U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction against the use of Federal funds on embryonic stem cell research. Citing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, the Judge said:

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed … It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the ‘piece of research’ in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Doing some quick reading, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment states:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for–

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term “human embryo or embryos” includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

Disagreeing with the ruling, Dr. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health said, “This will mean very promising research will not get done, screening for new drugs will stop, and researchers who have been energized will likely grow discouraged and move to other countries or on to other research.” However, that is a fallacy, since there is plenty of corporate and private funding available. If you recall, I wrote an article back on 1/26/2009 based upon the premise of using Federal funds to destroy embryos.

This action has often been called an assault to science. To me, it is called using taxpayers funds wisely. There is enough private funding in the field at the moment that government funding isn’t necessary. Additionally, there is no law requiring the government to fund any research. If Bush had banned the research all together, then there would be grounds for protest by the medical community, but this wasn’t the case. If Bush banned all federal funding into the field of research, there would definitely be complaining, but the research would still be allowed to continue (with private funding).

Stepping back in time to 2001, I think the medical community, plus any other special interest group out there, should recognize that there are many sources of funding (both private and public) available for stem cell research as a whole. If the federal government were willing to increase funding on one segment of research and restrict funding on another, the logical course of action would be the reallocation of resources. Shift private funding to embryonic stem cell research and apply for public funding on adult and cord blood stem cell research. You would still see an increase in funding without picking a fight with the government and creating partisan divide (and confusion).

Without legislation to remove/replace the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, I do not see how the spending on embryonic stem cell research will resume. My hope is that the Judge and the public will not fall victim to the fallacious argument put forward by people like Dr. Collins, who believe that they must have Federal funding in order to conduct the research. If the pharmaceutical companies and lobbies believe that embryonic stem cell research will bring about the holy grail of medical discoveries, then they would be more than willing to invest in the technology for financial gain.

Last month I wrote an article about Rep. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina and his physical interaction with two students who were filming him on the street.  In that article, I said “There is no sense in creating a story” unnecessarily. However, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez did not get the memo. In a video released today (see below), Rodriguez becomes angry with a constituent while discussing the Health Care Reform bill.

If you have compared this video to the one of Etheridge, you can see how the two situations are different. For starters, there was no physical contact. The closest thing to a physical response to pressure was him smacking his paper on a table. Secondly, Rodriguez was being hammered by an unidentified woman off-screen who accused him of lying. While she might be correct, all she did was throw gas on a fire that caused his response. The natural reaction for anyone being accused of lying is to become defensive. In most cases, the person turns around and shows a sign of strength through defiance (as seen in this video). Etheridge had a similar response to questioning by the two individuals on the street, though they were not accusing him of lying.

While the Rodriguez video will get some play in Republican circles, I do not see this as being a big deal. Regardless of party and district, it is very stressful being a politician. Reports of angered responses by politicians towards constitutents have occurred since the formation of our nation. It is just the video age that has brought these responses into our family rooms. Seasoned politicians have learned how to roll with the pressure and avoid making public mistakes, but even the best of them have their bad day. In the end, this is a non-issue, and I think trying to make hay out of it wouldn’t result in any long-lasting political gain.

Merchant Marine G.I. Bill lacks support from Nelson and LeMieux | StAugustine.com.

Can someone out there help me? I think my approach towards politics and policy is all wrong. For some reason, I find it important to research an issue before I talk about it. If you want to reflect back to my post on the Health Care Reform discussion I had back in March, I said:

Now I do admit there are times where I will comment on a piece of legislation before fully reading the text, something that even our elected officials are guilty of. My excuse, if you want to call it that, is that I do have a full-time job which leaves me with very little time to dive into bills that are sometimes over 2,000 pages. However, I will research a topic before posting about it to make sure that my arguments are founded on fact … especially when the topic is very emotional.

So, when I wrote my article about the Arizona Immigration Law when it was passed, I spent a few minutes to read the bill before questioning if it would survive a legal challenge. I even provided a link to bill SB1070 so you could read it for yourself. Well, it seems that the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary are not reading the U.S. Common Sense blog, let alone the recently passed Arizona bill.

During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder was asked by Representative Ted Poe:

And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

To which Holder replied:

I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

Haven’t had a chance? Seriously? I had a chance to read it, and it has nothing to do with my job. But he is in good company, since Janet Napolitano has not read it yet either. During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Senator John McCain asked:

Have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the state of Arizona?

To which Napolitano replied:

I have not reviewed it in detail, I certainly know of it, senator. … I believe it’s a bad law enforcement law.

She hasn’t read the law, but knows it is a bad law?

Come on folks. As citizens of this great nation, you need to be aware of the laws that are passed that impact this country. In addition, you should demand that your politicians know and understand the material they are debating and voting on, especially since they are your representatives to our nation. There is no excuse that these two individuals, who knew that they would have to (or already have) comment on the bill, to spend the few quick minutes to read it. And if they didn’t think that they would be asked questions about it, then I seriously have to question their competence in their assigned positions. We deserve better.