Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)

I'd like to set a few things straight about Obama's Notre Dame claim that we pro-Lifers do not support stem cell research. We do -- we just don't support embryonic stem cell research -- which is the dismemberment and utilization of the body parts of an unwilling human being. We do support all other types of stem cell research which use stem cells from willing donors.

The science so far has been in favor of the latter, and is particularly so in the in the case of autologous stem cells -- those taken from the person whose illness they are to be used to cure. Autologous stem cells do not have the rejection issues associated with embryonic stem cells, because the latter are taken from another human being with different DNA from any other human being -- an inconvenient truth that embryonic stem cell proponents would prefer you not think about.

The science of embryonic stem cells has, to date, been the stuff of dreams and not of reality, and this isn't because the United States Government has stymied research using embryonic stem cells. Many other governments, thinking the US Gov't foohardy, have jumped in -- like California, funding embryonic stem cell research to the exclusion of its alternatives. Embryonic stem cell research has literally had billions of dollars thrown at it, with little (to none) rewards as a result. To get that sense, one merely has to review the case of Farah Fawcett, who went to Germany for "embryonic stem cell therapy", and came back just as sick as when she went.

When Obama talks about a cure for diabetes, he's referring to this report by the NIH. Note the hope (but not the certainty) that pancreatic cells produced from embryonic stem cells (or adult donors -- the rejection process is identical) can be rendered safe from rejection by the host by a method of encapsulation. Also note the long discussion of issues associated with rejection -- many of which are mirror images of the self-treatment regimen the diabetic normally endures. The general solution is very hard to encapsulate.

Before we go further, note that juvenile diabetes, as mentioned by President Obama, is also called Type I diabetes. Type I diabetes is an auto-immune disease, in which the body attacks and destroys its own healthy cells -- in particular, the insulin producing cells harbored in the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas.

Left unsaid in the NIH report is something which makes me believe the report is political rather than scientific in nature -- a total failure to mention autologous stem cell research such as this. Note that the Brazilians (who, like us, have a pro-Life attitude toward embryos) have turned that morality into scientific certainty with regard to a small group of Type I diabetes sufferers:

After receiving drugs to stimulate stem cell production, the patients had some bone marrow removed to harvest a supply of blood stem cells, and then their immune systems were suppressed with drugs and they also took antibiotics and stayed in isolation to protect them from infection.

After two weeks their extracted and conditioned stem cells were infused into their bloodstream, via the jugular vein.

The treatment took place between November 2003 and July 2006 with further observation until February 2007 at the Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit of the School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

During this time the patients were monitored and blood samples taken to test for insulin and other markers.

As the treatment took effect, the patients gradually, at different rates, reduced their need for external insulin.

14 of the 15 patients were insulin-independent over the 7 to 36 month follow up period. The average insulin free period was nearly 19 months.

One patient was still insulin-free at 35 months, another 4 for 21 months, 7 for 6 months and 2 with late response were insulin-free for 1 and 5 months respectively.

The treatment failed in the first patient, probably because their beta cell count was too low when they started the treatment. The remaining patients were more carefully selected after this.

No patients died; one got pneumonia and two others developed late endocrine dysfunction (hypothyroidism or hypogonadism). It is not clear if this was as a result of the treatment.

At 6 months after AHST treatment, the level of C-peptide, a marker that shows the presence of the body's own produced insulin, was significantly greater than the pre-treatment values, and did not change at 12 and 24 months.

The study concluded that:

"High-dose immunosuppression and AHST were performed with acceptable toxicity in a small number of patients with newly diagnosed type 1 DM. With AHST, beta cell function was increased in all but 1 patient and induced prolonged insulin independence in the majority of the patients".

In an accompanying editorial, Jay Skyler who directs the Diabetes Research Institute at the University of Miami in Florida, USA, said that while these results are promising, they should be treated with some caution.

It is not unusual for recently diagnosed type 1 patients to go through what is called a "honeymoon" period where for some reason they experience a rise in their own bodily insulin production.

This trial was really an observational study - it did not include a control group, which would have controlled for effects such as the honeymoon period, noted Skyler.

Also, it is not clear what exactly is going on. Is the insulin level going up because the stem cells generated extra beta cells, or because the immune system stopped attacking the beta cells and the 20 or so per cent that were still left in the patients was enough to keep insulin production at the right level, or a mixture of the two?

In other words, the study was inconclusive precisely because of the auto-immune nature of Type I diabetes. If another person's (e.g., an embryo's) cells are transplanted into a patient, what will undoubtedly be the response of their hyper-active immune system?

One of my opponents in this matter (Marion Roach) has a very good outlook on the matter -- one which applies just as equally to the pro-Life side of the equation:

Right now, the NIH is formulating the research guidelines for the new stem cell policy and has opened a 30-day public comment period.

Here are mine: Not all trades are equal. Sell your stuff? That’s easy. But never hock your values. You can’t get those back a piece at a time.

In just a short while, Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the United States, will welcome President Barack Obama and will confer upon him an honorary degree in return for a commencement speech.

In my mind, this is as if Jesus paid Judas the thirty pieces of silver for the kiss.

Luckily, in Catholicism, sin is an individual stain. Why, therefore, do I feel that my entire faith has been stained by this action of Notre Dame in awarding an honorary degree to the nation's foremost proponent of abortion rights (even to the point of allowing the deaths of viable babies born alive as a result of an abortion)?

I'm hoping for a teachable moment here. I will update this entry should any show up.

Update as of 2:50PM PST. The text of obama's speech has yet to appear in the media.
But this has:

Obama entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of 12,000. But as the president began his commencement address, at least three protesters interrupted it. One yelled, "Stop killing our children."

The graduates responded by chanting "Yes we can," the slogan that became synonymous with Obama's presidential campaign. Obama seem unfazed, saying Americans must be able to deal with things that make them "uncomfortable."

Yes we can kill our children? And these are Catholics?

Is Obama saying that Americans 150-200 years ago should have dealt with slavery in a calm and moderate fashion? Did he deal with the sensitivities of the other side in any of his pronouncements to date?

Tara Makowski of Seattle, who received a master's degree Saturday from the school, said she was dismayed by the way Notre Dame was being characterized.

"Seeing us being portrayed nationally as radical conservative has been really tough," she said. "People need to realize that the majority of students and faculty" favored Obama's visit.

Obviously not a teachable moment for Tara Makowski. Many true Catholics were with Bishop John D'Arcy, far away from the baby killer's speech:

But Bishop John D'Arcy, whose diocese includes Notre Dame, skipped commencement. He attended an open-air Mass and rally. He said he wanted to support the students protesting Obama's speech.

"All of you are heroes, and I'm proud to stand with you," he said.

As of 3PM PST, the speech is here.

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Note, he didn't change his view, only his words. So is that what we on the pro-Life side can expect -- nice words, but no action? From Obama's acts during his first few weeks in office, we have seen that we will get lip service (as was done on Obama's campaign website) but no real consideration.

Two hundred years ago, the slaver clergy deplored slavery, but stated that it was a better condition for blacks than freedom, because they didn't know how to take care of themselves, and did not have the intelligence to fend for themselves in the modern society of the 1850's. They themselves, of course, had assured that by passing the Black Codes, which forbade teaching blacks how to read or write.

Obama occupies the identical position to those slaver clergy so long ago. Deplore, but lift not a finger to stop.

The Catholic hierarchy is outraged (to put it mildly) over Notre Dame's recent invitation to Barack Obama to speak at the 2009 Commencement and to receive the customary honorary degree. They would prefer that the University "disinvite" him.

The Washington Post thinks not:

Catholicism is not a sect that shuns the world as evil. As a body, the American hierarchy has usually been both principled and open to political engagement. The bishops have congratulated the new president on his victory and pledged to work with him on issues affecting social and economic justice. Do they now find him morally unfit to speak at a Catholic university?

Obama is not coming to Notre Dame to press a pro-choice agenda but to address issues that affect all American citizens, including Catholics. He will be speaking to students who, like other Americans, gave him a majority of their votes. He will receive an honorary degree because it is the custom, not as a blessing on any of his decisions.

American bishops should remember that it was only a few decades ago that a Catholic was considered unfit for the White House. Do they now believe that a sitting president is unfit to address a Catholic university? It's time the bishops gave a clear and principled response.

You say that Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, should honor the President for things aside from his hyper-support for abortion -- to the point where he quashed legislation requiring medical treatment for babies born alive as the result of an abortion -- a position so supportive that it is the embodiment of evil to many (if not most) Catholics, and is certainly so to our leaders, who, counter to your assertion, are indeed giving a clear and principled response.

If Adolf Hitler were alive and Brandeis University (the foremost Jewish university in the United States) decided to award him an honorary degree in Judaic Studies, would you feel the same?

Adolf Hitler made the trains run on time and brought Germany out of its depression (both of great aid to the people of Germany) but we remember him for something totally different. That's what us Catholics think of Barack Obama -- something totally different, morally unfit to speak at a Catholic university.

"We are devastated by the loss of George - Jordy to us," the veteran newsman's family said in a statement Tuesday. "He was truly a caring person who loved and was loved by all he met.

"Jordy loved New York and its people, particularly his Carroll Gardens neighborhood. The outpouring of support by his friends and neighbors is a blessing to us and a testimony to his character."

Words by the family of George Weber, who died at the hands of a teenager after soliciting violent sadomasochistic sex from the boy.

The LA Times today has word of a closed press "White House ceremony":

"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."

This is kind of weird. A "White House ceremony" up until now has involved the President presenting awards to other people.

This "White House ceremony" involves other people presenting awards to the President.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that Washington DC is somewhere in North Korea.

In any case, according to the Times:

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

That explains everything. I can imagine what's going to be said by both sides (the givers and the recipients), and I doubt it's going to be politically correct.

Or maybe it doesn't explain everything. Maybe black newspaper people need to be protected from white newspaper people. Oh, that's the same as "that explains everything". Hmm...

On Monday, President Obama plans to reverse President Bush's executive order preventing the use of Federal funding for research on new embryonic stem cell lines:

Scientists say stem cell research will lead to medical breakthroughs, but many religious groups oppose the research.

Correspondents say the policy change is part of President Obama's pledge to make clear that his administration wants scientific research to be free from political interference.

It expected that his announcement about federal money will be accompanied by a promise that what he calls "sound science" will be respected by his administration.

It is also thought that the announcement is timed to allow an adequate period for health officials to draw up research guidelines before a deadline for government stimulus money runs out.

As I have pointed out over and over again, there is no sound science behind embryonic stem cell research which is not exceeded by the science behind the use of autologous stem cells.

Political "interference" (or what I would call "oversight") is certainly needed to shepherd the correct use of taxpayer funds. That Obama feels that embryonic stem cell research equates to good science is obvious, but the statement of research freedom is not going to pass muster in any kind of informed society.

If Josef Mengele were to show up on Obama's doorstep, would Obama still feel the same about the lack of need for political tests prior to funding medical research?