ASHINGTON, July 11 — For all the talk of a compromise on embryonic stem cell research, many leaders in the anti-abortion movement say they are counting on President Bush to abide by his campaign promises and hold the line against federal financing for such research.

If he reneges, some of these leaders say, the consequences will be substantial — not just the political fallout from breaking faith with some of his most loyal supporters in last year's campaign, but also, these conservative activists argue, a first step down a very slippery slope for the culture at large.

"There should be a nonnegotiable principle that says innocent human life is sacrosanct and on this we will not compromise," said Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, alluding to the microscopic embryos that must be destroyed to extract the stem cells.

Richard Doerflinger, the point man on this issue at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said: "It has no convincing stopping point once you begin funding some of this research. And I think it gives up the moral argument at its core."

That line-in-the-sand position, which also comes from the National Right to Life Committee, longtime anti-abortion activists like Phyllis Schlafly and an array of other social conservatives, underscores the dilemma for President Bush. He faces an army of patients groups and scientists pleading for the federally financed research to go forward, arguing that the cells hold great promise in treating diseases and repairing damaged tissue and organs. But a critical part of his base, the social conservatives, argue just as passionately that the financing is wrong.

Moreover, many of them vividly recall his campaign pledge on the issue. "He took a stand in our own presidential candidate questionnaire, which we published in Catholic newspapers in October," Mr. Doerflinger said. What Mr. Bush said: "Taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos."

Since 1995 Congress has imposed a ban on federal financing for research in which human embryos are destroyed. But the Clinton administration ruled last year that this ban would not extend to stem cell research as long as no federally financed researchers were involved in obtaining the cells and thus destroying the embryos.

Social conservatives asserted that this was a meaningless distinction to circumvent the law. Mr. Bush must decide whether to continue that policy.

Anti-abortion activists say that despite the defection of a handful of their usual allies on this issue, notably Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, the movement as a whole is unified and strong in its opposition.

"There is no division in the pro-life movement about this," said Douglas E. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "All of the organizations, both denominational and secular, that have supported pro-life policies over the years are of one mind — strongly opposed to the federal funding of research that involves killing human embryos."

The activists also say that despite speculation to the contrary, they are counting on Mr. Bush to stand firm. "My experience has been, and Karl Rove and others have said it many times, `Look, if the president said this in the campaign, you can go to the bank on it,' " Mr. Connor said.

Mr. Rove, who has extensive contacts with conservatives, is one of the voices who will weigh in on any decision. He has presented the anti-research arguments at White House meetings and outlined the political ramifications of the difficult issue, on which some members of the Bush administration are divided. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is considered a research supporter.

Gary L. Bauer, the conservative activist, said of President Bush, "He's been willing to go into the face of significant attacks on his tax cut and on missile defense, and I'm still holding out hope that he will ultimately do the same thing on this — although with each passing day, my concerns grow."

In fact, these are anxious days for the movement. Leaders are mobilizing troops and working to put a human face on their side of the debate, keenly aware that the plight of patients afflicted with diabetes or Parkinson's disease, who argue that research on stem cells could someday lead to a cure, has swayed many to the other side.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a letter delivered to members of the House and Senate today, declared: "We know that speculations about the possible benefits of such research, and mistaken views about the status of the human embryo, have led many to urge you to abandon your convictions. We believe it is more important than ever to stand for the principle that the government must not treat any living human being as research material, as a mere means for benefit to others."

The letter also warned, "You can make a difficult but correct decision now — or set the stage for all-but- impossible decisions in the future for yourself and your successors, as a research enterprise impatient with moral limits increasingly leads us into a culture of death." The letter was signed by the conference's president, the Rev. Joseph A. Fiorenza, bishop of Galveston-Houston.

Next week, opponents of the research will use a House subcommittee hearing to showcase children who were adopted as frozen embryos. Samuel B. Casey, senior counsel to Human Life Advocates, who is helping to organize their appearance, said in an interview, "The argument that's been made by those who want to change or lift the federal ban on destructive embryonic stem cell research is that these embryos are in excess, we're just going to throw them out anyway."

Mr. Casey added that the appearance of the children — a 2-year-old girl and 9-month-old twins —— would send a different message, "That every child who is a frozen human embryo needs to be thought of as in a frozen orphanage."

Under the Clinton guidelines, the stem cells would be obtained from frozen embryos — stored in fertility clinics —that were no longer wanted by the couples that created them.

Behind the anti-abortion movement's strong opposition, there are a few signs that some compromises would be viewed as better than others — for example, the idea of permitting federal financing of research on the limited number of cell lines previously developed from embryos, but no new ones. Dr. Richard D. Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said that while he would oppose such a compromise, "it would not jeopardize his standing as a pro-life president," in contrast to other possibilities.

If Mr. Bush allowed financing for research on new cell lines, and by extension the destruction of more embryos to create them, Dr. Land said, "It would be the cultural conservatives' equivalent of going back on the no-new-taxes pledge of a previous administration."

Mrs. Schlafly, the veteran activist, said: "I think it will severely damage him if he goes the wrong way on it. It's not like we're asking him to take a new position or get a new bill through. It's just enforcing the law."

Ari Fleischer, the president's spokesman, said today that the president had been meeting with a range of people on this issue, and that he would "continue to listen very carefully to all sides of this issue, so that when he makes his decision it will be a very informed decision, it will be a very sensitive decision, it will be a decision that recognizes the deep complexities that this matter raises for our society."

And in fact, many conservative activists said they saw this as a watershed moment for the culture, despite the scientific complexities of the issue. "We've got to figure out a way to avoid turning over to the guys in white coats in laboratories all the profound decisions about what kind of culture and society we're going to have," Mr. Bauer said.

Category: 31. Stem Cells