I Hate to Kick a Guy When He's Already Down . . .

. . . but Steven Edwards of Wired News cannot be excused for his support of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act, even though Edwards is paralyzed from the shoulders down. His condition gives him no special standing to hijack taxpayers' money. Let's begin with this, from Edwards (whose material I italicize below):

With all the noise over stem-cell research, few people seem to have heard about or understood the importance of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act. This noncontroversial bill would improve the collaboration and coordination of federally funded paralysis research. . . .

If it's noncontroversial, why is it "languishing" in Congress (Edwards's term)?

Once you read the Paralysis Act, it's almost impossible to oppose it. . . .

Impossible, eh? I guess that's why it's sailing through Congress. Or perhaps members of Congress can't read -- which is a possibility.

I believe embryonic stem cells hold tremendous promise as a research tool, and I support such research. . . .

As do I, on both counts, though I have strong reservations about the creation of life in order to destroy it. Such actions are on the slippery slope toward state control of human destiny. (Go here for more on that score.)

In any event, if a thing is worth doing, the private sector will do it, and do it better than government. (I exempt justice and defense only because of the danger that warlords might arise -- or get stronger than they are.)

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would loosen restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and establish guidelines giving infertile couples the option of donating their cryopreserved embryos for the specific purpose of deriving new embryonic stem-cell lines that would be eligible for federally funded research.

Loosening restrictions on federal funding is precisely the problem -- and it doesn't matter to me what's being restricted. It could be free applie pie for all on Mothers' Day and I would still oppose it. Why? Because it puts politicians and bureaucrats in charge of deciding how we should spend our money. Yes, it's our money, not theirs, and decidely not Steven Edwards's.

Many people have many different kinds of health problems. And those people are hurt when government hijacks their money just because some celebrity (or former president) happened to suffer from a particular disability or disease. Or do you believe in free lunches, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy, Mr. Edwards?