It is a moral issue, but it's also a political issue. Will political influences have an effect on the decision? Of course they will. I don't think we should necessarily lament that. That's how a democratic society works. I just hope that those of us who believe in the importance of embryonic stem cell research will be able to convince the political influences that the right thing to do is to allow this research to go forward.

Will the decision at the White House be based on the pure politics of the constituencies of, say, Catholic voters? I think if they were to look at the data with respect to how Catholics feel about this, they will see that Catholics basically look at the issue of whether we should support embryonic stem cell research just like any other group in the country. If one looked at it purely from a polling perspective, the polling data would indicate that most Catholics believe we should go forward with research.

The research has limitations on it. We don't want federal dollars to be used for the purpose of encouraging couples to produce embryos strictly for the purpose of research. I oppose that. I think the guidelines probably already provide for that.

I happen to believe that we ought to focus in on those blastocysts or embryos that are going to be discharged. The guidelines that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) came up with basically said that a couple ought to be given a series of choices about what could be done with respect to that blastocyst. They can donate it. It can be maintained in a frozen state. Or it can be discarded. That's when the next alternative would be laid out, and that alternative would be to consider these cells for the purpose of research.

If the couple says yes, they in essence give their consent, and what would have been discharged or eliminated will now be used for medical research, which I believe will be engaged in the extension of life, and I make the argument from a pro-life perspective that we ought to be engaged in that.

That might be kind of clever use of semantics, but the point is I honestly believe that if we have the opportunity to be engaged in this research it will be used in such a way that we will extend life. We will improve the quality of life.

[If there is no federal funding,] I would be extremely disappointed. But at the same time, I respect the decision whichever way it comes down. I honestly believe that the president will make an honest decision from his perspective, based on his morals, his ethics, and I wouldn't question that. I'd be disappointed in it. But I think that regardless of what the president does, if he makes a decision that I'm comfortable with and that I embrace, then I suppose those who disagree with me probably will offer legislation to overturn that, and vice versa if the reverse takes place. The decision is probably going to move into the Congress, and just how that plays out is difficult to call at this time.

The perfect decision for me would be for the president to accept and allow the guidelines that have been established by the NIH, which spent a great deal of time putting those guidelines together.

[The president] might want to consider that maybe there ought to be some kind of penalties to people who violate those guidelines. In other words, for folks who have a deep concern about misuse of embryos or people who might create them for the purpose of research -- maybe there ought to be penalties. Maybe there ought to be a loss of research dollars to institutions that engage in that kind of behavior. There might be a way to strengthen things, but in the end I would hope that the president would come out in support of the existing NIH guidelines.

A poll that was done by the Diabetes Association basically confirmed that there is significant support in the country for embryonic stem cell research. I know that there are people who say, "They didn't ask the question the right way," or "It depends on whom you ask." This is a legitimate poll, and the questions were asked in a neutral way. They provided unbiased information to the individuals being asked the question, and after they heard the information they made their decision. I think it's a valid poll, and if someone's interested in polling data in making their decision, then I think they ought to take a look at that.

How did I get to where I am on pro-life? Did that come strictly from my religious training? In the beginning, that clearly is an influence. When you're raised as a Catholic, you're taught about the importance of life and a pro-life perspective. But in a sense that only carries you so far. You ought to have some intellectual basis or some moral basis upon which you [build].

From a political point of view, I have found myself engaged in some very difficult discussions and issues with respect to the pro-life position. It comes about more than just from your training as a child in a particular religion. I just see it as a central issue for me from society's perspective.

If you don't protect life here, where do you protect it? That's where pro-life people have a problem with the position that I take that says, in a sense, this case is different. They are uncomfortable and ask, "If you can say it there, well then where do you say it the next time? Will there ever be an end to this kind of additional exemptions to a pro-life position?"

I understand that, but I think I have a set of values and issue perspective and research knowledge enough to satisfy me, anyway, that I am very comfortable with where I am on this issue. It is pro-life, and I say that knowing how people react to playing on that term. Regardless of what terms you want to use, we believe if we can go forward with embryonic stem cell research, the quality of peoples' lives will be improved, and lives in fact could be saved. I would underscore "could." And so I think we ought to go forward with it.