Session Profile: Katrin Kuusemäe
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
2025-03-13
Political Position
The issue arose concerning the necessity of establishing a Riigikogu (Parliamentary) investigative committee to assess the risks associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, a proposal which the Constitutional Committee clearly opposed (with 6 votes cast in favor of rejection). His/Her role as rapporteur suggests support for the committee majority's decision, which favors relying on existing supervisory bodies (the Estonian Agency of Medicines). The position is primarily procedural and institutionally based, emphasizing the adequacy of the existing regulatory framework.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The expertise is clearly procedural and relates to the internal procedures of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, including the handling of draft legislation, summaries of debates, and the reporting of voting results. He/She is able to accurately convey the committee's procedural decisions and voting results, including roll-call results. He/She relays the medical arguments of other committee members (e.g., Karmen Joller) regarding the safety of vaccines.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal, neutral, and strictly informative, which is characteristic of a committee rapporteur who presents facts and procedural decisions. He/She employs a logical and fact-based approach, focusing on accurately reporting what transpired in the committee. When responding to questions regarding the brevity of the discussion, he/she explains the situation somewhat defensively, citing the rapporteur's thorough work.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity included the role of rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee at the plenary session on March 13, where they presented the committee's position and answered questions. They participated in the committee session on February 25, during which the draft resolution for the investigative committee was discussed. Their role is related to the public presentation of the committee's decisions.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The direct opposition targets the draft resolution, initiated by the faction of the Estonian Conservative People's Party (EKRE), regarding the establishment of an investigative committee. This opposition is procedural and institutional, stressing that the Agency of Medicines is already investigating the safety of pharmaceuticals, making a new committee unnecessary. It specifically names the two committee members who opposed the rejection of the draft resolution (Evelin Poolamets and Jaak Valge).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative style is evident within the Constitutional Committee, where procedural decisions (such as adopting the agenda) were made by consensus. He/She works closely with the committee majority, supporting the joint decision to reject the draft bill (6 votes in favor). He/She names the committee members who participated in the cooperation and supported the rejection.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The text focuses on a social issue concerning public health and medical surveillance within the context of COVID-19 vaccines. It conveys the viewpoint that mRNA vaccines were not experimental and are safe according to scientific research. Emphasis is placed on trusting the State Agency of Medicines as the institution responsible for monitoring quality.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is directed at the rejection of the Riigikogu's draft resolution concerning the formation of an investigative committee to assess the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines. As the rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee, he/she is a central proponent in the process of rejecting the draft. His/Her focus is on procedural decisions and the voting results.
3 Speeches Analyzed