What Missouri’s Amendment 2 is Really Saying
The controversy over Amendment 2, the Stem Cell Initiative in Missouri, isn’t going away. Even Michael J. Fox, who made this ad for Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill in the Missouri Senate race, admitted he didn’t read the measure and couldn’t explain its contents. People of both parties favor stem cell research; the point of contention is over embryonic stem cell research, cloning and the wording of this measure. HERE is the initiative and below the most significant experts:
2006 Ballot Measure
Constitutional Amendment 2
Submitted October 11, 2005
NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change, repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal or modify by implication, the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri – Sections 2, 10, 14, and 32 of Article I; Section 1 of Article II; Sections 1, 21, 22, 23, 28, 36, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Article III; Sections 1, 14, 36(a), 37, 37(a), 39, and 52 of Article IV; Sections 5, 14, 17, 18, and 23, and subsection 17 of Section 27 of Article V; Sections 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(k), 18(m), 19(a), 20, 31, 32(a), and 32(b) of Article VI; Section 9(a) of Article IX; Sections 1, 6, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(f) of Article X; and Section 3 or Article XI.
The preface may be the most problematic part of the entire amendment. Essentially, this is saying that after the Stem Cell Initiative is voted on and passed, any of the above Articles of the Missouri Constitution can be repealed, changed or modified. They refer to things like the equality of man, justice, individual rights, due process and court cases, to name a few. These all have the potential to redefine the human being, and as that relates to embryonic stem cells, the definition of when life begins can be amended in the Constitution as being a definition that does not protect the unborn. This most certainly is a possibility since opponents to embryonic stem cell research know life begins at conception.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Section 38(d).
1 . This section shall be known as the “ Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.”
2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.
(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.
(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.
(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? No cloning, no human reproduction….. the problem is that below the terminology is redefined by this measure:
6. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
(4) “Fertilization” means the process whereby an egg of a human female and the sperm of a human male form a zygote (i.e., fertilized egg).
(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.
(9) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, association, partnership, public or private institution, or other legal entity.
(11) “Solely for the purpose of stem cell research” means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.
(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor . Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.
A most significant distinction being that “cloning” is defined by implantation of an embryo, not fertilization. If a human can be produced in a test tube or petri dish, it can be cloned. If a human has implanted in the wall of the uterus as with normal pregnancy or invetro fertilization that is implanted, it cannot be cloned. So when proponents of this amendment say cloning is not allowed, they are playing a shell game with words after redefining “cloning” to fit their ethical standard, which does NOT include the premise that life begins at conception: it begins sometime after implantation OR birth.
“Early stem cell research” means stem cell research conducted on human beings in their embryonic stage of life. This is clearly an ethical dilemma… unless one changes the definition “cloning” and “human being”.
The term “person” does not include the unborn or an embryo.
“No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research“, but one may “donate with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.” This leaves the door wide open to sell their eggs for scientific study rather than for profit.
The verbiage is clearly misleading and has the potential for clear ethical violations. This is totally unnecessary considering that adult stem cell research, which does not compromise human life at any level, has produced over 72 positive results, whereas embryonic stem cell research to date has not offered even one benefit of glimmer of hope for sufferers of Parkinsons or Alzheier’s Disease. Why then it is such an issue? Money and abortion. The passage of this amendment would grant more state funding from taxpayers; abortion clinics can profit from aborted babies; women can sell their eggs. Abortion is the sacrament of liberalism and it is in their interest to define not only embryos, but the unborn as “not human.”
Now surfaces this SHAMELESS pimping of stem cell research in an ad condemning Republican Senator from Missouri Jim Talent. He has not voted against stem cell research, but EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
You Tube: Stem Cell Research Ad
“How come he (Jim Talent) thinks he gets to decide who lives and who dies? Who is he?” asks the ignorant little girl exploited by this ad. Sickening. Now get out there and vote Republican.
Cross-posted @ Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front
November 6th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Michael J. Fox was way out of his league when he dabbled in politics.
Remember when he appeared in a campaign ad for Rep. Ben Cardin, accusing Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele of opposing stem cell research, when in fact Cardin was the only candidate in the Senate campaign to vote against stem cell research?
November 7th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Michael, I agree. That became painfully evident when he appeared on ABC This Week with George Stephanopolis here and admitted he hadn’t even read the initiative. Here’s the painful video.
I’m not sure if Michael J. Fox is simply accepting any offer from a Dem. to speak or if he thinks anyone who asks him has voted for stem cell research or if he thinks Republicans vote against it, but he’s really off the mark. It’s a truly embarrassing debacle.