No. Plenty of states do not fund this research: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=112&cat=2 I’m responding to a kid named “Everyone is right but me” and the feedback they wrote about this post.
Girl- You missed the point completely.
"This post wasn’t about whether or not stem-cell research is good or bad, it was about the fact that there’s nothing in the Constitution to allow for federal funding of stem-cell research."
Guess who posted it? Right!- So let me help you understand why you’re wrong, and also what this was or was not about. Ron Paul’s argument for almost everything that he does not agree with is “it’s not in the constitution” and therefore it’s unconstitutional. I find it hilarious that he uses this excuse with embryonic research, and goes so far as to imply that our founding fathers would be opposed to government funding of it. Bottom line is that Ron Paul doesn’t want to fund it, and as a physician, that boggles my mind. He seems more invested in government order than human quality of life. I’m not sure how you confused or couldn’t comprehend “Twisted logic” or “cold, archiac, and greedy” but since it’s too much for you to figure out: I was stating that Ron Paul’s logic is… YOU GUESSED IT! TWISTED!! YAY!! I also think his views are archaic, and that he’s a cold, and greedy old turd. Should I slow down, or are you following? Super..
Medical practice was not regulated by the states in 1789 and not much more so in 1868. Medical licensure began in the 1830s, spurred by the drive to oust itinerant and irregular healers. But persons licensed to practice medicine had no restrictions placed on clinical judgment or on the products that they could use. The first federal drug law passed in 1914 to control non-medical drug abuse left physicians free to prescribe cocaine and opiates for legitimate medical purposes. Are you still there? I know you were very concerned about the constitutional aspect of all this, so pay attention. There were no ethical issues or legal restrictions on research with human subjects until the development of the Nuremburg Code for human experimentation in the 1940s. The ESC debate has been another instance of whether scientists or non-scientists will control the means of clinical treatment and scientific research. Although acknowledging that the right of privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Court stated that such a right can be found in the First,Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights and in the 14th Amendment. Then we get into abortion laws, concept of when life begins and so on. The words “tests” and “experiment” are debated. The court stated that a statute is unconstitutionally vague if the mere passage of time may change the legality of a procedure. Basically, depending on who you ask, there is no definitive answer to if ESC research is indeed unconstitutional.
My point is, if ESC research leads to safe, effective treatments of disease and quality of life, I don’t see any reason not to support it. So in conclusion little one- your criticism of this photo was not only invalid, but grossly misunderstood. Your comparisons reflect a deep seeded fear for government conspiracy and I’m not at all surprised that you’re a Ron Paul fan.
Let me know when someone you love has a disease that could be cured with more ESC research, and then let me know how wrong you think it is. Watching my mother slowly deteriorate from the effects of Parkinson’s Disease is awful. Knowing that there could be a cure if people like Ron Paul would support it, makes me a tad upset. If you cannot understand this, I invite you to eat a dick.