“My choices are a Democrat with a sound record of constituent service….”
This is the only thing people say about Ennis. They never point to anything else.
It reminds me of those Repubs who still feel a need to defend R. Nixon. You can list all the terrible things he did and these people will say, “Yes, be he did go to China.” As if that redeems everything else about him.
If Debbie Hudson’s amendment killed the bill, why were there two amendments to the bill afterwards? And why would she kill her own bill?
This was the final amendment to the bill, the amendment that killed the bill. It stated that the state had power over public and private funded research. That killed the bill.
Kowalko’s wrong. Matthews is wrong. Deal with it.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
HOUSE AMENDMENT NO. 3
SENATE BILL NO. 5
AMEND Senate Bill No. 5, as amended by Senate Amendment No. 4, by striking lines 141 and 142 and by re-designating “(e)”, “(f)”, and “(g)” that appear on lines 143, 150, and 154, respectively, as (d)”, “(e)”, and “(f)”, respectively.
This Amendment deletes § 3004D(d) which stated that any research guidelines adopted or advisory opinions issued by the Human Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee are applicable only to research that is publicly funded by the State of Delaware.
With all due respect, the Amendment that killed SB 5 was the House Amendment 1 to SB 5. I know because I pointed out to my colleagues, who along with myself intended to vote for SB5, that the Hudson Amendment section (c) line 4 “or who uses a human reproductive egg for research purposes is guilty of a class E felony” does, in fact, criminalize stem cell research. There is no other way to interpret that and my discussion with Stephanie Hansen (the most formidable supporter of SB 5) in the chambers at the moment that amendment was offered and passed, confirmed my angry suspicions of sabotage. The Ennis amendment was totally acceptable to the supporters of SB 5. No supporter of a bill regulating and allowing Stem Cell research would be foolish or stupid enough to criminalize the very activity that the bill sought to address. Do your homework and call Ms. Hansen or any members of Stem Cell Go who fervently supported this bill. Better yet talk to any of the House Members who supported the bill but changed their vote because of HA 1 to SB 5.Your misplaced outrage directed at Bruce Ennis’ record is clouding your already murky vision.
you have to direct those queries to Rep. Hudson. I have my suspicions of intentions and sincerity but these are only my own unsubstantiated assumptions and it wouldn’t be fair for me to project them as based in fact or face to face discussion. Similar to my suspicions of motives and intentions in the WindPower debate. Serious questions can be raised regarding the forces arrayed against such proposals. For instance take note in the business section of the NJ that Exxon Mobile’s $36.13 Billion record profits in 2005 have been eclipsed by its recent $39.5 Billion profits last year. Hardly motivation for Alternative Energy generation that will not consume fossil fuels and contribute to next years record.