A blogger over at the Daily Kos is complaining about the Texas State Affairs meeting on HB 225. The complaint is that people with disabilities had to wait until the early morning to testify.
There's more comments at the South Texas Chisme: Sneaky Republicans ban stem cell research funding" (See the problem with the headline? Nothing has been banned, other than funding for a certain type of stem cell research that carries restrictions from the NIH, as well as being unethical.)
More at "Brains and Eggs," and Texas Freedom Network (self-defined as "A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right") has an article and a petition.
Perhaps I should tell them some of the realities about testifying in front of the Texas State House Affairs Committee.
1. First, Chairman Swinford believes that everyone should have their say. He never puts time constraints on witnesses, unlike some of the other Chairs, who have lights and buzzers and 3 minute limits. We all mutter, but we're all grateful when it's our turn.
2.The Chairman always lets kids go first. The other bill had children as witnesses, none of us there to testify on HB 225 had brought children.
3. Those early morning meetings are always interrupted by the House meeting and resume when the house adjourns for the day.
4. We should just be thankful that only two bills came before the Committee the other night -- they might all still be there.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
More Complaints About Texas Legislator
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What were the children for?
I mught just be too suspicious, but the first thought that came to mind was of Bush's publicity stunt last year.
Wrong. The last time we heard the clone and kill bills, we had some kids for embryonic stem cells and some not.
Last month we did hear from a little boy whose life was saved by an umbilical cord transplant from his brother. The subject was information on cord blood banking for pregnant women.
I still get suspicious of children testifying. Their emotional impact is just too great. It can be used either way ("I was a frozen embryo, this research could have killed me!" or "My life was saved by science this bill would fund!"), but no matter which side brings out the child-weapons, they are still being used as an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and I dislike that.
Its extremally effective though.
Post a Comment