipartisan support."

gasp! Bipartisan support? Treacherous Republicans! But wait, important new information coming in:

"News Flash – After 20 years of research, embryonic stem cells haven't cured a single lab rat. They haven't been used to treat people because the cells are unproven and unsafe. They tend to produce tumors, cause transplant rejection and form the wrong kinds of cells.

News Flash--if all the problems were solved we wouldn't need NIH money to figure things out.

"By stark contrast, adult stem cells have treated over 58 diseases in human patients in published clinical studies."

and, hey, that sort of research was funded by...uh, federally funded stuff. And you know where else they do research:

"Additionally, umbilical cord blood cells were used in South Korea to treat a woman who had been paralyzed for19 years. She can now walk with braces."

South Korea?!? Aren't they in the axis of evil, cloning subcommittee? One argument you hear over and over again, however, is that if these stem cells were so great, the free market would have already invested in this sort of research. Leaving aside that health-related research is generally viewed as a private-public partnership, Dr. Hollowell has a slightly different take on things:

"Big biotech wants patentable discoveries that will make them rich. Scientists simply want to conduct research unfettered by the ethical constraints. And abortionists don't want to lose any political ground for their cause, which demands the unborn be treated as an expendable commodity."

Whoa! Let me get this straight: it's immoral, and that's why government money shouldn't be used,

"But ESCR is unethical and unnecessary. That makes it a bad investment for our tax dollars."

but it won't produce results and that's why biotech isn't investing in stem cell research, but it will be profitable for biotech to collaborate with abortionists for the sake of murdering...

"First of all, the fetus is alive and human."

And if that wasn't enough to cloud your perception on the issue, there's this camel stuff she throws in at the end:

"Even though Bush's stem-cell policy was a decent compromise, it appears it let the nose of the camel into the tent, and camels don't generally walk backwards."