AP/Reuters

IF ONE policy sealed the tie between George Bush's administration and conservative religious voters it was his ban on federal funding for human embryonic stem-cell research. On Monday March 9th Barack Obama overturned the controversial policy by signing an order lifting the ban on federal funding introduced in August 2001. The first veto of Mr Bush's presidency, in July 2006, was used to reject a bill from a Republican-controlled Congress that would have loosened the restrictions. At that time Mr Bush said that harvesting embryonic stem cells crossed a moral boundary that “would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others”.

Scientists and a few Republicans (Nancy Reagan among them) fought vigorously against the federal-funding ban. The scientists argued that America would lose the edge in biomedical research to Europe; Mrs Reagan compassionately pleaded that stem-cell research could help to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which afflicted Ronald Reagan in his later years.

Mr Obama's order was not unexpected. While running for president he said he would lift the funding ban, and shortly after his inauguration the Food and Drug Administration approved a request from Geron, a Californian biotechnology company, to use embryonic stem-cells in clinical trials on patients with severe spinal injuries. Opinion polls show general support for overturning the ban, though support for stem-cell research weakens if a question is phrased in such a way as to determine that the practise can “destroy” embryonic human life.

The president's decision, however, is deeply unpopular with religious conservatives. The Family Research Council, a conservative pressure group, immediately responded that research on adult stem cells was adequate and has “been proven to treat every single disease” that Mr Obama mentioned in the signing ceremony, such as Parkinson's disease. It argued that the order allows scientists to “create their own guidelines without proper moral constraints”.

Mr Obama reminded everyone of his religious leanings by saying that “as a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering”. But he maintained that a false choice had been presented between religion and science. Despite his image as a sensible moderate, conservatives increasingly claim that this is a sham and that Mr Obama is bent on ideological war.

Since entering office Mr Obama has overturned a number of policies that religious conservatives hold dear, such as a ban on government aid for family-planning groups that promote abortion in poor countries. Plans are also in the works to rescind a regulation enacted in the dying days of the Bush administration that gives health workers a “right of conscience”, protecting them from the sack if they refused to co-operate in certain medical procedures (mainly abortions). Social conservatives are also upset with Eric Holder, the new attorney-general, for confirming that the federal government will no longer take action against medical-marijuana clubs, which are legal in some states.

None of these reversals is a surprise, but conservatives have been taken aback at the unflinching speed of the changes. Mr Obama may be emboldened by his solid victory—he does not need the support of religious conservatives to govern. And for all the talk of bipartisanship and Mr Obama's courting of religious voters during his campaign, their voting patterns did not change much at all, so he owes them little.

John Green, an expert in religion and politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, recently published a survey that found Mr Obama's share of the vote among white evangelical Protestants was virtually unchanged from that of John Kerry's in 2004. Mr Obama actually lost some ground among white mainline Protestant and white Catholic voters. He did win over the majority of the “modernist” wings of both groups, but by smaller margins than did Mr Kerry.

The “values debate” will not end soon; if anything it is seeping from social to economic policy. Some conservative commentators claim that the White House budget is “socialist”, and bail-outs for banks and distressed homeowners betray American values of rugged individualism and self-determination. The moderate centre may eventually feel the sense of “betrayal” expressed by conservatives. If it hits this vital part of Mr Obama's support, then he may have to take note.