ST. LOUIS — The second presidential debate followed a town-hall style where audience members asked questions to President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Moderated by Charlie Gibson of ABC.

 

Friday, October 08, 2004

 

Stem Cells

 

MODERATOR:  Senator Kerry, the next question is for you, and it comes from Elizabeth Long.

Q     Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or
treated by the use of adult stem cells, or umbilical chord stem cells. However, no one was been cured by using embryonic stem cells.  Wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo.

SENATOR KERRY:  You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your  -- the feeling that's in your question.  I understand it.  I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously.  But like Nancy Reagan and so many other people -- you know, I was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire, who's suffering from Parkinson's.  And he wants us to do stem cell -- embryonic stem cell.  And this fellow stood up and he was quivering, his whole body was shaking from the nerve disease, the muscular disease that he had, and he said to me and to the whole hall, he said, you know, don't take away my hope because my hope is what keeps me going.  Chris Reeve is a friend of mine.  Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again -- and I want him to walk again.

I think we can save lives.  Now, I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem cell research.  We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics.  These weren't taken from abortion or something like that,  they're from a fertility clinic.  And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen.  And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing some kind of a paraplegic or quadriplegic or a spinal cord injury, anything -- that's the nature of the human spirit.  I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure.  I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.

And the President's chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that.  I want the future, and I think we have to grab it.

MODERATOR:  Mr. President, a minute-and-a-half.

PRESIDENT BUSH:  Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell.  I'm the first President ever to allow funding, federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research.  I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.

But I think -- I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.  And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics.  So is balancing life.  To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.

There is going to be hundreds of experiments off the 22 lines that now exist, that are active, and hopefully we find a cure.  But as well, we need to continue to pursue adult stem cell research.  I helped double the NIH budget to $28 billion a year to find cures.  And the approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life.

MODERATOR:  Senator, thirty seconds, let's extend.

SENATOR KERRY:  When you talk about walking a waffle line, he says he's allowed it, which means he's going to allow the destruction of life up to a certain amount, and then he isn't going to allow it.  Now, I don't know how you draw that line.  But let me tell you, point-blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70, there are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated.

We've got to open up the possibilities of this research.  And when I am President, I'm going to do it, because we have to.

MODERATOR:  Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH:  Let me make sure you understand my decision.  Those stem cell lines already existed.  The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my decision.  I had to make the decision, do we destroy more life, do we continue to destroy life.  I made the decision to balance science and ethics.

Judges

MODERATOR:  Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Mickelson (phonetic.)

Q     Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court,
and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose, and why?

PRESIDENT BUSH:  I'm not telling.  (Laughter.)  I really don't have
-- I haven't picked anybody yet.  Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(Laughter.)  I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law.  I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.  I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words, "under God," in it.  I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.  That's personal opinion; that's not what the Constitution says.  The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- it doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C.  Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.  And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- next four years.  And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there.  No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

MODERATOR:  Senator Kerry, a minute-and-a-half.

SENATOR KERRY:  Thank you, Charlie.  A few years ago, when he came to office, the President said -- these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts."  And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.  So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.

Now, here's what I believe.  I don't believe we need a good conservative judge and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge.  I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.  I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard -- he was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States -- and he said the mark of a good judge, a good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or a woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian; you just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

What I want to find, if I'm privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen -- the future of things that matter to you, in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have; whether we'll enforce the law; will we have equal opportunity; will women's rights be protected; will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards -- will a woman's right to chose be protected.  They are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

Abortion

MODERATOR:  Going to go to the final two questions, now.  And the first one will be for Senator Kerry, and this comes from Sarah Degenheart (phonetic).

Q     Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who
believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion.  What would you say to that person?

SENATOR KERRY:  I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.  First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins.  I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic, I was an altar boy.  Religion has been a huge part of my life.  It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.  But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, protestant, whatever.  I can't do that.

But I can counsel people.  I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility.  I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.  But as a President, I have to represent all the people in the nation.  And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that -- that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion.  But you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important.  That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.  You'll help prevent AIDS.  You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.  You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question and I truly respect it.

MODERATOR:  Mr. President, a minute-and-a-half.

PRESIDENT BUSH:  Trying to decipher that.  (Laughter.)  My answer is we're not going to spend federal taxpayers' money on abortion.  This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.  I signed the ban on partial-birth abortion.  It's a brutal practice.  It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.  I think there ought to be parental notification laws.  He's against them.  I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violent Act -- in other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant, you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one.  My opponent is against that.  These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America.

I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.  I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion. And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.  Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Senator, do you want to follow up?  Thirty seconds.

SENATOR KERRY:  Well, again, the President just said categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that.  It's just not that simple.  No, I'm not.  I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother. Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16 or 17-year old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father.  So you've got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it.  It's never quite as simple as the President wants you to believe.

MODERATOR:  And 30 seconds, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH:  It's pretty simple when they say, are you for a ban on partial-birth abortion -- yes or no.  And he was given a chance to vote. And he voted no.  And that's just the way it is.  That's a vote.  It came right up, it's clear for everybody to see.  And, as I said, you can run, but you can't hide.  It's reality.