In July of last year, President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill that would have eased restrictions against funding programs that used stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The President said that the bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," and that "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." This was the first time that Bush used a veto during his term as president. Although Congress had more than enough votes to pass the bill, neither house had the necessary 2/3 majority to override the veto.
This has always been a tough issue for me. I won't get into where I stand on stem cell research, but it does make me think about when a veto should be used. In this case, who really should be relied on to measure the moral compass of the nation? The Presidents is elected by the entire nation, whose religious, ethic, moral, and political beliefs spread across the entire spectrum. The members of Congress are elected by a smaller sample, taken only from their states. Shouldn't they know where their constituents stand on an issue? I may not have an answer to this question.
1 comment:
This is a case where the religion of our president becomes an issue. Because Bush is a strict christian, he will do what his religion permits him to do even though things like stem cell research are very beneficial.
Post a Comment