Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:57:46.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding on human embryonic stem cell research: Evidence from Congress's first showdown by President George W. Bush

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Eileen Burgin
Eileen Burgin*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Vermont, The Old Mill, Burlington, Vermont 05405 Eileen.Burgin@uvm.edu
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines the influences that congressional staff people viewed as important in shaping legislators' voting decisions on the human embryonic stem (ES) cell research bill in the 109th Congress, the first legislation vetoed by President George W. Bush. The analysis illuminates factors that impact congressional decision making on a salient issue with a strong moral component. Constituent concerns, ideology, and a desire to make good public policy all centrally affected members' choices; however, moral overtones permeated considerations relevant to the human ES cell research question. In addition, at least three influences that directly reflect or relate to members' moral claims — religious convictions, personal connections to potential beneficiaries of human ES cell research, and moral pressure from outside interests — were important also. The analysis draws on data gathered from interviews with congressional aides.

Keywords

Congresshuman embryonic stem cell researchvoting decisionsmorality policy
Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Mann, Thomas E. and Norman Ornstein, J., The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
2.Cranford, John, “Stem Cell Bill Veto Marks a First for This President,” CQ Weekly July 2006, 64: 2033.Google Scholar
3.Haider-Markel, Donald P., “Morality Policy Individual-Level Political Behavior: The Case of Legislative Voting on Lesbian and Gay Issues,” Policy Studies Journal 1999, 27(4): 735–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Meier, Kenneth J., “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics,” Policy Studies Journal 1999, 27(4): 681–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Oldmixon, Elizabeth A., Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Congressional Record, 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 152, S7653–54.Google Scholar
7.Hudson, Kathy L., Scott, Joan, and Faden, Ruth, Values in Conflict: Public Attitudes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2005).Google Scholar
8.Carroll, Joseph, “Republicans, Democrats Differ on What Is Morally Acceptable,” The Gallup Organization 2006.Google Scholar
9.Williams, Erin and Johnson, Judith, “Stem Cell Research: Ethical Issues” in a CRS Report for Congress, RL33554, 27 June 2008.Google Scholar
10.Crowley, Elizabeth, “Bush Protects ‘Moral Boundary,”’ CQ Weekly, July 2006, 64:2032.Google Scholar
11.Dombrink, John and Hillyard, Daniel, Sin No More: From Abortion to Stem Cells, Understanding Crime, Law, and Morality in America (New York: New York University Press, 2007), p. 199.Google Scholar
12.Alter, Jonathan, “It Was the Veto of a Lifetime,” Newsweek 31 July 2001, 40.Google Scholar
13.Barnes, James A. and Bell, Peter, “Political Insiders Poll,” National Journal July 2006, 38:4.Google Scholar
14.Moreno, Jonathan D., “Congress's Hybrid Problem,” Hastings Center Report July–August 2006.Google Scholar
15.Dombrink, and Hillyard, , p. 220.Google Scholar
16.Brady, David and Schwartz, Edward, “Ideology and Interests in Congressional Voting: The Politics of Abortion in the U.S. Senate,” Public Choice 1995, 84(1–2):25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Daynes, Byron and Tatalovich, Raymond, “Religious Influence and Congressional Voting on Abortion,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1984, 23(2):197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Wattier, Mark K. and Tatalovich, Raymond, “Senate Voting on Abortion Legislation over Two Decades: Testing a Reconstructed Partisanship Variable,” The American Review of Politics 1995, 16:167–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Fiorina, Morris P., Representatives, Roll Calls and Constituencies (Toronto, ON: Lexington Books, 1974).Google Scholar
20.Mayhew, David. R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
21.Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., “Constituency Influence in Congress,” American Political Science Review 1963, 57:45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Kritzer, Herbert, “Ideology and American Political Elites,” Public Opinion Quarterly 1978, 42(4):484–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Poole, Keith T. and Daniels, Steven, “Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959–1980,” American Political Science Review 1985, 79(2):373–99.Google Scholar
24.Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
25.Fenno, Richard F. Jr., Congressmen in Committees (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1973).Google Scholar
26.Clausen, Aage R., How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St. Martin's, 1973).Google Scholar
27.Kingdon, John W., Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 3rd ed. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Koford, Kenneth, “Dimensions in Congressional Voting,” American Political Science Review 1989, 83(3):949–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Clinton, Joshua D., “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House,” Journal of Politics 2006, 68(2):397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Milbank, Dana, “Stem Cell Debate Wedges Bush between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Washington Post 18 July 2006.Google Scholar
31.Solo, Pam and Pressberg, Gail, The Promise and Politics of Stem Cell Research (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007).Google Scholar
32.McFarlane, Deborah R. and Meier, Kenneth J., The Politics of Fertility Control: Family Planning and Abortion Policies in the American States (New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001), p. 2.Google Scholar
33.McFarlane, and Meier, .Google Scholar
34.Dombrink, and Hillyard, , p. 195.Google Scholar
35.Dombrink, and Hillyard, , pp. 213–214.Google Scholar
36.Arnold, Douglas R., The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), p. 4.Google Scholar
37.Davidson, Roger H., Oleszek, Walter J., and Lee, Frances E., Congress and Its Members 11th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ, 2008), p. 421.Google Scholar
38.Burgin, Eileen, “Influences Shaping Members' Decision Making: Congressional Voting on the Persian Gulf War,” Political Behavior 1994 (September):319–42.Google Scholar
39.Herold, Eve, Stem Cell Wars: Inside Stories from the Frontlines (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).Google Scholar
40.Holden, Constance, “Stem Cells: Restiveness Grows at NIH over Bush Research Restrictions,” Science August 2005, 308:334–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Johnson, Judith and Williams, Erin, “Stem Cell Research,” in a CRS Report for Congress, RL31015, 11 January 2006.Google Scholar
42.Dombrink, and Hillyard, , p. 204.Google Scholar
43.Johnson, Judith and Williams, Erin, “Stem Cell Research: Federal Research Funding and Oversight,” in a CRS Report for Congress, RL33540, 10 July 2008.Google Scholar
44.Kennedy, Donald, “Back to the People,” Science August 2006, 313:733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Noll, Roger, “Designing an Effective Program of State-Sponsored Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal Summer 2006, 21:1143–75.Google Scholar
46.Holden, Constance, “States, Foundations Lead the Way after Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill,” Science July 2006, 313: 420–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Loring, Jeanne and Campbell, Cathryn, “Intellectual Property and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Science March 2006, 311:1716–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Congressional Record, 2005, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 151, H3851–52.Google Scholar
49.Congressional Record, 2005, 109th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 151, S9323–27.Google Scholar
50.Congressional Record, 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 152, S7692.Google Scholar
51.Congressional Record, 2006, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 152, H5450–51.Google Scholar
52.Sinclair, Barbara, “Purposive Behavior in the U.S. Congress: A Review Essay,” Legislative Studies Quarterly February 1983, 8:117–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53.Oldmixon, , pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
54.Fastnow, Chris J., Grant, Tobin, and Rudolph, Thomas J., “Holy Roll Calls: Religious Tradition and Voting Behavior in the U.S. House,” Social Science Quarterly 1999, 80(4): 687–702.Google Scholar
55.Oldmixon, , p. 39.Google Scholar
56.Weiss, Rick, “Long Fight Has Slowed Progress on Stem Cells,” Washington Post 19 July 2006.Google Scholar
57.Fenno, Richard F. Jr., Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1978).Google Scholar
58.Kingdon, , p. 44.Google Scholar
59.Hansen, Orval and Blendon, Robert J., “Lawmakers' Views on the Failure of Health Reform: A Survey of Members of Congress and Staff,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 1996, 21(1):137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.Eilperin, Juliet, Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives (Lanham, M: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).Google Scholar
61.Oldmixon, , p. 176.Google Scholar
62.Davidson, , Oleszek, , Lee, , ch. 13.Google Scholar
63.Haider-Markel, Donald P. and Meier, Kenneth J., “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict,” Journal of Politics 1996, 58(2):352–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64.Barone, Michael and Cohen, Richard, The Almanac of American Politics 2006 (Washington, DC: National Journal Group, 2005), pp. 1700–04.Google Scholar
65.U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf, 2007.Google Scholar
66.U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion, 2007.Google Scholar
67.Bullock, Charles S., “Motivations for U.S. Congressional Committee Preferences: Freshmen of the 92nd Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly May 1976, 1:202–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68.Burgin, Eileen, “Representatives' Decisions on Participation in Foreign Policy Issues,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1991, 16(4):521–46.Google Scholar
69.Jackson, John E. and Kingdon, John W., “Ideology, Interest Group Scores, and Legislative Votes,” American Journal of Political Science August 1992, 36:805–23.Google Scholar
70.Hager, Gregory L. and Talbert, Jeffrey C., “Look for the Party Label: Party Influences on Voting in the U.S. House,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2000, 25(1):75–99.Google Scholar
71.Krehbiel, Keith, “Where's the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 1993, 23(1):235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72.Kingdon, John W., Candidates for Office: Beliefs and Strategies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968).Google Scholar
73.Krehbiel, Keith, “Constituency Characteristics and Legislative Preferences,” Public Choice 1993, 76(1): 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74.Poole, Keith T., “Recent Developments in Analytical Models of Voting in the U.S. Congress,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 1988, 13(1):117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75.Hatch, Orrin, Square Peg: Confessions of a Citizen Senator (New York:Basic Books, 2002).Google Scholar
76.Munro, Neil, “Stem Cells: Rival Promised,” National Journal 2006, 38 (July):53–54.Google Scholar
77.Solo, and Pressberg, , p. 72.Google Scholar
78.Personal interview with author, Capitol Hill, 13 February 2009.Google Scholar
79.Obama, Barack, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica, 2009.Google Scholar
80.Liu, Edward C., “Legal Issues Related to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” in aCRS Report for Congress, RS21044, 10 February 2009.Google Scholar
81.Wayne, Alex, “Obama Reverses Bush Stem Cell Policy,” CQ Weekly 2009, 67 (March):620.Google Scholar
82.Munro, Neil, “No End to Cloning Debate,” National Journal 2009, 41 (March):55.Google Scholar