Stem cell ruling clouds real issues

Embryonic stem cell research has once again come to a grinding halt in labs across the country following a federal district judge's ruling that President Obama's expanded guidelines violated a ban on using federal money to destroy embryos.

The claims of the original plaintiffs in the suit that led to this ruling, however, revealed a desire to protect their own self-interests, while continuing to paint their motives as pure and altruistic, and portray themselves as saviors of the unborn. Nightlight Christian Adoptions cried foul, claiming that Obama's new guidelines would reduce the number of embryos available for adoption and implantation, presumably hurting the nonprofit agency's business. Where in the Constitution does it guarantee an adequate supply of embryos to meet the demand of those who want to adopt healthy, white babies?

Fewer available embryos could serve a greater good by spurring increased adoptions of the thousands of less-than-perfect nonwhite children currently doing time in a broken foster care system while awaiting loving families that never come.

Two researchers who work exclusively with adult stem cells argued the guidelines will increase competition for limited federal stem cell research money. If they can't stand up to the competition perhaps they don't deserve the funding. Isn't this the essence of a free-market economy?

No one is stealing the embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. Those who created them decide their fate. More often than not they opt to discard them, eliciting little if any protest from those who seemingly prefer destruction that benefits no one to destruction that occurs during potentially life saving research that could benefit millions. So, what is this issue really about?

Sheryl Jedlinski

Palatine