I've been following the stem cell issue and first ever veto from President Bush in a couple of previous posts, because for social conservatives the issue is linked to abortion. But in the Senate debate, and at the veto ceremony, the issue moved even closer to reproductive health with the introduction of "snowflakes."

Snowflakes refers to frozen embryos, ten percent of which are adopted by infertile, largely white, legally heterosexual, mostly Christian parents, and the other 90% are discarded … instead of being used for life saving research for diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, alzheimers and the list could go on and on.

President Bush was literally adrift in a blizzard of snowflakes at his veto signing, surrounded by the blinding whiteness of parents and children who participated in this ….. amazing triumph of science.

During the Senate debate, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback showed a now infamous chart drawn by a snowflake, Hannah, of frozen embryos, some of whom were sad because they had not been adopted. He then said one of them was asking "are you going to kill me?" Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary used the word "murder" in defending the President's veto, saying the President would not allow life to be "destroyed."

And just what is the President doing to people living with diseases that might be cured through scientific advances and the promise that stem cell research holds? Why is it "pro-life" only defines how a person comes into, or leaves, this world, and consigns those suffering with disease in between to the social conservative's variation on a theme of the "death penalty?"

Hypocrisy anyone? But why should we expect anything else from social conservatives at this point? Jon Stewart has been at his very best for the past two nights on this, check out the Hard Cell video here.

I wanted to learn more, so off to Google I went, and the very first link was not only white, but Christian. Nightlight Christian Adoptions features a photo album of happy families and adorable babies, and we should all be glad for the joy in their lives and the children they are nurturing. They were all white and infants. By contrast at Adoption.com the kids were of every race and ranged from ages 2-14.

People who support the rights of families of all kinds to choose the timing and size of their families through planning (including insemination) are often accused of thwarting God's will by using contraception, having sex for anything other than procreation, wanting to prevent the spread of disease by making condoms widely available, working with groups most at-risk like sex workers, and for choosing an abortion in case an unintended pregnancy comes when it would not be best for the mother, family, or eventual child.

They preach abstinence not reality, prefer the rhythm method to contraception, and adoption not abortion.

So, should the nice pops and moms who chose to adopt snowflakes have adopted kids that were born naturally, not through scientifc progress? Or is it possible that the "type" of child they wanted is harder to find in the foster care and adoption system, and perhaps easier to come by at the frozen embryo shop, where vanilla seems to be flavor of the day?

Here's a tip for the White House Communications Office: next time, you might want to find a few "Flava Flakes" (brown, black, you know all the shades of people the President saw at his first-ever NAACP speech following his first-ever veto), then it might not look like you are trying to create a master race from the scientific advances of frozen embryos. But then again, maybe this White House has given up worrying about its public image at home, as well as abroad.