|
June
27, 2007
Rights of
Taxpayers Is Missing Element in Stem Cell
Debate
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The
debate in Washington has again turned to federal
funding of stem cell research, with President Bush
moving to veto legislation passed recently by
Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to
split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral
authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President's
veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell
research, pointing to the individual rights of the
embryo being discarded for use in research. On the
other hand are those who argue the embryo will be
discarded anyway, and the research may provide
valuable cures for people suffering from terrible
illnesses.
In Washington, these two camps generally
advocate very different policies. The first group
wants a federal ban on all such research, while the
latter group expects the research to be
federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle
seems to consider the morality surrounding the
rights of federal taxpayers.
Our founding fathers devised a system of
governance that limited federal activity very
narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues
such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out
of Washington's hands. They believed issues such as
this should be tackled by free people acting freely
in their churches and medical associations, and in
the marketplace that would determine effective
means of research. When government policies on this
issue were to be developed, our founders would have
left them primarily to state legislators to decide
in accord with community standards.
Their approach was also the only one consistent
with a concern for the rights and freedom of all
individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon
taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it
does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer.
Likewise, when Washington bans something, it
generally requires a federal agency and a team of
federal agents -- often heavily-armed federal
agents -- to enforce the ban. These agencies become
the means by which the citizenry is harassed by
government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence
of these agencies, and the attendant costs
associated with operating them, that leads directly
to the abuse of the taxpayers' pocketbooks.
If Congress attempts to override the President's
veto, I will support the President. As a physician,
I am well aware that certain stem cells have
significant medical potential and do not raise the
moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell
research. My objection is focused on the issue of
federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington
environment of "either subsidize it, or else ban
it," it is unlikely there will be much focus given
to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent
charges will fly regarding who is willing to
sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a
political point.
Only when Washington comes to understand that
our founders expressly intended for our federal
government to be limited in scope, will policy
questions such as this be rightly understood. But
that understanding will not come until the people
demand their elected officials act in accordance
with these principles.
Paul
Archive
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican
member of Congress from Texas.
Because
The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles
on its website does not imply acceptance or
approval of the comments or opinions expressed by
the author of the material. Nor is the Academy
responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts
included. It is your job to be a critical
reader.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|