The MitchMessage

April 15, 2007

It seems to me that there is a significant change in the nature of the issues we began facing in the House and in the Health Care Committee these last two weeks.  During the early part of the session we did face some difficult and contentious issues, and generally worked out compromises that marginally satisfied both sides.  We passed SB 362B, expanding the Oregon Prescription Drug Program.  In the Health Care Committee we moderated battles between hospitals and consumers, between physical therapists and chiropractors (round two is going on now), between consumers and insurance companies, and between public health professionals and school food services directors.  (We passed HB 2650A, which sets minimum standards for food and beverages sold in the public schools.)  These things just took time, patience, and a bit of leadership.  These were important issues, but only required technical fixes.

     We have begun facing “this I believe” issues and the going has gotten tougher.  We are dealing with two bills in the Health Care Committee that are perfect examples of this kind of bill.  And in the next week or two we will be voting on two more of them on the House floor.  In the Committee we are dealing with HB 2801 and with HB 3099.  HB 2801 is a bill to foster the development of embryonic stem cell research in Oregon and HB 3099 is a bill to extend the fluoridation of community water systems in communities with more than 10,000 people.  You would think that the question of whether Oregon should join the other 47 states with widespread fluoridation in their public water systems is one that could be answered by simple scientific analysis.  But it isn’t.

     It is an odd debating line-up.  On the pro-side of the issue are almost all of the dentists and dental organizations, virtually all of the public health scientists, and the army of public health advocates.  In opposition are those who are cautious about the government interfering in individual lives and most of the environmental community.  It is clear to me, as a health researcher, that the scientific data gathered over the past 50 years overwhelmingly points to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridating public water supplies.  But the opposition brings scattered data to argue against imposing fluoride in drinking water when there are other ways to get fluoride to kids.  Some of their arguments have merit, some are of the variety “if the EPA issues a bulletin recommending fluoride in the water supply be kept under five parts per million it must be an indication that it might dangerous at one part per million.“  After listening to the debate it has become clear to me that it is no longer about scientific evidence for most of us, it has become a “this I believe” issue and there doesn’t seem room for compromise, nor fruitful to produce much more scientific evidence.

     HB 2801 seems to produce even more in the way of pre-fixed positions.  The opposition is clearly from the right-to-life community.  The strongest support comes from the medical science community and from advocates for research for diseases that seem most likely to benefit from embryonic stem cell research – Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, MS, ALS, and spinal cord injury.  Embryonic stem cell research requires using blastocysts as donor cells to produce some stem cells to grow.  Embryonic stem cells are important because they have the potential to turn into any other cell.  I found it ironic that we had a great deal of testimony earlier in the week about the wonder of donating organs after one dies.  The ability to produce good after death was viewed as a wonderful option, giving one a bit of immortality after death.  But nobody talked about the wonder of using material from a five-day-old embryo to potentially save many lives before the embryo is destroyed.  

     We heard extraordinary testimony from a wife about how her husband was saved from a totally hopeless diagnosis for a blood disease.  What saved him was a treatment resulting from years of research at OHSU on adult stem cells.  And their final conclusion was that OHSU should not be allowed to do the research on embryonic stem cells, even if it saved the lives of men like her husband.  Why?  Because it is immoral.  Not too much I can do with that kind of testimony, except cry with the story as I thought of the thousands who might be denied the same kind of miracle that saved her husband.

     And this next period we are going to be facing the most controversial of “this I believe” questions when we vote on SB 2 and HB 2007.  SB 2 includes gender preference within the statute that bans discrimination by membership in a class.   HB 2007 provides some rights to committed same-sex couples that they are excluded from because they cannot marry.  SB 2 has passed out of the Senate and both bills passed out of the House Committee on Rules, Elections, and Ethics last week.  What goes with considering the “this I believe” issues -- among other things -- is a flood of e-mail, phone calls (mostly anonymous), and letters. 

     When I began to run for the legislature I made a pledge to my future constituents.  It included, among other things, the pledge that I would tell the truth (even if it wasn’t what people wanted to hear), that I would listen to my constituents, and that I would vote my conscience on the difficult issues.  I have been careful in responding to my constituents e-mail to report my position as explicitly as possible.  Even when it gets a response like “I’ll remember this vote and I’ll never vote for you again.”  And some that seem a bit more intimidating.  

     I remember when Lyndon Johnson was at the lowest point of his popularity during the Viet Nam war his press secretary would announce how the opinions were running on the President’s handling of the war.  (Does that sound familiar?)  One day his press secretary came out and announced it was the President’s birthday and the telegrams were running 3-2 in favor of him having a happy birthday.  I believe my constituents generally support my position of these difficult issues, although the statewide e-mail is definitely not.  But not withstanding the support count these are issues that will get my principled vote.  

     The two other issues that are drawing the most constituent e-mail are the expansion of the bottle bill and Measure 37.  I think the bottle bill expansion is about settled.  I believe that plastic water bottles and a few other bottles will get deposits.  I do not think we have the votes to increase the deposit to ten cents, although I definitely support doing so.  Measure 37 is a more complicated situation.  We have a bipartisan committee trying to work out a compromise.  They have seemed close to getting a consensus bill out several times and each time the compromise came apart.  I hear they are going to announce something this week, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

     And finally, there is the budget.  Minor agency bills are coming out, but there is wide dissatisfaction with the co-chairs’ proposed higher education budget and with several other elements of the budget.  Changing the budget numbers is a somewhat mystical process for any of us who are not on the Ways and Means Committee.  But I remain hopeful that better numbers will emerge.

Mitch