JDLandewee
02-13-2006, 01:38 PM
Many people do not believe that their opinion or voice counts. Below is a letter I sent to my Senator, Jim Talent and the results follow:
______________________________________________
Senator Talent,
It is past the point that we can debate whether or not stem cell research will advance, it is inevitable. If we don’t do it, other nations will and are already. Our country should take the lead in this research. At least that way we could put legislation into effect to control and fund it. We could allow stem cell research to advance as long as cells from aborted fetuses were not used. Many people would have you believe that stem cell research has to do with abortion and try to scare Americans away from it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Americans should know the truth about it and the promise it holds. Many states already have laws in effect that prohibits the use of cells from abortions for research or any other use.
It is a big leap to associate unfertilized eggs and umbilical cords with aborted fetuses. Stem cells are building blocks for all other types of cells. Most doctors who are pro-life are also for cell research. These are medical professionals with years of higher education and extensive knowledge of the human body and the conception process. I believe these people know the difference between stem cell research and abortion, otherwise they would not support it. Most doctors and researchers only want cells from umbilical cords and eggs slated for destruction from fertility clinics.
A rumor has it that the Bush twins are the product of invitro fertilization. I suppose it is okay to use the eggs to create life but not to save it? Who is playing God in that court? If you are going to propose a ban to prohibit embryonic stem cell research maybe it should include a ban using them to create life as well. It would be hypocritical not to do so. It is kind of like saying you are pro-life but for the death penalty at the same time.
I believe Americans deserve cures. The Federal Government should fund stem cell research as much as it does cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and other types of diseases and condition. Anyone who is really interested in finding out more about stem cell research can access the information from our own National Institutes of Health at the website: http://stemcells.nih.gov Just think about the hundreds of billions of dollars we could save treating ailments such as ALS, Parkinson’s Diabetes, Heart Disease, Strokes, Spinal Cord Injuries, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, and so on. The list is too long to write. Don’t you think these people would rather be cured than cared for? What if it was you or a loved one who had this? Wouldn’t you want a cure for them?
What is going to happen if we do not get on top of this is you are going to see a mass exodus of Americans traveling to foreign countries to obtain help or cures that they could get here at home. Our trade deficit is bad enough without sending our medical dollars overseas as well.
Let’s imagine for a moment that you don’t know anyone who needs this help nor do you care. Do you actually believe that you will live your entire life without being affected by some type of ailment or disease? Do you want to wait until this happens before you become interested or would you rather have a cure available if it does? The time to think about this is now, not when it is too late, and it is already too late for many Americans. Wouldn’t it be better to heal your own organs rather than be put on a waiting list for a transplant? No invasive surgery and your body would not reject it’s own organs. How many more Americans have to die and suffer before we do the right thing?
Another issue that could be raised is that this research could be perverted and women could be paid for their eggs for this research. The thing that we have to realize is that yes, it is a possibility and yes it probably will happen illegally and in other countries but we could make the same argument for organ donors and transplants. There are people around the world selling their kidneys. Does this stop us from doing kidney transplants in America? Terrorists use cell phones for triggering devices in their bombs. Did we outlaw the use of cell phones? To not allow stem cell research because some people make take advantage of others or how they obtain them would be absurd. These things will happen anyway. The only thing we can do is to try not to let it happen in the United States and make it criminal to do so. What the real crime is that we are not funding stem cell research and advancing our knowledge of this technology to save lives and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.
Maybe the best thing for the advancement of stem cell research would be for it to go before the Supreme Court and let them decide. Number one, the court would have to overturn "Roe vs. Wade," number two, it would force the people against it to make this a religious issue. They would have to contend that an egg has a soul and is not a cluster of cells. The first amendment to our Constitution would force the court to throw out their arguments and allow research to proceed.
Missouri already has laws on the books that prohibit the use of cells from aborted fetuses to be used for research or anything else. (Missouri Statues 188.036 and 188.037) Our lawmakers could use this opportunity to advance and fund this research and bring the best doctors and researchers to our state. Once doctors are successful, the amount of revenue it could create from people traveling to Missouri for treatment or a cure would be staggering. Wouldn’t it be something if the State’s slogan could change from the "Show Me State" to the "Cure Me State?"
The amount of money stem cell therapies could save insurance companies and especially Medicare could help put our Social Security in the black for many years to come.
Being Pro-Stem Cell research is being Pro-Life. Stem cells promise the opportunity to save lives and improve the quality of life for millions more. It is our country’s duty and in its best interest to promote this research.
If you are worried about your religious constituents not re-electing you that is an absurd assumption. Most people do not vote the way their pastors tell them to, they vote for the person who has their best interests in mind. I am sure everyone in the Missouri Coalition for Stem Cell Research will do everything in their power to make sure you are not re-elected if you proceed with this action on the bill you are co-sponsoring.
David Landewee
Liberty, Missouri
_________________________________________________
The following article came out in the Kansas City Star a week later.
Senator’s shift is politically risky Talent changes stem-cell stance
By MATT STEARNS and STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star
WASHINGTON — Sen. Jim Talent attempted an election-year pirouette Friday on stem-cell research, an issue that has split the Missouri Republican Party.
Talent withdrew his four-year support of federal legislation that would ban human cloning, including what opponents call embryonic therapeutic cloning that most researchers see as key to early stem-cell study. Talent’s pro-life supporters adamantly oppose the technique.
In making his position change, the Missouri Republican sought to satisfy the pro-life camp by promoting a type of stem-cell research that “signals the end of ethical dilemmas in this type of research.”
“If we can get the stem cells without the cloning, we render the current controversy scientifically obsolete,” Talent said Friday in a half-hour Senate floor speech that was equal parts science lesson and politics.
Still, the Missouri Catholic Conference issued a scathing news release accusing Talent of abandoning his pro-life principles. And Missouri scientific leaders remained unhappy that Talent seemed to favor a type of research that is only in preliminary stages and is not being performed in Missouri.
Stem-cell research is a hot political issue in Missouri because supporters of embryonic stem-cell research — including many Republican business leaders in Kansas City and St. Louis — are trying to get an initiative on the November ballot that would prevent Missouri from enacting stricter laws on the research than the federal government would.
Talent’s Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill, supports the initiative. She had lambasted Talent for co-sponsoring the restrictive legislation, which was originally introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. The pro-life movement also opposes the initiative because they see all types of human cloning as violating their view of the sanctity of human life.
Talent would not say Friday whether he would support the ballot initiative, although he reiterated his basic support for the goals of the legislation he abandoned — specifically, the banning of cloning of human embryos, including those created solely for research purposes through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Instead, he sought to present what he called “a common ground solution” that would entail a more flexible regulatory ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer while increasing federal funding for a type of research known as altered nuclear transfer.
Altered nuclear transfer in theory creates “nonembryos” that contain embryonic stem cells. It gives the benefits of early stem-cell research without the cloning that is anathema to so many in the pro-life movement, Talent said.
“Science would have the stem cells it needs in a morally acceptable way that would allow for full federal funding of stem-cell research,” Talent said. “The pro-life community would have an effective ban on human cloning. We would turn a zero-sum game into a win-win proposition for everyone.”
Talent said he was trying to find “an island of unity in a sea of controversy.”
William Hurlbut, a leading proponent of altered nuclear transfer research, said Friday: “You never create an embryo by this method. You never create a living human organism.”
Even so, many in the pro-life movement view altered nuclear transfer as no more acceptable than the research they condemn as cloning. That is because the research still involves creating a blastocyst — a ball of cells — and crippling it in the petri dish to prevent it from growing into a human embryo.
“We have concerns about the intentional creation of what may be developmentally disabled human ‘embryos’ for the sole purpose of destroying them to harvest their stem cells,” wrote Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family, a leading conservative group.
The pro-life movement also is confused by Talent’s rationale for pulling his support for Brownback’s bill.
Talent said he was concerned that the bill’s wording would inadvertently ban altered nuclear transfer research that did not involve the cloning of human embryos.
Nonsense, said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose group helped Brownback write the bill.
“This doesn’t make any sense to us,” Doerflinger said. “The Brownback bill … clearly allows research other than cloning human embryos. … I think this man is very confused.”
Talent did not tell Brownback that he was pulling support for the bill, an aide to the senator from Kansas said.
Brownback would not comment Friday, but he has never said he considers altered nuclear transfer research to be ethically sound.
“There’s been a lot of support for Jim Talent from the pro-life community,” said Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference. “Today he stepped off that platform. At this point, it’s essentially vacant with respect to the U.S. Senate election. His candidacy gave pro-life voters something they could gravitate towards. Unfortunately, it’s just not there any more.”
Missouri’s scientific community wasn’t thrilled either.
No researchers at Kansas City’s Stowers Institute or St. Louis’ Washington University currently do altered nuclear transfer research, said scientists at the state’s two leading bioresearch centers.
“All federally allowed research with stem cells should proceed,” said William Neaves, president of the Stowers Institute. “At this time, it’s not possible to know which type of research would hold the most promise.”
And it doesn’t make sense at this time to tilt the playing field in favor of one type of research, especially for altered nuclear transfer, for which “there is no evidence this will work in people,” said Steven Teitelbaum, a researcher at Washington University who uses stem cells in his research.
Talent pointed out in his speech that somatic cell nuclear transfer remains equally unproven in its medical efficacy.
McCaskill wasted no time in trying to exploit Talent’s new position.
“Strong leaders need to have clarity,” McCaskill said. “He appears to be in a fog.”
The dual risks of being viewed as a flip-flopper on a high-profile issue and of antagonizing part of his base could prove politically fatal, said George Connor, a political scientist at Missouri State University.
“Instead of saying, ‘This is what I believe,’ and going out on the campaign trail and defending it, he’s trying to have the best of both worlds.”
“This is a very dangerous thing for Senator Talent,” Connor added. “It could cost him the race. I just think it’s an astounding mistake."
But Missouri Rep. Brian Yates, a Lee’s Summit Republican, called it a smart move.
“I see where the senator is going,” Yates said. “A lot of life sciences are still evolving. It may be premature to enact legislation to criminalize life sciences research without more information or without better definitions of what should be allowed. … I think it’s probably a good thing to take a step back and review this issue.”
Talent said in an interview following his speech that politics had nothing to do with his decision to abandon the Brownback bill and push for more altered nuclear transfer research. He said the decision was the result of a yearlong examination of the issues.
“It really is an attempt to get everybody to understand there are at least some areas where you can have what you want without denying the other side what they want,” Talent said.
Still, he acknowledged he had waded into politically perilous waters.
“My wife says to me last night, ‘Jim … two things are going to happen: Nobody’s going to like it and they’re all going to say you’re doing it just for political reasons,’ ” Talent said. “And I said to her, ‘Well, if nobody likes it, why in the world would I be doing it for political reasons?’ ”
____________________________________________
In response to what Senator Talent did, I sent the following letter to several newspapers and to Jim Talent himself:
I applaud Senator Talent’s new position on stem cell research. It takes a brave man to take a stand against members of his own party and religious opponents. Polls have shown that the majority of Missourians favor this research. By changing his position, he is making a bi-partisan statement that he truly represents views of the constituents in his state and is supporting their views. He should not be blasted by the media or accused of flip-flopping on the issue but commended for investigating the research and deciding to do the right thing. At some point in life, everyone or at least someone they love may be affected by a life threatening illness that this research holds the promise to cure. Senator Talent is showing that he is pro-life by supporting this research. Is it not just as important to save lives as it is to create them? I was disheartened to read in several newspapers this weekend about democrats who are using Senator Talent’s change of heart to further their own political agendas. Why would such people do this when he is coming out with support for an issue that they wish to promote? The mud slinging has begun and I hope people realize it for what it is. I hope the people of Missouri who favor this research congratulate and commend Senator Talent for what he has done. 99% of the time, the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are the same. Thank you Senator Talent.
David Landewee
Liberty, Missouri
________________________________________________
Your voice can make a difference. Remember that it is just as important to commend people like Jim Talent as it is to criticize. He now has many people in his own party giving him a hard time along with religious opponents and democrats accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. I hope people realize the democratic mud-slinging for what it is. He is endorsing now what they want and they are using it against him. They should be thanking him for helping with such an important issue. Let your voice be heard, it can make a difference. I would not have got spinal cord research legislation passed in Missouri if I had not made my voice heard and worked so hard in the face of opposition and apathy.
Dave Landewee, www.dave2008.org
______________________________________________
Senator Talent,
It is past the point that we can debate whether or not stem cell research will advance, it is inevitable. If we don’t do it, other nations will and are already. Our country should take the lead in this research. At least that way we could put legislation into effect to control and fund it. We could allow stem cell research to advance as long as cells from aborted fetuses were not used. Many people would have you believe that stem cell research has to do with abortion and try to scare Americans away from it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Americans should know the truth about it and the promise it holds. Many states already have laws in effect that prohibits the use of cells from abortions for research or any other use.
It is a big leap to associate unfertilized eggs and umbilical cords with aborted fetuses. Stem cells are building blocks for all other types of cells. Most doctors who are pro-life are also for cell research. These are medical professionals with years of higher education and extensive knowledge of the human body and the conception process. I believe these people know the difference between stem cell research and abortion, otherwise they would not support it. Most doctors and researchers only want cells from umbilical cords and eggs slated for destruction from fertility clinics.
A rumor has it that the Bush twins are the product of invitro fertilization. I suppose it is okay to use the eggs to create life but not to save it? Who is playing God in that court? If you are going to propose a ban to prohibit embryonic stem cell research maybe it should include a ban using them to create life as well. It would be hypocritical not to do so. It is kind of like saying you are pro-life but for the death penalty at the same time.
I believe Americans deserve cures. The Federal Government should fund stem cell research as much as it does cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and other types of diseases and condition. Anyone who is really interested in finding out more about stem cell research can access the information from our own National Institutes of Health at the website: http://stemcells.nih.gov Just think about the hundreds of billions of dollars we could save treating ailments such as ALS, Parkinson’s Diabetes, Heart Disease, Strokes, Spinal Cord Injuries, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, and so on. The list is too long to write. Don’t you think these people would rather be cured than cared for? What if it was you or a loved one who had this? Wouldn’t you want a cure for them?
What is going to happen if we do not get on top of this is you are going to see a mass exodus of Americans traveling to foreign countries to obtain help or cures that they could get here at home. Our trade deficit is bad enough without sending our medical dollars overseas as well.
Let’s imagine for a moment that you don’t know anyone who needs this help nor do you care. Do you actually believe that you will live your entire life without being affected by some type of ailment or disease? Do you want to wait until this happens before you become interested or would you rather have a cure available if it does? The time to think about this is now, not when it is too late, and it is already too late for many Americans. Wouldn’t it be better to heal your own organs rather than be put on a waiting list for a transplant? No invasive surgery and your body would not reject it’s own organs. How many more Americans have to die and suffer before we do the right thing?
Another issue that could be raised is that this research could be perverted and women could be paid for their eggs for this research. The thing that we have to realize is that yes, it is a possibility and yes it probably will happen illegally and in other countries but we could make the same argument for organ donors and transplants. There are people around the world selling their kidneys. Does this stop us from doing kidney transplants in America? Terrorists use cell phones for triggering devices in their bombs. Did we outlaw the use of cell phones? To not allow stem cell research because some people make take advantage of others or how they obtain them would be absurd. These things will happen anyway. The only thing we can do is to try not to let it happen in the United States and make it criminal to do so. What the real crime is that we are not funding stem cell research and advancing our knowledge of this technology to save lives and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.
Maybe the best thing for the advancement of stem cell research would be for it to go before the Supreme Court and let them decide. Number one, the court would have to overturn "Roe vs. Wade," number two, it would force the people against it to make this a religious issue. They would have to contend that an egg has a soul and is not a cluster of cells. The first amendment to our Constitution would force the court to throw out their arguments and allow research to proceed.
Missouri already has laws on the books that prohibit the use of cells from aborted fetuses to be used for research or anything else. (Missouri Statues 188.036 and 188.037) Our lawmakers could use this opportunity to advance and fund this research and bring the best doctors and researchers to our state. Once doctors are successful, the amount of revenue it could create from people traveling to Missouri for treatment or a cure would be staggering. Wouldn’t it be something if the State’s slogan could change from the "Show Me State" to the "Cure Me State?"
The amount of money stem cell therapies could save insurance companies and especially Medicare could help put our Social Security in the black for many years to come.
Being Pro-Stem Cell research is being Pro-Life. Stem cells promise the opportunity to save lives and improve the quality of life for millions more. It is our country’s duty and in its best interest to promote this research.
If you are worried about your religious constituents not re-electing you that is an absurd assumption. Most people do not vote the way their pastors tell them to, they vote for the person who has their best interests in mind. I am sure everyone in the Missouri Coalition for Stem Cell Research will do everything in their power to make sure you are not re-elected if you proceed with this action on the bill you are co-sponsoring.
David Landewee
Liberty, Missouri
_________________________________________________
The following article came out in the Kansas City Star a week later.
Senator’s shift is politically risky Talent changes stem-cell stance
By MATT STEARNS and STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star
WASHINGTON — Sen. Jim Talent attempted an election-year pirouette Friday on stem-cell research, an issue that has split the Missouri Republican Party.
Talent withdrew his four-year support of federal legislation that would ban human cloning, including what opponents call embryonic therapeutic cloning that most researchers see as key to early stem-cell study. Talent’s pro-life supporters adamantly oppose the technique.
In making his position change, the Missouri Republican sought to satisfy the pro-life camp by promoting a type of stem-cell research that “signals the end of ethical dilemmas in this type of research.”
“If we can get the stem cells without the cloning, we render the current controversy scientifically obsolete,” Talent said Friday in a half-hour Senate floor speech that was equal parts science lesson and politics.
Still, the Missouri Catholic Conference issued a scathing news release accusing Talent of abandoning his pro-life principles. And Missouri scientific leaders remained unhappy that Talent seemed to favor a type of research that is only in preliminary stages and is not being performed in Missouri.
Stem-cell research is a hot political issue in Missouri because supporters of embryonic stem-cell research — including many Republican business leaders in Kansas City and St. Louis — are trying to get an initiative on the November ballot that would prevent Missouri from enacting stricter laws on the research than the federal government would.
Talent’s Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill, supports the initiative. She had lambasted Talent for co-sponsoring the restrictive legislation, which was originally introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. The pro-life movement also opposes the initiative because they see all types of human cloning as violating their view of the sanctity of human life.
Talent would not say Friday whether he would support the ballot initiative, although he reiterated his basic support for the goals of the legislation he abandoned — specifically, the banning of cloning of human embryos, including those created solely for research purposes through a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Instead, he sought to present what he called “a common ground solution” that would entail a more flexible regulatory ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer while increasing federal funding for a type of research known as altered nuclear transfer.
Altered nuclear transfer in theory creates “nonembryos” that contain embryonic stem cells. It gives the benefits of early stem-cell research without the cloning that is anathema to so many in the pro-life movement, Talent said.
“Science would have the stem cells it needs in a morally acceptable way that would allow for full federal funding of stem-cell research,” Talent said. “The pro-life community would have an effective ban on human cloning. We would turn a zero-sum game into a win-win proposition for everyone.”
Talent said he was trying to find “an island of unity in a sea of controversy.”
William Hurlbut, a leading proponent of altered nuclear transfer research, said Friday: “You never create an embryo by this method. You never create a living human organism.”
Even so, many in the pro-life movement view altered nuclear transfer as no more acceptable than the research they condemn as cloning. That is because the research still involves creating a blastocyst — a ball of cells — and crippling it in the petri dish to prevent it from growing into a human embryo.
“We have concerns about the intentional creation of what may be developmentally disabled human ‘embryos’ for the sole purpose of destroying them to harvest their stem cells,” wrote Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family, a leading conservative group.
The pro-life movement also is confused by Talent’s rationale for pulling his support for Brownback’s bill.
Talent said he was concerned that the bill’s wording would inadvertently ban altered nuclear transfer research that did not involve the cloning of human embryos.
Nonsense, said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose group helped Brownback write the bill.
“This doesn’t make any sense to us,” Doerflinger said. “The Brownback bill … clearly allows research other than cloning human embryos. … I think this man is very confused.”
Talent did not tell Brownback that he was pulling support for the bill, an aide to the senator from Kansas said.
Brownback would not comment Friday, but he has never said he considers altered nuclear transfer research to be ethically sound.
“There’s been a lot of support for Jim Talent from the pro-life community,” said Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference. “Today he stepped off that platform. At this point, it’s essentially vacant with respect to the U.S. Senate election. His candidacy gave pro-life voters something they could gravitate towards. Unfortunately, it’s just not there any more.”
Missouri’s scientific community wasn’t thrilled either.
No researchers at Kansas City’s Stowers Institute or St. Louis’ Washington University currently do altered nuclear transfer research, said scientists at the state’s two leading bioresearch centers.
“All federally allowed research with stem cells should proceed,” said William Neaves, president of the Stowers Institute. “At this time, it’s not possible to know which type of research would hold the most promise.”
And it doesn’t make sense at this time to tilt the playing field in favor of one type of research, especially for altered nuclear transfer, for which “there is no evidence this will work in people,” said Steven Teitelbaum, a researcher at Washington University who uses stem cells in his research.
Talent pointed out in his speech that somatic cell nuclear transfer remains equally unproven in its medical efficacy.
McCaskill wasted no time in trying to exploit Talent’s new position.
“Strong leaders need to have clarity,” McCaskill said. “He appears to be in a fog.”
The dual risks of being viewed as a flip-flopper on a high-profile issue and of antagonizing part of his base could prove politically fatal, said George Connor, a political scientist at Missouri State University.
“Instead of saying, ‘This is what I believe,’ and going out on the campaign trail and defending it, he’s trying to have the best of both worlds.”
“This is a very dangerous thing for Senator Talent,” Connor added. “It could cost him the race. I just think it’s an astounding mistake."
But Missouri Rep. Brian Yates, a Lee’s Summit Republican, called it a smart move.
“I see where the senator is going,” Yates said. “A lot of life sciences are still evolving. It may be premature to enact legislation to criminalize life sciences research without more information or without better definitions of what should be allowed. … I think it’s probably a good thing to take a step back and review this issue.”
Talent said in an interview following his speech that politics had nothing to do with his decision to abandon the Brownback bill and push for more altered nuclear transfer research. He said the decision was the result of a yearlong examination of the issues.
“It really is an attempt to get everybody to understand there are at least some areas where you can have what you want without denying the other side what they want,” Talent said.
Still, he acknowledged he had waded into politically perilous waters.
“My wife says to me last night, ‘Jim … two things are going to happen: Nobody’s going to like it and they’re all going to say you’re doing it just for political reasons,’ ” Talent said. “And I said to her, ‘Well, if nobody likes it, why in the world would I be doing it for political reasons?’ ”
____________________________________________
In response to what Senator Talent did, I sent the following letter to several newspapers and to Jim Talent himself:
I applaud Senator Talent’s new position on stem cell research. It takes a brave man to take a stand against members of his own party and religious opponents. Polls have shown that the majority of Missourians favor this research. By changing his position, he is making a bi-partisan statement that he truly represents views of the constituents in his state and is supporting their views. He should not be blasted by the media or accused of flip-flopping on the issue but commended for investigating the research and deciding to do the right thing. At some point in life, everyone or at least someone they love may be affected by a life threatening illness that this research holds the promise to cure. Senator Talent is showing that he is pro-life by supporting this research. Is it not just as important to save lives as it is to create them? I was disheartened to read in several newspapers this weekend about democrats who are using Senator Talent’s change of heart to further their own political agendas. Why would such people do this when he is coming out with support for an issue that they wish to promote? The mud slinging has begun and I hope people realize it for what it is. I hope the people of Missouri who favor this research congratulate and commend Senator Talent for what he has done. 99% of the time, the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are the same. Thank you Senator Talent.
David Landewee
Liberty, Missouri
________________________________________________
Your voice can make a difference. Remember that it is just as important to commend people like Jim Talent as it is to criticize. He now has many people in his own party giving him a hard time along with religious opponents and democrats accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. I hope people realize the democratic mud-slinging for what it is. He is endorsing now what they want and they are using it against him. They should be thanking him for helping with such an important issue. Let your voice be heard, it can make a difference. I would not have got spinal cord research legislation passed in Missouri if I had not made my voice heard and worked so hard in the face of opposition and apathy.
Dave Landewee, www.dave2008.org