In an essay titled The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox, Mary L. Davenport, an obstetrician and gynecologist, responds to the claims Michael J. Fox makes in his stumping for two Democratic candidates.

While her article is well done, I think, I feel I need to point this out: Pointing to the efficacy of adult stem cells, while effective in showing a more viable alternative to ebryonic stem cells, seems to infer that results are what matter, and that’s not the case. Those of us opposed to ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) do so on moral grounds: it is immoral to create a life, just to destroy it, even if it cured every disease known to man. Highlighting the successes in using adult stem cells is only done to show that stem cell research is viable, and that there are types of stem cell research (including umbilical cord sources) that actually are effective without having significant moral hurdles, unlike ESCR, which promises a lot, delivers nothing, and guarantees a moral morass. It is also important to note that I’m not claiming proponents of alternatives to ESCR are oblivious or indifferent to this distinction. Rather, I’m confident that most, if not all, would agree whole-heartedly with my statement above. I merely want to point out a distinction that usually gets little ink in this discussion.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a great article about Michael J. Fox’s recent campaign commercials in Missouri and Maryland:

Jim Caviezel, Kurt Warner, Patricia Heaton and others have helped with an ad that counters Fox’s ad. You can view it on YouTube (if you’re brave enough to go there).