House Votes to Ease Stem Cell Restrictions

Via abcnews:

Ignoring President Bush’s veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to lift limits on embryonic stem cell research, a measure supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.

Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.

“This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life,” the president said Tuesday. “Crossing this line would be a great mistake.”

Destruction of emerging human life? I suppose the human life that’s already emerged can just get sick and die if the research involved has anything to do with a hot-button wedge issue like using discarded umbilical cords or frozen embryos. We need to get busy forcibly implanting these embryos in uppity career women. Jesus told me so over breakfast this morning. We had eggs benedict.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance “the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings.”

The rhetoric didn’t sway many Democrats.

“I don’t need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay’s travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.

That cracks me up. I also found this quote I got off fark.com amusing:
“[3-day-old frozen] Embryos don’t have members (i.e., limbs), Captain Soapbox.” — blahpers

34,452 evolution disclaimer stickers removed

Via msnbc:

MARIETTA, Ga. – Workers in Cobb County have begun removing controversial evolution disclaimer stickers from science textbooks to comply with a judge’s order.

By the end of the day Monday, several thousand stickers, which said evolution was a theory and not a fact, had been scraped off. The school district had put 34,452 stickers on textbooks across the county.

Base closings reward Red states, punish Blue

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/lautenberg_brac_base_closures_520

A Democratic senator has raised questions on whether politics played a role in a Pentagon proposal to close and transfer jobs from U.S. military bases in a report analyzing the net job loss/gains, RAW STORY has learned.

In a carefully worded statement, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) questioned why states that supported President Bush’s reelection (red states) had a net job gain of 11,000, while states that opposed Bush (blue states) lost nearly 25,000 positions.

“My hope was that [Base Realignment and Closure] decisions were completely removed from politics but the total numbers do raise some questions,” Lautenberg said.

The Pentagon denies politics played any role.

And here’s the data:

Base Closing Job Loss/Gain for Red and Blue States

Red States
Alabama: + 2,664
Alaska: – 4,619
Arizona: – 550
Arkansas: + 3,585
Colorado: + 4,917
Florida: + 2,757
Georgia: + 7,423
Idaho: – 659
Indiana: + 2,197
Iowa: – 6
Kansas: + 3, 582
Kentucky: – 3,658
Louisiana: – 1,297
Mississippi: – 1,678
Missouri: – 3,679
Montana: -124
Nebraska: -213
Nevada: + 1,059
New Mexico: – 2,849
North Carolina: – 422
North Dakota: – 2,654
Ohio: + 241
Oklahoma: + 3,919
South Carolina: + 709
South Dakota: – 3,797
Tennessee: + 1,088
Texas: + 6,150
Utah: – 446
Virginia: – 1,574
West Virginia: – 251
Wyoming: + 37
Total Personnel/Job Gains: + 11,852 (Net)

Blue States
California: – 2,018
Connecticut: -8,586
Delaware: + 91
District of Columbia: – 6,496
Hawaii: – 298
Illinois: – 2,698
Maine: – 6,938
Maryland: + 9,293
Massachusetts: + 491
Michigan: + 125
Minnesota: – 262
New Hampshire: + 4
New Jersey: – 3,760
New York: – 1,071
Oregon: – 1,083
Pennsylvania: – 1,878
Rhode Island: + 531
Vermont: + 56
Washington: + 760
Wisconsin: – 552
Total Personnel/Job Losses: – 24,289 (Net)

What the hell, CNN?

This morning I was reading CNN at work (I was that bored). The quick poll question is “Do you believe a dog could care for a baby?”

My first thought was: Why the hell is a question like that on the front page of CNN? They could ask us if we agree with Tony Blair’s re-election, or if we think GM will recover, or if the trade deficit worries us, or if we think we’re in a housing bubble, etc. But, no, it’s “Do you believe a dog could care for a baby?”

Well, dogs don’t have thumbs . . . and they’re fucking dogs, so, no, they couldn’t. What’s the dog going to do, keep the baby company while they both stare at the fridge they can’t open and slowly starve to death? Yeah, give the dingo a baby.

Here were the poll results:
Yes 64%  — 96349 votes
No 36%  — 53314 votes

I hope the 96,349 people who voted yes were either being sarcastic or thought the question was referring to “emotional attachment” rather than “child raised by wolves.”

Pharmacist code of ethics

Just recently another pharmacist (this time in Minnesota) refused to fill a prescription for birth control for what she says are “moral reasons”.

I thought maybe it’s time I posted the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) code of ethics, with bolding in some places to emphasize my point (that taking a job in healthcare then denying people legel, not-contraindicated healthcare is anything but moral):

Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

Gay books ban has much larger scope

This comedy article over at lawandpolitics cracked me up.  It’s regarding this:

Andrew Sullivan noted that the “ban gay books” bill introduced by Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen actually has a much wider scope than it first appears. The bill could potentially extend far beyond Oscar Wilde books. Here is the actual language of the bill (via PolySciFi):

No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any state agency, public school, public library, or public college or university for the purchase, production, or promotion of printed or electronic materials or activities that, directly or indirectly, sanction, recognize, foster, or promote a lifestyle or actions prohibited by the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of the state of Alabama.

The commentary written underneath this part is just hilarious, but I won’t cut-and-paste the whole thing.