Harriet Miers' Withdrawal

I feel that thewithdrawal of Harriet Miers nomination for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court was a "wise move" for the Bush Administration and a solid step ahead in finding a quality, conservative justice for America's High Court.

The decision to withdraw herself from consideration was a wise move by Harriet Miers. Given the opinion split that existed among conservatives over whether or not she had the background and judicial philosophy they could support, this move will give the President an opportunity to nominate someone with a solid conservative judicial philosophy and credentials.
In a recent poll conducted by The Church Report, by a two to one margin readers predicted that Miers would ultimately not win confirmation. Our readers keep a steady eye on issues like this that can so critically impact our nation. They were following closely developments in the Miers confirmation process and realized that the conservative base wasn't solidly with the President's choice here. We really have to look at this turn of events as the right step at the right time for the American people.

I applaud the President's goal of turning the Supreme Court back to its proper constitutional role of faithfully interpreting the U.S. Constitution as intended by those who wrote and ratified it. Far too often our courts have acted as un-elected legislators, making far-reaching policy decisions on controversial issues. It's time to rein in the judiciary, and I applaud President's Bush's efforts to start with our nation's highest court. I anticipate good news on his next Supreme Court nomination.

Katrina Education Funding Hurts Christian Schools

I feel that a U.S. Senate bill designed to aid students displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita discriminates against Christian schools because of their faith-based instruction.
The legislation, sponsored by Republican Mike Enzi and Democrat Ted Kennedy, would allow both public and private schools to receive up to $6,000 reimbursement for each displaced student they serve, but would forbid the aid from being used for "religious instruction, indoctrination, or worship."

I am deeply concerned that this bill penalizes those hurricane-displaced parents who have chosen to put their kids in a Christian environment. Additionally, there are many Christian schools who have welcomed students from all over the hurricane ravaged area to continue their education without a cost. The effect of this bill is to punish these Christian educational institutions for reaching out to help families and kids in time of need.

The aid, which should follow students who have been displaced by the hurricanes, would be useless to them if they find themselves in a Christian school setting. It seems our federal government is so afraid that funding might be used for a religious function that they are willing to hamper a child's education to prevent it. So in essence this bill could end up perpetuating the misery of these storms by banning emergency aid from many who need it most. It really boils down to an issue of fairness and equity.

Instead of the Enzi-Kennedy bill, I support a measure introduced by House Education and Workforce Committee chairman John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana). Their bill would create "Family Education Reimbursement Accounts" for families and students impacted by the hurricanes, money that would follow students wherever their parents put them in school.

This simple proposal would prevent the government from dictating where parents send their children to school in order to receive the aid.If we truly want to help families devastated by these hurricanes, we will extend needed funding to all institutions that are reaching out in time of need. Christian schools have really stepped up to the plate, opening their doors to thousands of students whose classrooms and schools have been destroyed. I applaud this common sense legislation and strongly encourage our senators to consider its merits.

My Recent Concerns over the Stem Cell Debate

Cell Debate

Today I am voicing my concern today over two recent innovations in embryonic stem-cell research which scientists claim could successfully address the sanctity of life concerns expressed by Christian leaders over using human embryos for research.

While I appreciate the efforts of medical researchers to find alternatives that will address the life issues implicit in using human embryos for medical experiments, after examining the evidence we must conclude that the procedures in question do not adequately address the moral dilemmas of destroying or harming human life.

One of the procedures, which were reported on in the Oct. 17 online edition of Nature magazine, involves genetically programming an embryo to prevent it from successfully implanting and developing in a woman's uterus. I agree with Dr. David Stevens, a noted spokesman on the stem-cell issue and director of the Christian Medical Association, has likened the experimental procedure to creating a "genetic time bomb."

Dr. Stevens reminds us that this procedure does not change the essential human nature of the embryo and the implications are fraught with potential danger – even death – for an unborn human being. As Dr. Stevens explains, “just because we have the technology to genetically alter an embryo, that doesn't give us the right to dispose of it once we are finished with our research. This procedure simply doesn't address serious life concerns."

In the other procedure, scientists removed a cell from an eight-cell embryo, using the harvested cell to develop embryonic stem cells.

I feel that in the procedure researchers employ a technique called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which is normally used to screen unborn children for genetic disorders. While it is true that this procedure has been successful using mouse embryos, there remains too much risk to duplicate it using human embryos. Such a procedure, if unsuccessful, could easily result in the death of an unborn child. Beyond that, we simply can't overlook the fact that PGD is a technique used to 'search and destroy,' if you will, genetically imperfect embryos.

No one has been able to demonstrate any scientific successes from using embryonic stem cells in medical research. Apart from the serious ethical implications of embryonic stem-cell research, there has been no practical benefit from this objectionable technique By contrast, however, non-embryonic stem cell research – using umbilical cord blood, bone marrow and adult stem cells – has resulted in many successful medical advancements. Instead of further calls for federal funding on the unproven – and ethically objectionable – use of embryonic stem cells, we need to be putting our efforts and resources into this proven, successful research strategy.