Chinese Cadavers and the Pennsylvania House

My favorite daily read, Capitol Ideas, had a post today on an extensive debate in the Pennsylvania House on funding for a Pennsylvania museum that had hosted an exhibit of cadavers from China, perhaps a scaled down knock off version of the Bodies exhibit that came to the Franklin Institute.

So I tuned in to PCN this evening to see what might be shown and BINGO!! I got to watch the HOUR long debate that Capitol Ideas alluded to. It is possibly the most embarrassing display I have seen in our state house. Speaker Dennis O'Brien had to ask the legislators to stop talking among themselves, shouting out, etc. He does have a lovely "sshhhh," just the right mix of lullaby and librarian.

Our legislators should be especially chagrined that high school students were visiting and got to watch this display. (These people wanted a RAISE? Can we dock their pay?)

Since the House Journals tend to run 6 months behind, I took rough notes throughout the hour of debate and they are provided below for your edification. They are not a transcript.

Before we get to that, a few random observations:

1) Dwight Evans and Bill DeWeese had on very nice ties.
2) Note to elected officials: if the person in front of you is on camera do not pick your nose or make any gestures that could be interpreted as picking your nose.
3) Anybody else note some incipient Sinophobia?

The State House is considering funding bills for college, universities, and museums. HB 2327

Mike Fleck objects to a bill funding the Carnegie Museum because of their exhibit of cadavers; something about bodies coming from China and may be from political prisoners or tainted in some way. “This is China after all.”

Dwight Evans suggests this is not the time or place.

Steve Samuelson objects to 9 museums getting special funding.

Richard Stevenson objects to exhibit.

Karen Beyer agrees with Samuelson and Fleck.

Brad Roae supports Fleck amendment, says what Samuelson wants is already there.

Kathy Rapp supports Fleck amendment. People going to “Bodies” exhibit without knowing they are of real people or of controversy on origination of them.

Curtis Thomas asks for a moment of reflection. Fleck has a good proposal. Samuelson has raised some good concerns. The overarching question is why bring up these issues now when the budget was presented the first Monday in February and public hearings held since then. Asks Fleck and Samuelson to remove amendments temporarily, move legislation and address concerns between now and when budget process is over.

Daryl Metcalfe says bodies used might be those of Christians or protestors like those in Tiananmen Square. Send a clear message and defund this appropriation. Why now? There has been more light shined on the issue recently. Complains about laughing and conversations going on while he is trying to speak.

Dwight Evans [very snazzy red tie] does not question intent of maker of amendment. The way to deal with this is sit with people from museum. This bill only deals with appropriation of running the museum. Are you more interested in the amendment or solving the issue? But I’m just one member. Fairness is fairness regarding these museums. If you are going to have this policy for this one museum why not all of them. Doesn’t want to diminish what the gentlemen is attempting to do with the amendment. You know there’s a lot of people watching us to see how we conduct ourselves. Civility is important.

Sam Smith disagrees with Evans. This is the gentleman from Huntington County’s only opportunity to bring his concerns out. This legislative body has concerns with how this particular museum handled this display. That will bring the museum in to talk with us. If they are refusing to do that this is how we get them in here. It‘s not against the Carnegie but concerned about how this was handled.

Evans: This is the first time I’ve heard of this issue, no one has brought it to my attention or asked to talk with me. I’m making a public offer to bring in the museum. If that’s what it’s about. If you want to make a point or get a victory then you won’t want to meet with them, there’s nothing I can do about that. Do you want to address this issue or get political points.

Smith: Mr. Speaker!! Evans is impugning motives.

Evans: Doesn’t know sponsor of amendment. Willing to address issue. We will get this funding through; Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh will get their money.

Smith: That argument is astonishing to me.

Julie Harhart: Introduces class visiting.

Frank Dermody: It is wrong to be punishing these institutions at this time. Understand that sponsor of the amendment has introduced legislation to deal with this issue.

Dan Frankel: Agree. These institutions are wonderful and do much good work. There is a bill introduced that I co-sponsored to deal with this issue. Exhibit has toured around the country.

Thomas Petrone: Oppose this amendment. It impedes access to science and history. How many saw the King Tut exhibit? The Ice Man? You should see these and be interested. Taking funds away is dangerous. Asks visiting class if we should cut these funds. [speaker chides him.]

Craig Dally: To correct, there were no hearings held on non-preferred appropriations [like this museum funding bill]

Mark Cohen: Agree with Evans. Support the Carnegie. Fleck amendment is a waste of public focus. The only way our ability to take money away can be legally challenged is if we do it for freedom of expression. [cites case in New York].

Thomas Yewcic: Appropriations votes are among our most important. It shows our priority. Let’s not fund these exhibits from Beijing.

Paul Clymer: The issue is our respect for fellow man, for humanity. This exhibit of Chinese people is the wrong direction for us to go.

Scott Petri: Many of us have missed the important issue today. If there is any question at all prudence dictates that we go over it. Do rank and file members have the right to challenge and go over appropriations. There are precedents.

Chelsa Wagner: Carnegie Science Center is in my district. They did their due diligence before the exhibit. Had community advisory committee led Diocese of Pittsburgh to issue a lengthy statement in support of the exhibit. Fleck amendment is misplaced.

Fleck: This is a very big human right issue. We have more laws on the books regarding taxidermy than on human remains shipped into this country. An exhibit of bodies at the Franklin Institute had all ages and genders and appropriate paperwork. The exhibit at the Carnegie had bodies from China, all in their 20s and 30s. The Chinese are very superstitious; they want to go into the afterlife with all their body parts. The chairman has agreed to [work with me on issue] so I withdraw my amendment but I will not vote for this on third consideration.