Written by Ann Shibler

Monday, 16 March 2009 08:35

Either ex-president Bill Clinton is staggeringly ignorant or brilliantly obscure when speaking of embryonic stem cells, because he doesn’t seem to understand the definition of “embryo.” But neither, apparently, does Dr. Sanjay Gupta, first pick of President Obama for Surgeon General.

In an interview conducted by Gupta for “Larry King Live,” the ex-president was allowed to push for universal health care. At one point in the interview the conversation turned to embryonic stem cell research. Six times Clinton used “fertilized” which he then went on to define “as bringing a life into being.” But when he used “embryo,” it was with a different definition in mind:

Gupta: Let’s talk about something you talked a lot about in the early part of your presidency, stem cells. There was an order today providing federal money for embryonic stem cell research. First of all, let me just ask you, as someone who studied this, is this going to always be as divisive an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?
Clinton: I think - the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. If - particularly if it’s done right. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can - that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this....
Gupta: Any reservations?

Clinton: I don’t know that I have any reservations, but I was - he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research…. But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those….
But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings. [Bold emphasis ours]

Well, Mr. President, I assure you, embryos already are little babies, the egg having been fertilized. By definition then, you are against embryonic stem cell research, (ESCR).
Gupta’s failure to correct such a gigantic error could be understood if he didn’t want to embarrass the president on national TV. However, Gupta appeared on “Anderson Cooper” directly after the Clinton interview where he replayed a section of the tape featuring Clinton erroneously defining embryos as unfertilized eggs, and STILL he let it go.
Is this an attempt by Clinton to moderate his past stance on stem cell research’s use of embryos? Or is it a gargantuan attempt by the embryonic stem-cell research pushers to deliberately muddy the waters by changing the terminology?
This new verbal strategy could purposefully be redefining fertilization to mean implantation, thereby making defense of experimentation and research that includes the massive destruction of embryos — human life — far more acceptable to the American public. Is Clinton making embryonic destruction more palatable to the American public because it is now coming from a more mature and trusted elder statesmen, as surely Clinton fashions himself to be?
If the ongoing bailout swindle can be made palatable and acceptable to the American public without as much as a squawk of protest, certainly redefining terminology can have the same effect on the stem cell research debate.