Randy Kuhl has a weekly telephone press conference. Most reporters in the 29th seem to use it for background, but the Hornell Evening Tribune covers it faithfully. This week's story shows Kuhl is concerned about two things: undue haste in the passage of the 100 hours legislation, and his vote against stem cell research.
Kuhl points out that the ethics reform package includes a mistake in the wording of the section intended to prohibit travel in corporate jets. In the current legislation, the wording could be interpreted as a complete ban on travel on non-governmental airplanes. Kuhl uses this as evidence that the Democrats' should not have circumvented the normal committee process when passing the first legislation of the 110th Congress.
Kuhl's position is consistent with his party. Every major vote in the 110th has been preceded by a party-line vote seeking to refer the legislation to committee. Once that vote fails, a few Republicans join with the Democrats to pass the bill in question. Though I agree with Kuhl on the general principle that legislation should be reviewed by committee, the first 100 hours bills are a bunch of no-brainers that have generally been well-reviewed and heavily debated in previous Congresses. If the Democrats continue with the policy of prohibiting referral to committee, then Republicans have a legitimate gripe, just as the Democrats did when the Republicans employed similar measures to advance their agenda when they were in the majority.
On the stem cell issue, Kuhl's latest position is that he is for embryonic stem cell research that doesn't involve the destruction of embryos. When science is able to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying them, he'll support the legislation.
Nobody seems to have asked Kuhl the obvious question: If destruction of embryos is so bad, why is in-vitro fertilization (IVF) allowed? Hundreds of thousands of embryos die each year as a result of IVF, yet most right-to-life advocates accept this collateral damage as the price of helping infertile couples to have a baby.
Kuhl and others believe that the right to conceive is important enough to kill embryos. The right to research a promising cure for a number of deadly and debilitating diseases is not. This position makes no sense.
Comments
If this were the bible belt of rural Mississippi, I could understand why, for political reasons, Randy might adopt such an extreme position. But let's get real. This is New York State. I know people who went to school/grew up with Randy. They don't recall that religion played much of a role in guiding his actions during his formative years. His position plays to a small minority in the district, and his 2008 opponent will be well served to remember his wet kiss to the neo-cons on this one. As far as his complaints about procedure, I honestly think that when all is said and done, people are going to look back and remember the flurry of action taken by the Democrats in their first 100 hours, and Randy's already tiresome whining - especially when viewed in light of his membership in the 109th "Do-Nothing" Congress - sure seems like nothing more than sour grapes.
I think he knows that he's out on a limb on stem cells, and his remarks here were another example. He tries to sound reasonable ("I want to support research") yet in the end he votes against it.
People tend to value results over procedure (up to a point). I don't think the Democrats have bent the procedures enough to harm the institution, and they're producing results. As I pointed out earlier, the opposition party needs to pick its battles or else they seem like whiners who are never satisfied. This extremely minor issue on jet travel isn't one of those battles.
RC said this:
Nobody seems to have asked Kuhl the obvious question: If destruction of embryos is so bad, why is in-vitro fertilization (IVF) allowed? Hundreds of thousands of embryos die each year as a result of IVF, yet most right-to-life advocates accept this collateral damage as the price of helping infertile couples to have a baby.
Well put. And guess what? Do any of the articles citing his voting rationale counter with this?
The bill only authorizes the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The bill has strict ethical guidelines, including stipulating that embryos can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange for the embryos.
In other words, we're talking about stem cells from those IVF clinic embryos, which would be destroyed ANYWAY. Why is he against using them to save lives and help the disabled? And why is the press not asking this?
The consent point is very important. Those who oppose using their embryos for research can put them into the "snowflake" program for potential adoption.