The Daily Signal - #359: Doing What's Ethical On Fetal Tissue

Episode Date: December 12, 2018

Stem cell research has been a topic of controversy, but a related issue is raising some similar concerns: that is, whether fetal tissue from elective abortions should be used for scientific research. In today’s episode, our colleague Rachel del Guidice sits down with several experts to ask what human dignity requires on this issue, as well as what the Trump administration is doing to pursue ethical practices. Plus: Our White House correspondent Fred Lucas joins us to unpack Trump’s heated debate with Democrats over wall funding.We also cover these stories:-Border Patrol detains over 3,000 illegal immigrants in a single day.-The Senate will take up landmark criminal justice reform bill.-Google's CEO is grilled before Congress on privacy, data collection, and China.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, December 12th. I'm Jenny Maltebano. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, stem cell research has been a topic of controversy, but a related issue is raising some similar concerns. That is, whether fetal tissue from elective abortions should be used for scientific research. In today's episode, our colleague Rachel Del Judas sits down with several experts to ask what human dignity requires on this issue, as well as what the Trump administration is doing

to pursue ethical policies. Plus, our White House correspondent, Fred Lucas, joins us to unpack Trump's heated debate with Democrats over wall funding. But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Well, President Trump sure got into it with Democratic leaders on Tuesday over border security and funding for the border wall. The president held a press conference in the Oval Office with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to discuss funding to keep the government open.

And the president continued to insist on funding for the border wall. Let's just say things got heated. We have a disagreement about the wall. Washington, whether it's effective or not on border security, but on the wall. We do not want to shut down the government. You have called 20 times to shut down the government. You say, I want to shut down the government. We don't.

We want to come to an agreement. If we can't come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now and will not shut down the government. And that's what we're urging. you to do. Not threatened to shut down the government. Let me just finish. Because you can't get your way. It's the last time you shut it down, you can't kill.

Let me say something, Mr. President. You just say, my way or will shut down the government. We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a CR that will not shut down the government. We urge you to take it. And if it's not good border security, I won't take it. It is very good border security. I won't take it. It's what the board.

Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security, and when you look at the job that we're doing you just said it is effective can I be can I tell you something you just said without a wall these are only areas we have the world we want to do you have walls chuck it's effective we we don't have walls it is not effective yeah let's call a halt to this we've come in here as the first branch of government article one the legislative branch we're coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government Open. We're going to keep it open if we have border security. If we don't have border security, Chuck, we're not going to keep it all. Let me.

And government funding is set to run out in less than two weeks. The Washington Times reports that the Department of Homeland Security caught more than 3,000 illegal immigrants in one day last week. That is the most number in several years. Kevin McAllen, Commissioner of Customs and Border Patrol, said, quote, it is indeed both a border security and a humanitarian crisis. Over 1,000 of the illegal immigrants caught were children. Well, things are looking up for criminal justice reform. In a major shift on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will be taking up a criminal justice reform bill this month and potentially as earlier as the end of this week. The bill is called the First Step Act and it's unusually bipartisan. The bill appeared to have stalled in the Senate, but President Trump urged the majority leader to take it up and he was pleased when he did. As you know, we just heard word, got word that Mitch McConnell and the group we're going to be putting it up for a vote. We have great Democrat support, great Republican support.

So criminal justice reform, something that people have been trying to get. How long has you? Many, many, many years. Looks like it's going to be passing, hopefully, famous last words, on a very bipartisan way. And it's really something we're over. very proud of. Sundar Pachai, CEO of Google, told Congress that Google does not have political bias against conservatives during a recent hearing. Yesterday's hearing title was transparency and accountability, examining Google and its data collection, use, and filtering practices. It was the CEO's first time appearing on the hill to testify before lawmakers. Among topics discussed was Google's

privacy policies, data collection habits, and a potential censored search app in China. Of the possible app, Pachai said, right now we have no plans to launch search in China. He also referred to access to information as, quote, an important human right. Right now, there are no plans for us to launch a search product in China. We are in general always looking to see how best it's part of our core mission and our principles to try hard to provide users with information. We always have evidence based on every country we have operated in us reaching out. giving users to more information has a very positive impact, and we feel that calling. But right now, there are no plans to launch in China to the extent that we ever approach a

decision like that, I will be fully transparent, including with policymakers here, and engage and consult widely. Well, the U.S. has issued new sanctions on three North Korean officials, as talks over the country's nuclear weapons program have stalled. The sanctions are for human rights abuses and censorship, and the Treasury Department says that they're in honor of Otto Wormier, the American student who died after being detained by North Korean authorities. Otto would have turned 24 on Wednesday. And up next, our colleague Rachel Del Judas sits down with experts to talk about the ethics of fetal tissue research

and what the Trump administration is doing. Americans have almost entirely forgotten their history. That's right, and if we want to keep our republic, this needs to change. I'm Jared Stepman. And I'm Fred Lucas. We host The Right Side of History, a podcast dedicated to restoring informed patriotism and busting the negative narratives about America's past. Hollywood, the media, and academia have failed a generation. We're here to set the record straight on the ideas and people who've made this country great.

Subscribe to the Right Side of History on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Stitcher today. We are honored to welcome Dr. David Prentice. He's the vice president and research director at the Charlotte Luzer Institute. and we're also honored to have Dr. Sandra Lee. She's the associate scholar at the Charlotte Lusier Institute as well. We'd like to welcome them to the Daily Single Podcast to discuss their research and how controversial fetal tissue research can be replaced and restored with life-affirming practices.

So to dive right in, Dr. Prentice and Dr. Lee, some people are concerned that if fetal tissue research is halted, it would mean a decrease in medical advances. What are the facts on that? Well, the facts are it will actually accelerate medical advances because you won't be wasting money on antiquated research. You can redirect those funds to adult stem cell and other non-feetal, non-embryonic stem cell research, which has already helped over one and a half million people. And Dr. Lee, can you mention talk a little bit about the misconceptions about that are out there that report that sometimes fetal tissue research has contributed?

to cures where I know you would address earlier in a talk to the Heritage Foundation that that's not the case. Yeah, it is not the case. So there have been no therapies or treatments that have been generated, that have been produced or developed that have required fresh fetal tissue. And in fact, when people look at vaccines, they never needed that tissue. And they were successful and produced using all non-feetal cell lines, such as monkey cells, Cho cells, the liver cells, the liver. goes on and on. They never required any fresh fetal tissue to make those. And what are some of the ethical alternatives that the American public, can we dive into that a little bit more, might not be aware of, but that are out there to give another option for

cures? Well, one of those, especially in terms of transplants, are adult stem cells, and people have heard of bone marrow transplants. Those are adult stem cells, but you can also get these same reparative types of cells from umbilical cord blood, from bone marrow, from, believe it or not, liposuction fat. A number of different sources have them. And again, they've already been proven successful. So in terms of transplants, those are there. There are other possibilities in terms of vaccines, being able to use animal cells, human cells, but not fetal, being able to use. even bacteria and insect cells that are being used to create vaccines. So there are lots of good alternatives, more successful alternatives, by the way.

Can you also talk a little bit about during here at the Heritage Foundation? You mentioned that Planned Parenthood, in their wording for medical releases, were kind of deceptive to women saying that, oh, the tissues that we procure today will be used for cures and that isn't the case as well. Can you talk a little bit about that and how the general public needs to be, aware of these misconceptions that are out there. It's so misleading. Planned Parenthood had used deception to try and get women to go ahead and have an abortion.

And one of those was trying to tell them that aborted fetal tissue had been used to cure Alzheimer's, AIDS, Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, all of which is not true. And again, there are many alternatives, ethically, sort of. alternatives to the use of aborted fetal tissue. Lastly, how can the American public, are there any specific ways that you would encourage them to educate themselves on this and to even talk to their lawmakers about following this issue so that what is procured is ethical and that the consciences aren't violated? First, I would encourage people to go to the Charlotte Lozier website.

There are some excellent resources there stating the facts about fetal tissue and how it is not needed or necessary for research and how there are lots of alternatives that are successfully treating people today. I would also encourage them to go to stem cellfacts.org where there are multiple successful stories about how adult stem cells are treating patients today. And I would also encourage people to reach out to their legislators and explain to them just all, you know, go to, after looking at these resources to help them understand. that there are many other alternatives, ethical alternatives that are working better, and that we do not need these tissues today or in the future.

Well, thank you both so much for joining us today. Thank you. It is my honor to welcome Melanie Israel, a research associate for religion and civil society here at the Heritage Foundation to the Daily Signal podcast. Melanie, thank you so much for being with us today. Thanks for having me. So we just heard from Dr. Tara Sandra Lee, an associate scholar at the Charlotte Luzer Institute and her colleague Dr. David Prentice, who is Vice President and Research Director at Charlotte Lozier,

about the concerns regarding fetal tissue research and the ethical alternatives to that practice. And we just had super exciting news on Monday. The Daily Signals White House reporter Fred Lucas actually broke a story that the Trump administration is investing up to 20 million for the next two years to determine effective alternatives to using this tissue from aborted babies for research.

So obviously this is a big way. for the pro-life movement. What went into making this happen and why is it so significant? You know, I think it's an acknowledgement that you can be pro-life and you can be pro-science. We can have good science while respecting innocent human life. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And so it really helps to highlight that people who are raising concerns about fetal tissue research involving aborted babies, We don't need that, and we do have these ethical alternatives.

And this is highlighting that we do still want to pursue rigorous science and make progress and finding cures for diseases and all kinds of illnesses. But we don't have to involve aborted fetal tissue in that practice. Do you think this shows in a way that the Trump administration is, at least in this vein in this instance, more of her life than previous administration? because I know people have been making calls for this to happen for quite a while now, and it's just now happening. So do you think an argument can be made for that? You know, I think it's a signal that we're making forward progress, but it certainly shouldn't be the only action that the administration takes. This is going to be part of a process. It's going to be really having to change a broader culture, not just at H.H.

but in the scientific community at large. So we shouldn't look at this as being a one-off kind of decision. And we also need to remember that these tissue procurement companies in the abortion industry have essentially been operating under their own set of rules across multiple administrations, and there hasn't been proper oversight of this industry. And so that's another thing that pro-life groups are going to be looking to the administration to see, okay, we're pursuing these ethical. alternative. But what about the oversight side of things? What about these procurement companies

who have essentially been able to set their own prices willy-nilly for this aborted fetal tissue? We've had procurement companies settle in criminal cases for profiting from fetal tissue. So, again, while the administration should be applauded for this action about pursuing ethical alternatives, this shouldn't be the only action that they take. You mentioned the lack of oversight from these fetal tissue procurement companies. Do you think we'll see any pushback from them because now the road we're starting to meet the road and there is going to be some accountability? You know, I think a lot of these companies have been used to operating with virtually no oversight since their inception. And so now that there is this scrutiny looking at them, looking at their practices, looking at their pricing sheets, congressional committees,

saying, wait a minute, you paid an abortion company $60 for this organ and then you turned around and sold it for $400. What's up with that? They're simply not used to having to answer those questions. And in a lot of cases, they simply didn't even have the paperwork to back anything up. And so, again, this is going to be a process of changing a culture, not just at HHS but in the scientific community at large. So looking ahead to the practical implementation of this announcement, what would you say are goals that you see as potential things to hit going forward? Are there specific programs or researchers that you respect that you think should lead

this effort to find these alternatives to fetal tissue research? Well, we're going to have an opportunity to hear from experts again later this week when Congress holds an oversight here. about these alternatives. And I think we'll see a lot of the points that have been made by leaders like Dr. David Prentice, like Dr. Tara Sander Lee, and we'll be able to hear more from those scientific experts on exactly what these alternatives are and perhaps how Congress can hold out a carrot, so to speak, to incentivize this more ethical research.

Because, again, I think everybody agrees that we can be pro-science. And we can also be pro-life. We can do both of those things at the same time. Well, Melanie, thank you so much for joining us today. Thanks for having me. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court.

You know what? We need border security. That's what we're going to be talking about. Border security. If we don't have border security, we'll shut down the government. This country needs border security. The wall is apart. of border security. Let's have a talk. We're going to get the wall built, and we've done a lot of

wall already. Well, that was President Trump sparring with Democratic leaders in the Oval Office. And joining us now to discuss the ongoing debate is Fred Lucas, our White House correspondent. Fred, welcome back on the podcast. Yeah, thanks for having me on. So, Fred, you are our White House correspondent, and you watch this stuff. And today, it was a little more heated than usual, although you can, you know, you never know what to expect with the president. Do you think Trump's going to get his wall funding at long last? Well, that's hard to say. What I would say is if you're going to push it all the way to a government shutdown, now it's the time to do it.

Why? We're two years out from a major election. The consequences are – the political consequences are very low for the president and his party because by the time another national election comes around, voters have pretty short memories on things like this. Also, we're right ahead of... And let's recall, and the Ted Cruz shutdown was in 2013, and in 2014, Republicans gained a lot of seats. Exactly, exactly. Very good point. Very good point.

When, going back 20-something years, when Republicans did pay a political price that was during the Newt Gingrich shutdown back in 95, they paid a political price in 96, but they were a year out from an election. So that's an entirely different concept, I think. So, yeah, I think more recent, and you also didn't really have much on alternative media back then to give a different narrative. Maybe if there was a mistake Trump made during this, as he said, I will take full blame. He said something on those lines for shutting down the government. I think it was, he did a pretty good job earlier with the Schumer shut down earlier this year, which I think that makes that's problematic for Schumer saying acting as if he's aghast at having a government shutdown because he did it earlier this year. But another reason timing is good is that a lot of federal employees are going to be taking their Christmas break, holiday break, whatever, this month.

I mean, people aren't going to lose out on that many days of work and those employees that do, they get paid for it anyway. So there's a good chance that Republicans might push it along while they still have a majority in both houses. Fred, on the flip side, if he does get the funding he wants for the border wall, what kind of consequences do you think the Democrats will face from their constituents? Well, that's a good question too because, yeah, and they're going to have people pushing them very hard. Of course, the resistance and so forth, they want an impeachment as soon as the Democrats take a majority. So that will, that's going to be why they will hold out. So it's hard to see him getting everything he wants on this, but he might be able to extract something

or at least more border wall funding than he normally would have gotten if he does a government shut down. Yeah, he's currently got $1.6 billion, and he's asking for $5 billion in this. Yeah, that's quite a bigger, big gap there. Right. So that is a big gap. And we know that with Trump, he likes to start with a high, you know, a high end and then find something in the middle. I'm just curious, Fred, how you, I mean, you've watched this kind of thing play out in the past shutdowns. How does Trump go about this?

Say the government shuts down. He can't reach an agreement with Democrats to get funding for the wall. Who budges and what, like, how does he navigate the shutdown? Well, I mean, again, he still has a full Republican majority. right now. So they're probably, he said something the day that if we saw Pelosi, she kept saying that, well, you could get the votes if you wanted to. You have the House in the Senate, which is not entirely honest. He has this. He does, but he still needs 60 votes in the Senate. But if you did have the numbers in the Senate, I think he would, all the Republicans in the

House would come along and push something through. So, but what if, what if the shutdown goes to, after the next Congress comes in, which is January, first week of January, do you think that changes things? Yeah, yeah, that would. That would because then Pelosi would be in charge. And at that point, his negotiating skills would be, you know, not. It would be harder for him to get. He would not be in a stronger position. I think, though, he does deserve credit today for being incredibly transparent for keeping the cameras in this meeting.

for as long as you did. And he actually said that. And Pelosi said, let's do this in private. And he said, no, but this is good. This is transparent. Well, that was going to be my next question to Fred. From an optics perspective, as someone who's a White House correspondent, do you think that was a good move laying it all out there? I personally, as a reporter, I think it's a great move because I think the more people are able to see how their government works and how their tax dollars are going to be spent

in the negotiation. I would love for it to all be out there as much. much as possible. I mean, that's probably not practical for it to always be out there. But the more, the better. And I think he probably came out the winner for the most part today. I thought maybe, as I mentioned, the one part is he said, I will proudly take the blame for shutting down the government. And that might have been not the best in terms of actually taking the blame. But as I said, I don't think the consequences are there the way a lot of people used to think, because you used to be so gun-shy, looking at the 95 shutdown.

I think we've learned that's not the case anymore, as you mentioned, the 2013 shutdown, was not a big political consequence. Yeah. So looking ahead, I mean, he really does have until first week of January to get wall funding. He probably, he could conceivably, could get the votes in the House. But even that would be kind of hard. The Senate, I mean, Chuck Schumer has no incentive, really, right? I guess the question would be would Chuck Schumer

force or would the Democrats force a filibuster would they filibuster this and force Republicans to get 60 votes? They might but at that point you got and that comes back Trump could have had the position to have

blamed Schumer. Right. For that and that's where he made a mistake verbally today. Is it possible that he could get get it through the Senate with 50 or 51 votes through the reconciliation rules, you know, in the Senate when you're working with budget issues, you're able to pass bills with a bare majority. And they might be able.

I'm not a Senate part of aitarian expert, but I would best I mean that they were able to do that with tax reform, which was based on spending rules. So I would think that there might be some means of doing that. It would probably be a lot less than what he's pushing for. But, you know, as you said, that he's probably aware of that. He wants to start high with his demand and then come down. Well, I do wonder if any Democrats at all would go for this. I guess Joe Manchin, kind of the one conservative-ish Democrat, doesn't have any incentive now because he just got reelected for six years.

Right. So we'll see how this one ends. Fred, thanks so much for coming in here and talking shop. Yeah, thanks for having me on. And that'll do it for us today. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow.

You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.