Now that the NIH has finished its review of President Barack Obama's executive order lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and set forth its expanded regulations and parameters for embryo destruction (see Time), I thought of a question. Political liberals, who dangerously think they know science, and use the false information to restrict freedoms, are fond of saying about "global warming" that "the science is in." Un-huh. Right. (In fact, the earth cooled last year and has been. See this column in the Norfolk Examiner.)

But if there was any area where the science is in, it's in stem cell research, and this is what it says: 

Hundreds of advances through adult stem cell research and none through embryonic stem cell research. 

Combine that with the fact that soon scientists will be able to make adult stem cells mimic embryonic stem cells, and there is no reason for embryonic stem cell research. 

So, here's the question: If the science is in, and it most definitely is in the case of stem cell research, why persist in destroying embryos for nothing? Granted, it's not a new question, but I'm still waiting for a liberal to answer it.

Besides, once liberal queen Oprah's favorite doctor says so, isn't it so?