BCT Editorial – 11/2/06

This page was last updated on November 2, 2006.

Give and take; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 2, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Stem-cell research is a legislative issue, not a constitutional one

“The embryonic stem-cell controversy involving actor Michael J. Fox and infotainment king Rush Limbaugh is much sound and fury signifying something, especially to people with debilitating conditions like Parkinson’s disease.

[RWC] The editorial correctly starts off noting we’re talking about embryonic stem cell research, but that distinction conveniently disappears later on.

“However, an important aspect of the Missouri debate is being overlooked: its presence on the ballot.

“Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, has become a passionate proponent of embryonic stem-cell research. In that position, he has appeared in political ads for candidates who support that cause. The Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Missouri, Claire McCaskill, is one of those candidates.

“It was in Fox’s role as stem-cell advocate that Limbaugh mimicked and mocked him. If Limbaugh had stuck to disputing the actor’s arguments, he would have been on safe ground. However, his criticism was attack politics at its worst.”

[RWC] I was listening at the time Mr. Limbaugh went after Mr. Fox and he did not mock Mr. Fox. Mr. Limbaugh noted he had never seen Mr. Fox jerk around as he did during the political ad and went on to say he believed Mr. Fox was either acting or off his medication. Conveniently ignored by the Times is Mr. Fox’s own admission that he intentionally goes off his medication to show the effects of Parkinson’s as he did in 1999 when he testified before a Senate committee. As it turns out, Mr. Fox said he was over medicated when he filmed the ad.

Conveniently, the editorial failed to note the vast majority of Limbaugh’s discussion of the Fox commercial was about “disputing the actor’s arguments.”

The comment that Mr. Limbaugh would “have been on safe ground” had he not opined about Fox’s medication status is BS. The whole reason someone like Mr. Fox was chosen was because liberals wanted him treated as above criticism because of his condition. Regardless of how Mr. Limbaugh would have approached the issue, he would have been attacked.

“Fox isn’t immune from criticism. Public figures who take a political stand had better be willing to take the criticism that comes with the territory. The same holds for people of faith who enter the public sphere. If they can’t take the heat for leaving their city on a hill, they should stay out of the fire of politics.

“In Missouri, voters aren’t just being asked to vote for pro-stem cell candidate McCaskill or Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who has come out in opposition to it. The matter is also on the ballot as an amendment to the state constitution.”

[RWC] Did you notice how “embryonic” was not mentioned? In truth, Sen. Talent favors stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research. The editorial, however, falsely claims Sen. Talent opposes stem cell research.

“The Associated Press reported the ballot proposal would guarantee that all federally allowed stem-cell research could occur in Missouri. The initiative is in response to failed legislative efforts to try to ban the cloning procedure known scientifically as somatic cell nuclear transfer.”

[RWC] I’m surprised the editorial admitted what the amendment was really about, though I believe it was intentionally a bit vague.

You see, the amendment’s goal is to legalize human cloning. How is that related at all to embryonic stem cell research? Embryonic stem cell research supporters want to clone human embryos to provide more embryos than would normally be generated. In other words, these people support the creation of life for the specific purpose of destroying it in the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research.

“The legislative process is the way to handle this matter because the give-and-take of representative democracy allows many points of view to be taken into consideration. The end result might not be perfect, but more often than not it represents a consensus. This is especially important on complex matters such as stem-cell research.

“That flexibility disappears once something is enshrined in a constitution or as a right. Then, it’s all or nothing, black and white. Absolutes reign, leaving little room for compromise and moderation, which are the lifeblood of our representative democracy.

“Finally, constitutional amendments should be about government process (electing senators by popular vote instead of them being appointed by state legislatures), not social behavior (alcohol consumption) or scientific matters (stem cells).”