Free Nothing Is Impossible by Christopher Reeve

government funding was raised exponentially by the promise of human embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to become any cell type or tissue in the body. But researchers and patient advocates had to curb their enthusiasm in the face of strong opposition from political conservatives and religious groups. The issue became highly controversial as both sides debated the beginning of life and the morality of destroying embryosin order to obtain stem cells for research. I wrote a short essay on the subject for
Time
in June 2000:
    It is our responsibility to do everything possible to protect the quality of life of the present and future generations. A critical factor will be what we do with human embryonic stem cells.… They have been called “the body’s self-repair kit.”
     … No obstacle should stand in the way of responsible investigation of their possibilities.… In fertility clinics, women are given a choice of what to do with unused fertilized embryos: they can be discarded, donated to research, or frozen for future use.… But why has the use of discarded embryos suddenly become such an issue? Is it more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives?
     … While we prolong the stem cell debate, millions continue to suffer. It is time to harness the power of government and go forward.
    The ban on NIH funding of human ES cells, which went into effect almost immediately after they were first isolated at the University of Wisconsin in 1998, continued.Before he left office, President Clinton issued guidelines that were embraced by the research community and patients alike: he would allow the NIH to fund stem cell research on excess embryos freely donated from IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinics. In May 2000, S.2015, the Stem Cell Research Act of 2000, was drafted for the Senate. Once again I wrote to every member:
    Testimony from experts at NIH, letters of support from disease groups, universities, clinicians, and foundations as well as distinguished theologians have established beyond doubt that the ban on federal funding for this research must be lifted.
     … If your young child or grandchild suddenly became paralyzed because of a spinal cord injury, or brain damaged in an accident, would you be able to look him or her in the eye and say that research on the best hope for recovery is, in the words of Senator Brownback, “illegal, immoral, and unnecessary”?
    The bill remained stalled in committee and Bill Clinton left office with the ban still in effect. One of George W. Bush’s first actions when he became president in January 2001 was to prohibit the adoption of the Clinton guidelines pending further review. All theinterested parties held their collective breath while our new president considered the issue. We watched televised coverage of his meeting with the pope, who made it clear that the destruction of a human embryo for
any
purpose violated “the sanctity of life.” The Catholic hierarchy across the country echoed the pope’s position on behalf of 61 million Catholic voters. Whether or not the leaders of other faiths were given equal consideration is not clear, but many people felt it was more than inappropriate for the president to consult with any religious group: it was an outright violation of the separation of church and state. Spokesmen for the administration said that the president was taking the time to meet with a wide variety of professionals and lay persons on both sides of the issue.
    Finally, on August 9, 2001, the president announced his position in a nationally televised prime time address. He said that sixty-four stem cell lines, derived from excess embryos created in fertility clinics before nine P.M . that day, would be made available to researchers with funding from the NIH.
    The new policy received decidedly mixed reviews. The far right chastised