Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 
"President Bush has reaffirmed his support for a ban on human cloning and other policies that deserve support in their own right. However, the trade-off he has announced is morally unacceptable. The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for possible benefit to others. However such a decision is hedged about with qualifications, it allows our nation’s research enterprise to cultivate disrespect for human life.

"Researchers who want to pursue destructive embryo research and their allies in Congress have already rejected such limits, saying that these limits will interfere with efforts to turn embryonic stem cell research into possible medical treatments. The President’s policy may therefore prove to be as unworkable as it is morally wrong, ultimately serving only those whose goal is unlimited embryo research.

"We hope and pray that President Bush will return to a principled stand against treating some human lives as nothing more than objects to be manipulated and destroyed for research purposes. As we face a new century of powerful and sometimes even frightening advances in biotechnology, we must help ensure that our technical advances will serve rather than demean our very humanity." Contact: Sr. Mary Ann Walsh - 202/541-3000

Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum  
"President Bush made the wrong decision morally, scientifically, legally, and politically by approving federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

"Embryonic stem cell research in the name of the ‘greatest public good’ is wrong. It is unworthy of this great nation. Human beings at the earliest stage of development deserve respect and protection by virtue of their humanity.

"Did he have an alternative? Yes. President Bush could have chosen only to support ethical stem cell research, which has proven more successful scientifically. Over 11,000 babies are born every day in the United States. Parents can now choose to preserve their child’s umbilical cord blood, which is rich in stem cells. If every parent made this decision, every human being would then have a supply of stem cells available to treat future ailments or disease.

"In 1995, Congress outlawed federal funding for ‘research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death.’ The law is quite clear. Yet, President Bush embraced the Clintonian interpretation that, if private funds were used to kill the embryos, then federal funds can be used to conduct research on their remains. Congress should immediately reinforce the 1995 law to ensure that all embryos will be protected from facing a death sentence in the name of experimental research, regardless of who pays for it." Tel: 202/544-0353 -- Fax: 202/544-547-6996 -- E-Mail: eagle@eagleforum.org

Ken Connor, President of Family Research Council 
"The impact of [Bush’s] decision on the fate of hundreds of thousands of embryos and on progress toward medical treatments will not be clear for months or even decades. Its impact on the character of his presidency, however, is clear now: he has made a breach of faith in the service of an untenable compromise.

"Embryo research advocates are already challenging the President’s numbers. They say that there are far fewer stem cell lines in existence than his estimate of 60. They know that once the principle is given away, we are only haggling over the price. If 30 more stem cell lines are created in the private sector by killing human embryos in the next six months, the federal government will not have been ‘involved’ in their demise either. On what principle will the President refuse to authorize use of these fresher human cells?

"At the end of the day, however, this issue has never been about the quantity or sequence of embryo destruction and experimentation. It has been about this principle: can a human being cease to have value for himself or herself and merely become a means to preserve life and health for others? The stage of development of these human beings renders them especially vulnerable, but it does not alter their status or the grave import of the President’s decision.

"For 3,000 years, the first rule of medicine has been ‘Do No Harm.’ By abandoning that rule, the President has helped to usher in a new era marked by the philosophy that the ends justify the means. The new modus operandi for medicine will be ‘kill to cure.’ This was the ethos of Dr. Mengele, who experimented on doomed twins at Auschwitz.

"For seven months now we have called upon the President to honor his pledge -- the commitments made by his party’s platform and his own campaign -- to protect innocent human life. His change of course will forever be a blot upon his record in office. Thursday night could have been the President’s finest hour. Instead, the sinister lights of perverted science are burning a little brighter." Contact: Genevieve Wood or Kristen Hansen -- 202/624-3017

Dr. Jack Willke, President, of Life Issues Institute 
"Life Issues Institute is deeply disappointed with President Bush’s concession on the life and death issue of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This so-called compromise condones what was deliberate killing of embryonic children to harvest their stem cells for unproven research." Tel: 513/ 729-3600

Dr. Alan Keyes, Chairman of The Declaration Foundation 
"The President's actions included one crucially important good. He absolutely had to resist pressure to fund, and hence approve, the immediate destruction of embryonic human life, and he did resist this pressure for now. But the statement, and the decision to fund the exploitation of the tiny bodies of those already destroyed, are deep disappointments to the pro-life cause. If this decision, and especially its rationale, are embraced as a victory by the leaders of that cause, they will have put their own principles on the path to extinction."

"Mr. Bush seemed to accept the notions that we should make these decisions based on some calculus of cost-benefits instead of on a clear understanding of principle, and that it is licit to eat the fruit of the poisoned tree. It is a well-understood principle in our law that if you have obtained a profit by violating a person's rights, you may not keep your ill-gotten gains. But the President violated this principle by approving the use of stem cells that have come from what he called, 'life and death decisions already made,' as if, somehow, the injustice is lessened by the fact that 'the decisions already made' were made by somebody else. From now on, this government will encourage research that is only possible if human lives are, or have been, intentionally destroyed. This will create an environment of mounting pressure to go forward down this unprincipled path." Contact: Mike Murphy - Tel: 202/544-9555

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) 
"I am disappointed that the President has decided to use stem cells from killed human embryos. They have been unethically acquired, and should not be used for science. Although we use the voluntarily donated organs of accident victims, we do not use the organs of murder victims for science."[Emphasis added] "Many Americans have already been helped by adult stem cells. No one has yet been helped by embryonic stem cells, and may never be. He should have made this clear." http://www.house.gov/pitts

Wendy Wright, Director of Communications for Concerned Women for America 
"The President’s position contradicts the Nuremberg Code, ethical guidelines set down after World War II, which prohibits experimentation that knowingly causes injury or death to humans. We should be horrified at the prospect of participating in research on embryos who were deliberately killed for the same reason that we are horrified that the gold fillings were taken from the teeth of Holocaust victims. The President forgot that one dimension of respect for life is respect for the remains of the dead.

"The President has embraced the hair-splitting logic of the previous Administration, in pretending that it is wrong to conduct experiments on someone you killed yourself, but right to do so on someone who has been killed by another. The critical moral question is not who killed the victim, but rather shall we profit from that killing?" 202/488-7000 -- Fax: 202/488-0806

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) [An Advocate for Research on Human Embryos] (USA-Today, 8/10-01) 
He said if Bush’s decision means research on embryonic stem cells will go forward, even with limits, "I would back him in a minute." "If he goes that far, we’ve got him," said McDermott, a psychiatrist. "The push of science will push open the door."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) 
"The proposal to allow federal funding for experimentation on stem cells obtained through the destruction of living human embryos is a mistake." "Allowing the use of stem cells obtained from human embryos to receive federal funding, however limited or defined, opens a new door that may prove difficult to close." "As the author of the responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001 (H.R. 2096), I remain confident that science will continue to show that stem cells obtained from non-embryonic sources, including umbilical cord blood, placentas and plentiful adult tissues, are the quickest, most promising and only ethical route to achieve significant medical advances." Contact: Peter Dickenson -- 202/225-376

Gary Bauer, President of Campaign for Working Families 
"Here is the central dilemma in what Bush has done. By supporting taxpayer subsidies for embryonic stem cell research from human embryos that have already been killed, he has planted the time bomb that will likely result in the pro-life side losing the debate. Let’s assume the funding is provided, and six months from now a researcher announces: Yes, indeed embryonic stem cells do cure Parkinson’s disease. At that point the demand to kill tens of thousands of human embryos from the utilitarian crowd will be overwhelming and the moral high ground will already have been surrendered." Tel: 703/671-9700

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) House Majority Leader 
"The President was right to prohibit federal funding to harvest and create new human embryos for research. But I am concerned that allowing taxpayer dollars to fund existing embryonic research may diminish respect for the sanctity of human life. We must not lose sight of the non-embryonic stem cell research that will avoid these moral and ethical dilemmas." Contact: Terry Holt or Greg Crist -- 202/225-6007

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) 
"I fully support the President’s decision not to use federal funds for the killing of human embryos to acquire stem cells, but cannot, and will not, support a Trojan horse proposal that opens the door to federally funded research on human embryos. I recognize the many competing and passionate interests on both sides of this issue, but a true commitment to human life cannot be applied on a case-by-case basis. To that end, I am disappointed with the President’s decision to initiate federally funded embryonic stem cell research. It is morally and ethically wrong, and I will continue to oppose it." Contact: Brian Walsh -- 202/225-2931

Judicial Watch 
"Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, expressed grave disappointment in President Bush’s decision to break his September 22, 2000 campaign pledge to oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

"President Bush’s decision to spend American taxpayer’s money to promote research of previously ‘developed’ embryonic ‘stem cell lines,’ is being cast by some as a crafty political dodge of a difficult ethical issue, and by others as a ‘Solomonic’ compromise. Judicial Watch sees the Bush decision as yet another concession to supporters of ghoulish experimentation on human beings, all in the name of science and technology. Rather than taking this opportunity to stop or even reverse the past 30 years of abuse against the unborn, President Bush gave the American public an eleven-minute dissertation on moral relativism.

"The President’s plan for controlling and monitoring how America’s tax dollars for stem cell research are used provides an incentive for researchers to expand their experiments and justify the ‘need’ for more embryos to be destroyed." Tel: 888-JW-ETHIC - Fax: 202-646-5199

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) 
"I am uncomfortable with the perception that embryos can be viewed as property as opposed to human life. . . . I am pro-stem cell research, just not the kind that takes a life -- such as umbilical cord and placental blood cells and adult stem cell sources. I am very committed to funding this type of research. In fact, I have supported recent legislation by Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey to add $30 million to adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells are currently being used to treat patients with many diseases such as juvenile diabetes, ovarian cancer, and leukemia." "The bottom line is: we all want to see cures and treatments for infants, children and adults who suffer from these various diseases. However, when we don’t have to destroy life in the process, why should we?" Contact: Wade Newton -- 202/226-7602

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD 
"I am troubled that the President’s decision to fund research into existing stem cell lines amounts to an inappropriate reward to those who willfully destroyed embryos to produce these stem cell lines." God creates all life. Our nation’s medical advances must always respect, not destroy life." Contact: Lisa Wright or Sallie Taylor -- 202/225-2721

Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight, Carl Anderson 
"The Knights of Columbus can only express its deepest disappointment over President Bush’s decision. This decision to fund such research is all the more baffling in that ethical avenues to pursue this research -- avenues that all can agree upon -- are available with adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research has proved highly successful and is proving to be as valuable, and perhaps even more so, in advancing medical progress. Indeed, adult stem cells are already being used successfully in human clinical trials. In marked contrast, embryonic stem cells have never helped a single human patient" Contact: Tom Hickey -- Tel: 203/772-2130, Ext.

Mark R. Levin, President of Landmark Legal Foundation 
"Under the Clinton approach, private money would be used to kill the embryos, and public money would then be available to fund experiments on the extracted stem cells. As a logical matter, there is no difference. If the federal government is subsidizing stem cell research with little regard to how those stem cells are harvested from embryos, then the federal government is rewarding and even encouraging the killing of embryos by private institutions. Ironically, the Clinton’s NIH guidelines never went into effect. Therefore, the Bush administration will be the first to use federal tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.

"But what has not been addressed is why Bush did not simply reject the Clinton guidelines outright and comply with the existing statutory prohibition. In other words, the issue before Bush was a narrow one, i.e., should Clinton’s end-run around the law be upheld? Therefore, I have to conclude that despite the denials of this administration, Bush’s decision was not based solely on moral or philosophical grounds, but involved a political calculus as well." Tel: 703/689-2370 - Fax: 703/689-2373

David Stevens, M.D., Executive Director of the Christian Medical Association 
"I am concerned that, by funding research on embryos who were previously destroyed, we are breaking down a vital moral barrier. This moral barrier is embodied by the longstanding ethical medical principle of ‘do no harm.’ This moral barrier is also embodied by the biblical principle, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’"

"If it is wrong to destroy human embryos for research purposes, it is wrong to use human embryos who already have been destroyed for research purposes.

"In light of this truth, I am concerned that this decision may encourage a view of human embryos not as a precious human life made in God’s image, but as a commodity for our manipulation.

"Such a view of human embryos flouts ethical principles contained in the Nuremberg Code and in the National Institutes of Health’s ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects.’ Both clearly express the fundamental principle governing human experimentation that ‘no experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.

"Our nation as a whole and specifically our scientific community must address this moral question head-on and determine that we will value and protect human life in all its stages of development. To do any less than this will imperil not only the unborn, but all of us." Tel: 703/503-1158 - FAX: 703-503-7121

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Whip 
"While we all deeply sympathize with the desperate hopes of people struggling with debilitating illnesses, the technique used to create the stem cell lines did not respect the sanctity of life. We can both defend life and support medical research that offers similar results by using adult stem cells.

"I’m worried that this initial research may ultimately serve as a pretext for vastly expanded research that does require the destruction of new living embryos. I will continue working to educate a majority of Americans that we should always defend innocent life.

"With respect to so-called extra embryos, I firmly believe doctors should only create those embryos that will actually be used to bring children into the world." Contact: Emily Miller, 202/225-0197

Right to Life of Michigan 
President George W. Bush’s August 9 announcement concerning human embryo stem cell research left many people with questions regarding the implications and future of stem cell research.

Right to Life of Michigan was disappointed with President Bush’s decision allowing federal funds to be used for research involving stem cells which were taken from human embryos. Respect for human life is a basic and profound element of our ethics and morality. The deliberate destruction of any innocent human life, even for a ‘good’ cause should not be sanctioned by our government. The end does not justify the means.