Courage is a quality we often celebrate in our elected officials, but sometimes what passes for principle looks an awful lot like political stubbornness. Last week on the Senate floor, Americans witnessed a troubling example of the latter.
The Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, a bipartisan measure designed to incentivize research into pediatric cancer treatments, died quietly in the upper chamber. This marked the second consecutive year the legislation failed to advance, and the reason comes down to one man’s decision to hold sick children’s futures hostage to his own legislative priorities.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the independent who caucuses with Democrats, blocked the bill from proceeding through the fast-track process despite near-unanimous support from his colleagues. His objection was not rooted in opposition to the bill’s core mission of encouraging the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical companies to invest in rare pediatric disease treatments. Rather, Sanders wanted to attach an amendment funding community health centers across the nation.
The scene on the Senate floor carried the weight of genuine tragedy. Pediatric cancer research advocates watched from the gallery as multiple senators pleaded with Sanders to reconsider his position. Their pleas fell on deaf ears.
Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who brought the legislation to the floor, did not mince words in his assessment of Sanders’ tactics. The Oklahoma Republican accused his colleague of playing politics with children’s lives, suggesting that families battling pediatric cancer should hold the Vermont senator accountable for this decision.
The substance of the blocked legislation deserves attention. The bill would have created meaningful incentives for developing treatments specifically designed for children battling cancer and other rare diseases. Anyone familiar with the pharmaceutical industry knows that pediatric medications often take a back seat to adult treatments because the market is smaller and the research more complex. This legislation aimed to change that calculus.
Sanders’ parliamentary maneuver, while technically within his rights as a senator, raises serious questions about legislative priorities and the art of compromise. There is no question that community health centers serve important functions in underserved areas. But the decision to tie that worthy cause to pediatric cancer research funding suggests a troubling willingness to sacrifice the achievable good for the perfect.
The timing compounds the frustration. With Congress entering a new year, the bill returns to square one. That means more delays, more procedural hurdles, and more time that researchers cannot access the incentives designed to push pediatric cancer treatments forward. For families watching their children battle these terrible diseases, time is not an abstract legislative concept. It measures hope, possibility, and in some cases, survival itself.
The bipartisan nature of the original legislation made its prospects for passage nearly certain. In an era of deep political division, finding common ground on anything represents a small miracle. That Sanders chose to blow up that rare consensus speaks volumes about the current state of our politics.
As this new Congress settles into its work, one hopes that cooler heads will prevail and this vital legislation will find its way to passage. The children and families counting on these research advances deserve better than political theater.
Related: Department of Justice Releases Epstein Files Showing Clinton in Hot Tub and Alongside Maxwell
