Las Vegas Sun

May 5, 2015

Currently: 76° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Sun Editorial:

The Times misses the point: Working for all Nevadans isn’t a problem

As part of a series on members of Congress and the causes they champion, The New York Times on Tuesday published an article about Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley and her advocacy for health care with the foreboding headline, “A Congresswoman’s Cause Is Often Her Husband’s Gain.”

The newspaper focused on her support of a kidney transplant program at University Medical Center, noting that her husband, Dr. Larry Lehrner, is a leading kidney specialist whose practice includes a contract with the hospital and a dozen dialysis treatment centers. The article suggested that her advocacy for better treatment is a conflict of interest because her husband’s practice has benefited as a result.

“The intermingling of Ms. Berkley’s public and private life, though, is striking even among her peers on Capitol Hill,” the article states.


It is no secret that Berkley, who is running for the U.S. Senate, is married to a doctor and that she is a strong advocate for quality health care. The Times’ article pointed out that Berkley, along with other members of the congressional delegation, pushed to keep the UMC kidney transplant center open after it ran into problems with federal regulators. Because her husband’s practice has a contract with the hospital, there must be a conflict, right?


Berkley was correct to advocate for UMC. The state had no other transplant center, and as a result of her work, the UMC center is

now improved, and Nevadans don’t have to leave the state for care. The idea that her advocacy on behalf of the good of all Nevadans is some sort of conflict of interest is ridiculous. (The Times didn’t mention that she has opposed tort reform measures pushed by doctors’ groups that would have helped her husband.)

The larger issue is that voters are being asked to accept the premise that it would be unethical for a lawmaker to support legislation that would benefit the public if it would also benefit his or her spouse’s profession.

If that is the case, voters would have to reject every lawmaker with a spouse in the military who supports better armor, increased pay or better benefits for the troops, or any lawmaker whose spouse is a firefighter and advocates for better fire safety regulations that benefit the public. Or, to extend that reasoning, any doctors in Congress who vote on health care policy.

Absent any other evidence of unethical action by Berkley, and we know of none, the voters need to keep their perspective. Her advocacy wasn’t driven for personal gain, it was aimed at helping Nevadans. Berkley has always passionately worked to help Nevadans, first and foremost. That’s not a conflict, that’s good representation.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. "Berkley was correct to advocate for UMC. THE STATE HAD NO OTHER TRANSPLANT CENTER"...

    Read that line a few times, haters....

    "Berkley was correct to advocate for UMC. THE STATE HAD NO OTHER TRANSPLANT CENTER"...

    Didn't her OPPONENT, DEAN "HOBO" HELLER also ADVOCATE for the same thing?
    Um, YES. HE DID.

    The "choice" between "Hobo" Heller & Berkley in regards to Health Care Advocacy for ALL NEVADANS ain't even close...
    Do a little research.
    Heller; Anti Health Care Reform.
    Berkley; A CHAMPION of Health Care Reform.
    Heller; ANTI MEDICARE.

  2. My favorite part (insert sarcastic facial expression here) is when Berkley tried to suggest her voting for Veterans to benefit her WWII Vet father is the same voting for a health care law that directly benefits her personal pocketbook.

    In the NYT article she said:
    "I won't stop fighting to give Nevadans access to affordable health care just because my husband is a doctor, just like I won't stop standing up for veterans because my father served in World War II," she said. Berkley.

    Did she make money off of voting for veterans? No. So, this is a logical fallacy. Berkley benefiting financially and PERSONALLY from a health care law vs. voting to benefit veterans does not directly correlate.

    If ANY government representative is benefiting financially from legislation they enacted, I want to know about it. Whether Democratic OR Republican. I tip my hat to the NYT.

  3. Also, According to The Las Vegas Review Journal:
    "New York Times piece not first time Berkley, spouse drew scrutiny"