Re: Lorin Wainwood’s June 22 letter, “Why make all pay for research?�:
Wainwood wrote that he didn't want his tax dollars used for embryonic stem-cell research and we were free to go to private companies if we wanted to give a living chance to loved ones affected with Parkinson’s, diabetes and other debilitating diseases.
Given the fact that private companies are driven by profit, we can be assured they will recover every dollar invested in research through the price of subsequent medications, therefore pricing most of us out of possible cures. I'd rather have a few dollars taken out of my taxes now than die later because I can't afford the medicine.
On another tax issue: The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that ordinary citizens can't challenge the courts regarding President Bush's faith-based initiative. Without approving the program, by giving us nowhere to go to challenge it, the court is putting its rubber stamp on it. I do give quite a lot to charity, as all Americans do, but how much I give and to whom is my business. As an atheist, I take offense that my tax dollars go to Christian organizations without my consent; I have given to some of them, but I don't like it imposed upon me. It offends my strong belief in the separation of church and state. I also oppose my tax dollars going toward the war in Iraq. Oops, I forgot, we are not paying for that — Bush is borrowing that money from China and Saudi Arabia.
Wainwood needs to understand we don't have an "a la carte" tax system. I often wish we had. We have to accept what the majority wants, and it wants federally funded embryonic stem-cell research.
— Françoise Dubois, Newbury Park
When was the vote taken that decided a majority of Americans want embryonic stem-cell research? I don't. Even aside from the moral issues, it's a stupid idea. There has already been privately funded embryonic stem-cell research and they found that these types of stem-cells create tumors. That is pretty much where that ended. There is no promise in embryonic stem-cells. Adult and cord blood stem cells have shown tons of promise. This is where we should be putting our money.
I'm glad that we have managed to offend your strong belief in Seperation of Church and State. As long as congress makes no law establishing a state religion we are well within the constitutional boundaries.
Randal, you've got these right wing talking points down pat. Randal says: "There has already been privately funded embryonic stem-cell research and they found that these types of stem-cells create tumors. That is pretty much where that ended. There is no promise in embryonic stem-cells." That is a false statement. I wish people could debate with facts instead of right wing spin.
I support all types of stem cell research, however, since the finding of a cure is up to the money making drug companies I can almost guarantee that NO cure will be found for any disease that can generate more money by long term meds verses a med that is a cure.
I support all types of stem cell research, however, since the finding of a cure is up to the money making drug companies I can almost guarantee that NO cure will be found for any disease that can generate more money by long term meds verses a med that is a cure.
I support all types of stem cell research, however, since the finding of a cure is up to the money making drug companies I can almost guarantee that NO cure will be found for any disease that can generate more money by long term meds verses a med that is a cure.
I support all types of stem cell research, however, since the finding of a cure is up to the money making drug companies I can almost guarantee that NO cure will be found for any disease that can generate more money by long term meds verses a med that is a cure.
When the Bush admin first starting holding the workshops on how to apply for faith-based funding, some of the PR material was on GOP letterhead.
and remember when the Salvation Army said they would give $10Million to the GOP if they would pass the bill excluding them from the civil rights requirement that they couldn't discriminate because of sexual orientation?
I think there are only 2 grants to groups that aren't christian.
Is this what we want?