Supervisor to York: Most politicians are a little bit despicable

I like Dennis York. He's pretty much the reason I started this blog. I enjoy his work. That picture of Georgia Thompson in a sombrero is fantastic. And I think that it's great that he wants to rattle off a 1,129-word rant about Doyle's use of Alzheimer's Disease as a component of the stem cell debate.

However, before York climbs onto the soapbox, perhaps he should also tell the Bush Administration to end its despicable stem cell charade too. After all, any sixth-grader doing research for a biology report on stem cells can find this website put together by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH says, in part:

Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

That'd be straight from the mouth of the National Institutes of Health. A part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Whose secretary is appointed by the White House. An office held by a Republican. And confirmed by the Senate. Also controlled by Republicans.

So is Doyle being misleading when he talks about stem cells having some potential to help those with Alzheimer's disease? Well, I don't know. The NIH seems to agree with Doyle - or more likely, Doyle is agreeing with the NIH. Perhaps York or his hand puppet would like to sit down with the NIH and tell them how they've got it wrong.

In highlighting his support for stem cell research, Doyle has clearly chosen a winning wedge issue for the fall. Perhaps that's the greater frustration for Republicans. I appreciate and understand the objections of some individuals to embryonic stem cell research. Their beliefs are sincerely and strongly held, and their perspectives are important in the policy debate surrounding this research.

However, that position is a big loser among moderate voters and independents. Sometimes principles gain you votes. Other times they cost you votes. Republicans are not going to win a debate on embryonic stem cell research with the squishy middle because they are the ones most likely to view this issue from a completely pragmatic standpoint.

In fact, conservatives lost the embryonic stem cell debate 25 years ago, when doctors began using in vitro fertilization to help couples with fertility issues have children. Now, two and a half decades later, we've got hundreds of thousands of unclaimed embryos just sitting around. Nobody's ever coming for them. Only 2 percent of unclaimed embryos are put up for adoption. (I could go on, but instead will direct you to a well-written piece by William Saletan from last June on this very issue.) The rest are just left to sit in a freezer. And then what?

Would Republicans have the embryos sit in a freezer forever? Should they be turned over to Jack Voight's office as unclaimed property? Would the GOP prefer we draft single women to gestate these cellular wonders and then create some version of Boys Town for these embryo kids? Do we dispose of them as medical waste? Or do we make them available for medical research?

This is where conservatives find themselves in a difficult position. To most people, freezing embryos indefinitely is just punting on the decision until later - and ultimately, medical research seems far more practical than disposing of the embryos. In the case of research, there's at least an intent to produce some kind of positive result from the destruction of an embryo. To many, that is far more respectful of human life than throwing the embryo in the dumpster, tossing it into the incinerator, or flushing it down the drain. It's the same logic by which many people support organ donation - that out of death, something positive might occur for those who remain.

Sure, conservatives can argue that fertility clinics should stop producing embryos en masse for IVF treatments. Perhaps clinics should only produced as many embryos as will be implanted at any one given time. But the likelihood of getting the public to oppose IVF outright is about the same as the likelihood of pro-lifers climbing into a time machine and going back to change the course of history. Mind you, the latter could be really funny. I'd love nothing more than to watch a bunch of pro-lifers standing outside fertility clinics with pictures of petri dishes and guys in white lab coats, harassing middle-aged couples who want to have kids. That'll do wonders for their cause. Besides, they already had that debate back in the 70's - and lost.

Meanwhile, I will contemplate writing a post entitled "Green's Despicable Catholic Charade." After all, the bishops have intoned for decades that in the present day, the death penalty contradicts the teachings of the Church. That hasn't stopped Mark Green from supporting it. The Church also rejects the use of birth control for family planning, an issue that Mark Green seems eerily silent on. Perhaps someone should ask him about it. Or the Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization. Shall we expect an IVF ban from the Green administration?

Most politicians are a little bit despicable. They will stretch the truth to the point of breaking in an attempt to cast themselves in as favorable a light as possible. They will cherry pick the teachings of their church that are most convenient and find weak rationalizations for selling out the rest.

If Green can't even manage to follow the teachings of his church, why should I have any faith in him to listen to the voters - or at least, any more so than Jim Doyle? So call out Jim Doyle if you like, but in doing so, realize that Mark Green is no better. Both will do or say just about anything to get elected.