Rep. Kathy Stein and Her Discontents

Rep. Kathy Stein needs a vacation. Just a few days at the beach or something--anything to get her away from the stress of having to fight the radical religious right at the state capitol. It is a job she shows up for every day, and to which she has devoted herself wholeheartedly. But the responsibilities of this increasingly burdensome task are obviously beginning to affect her judgment.

Maybe we could take up a collection.

Stein's increasingly intemperate remarks at committee meetings about those with whom she disagrees are a clear indication of stress-related complications from taking her responsibilities as defender of the Liberal Faith against the religious barbarians she sees battening on the doors of the State Capitol just a little too seriously. But whereas her remarks up until now have been merely strident, she has now descended into incoherence.

Here are her words at the House Health & Welfare Committee meeting last Tuesday during the debate over Senate Bill 152, which would prevent state agencies from recognizing "domestic partners" as a legal status similar to marriage (which is prohibited in the state's constitution):

I have a statement I am going to make in good faith, and it's going to be controversial, and it is going to be that, you know, I believe that in religion and in religious faith and in all the good things that come along with it, but I've gotten to the point in this General Assembly session that I resent The Family Foundation and what they are trying to do to make issues of fairness controversial issues. And I resent that we are listening to folks who, with a straight face, looked at America and said, don't let your children watch Tinky-Winky 'cause he is gay. I find it ... it's a sad day in Kentucky when we are dealing with issues like that when you have to keep your children from seeing Tinky-Winky, and that was made as a straight comment. Thank you.

Ohhhkay.

Now I'm almost afraid to ask the question for fear I might cause another blood vessel to rupture (which would only make matters worse) but, ... how should I phrase this, ... What, exactly, are we talking about?

In regard to "fairness", the only reason it has become controversial is because people like Kathy Stein have redefined it to suite their left-wing political purposes. To Stein and other gay rights activists, "fairness" means forcing other people to agree with you about issues of human sexuality. To these people it is no longer a word, but a weapon--to used to beat those with whom you disagree.

And in regard to the rest of it, well, let's just say anyone who interrupts a serious public policy discussion during a meeting of public officials and launches off into a discussion about Tinky-Winky is in danger of being taken a little less than seriously.

I suggest Hilton Head. It survived Hurricane Hugo, so presumably it can handle Kathy Stein.

Mr. Smith takes a hike

Where was State Rep. Ancel Smith, the tie-breaking vote on SB 152, when the bill failed by an 8-8 vote in House Health & Welfare Committee yesterday? He was sitting on the couch in Suite 432 of the Capitol Annex watching it on the television monitor—apparently taking refuge from a controversial vote.

If you ever wondered why they compare the making of laws to the making of sausage, now you know why.

For Immediate Release
March 7, 2007

Contact: Martin Cothran
Phone: 859-329-1919

Domestic partner benefit ban fails to clear important hurdle, but supporters say there is still hope

FRANKFORT--A bill that would have prevented state agencies, including public colleges and universities, from subsidizing the health care benefits of the live-in sexual partners of their employees failed to clear an important hurdle today when the House Health & Welfare Committee voted 8-8 on Senate Bill 152. The bill needed 9 votes to win approval, but the tie-breaking vote, Ancel Smith (D-Leburn), who represents Knott and McGoffin Counties, as well as part of Letcher, was absent.

"We don't know how Rep. Smith would have voted," said Martin Cothran, "but obviously his vote would have made the difference as to whether the bill was approved." Cothran said Rep. Smith seemed to be avoiding the meetings in which the bill was considered. "Rep. Smith was the deciding vote, but he didn't show up." Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, which supports the legislation.

"House Democratic leadership sent this bill to this committee because they knew it would have little chance of passage. They were obviously clever in defeating this bill," said Cothran, "but that doesn't mean the bill is cannot be resurrected." Cothran pointed out that, under House rules, a member not voting can make a motion to reconsider a vote.

"It's all up to Rep. Smith," said Cothran.

On her way out of the committee after the bill failed, Rep. Kathy Stein, a member of the Health & Welfare Committee and the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, handed Cothran a box of Rice-a-Roni, and said, "Here you go--a San Francisco treat." It was a reference to Cothran's remarks in January's special organization session when House Democrats elected their leaders. Cothran had said that appointing Stein, the House's most liberal member, to the Judiciary post would make House Democrats look like "San Francisco Democrats."

"I appreciate the gift," said Cothran. "I guess it symbolizes the values that won today."

Erratum Eorum Oopsum

The Lexington Herald-Leader today ran my piece on Richard Florida's book, The Rise of the Creative Class, and its use in the debate over domestic partner benefits. Normally, the edits they do are pretty reasonable, but there was one glitch made, apparently, in the editing process at the newspaper that needs to be corrected.

They have taken something I used as a quote and placed it as if I said it myself. So, just in case anyone accuses me of plagiarism, let it be known: the 11th paragraph is from Steven Malanga's piece in the Wall Street Journal. I had it attributed in the piece as I submitted it, but it is not attributed nor set off in quotations in the article.

Here is the relevant paragraph:

A generation of leftish policy makers and urban planners are rushing to implement Mr. Florida's vision, while an admiring host of uncritical journalists tout it. But there is just one problem: The basic economics behind his ideas don't work.

Just thought I would mention it for the record.

Erratum Meum Oopsum

We take refuge in Latin when we make a mistake, and State Rep. Kathy Stein points out an inaccuracy in my piece the other day about Merck contributions to legislators, one which is fairly minor, but we do want to keep things as accurate as possible here.

It was not "Front Page with Sue Wiley," on which State Sen. Dan Kelly appeared (and into which Rep. Stein called in), but the "Kruser Show." She also says that she has a recording of the program in which Sen. Kelly was talking about "payoffs from drug companies" (or something similar to that--Rep. has the recording), to which, of course, she takes exception.

Well, I'll take her word for it. And I wouldn't use those words myself (and didn't the other day), but the problem is that when you take money from a company who developed a drug, and the drug company stands to make literally billions of dollars from a piece of legislation mandating that drug, and then you vote for the bill, you open yourself up to such charges, and its hard to sort out whether there was a relationship between the campaign donation and the vote in favor of the bill or not.

That's why I stressed the importance of the appearance of impropriety in my post--precisely because it looks to some people like this is exactly what is happening.

Another report on surprise legislative hearing

A small piece of my testimony during yesterday's hearing on SB 152, which would bar public agencies from instituting domestic partner benefits programs, was quoted in Deborah Yetter's Louisville Courier-Journal story yesterday.

It is also interesting to note that the Legislative Research Commission has yet to post a streaming video of House Health and Welfare Committee Chairman Tom Burch's attempt to ambush supporters of SB 152. There is no online video available for the surprise nighttime meeting of his committee, while other meetings are posted.

Hmmm.

Charade, starring Tom Burch

In the midst of conducting a charade, Rep. Tom Burch accuses others of conducting a charade, the media dutifully ignores the former and reports the latter, ... and other things that really surprise us.

The Lexington Herald-Leader headline on the story about last night's committee hearing on domestic partner benefits bill reads, "Partner Benefits Bill Called a Charade." This was reference to Health & Welfare Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Burch's remark during his committee hearing last night on SB 152 that the bill has "pulled a charade on the people of Kentucky."

Now let's see if I've got this straight:

• Rep. Burch gives the bill sponsor, State Sen. Vernie McGaha, only one hour's notice that his bill will be heard (House rules say a bill is to be posted three days before it is to be heard), giving him and the bill supporters no time to prepare for testimony
• Burch hears the bill at 6:30 in the evening when the Capitol is largely vacant and most legislators (including some members of the committee who support the bill) have gone home
• And yet, somehow, numerous opponents of the bill show up for the meeting, apparently having been made aware of the meeting before even the sponsor was made aware of it.

And yet it is bill supporters that Rep. Burch is accusing of conducting a charade.

Got it.

Today's reading for Rep. Kathy Stein

While the media snores, here are the facts about contributions to state lawmakers from the developers of the HPV vaccine.

I don't remember who it was who told me a few years back about a reporter who came to a major Kentucky newspaper from New York, and who was appalled at the laziness of his newly acquired colleagues. The concept of investigative reporting, he observed, was almost unknown to members of the media in this state, whom, he thought, spent entirely too much time in their office cubicles, and not nearly enough time snooping out the facts behind the obvious.

The story was related to me in the context of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA), the propaganda for which was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the major Kentucky media, until a few of us pointed out the very obvious problems with it, at which point a small handful of them were energetic enough to actually look at KERA for what it was. But the debate over mandatory HPV vaccinations has revealed once again the lack of interest of the state media in doing any journalistic heavy lifting.

A case in point is the controversy over donations by the developer of Gardasil, the HPV vaccination, to state legislators who have been considering a mandate for the drug, an issue which finally hit the media yesterday in a Lexington Herald-Leader story about State Rep. Kathy Stein's demand that Senate Majority Floor leader Dan Kelly issue an apology to her and other lawmakers for erroneously accusing them of taking money from the drug company.

Come again?

First of all, Kelly, who made the comments on "Front Page with Sue Wiley," was talking about the issue in other states (whose reporters apparently dig a little deeper than those here) where this has been the case.

Secondly, is Stein denying that Kentucky lawmakers have received money from Merck? If she is, she--not Dan Kelly--has some apologizing to do.

Here is what The Institute on Money in State Politics says about Merck contributions in Kentucky in its report, "Names in the News: Merck & Company." This report was laboriously obtained by first sitting down at the chair in front of my laptop (a complicated procedure), then pressing the "on" button, an effort which necessitated the expenditure of who knows how many of the calories I had gained from the Snickers bar I had just consumed, and then entering "www.followthemoney.org," which required--count 'em--22 whole keystrokes:

• Total Merck contributions to state lawmakers across the country, 2000-2006: $2,450,352.
• Total Merck contributions to Kentucky state lawmakers, 2000-2006: $40,225.

Who did they go to? A wide variety of lawmakers, some for the HPV mandate, and some against. Is this a surprise? No. Drug companies--and every other business interest--give money to candidates all the time. So what is the problem?

Here's the problem:

First, if you have taken money from the developer of the drug, and you do vote for the mandate--particularly if you have some influential role in its passage--you create the appearance of impropriety. Does it mean you voted for the mandate because you received money? No. But everyone seems pretty much agreed these days that when it comes to being a public official, the standard is not just actual impropriety, but even the appearance of it. That's why we have things like legislative ethics commissions. They deal in almost nothing but the appearance, rather than the actual incidence of influence peddling.

Second, when people like Kathy Stein publicly challenge someone who states that Merck has been giving money to public officials and questions this, the issue then becomes who is telling the truth.

Here's the truth (as revealed by the toilsome process of a few more keystrokes, and--pant, pant--a site search):

• A number of Kentucky state lawmakers took money from Merck & Co. from 2000-2006.
• The money from Merck was given to lawmakers from both parties.
• The people who took money from Merck fall out on both sides of the issue.
• People who are criticizing Merck contributions to supporters of the HPV mandate and who are not supporters of the mandate took money from Merck.
• Some of of the people who sat in key positions contributing to the passage of the HPV mandate are among the people who received contributions from Merck.
  

None of these is a problem, except for the last one, because of that little matter of the appearance of impropriety.

Who are we talking about? Tom Burch, he the chairman of the House Health & Welfare Committee that approved HB 345, the HPV mandate, in the House.

According to followthemoney.org, State Rep. Tom Burch received $500 on 2002, $800 in 2004, and $500 in 2006. There were other lawmakers on the committee who voted for the bill who received money from Merck, and a few others who voted for the bill on the House floor. This doesn't mean it is the reason they voted for the bill, but at minimum--the rock bottom expectation on these kinds of issues--is that they should have disclosed that fact when they voted.

Should they go to jail? No. Not even close. Should they have made a point to mention the contributions in the process of passage of the bill? Yes.

Oh, and one final question: Should I be the one having to point this out because the media is either too lazy or refuses to do it?

Mandating circumcision for middle school boys

New data on circumcision's role in reducing HIV transmission cries out for a mandate. Well, not a mandate, but something exactly like it. Sort of.

According to the new issue of Time Magazine, a new National Institutes of Health study shows that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. A report of the study appears in the most recent issue of The Lancet, a widely regarded British medical journal.

Now obviously this means that the more boys who are circumcised, the better off we will be. The more circumcisions, the less HIV. And the less HIV, the fewer deaths that will result from it. And how best to ensure that more boys are circumcised? Surely the answer to that question is obvious:

Mandate the circumcision of middle school boys.

Just look at the HIV statistics. How many people die of HIV every year? Imagine the lives that might be saved if we ensured that every young boy was circumcised before entering middle school.

And that's why we need to mandate circumcision in Kentucky: because it will save lives.

Now undoubtedly there will be those detractors who will oppose this idea. But these are the same people who opposed mandating the HPV vaccine: religious people. And we know about them, don't we?

These people say that the decision to circumcise their children should be left up to parents. And that would be a fine idea—if all parents were good parents. But we all know that is not the case. All parents are not good parents. There are some parents who will not do what is best for their own children (according to us), and so we must make these decisions for them.

According to most statistics, only 76 percent of boys are circumcised. But among some groups of people—and these are the people who we are really concerned about, even though we don’t like to admit it because we want them to continue to vote for us—the rate is as low as 45 percent.

The government has the responsibility to step into the relationship between families and their physicians for their own good. Of course, this principle does not extend to the abortion issue, where we take the complete opposite position. There, the government has no business in the health care decisions of individuals, as we have said repeatedly until we are blue in the face, and then decide to say something completely different.

But that is another issue altogether that we really don't want to talk about right now.

Back to these religious people who think that parents have rights. Even though these people will argue that mandating circumcision violates parental rights, they really have an ulterior motive. What really bothers them about mandating the circumcision of middle school boys is that it has to do with sex. In fact, as State Rep. Tom Burch points out, they wouldn't even be involved in debates like this if it weren't for sex.

Come to think of it, nobody would be involved in any debate if it weren't for sex. In fact, nobody would be here at all. But regardless, we need a mandate.

Mandate?

What mandate? Who said mandate? When did we ever say we should mandate circumcision? We're not talking about a mandate, and anyone who says that we ever proposed a mandate is misrepresenting us.

Now of course one of the reasons we need to mandate circumcision is that if we don't mandate it, insurance plans won't have to cover it. But, of course, like we just said, this isn't really a mandate. It's only a mandate in this paragraph so that we can make this argument. In the next paragraph, it isn't a mandate anymore.

You've got to follow along closely here and pay attention.

Never mind that most insurance plans already cover circumcision (just like they cover Gardasil, the HPV vaccine). Theoretically, under different circumstances, maybe in a different dimension (possibly in the one inhabited by the Lexington Herald-Leader), they could conceivably not cover circumcision. And what would happen then? Why, we would have uncovered circumcisions, that's what. And we know how embarrassing that would be.

That's why we need a mandate—even though that's not what this is.

One of the reasons this isn't a mandate is because we are going to allow the families of these boys to opt out. Now there are some people (those religious people) who ask why, if it is not a mandate, we need an opt out in the first place. They point out that there is no reason for an opt out unless it is a mandate. If it's not a mandate, there would be nothing to opt out from. They say we are talking out of both sides of our mouth. But remember, these are just crazy religious people.

And we say that out of both sides of our mouth.

Besides, if these people don't stop misrepresenting us, we're going to mandate this for them too—whether they need it or not. No anesthesia, no opt outs, no nothin'.

Remember, this non-mandate mandate could save thousands of lives nationally and worldwide. Now you may be wondering how a Kentucky law could save all of these lives across the nation and around the world. Well, we wonder about that also, but this same argument worked for the bill to mandate the HPV vaccination (SB 345, the mandate that wasn't a mandate), so we figure it will work on this issue too.

And let's deal right here with the nasty rumor going around that our support for mandatory circumcision of middle school boys has anything to do with campaign contributions to key Kentucky legislators by the National Association of Rabbinical and Non-Rabbinical Mohels (NARNRM). We can't deny this, of course, any more than we can deny that there were campaign contributions in 2004 and 2006 from Merck & Co., the developer of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, to legislators in whose committees HB 345 was considered. But so what?

Have you seen anything in the news media about these contributions? No. Just like there was nothing ever said about Merck's contributions. Now wouldn't you think that if there had been something amiss, the intrepid investigative reporters at newspapers like the Lexington Herald-Leader and the Louisville Courier-Journal would have said something about it?

Huh?

But all this is just a distraction from the main point that anyone who opposes the idea of mandating circumcision is opposed to saving lives. If they were really concerned about lives, they would ignore the inherent contradictions and illogical arguments offered for this mandate that really isn't a mandate even though we keep saying so and then denying it.

But what do they do instead? They just keep confusing the issue with logic and facts that have nothing to do with whether it's a mandate—or isn't. Maybe.

In fact, speaking of the HPV vaccination for girls: in comparison to that idea, circumcision for boys is simple. Girls have to endure the ordeal of going in for three different shots. But circumcision for boys? It's quick and easy. Whack! and it's over.

Come to think of it, if we could get the doctor to slice just a few more inches closer to the body, we could probably prevent a lot of other societal havoc. But that's a discussion for another day. Or maybe next week, when we decide to mandate something else we think is good for everybody and then pretend that it's not a mandate, except on Tuesdays.

But for right now we need to think about HIV, and all the other diseases that have nothing to do with HIV but that kill people too because they all make us sad. And sadness is a bad thing—except when it gets people so emotional they forget that these other diseases have absolutely nothing to do with HIV and whether a mandate will actually reduce it, and whether this is really a mandate or not.

And that is why we need this new policy. Because it isn't a mandate.

Except when it is.

The above cartoon comes by way of On the Right, Steve Manning's blog.

Legislative debate over HPV vaccinations, by Lewis Carroll

Yesterday's House floor discussion over HB 345 seemed like something Alice might have encountered after falling down the rabbit hole.

Okay. So state lawmakers are not professional logicians. Premise granted. But really, how do the proponents of mandatory HPV vaccinations show their faces in public again after yesterday's surreal debate?

Kathy Stein got up on the floor and argued that HB 345 was NOT a mandate, and that was one of the reasons House members should vote for it. Then another legislator got up and said that the reason to vote for it was because the only way insurance companies would be forced to cover the cost of the vaccine was if it was a mandate. In other words, the reason they should vote for it was because it WAS a mandate.

In other words, the reasons to vote for it canceled each other out.

Lawmakers must have had the same feeling you get after the Teacup ride at Disneyland as they left the chambers.

Then, even though (claimed Stein) it was not a mandate, an attempt to replace the word "require" was not only opposed by bill supporters, but ruled not germane by Speaker Jody Richards, even though it clearly was germane.

Next week's featured House debate: Whether the knave of hearts really stole those tarts.

HPV mandate for middle school girls will not cure most cases of cervical cancer

An article in today's Washington Times points out that administering Gardasil to pre-teen girls would be ineffective against most cases of cervical cancer.

Why?

Because the drug is only proven to last 5 years, by the time they are 16-18 years old, the drug is probably ineffective. But the average cervical cancer patient is 47 years old. In fact, more than 70 percent of cervical cancer patients were older than 40. According to infectious disease specialists and cancer pathologists, the incubation period of the virus is 10-15 years, meaning that the average cervical cancer patient contracted the HPV that caused the cancer in her 30's--long after Gardasil would have worn off from middle school vaccinations.

So since such vaccinations are said to be effective against 70 percent of cervical cancers, administering it before middle school would miss the vast majority of these. Cervical cancer is on the National Institute for Health's list of rare diseases. Now we have a drug that will apparently only prevent a few of these rare cases.

So what was the reason for mandating it again?

CJ poll shows opposition to HPV vaccination

According to this morning's Louisville Courier-Journal, the Bluegrass Poll found a majority of Kentuckians opposed to mandatory HPV vaccinations. About 47 percent of Kentuckians opposed making it mandatory while only 38 percent supported it.

Of course, that's not what the CJ's headline said. The headline said, "Kentuckians split on cervical cancer vaccine." Well, well.

Of course, in its results on casino gambling, were somewhat similar (52-38) if you take the margin of error into account (3.5 percent). But that result, interestingly, was billed as support for casino gambling.

Funny how that works.