The CNN headline is wrong, of course; does that ever even need to be said?
"Obama moves to separate politics and science." Oh, really? Have there been raging debates in Congress over what constitutes an inclined plane? Have I missed the talk-radio shoutfests in which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is hotly attacked or defended? Is someone insisting that Schrodinger be the subject of a PETA protest for his cruelty to hypothetical cats?
Of course not. By "separate politics and science," CNN means "separate embryonic stem cell research from the people who rightly point out that it's pretty ghoulish and ethically unsound to murder small humans in order to take their cells in the hopes of keeping Hollywood actors, members of Congress, and other parasites on humanity functioning well past the 130-years-old mark."
Because, let's not kid ourselves, that's what this is really about. If the debate about ESCR was really about curing diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes and the like, then the tremendous and overwhelming success that adult stem cells, especially skin cells have had in pursuing goals like these would be widely celebrated, and federal research money for the use of adult stem cells would be poured into research facilities with the kind of reckless abandon that Ted Kennedy used (hypothetically) to use when pouring alcoholic beverages into a three-gallon glass.
The fact that ESCR is still pursued with such tenacity when it hasn't been shown to produce any cures even in countries whose ideas of ethics are far more obnoxious than our own and where this research has been conducted for years is just proof of two things: one, that a certain segment of our population is completely convinced that they are far too special to grow old and die and that ESCR is the key to giving them the eternal youth that endless plastic surgery can only imitate, and two, that admitting even for a moment that it's unseemly to cannibalize unborn children for this sort of research is tantamount to admitting that human embryos are, well, human, and that killing them either in early abortions or in inhumane and disgusting "research" might possibly be morally problematic--something a fair amount of our citizens would almost rather die than admit, except that they're way too special to grow old and die, etc.
But framing this debate as one between "politics" and "science" is useful to the moral cretins who are fine with killing unborn humans, even with partial birth abortion (and Obama's favorite, post birth abortion). If only "politics" objects to cannibalizing tiny humans, and pure noble "science" is in favor of it, why, we can't possibly distrust "science," right? There has never been a "scientist" who would conduct unethical experiments, right?
Well, except for Dr. Mengele and his cohorts. And a similar group in Japan during WWII. And the Soviets' secret poison lab. And the scientists involved in the Tuskegee experiments. And the Stanford prison experiment of 1971. And...well, you get the idea.
The notion that scientists are always brave, honorable, noble, disinterested people who cannot act unethically is a fairly recent one. Certainly Mary Shelley, herself a rather unsavory character, didn't have any such illusions about scientists when she penned her classic work, Frankenstein. In her work it was precisely a scientist who could be capable of shoving aside God and taking His place, with complete ignorance and lack of foresight about the terrible consequences.
Of course, in these days the scientists can count on the help of would-be Messianic presidents and their politics of massive human destruction. It's a toss-up as to which sort of person is more hubristic, more ignorant of morality, and more incapable of having the imagination to fathom the nightmarish consequences of their unethical and wicked actions.
President Obama has shown pretty clearly that when he talked about "respecting" pro-life Americans and their views, he meant "humoring them long enough to get elected and then crushing them with a reign of terror on abortion the likes of which have never been seen in America." As the cries of glee go up from the pro-death left who never met a human baby they would vote to protect (except for those who actually survive long enough to be born, of course, and even then there's the Peter Singer element ready to deny those children life if they're "defective" in any way), the mad scientists rub their hands and chortle over the idea of getting to tear apart living human embryos and use their cells in a hellish broth that will probably never cure anybody (and even if it did, it would be wrong to make it; imagine if it were theorized that culling two-year-olds to harvest their newly developed immune systems would cure all disease?). Meanwhile the sycophantic emasculati cheering for Obama mumble and stutter and insist that Obama is still, still, still the pro-life president; it's sad to see them descent from understandable (if deplorable) human cupidity to a complete disconnect from reality.