Wednesday, May 25, 2005
10 minutes with 
: These things write themselves.
Today I had the joy of listening to another story on stem-cell research -- this one being spurred by the House's passage of the current stem cell legislation. This is one of those issues that makes me wonder what it's like to be a reporter. There is a lot of legislative action and judicial action on issues such as stem cell research and abortion, but the arguments themselves never change. I have a feeling anyone who follows the news could write the commentary for the next story on the issue and just fill in the blanks when the time comes. So in the interest of assisting the working men and women in the press, here is a handy dandy form for you to use:
While the above is hardly a thing of beauty, forcing something like this on reporters would likely prevent partisan editorializing like that which took place at the end of the otherwise-rote NPR story. Wrapping things up, the reporter noted that Sen. Brownback (R-KS) had called on his colleagues to take every avenue to stop the legislation from passage. With irony in her voice, the reporter stated that this was a call to use the filibuster if necessary, and closed by noting that it was these very Republicans who were seeking to end the filibuster.
I'm no supporter of the "nuclear option" with regard to judicial nominees, but at least I know that the discussion is limited to nominees alone. No one is discussing ending the filibuster as it relates to legislation, and there is nothing remotely hypocritical about supporting the end of nomination filibusters and supporting the continuance of legislative filibusters. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than ignorance or a deliberate attempt to be obfuscate the issue.
But, hey, this is NPR.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite strong (support/opposition), (President Bush/Sen./Rep._____________ ) called on the (House/Senate/___________ Committee) to (support/reject) attempts to pass legislation calling for the end to the restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.Yawn.
The legislation in question would end restrictions made by President Bush nearly four years ago that limit federally funded research to already existing embryonic stem-cell lines. It would allow federal money to be used for research on stem cells extracted from frozen embryos donated by couples who no longer need them. Stem cells have the potential to greatly assist researchers in ending a variety of diseases, but many are concerned that the only available source for such cells is from human embryos.
The contentious bill is currently before the (full House/Senate/Committee) and is expected to (pass/fail) if brought up for a vote. Both sides of this issue have recently stepped up their war of words.
"This legislation is (necessary to bring hope to millions of American/nothing more than an attempt to desecrate emerging human life in the name of science,)" stated (President Bush/Sen./Rep._____________ ), a vigorous (supporter/opponent) of the legislation. "As a country, we must (do what we can to end the suffering of those who might be cured through research on embyonic stem cells/reject attempts to allow human beings to be dissected for medical experimentation.)"
However, (supporters/opponents) of the legislation have been equally vocal. Replying to the argument that embryonic stem-cell research (could bring about the cure to many diseases/is a moral abomination), (President Bush/Sen./Rep.____________) stated, "[FILL WITH UNUSED QUOTE FROM ABOVE]."
Should this legislation receive the full support of the (House, Senate, Committee) it is still doubtful that it will be enacted, due to the veto promised by the President.
While the above is hardly a thing of beauty, forcing something like this on reporters would likely prevent partisan editorializing like that which took place at the end of the otherwise-rote NPR story. Wrapping things up, the reporter noted that Sen. Brownback (R-KS) had called on his colleagues to take every avenue to stop the legislation from passage. With irony in her voice, the reporter stated that this was a call to use the filibuster if necessary, and closed by noting that it was these very Republicans who were seeking to end the filibuster.
I'm no supporter of the "nuclear option" with regard to judicial nominees, but at least I know that the discussion is limited to nominees alone. No one is discussing ending the filibuster as it relates to legislation, and there is nothing remotely hypocritical about supporting the end of nomination filibusters and supporting the continuance of legislative filibusters. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than ignorance or a deliberate attempt to be obfuscate the issue.
But, hey, this is NPR.
Centinel 7:00 AM #