 |
 |
Brace for the Failure of the new HR810 To contact us: stemcellpage@... December 1, 2006 Just like you, I dream. I envision a world empowered to fight diseases and injuries. I can see a future in which diabetes, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, spinal cord injuries and a host of other conditions are defeated. But I am also a realist. We all live in today. And today we have to face an unpleasant set of circumstances. Fueled by a number of pro-cures candidates who reigned victorious in this last election cycle, the balance of power shifted in both houses of Congress. Eager to emphasize the point, Speaker of the House-designate Nancy Pelosi has included the reintroduction of HR810 (the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act) in the "First 100 Hours" agenda. In my estimation, this dooms the bill to failure. To be clear, the bill will pass easily in the House and Senate. There was more than sufficient bipartisan support last time around and this time the numbers will take a northward bump. But in the 109th congress, 810 could not muster the two-thirds supermajority required to override the President's first and lone veto. It won't in the 110th congress either. It's not that the task is impossible. The new Senate is only one vote shy of becoming veto-proof. It's quite possible that Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy and the other senate leaders can identify one arm targeted for a twist and convert one more senator to the ranks. Of this I'm hopeful. The problem is in the House. Even with the election sweeps, the House will still fall some 20 or 30 votes short of that supermajority. That makes for a great many arms to twist - or perhaps deals to shake on. While backroom deals might be made sufficient to achieve a two-thirds vote, it's unlikely this can be accomplished as part of a top-tier, "First 100 Hours" agenda. There just isn't enough time. Had Pelosi allowed HR810 to remain a second tier bill, she might have allowed time to negotiate with a few more reps that might have been willing to deal. Some have speculated that in light of the congressional election house cleaning, the occupant of the White House might just change his tune and leave the veto stamp in the desk drawer. I don't see that happening either. Bush has painted himself into an ideological corner on this one. Even if he wanted to sign HR810 as a peace offering, he'll need to remain firm to his base, particularly since in six years of office, his veto stamp has met with one - and only one - piece of legislation. Add to that the fact he's a man who doesn't easily back down and never admits he's wrong. If his Iraq policies taught us anything, the lesson is that this is a man who lags even behind his own base. Only when the rats have already left the ship does he know it's sinking. He either doesn't see or won't see the warning signs in advance - let alone acknowledge them as they occur. No, I don't believe HR810 will not become law in the "First 100 Hours." In fact, any chances it might have had were probably lost once it was propelled to the front of the legislative line. So what's next for HR810? Perhaps we will see it reintroduced again but with some minor changes - and after those backroom deals have time to develop. If not, we'll surely be talking about it as an important issue of the 2008 campaigns. By then, the pro-cures movement will hopefully become more unified and more powerful. And as you look at the crop of 2008 presidential hopefuls, there is only one with from the anti-embryonic stem cell camp. That's Sam Brownback (R-KS), sponsor of the `Anti-cloning' bill that would kill SCNT. All other potential candidates are Pro-Cures. Brownback being a huge long shot, the tide will turn as Congress convenes in 2009 and we inaugurate a President who's not bound by the ideology of the extreme right. HR810 will then surely pass and be signed into law. And who knows? It may even have the additional benefit of being rewritten to approve SCNT for federal research funding. So what does this mean for a hundred million American patients and their families? Once again we wait and once again another round or two of patients will be unconscionably and despicably doomed by the delay. No doubt, as a movement we will ask: What should we be doing in the meantime? In the meantime, we should take a lesson from our opponents. It's no secret that the Pro-Life movement is the core of our opposition. It's been 33 years since Roe v Wade, so they've had 33 years to build their formidable and effective political machine. The Pro-Cures movement needs to become the ying to their yang, an equal and opposite political force, or better still, a greater and opposite force. And by studying the pro-life movement's tactics, we don't need 33 years of development to duplicate it. We can do it in less time. Indeed, we must do it in less time. Stay tuned. I'll have more on this in the near future. - Jeff Eisen . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn