Go to this Cybersurvey by the Detroit News and try to figure out what each option actually means.
The question is:
The bill before the Senate that would permit federal funding of stem-cell research on excess embryos stored at in-vitro fertilization clinics is now being joined by several other stem-cell bills (editor - this text links to an article which discusses bills that would encourage research into options that don't necessitate the destruction of human embryos) that would limit research to live embryos. Several scientists testified that it will take years to determine whether techniques that do not destroy embryos would work. What should Congress do?
The options then follow:
Pass the current bill
The "current bill" seems to mean H.R. 810, which would allow federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created from the stem cell extracted from human embryos.
Pass a bill that limits research to live embryos
The Detroit News seem to be referencing some bills to fund alternatives to embryonic stem cell research that may be able to create pluripotent stem cells without killing embryos but for some reason say that this research would be limited to live embryos, as if the other research deals with only dead embryos. Are they trying to avoid saying "limits research to alternatives that don't kill human embryos" but don't want to mention that one stem cell bill requires the deaths of human embryos? It appears so. This is a perfect example of how a reporter's or editor's bias morphs a question that should be relatively straightforward into something that is completely nonsensical.
Keep the total ban, don't pass any bill
"Total ban?" What "total ban?" The "total ban" where the federal government spends tens of millions of dollars on the research that they've "totally banned."