The new low.

[Michael Tee]

<<And yes, I think most Dept of Agriculture grants are stupid, I would not be opposed to limiting them.

<<Besides, limiting funding based on "we have X dollars to spend, so here is where we're going to spend them" is rational.>>

Apples and oranges.  It's one thing to withhold a grant because the project is stupid or because funds are limited, but the reasoning has to be rational and non-prejudicial.  You're still skating away from the fact that the essence of the ban on funding human fetal stem-cell research is based on religious doctrine.

[Amianthus]

You're still skating away from the fact that the essence of the ban on funding human fetal stem-cell research is based on religious doctrine.

The decision on which programs to fund is based on a previous funding decision that has, IIRC, already passed Supreme Court muster.

[Michael Tee]

<<The decision on which programs to fund is based on a previous funding decision that has, IIRC, already passed Supreme Court muster.>.

Which decision are you referring to and more importantly which court?

[Amianthus]

Which decision are you referring to and more importantly which court?

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)

That would make it the Burger court. 6-3 decision.

[Michael Tee]

Well, you seem to be correct, according to Wikipedia.  The court found on a 5-4 split that the anti-abortion funding provisions did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Just illustrates the need to get more liberals on that bench so 5-4 becomes 2-7.  And until then to vet the religious beliefs of candidates as carefully as their legal knowledge.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This whole thing started about the Juniorbush ban on federal funding for stemcell research, which was reportedly done for moral, not budgetary reasons.

[Amianthus]

The court found on a 5-4 split that the anti-abortion funding provisions did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

White also concurred with that opinion, so it was 6-3. From White's concurring opinion:

Maher held that the government need not fund elective abortions because withholding funds rationally furthered the State's legitimate interest in normal childbirth. We sustained this policy even though under Roe v. Wade, the government's interest in fetal life is an inadequate justification for coercive interference with the pregnant woman's right to choose an abortion, whether or not such a procedure is medically indicated. We have already held, therefore, that the interest balancing involved in Roe v. Wade is not controlling in resolving the present constitutional issue. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the straightforward analysis followed in MR. JUSTICE STEWART'S opinion for the Court is sound.

[Michael Tee]

Still basically a substantial body of judicial opinion on both sides of the issue.  The unassailable opinions are the unanimous ones, Brown v. Topeka for example.

All you've got on the abortion ban is the personal opinions of some judges trumping the personal opinions of others.

[Amianthus]

All you've got on the abortion ban is the personal opinions of some judges trumping the personal opinions of others.

And the judicial precedence that it is legal for the government to restrict funding for health care issues in whatever way that wish. This decision is binding for all lower courts.

[Amianthus]

This whole thing started about the Juniorbush ban on federal funding for stemcell research, which was reportedly done for moral, not budgetary reasons.

The decision stated that regardless of the reasons for the enactment of the funding ban (even if it's religious) there is no constitutional issue. Hyde's religion was brought up in the arguments.

[Michael Tee]

The message is, the court won't block stem-cell research, but it won't stop an administration from de-funding it on religious principles.

The solution is obvious:  Want scientific research to proceed without religious interference?  Vote Democrat.

Problem solved.

[Amianthus]

The solution is obvious:  Want scientific research to proceed without religious interference?  Vote Democrat.

How does voting Democrat give us an unlimited pool of funding?

[Michael Tee]

<<How does voting Democrat give us an unlimited pool of funding?>>

Huh? ? ? ?

How does allowing scientific research to proceed without religious interference equate to an unlimited pool of funding?

You'll have to run that one by me again, Ami.

[Amianthus]

How does allowing scientific research to proceed without religious interference equate to an unlimited pool of funding?

You'll have to run that one by me again, Ami.

There is a limited pool of funding, so a decision was made to apply funding in accordance with other funding mandates (no federal funding for abortions). To be able to apply funding for every possible research program, you would need an unlimited (or nearly so) supply of funds.

[kimba1]

but shouldn`t the real question be is what are the qualification of the people making the decisions ?
do they have a background in science(we should not assume they do)