Missouri Amendment 2

But it is about cloning. The process for creating a clone is called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer -- replacing the contents of one cell with another. That creates the clone. Later in the actual descriptive text, there is an attempt to redefine what "cloning" actually is to mean implantation. So, is cloning the creation of the cell, or it's implantation? (I believe the former.) (Here is the full text Full Text of Missouri Amendment 2.)

Furthermore, the clone is allowed to grow for up to 14 days, then must be destroyed. Not only does this require the creation of clones, but then it requires their forcible extermination.

If that weren't bad enough, reading further into the language, we find a lot of ambiguity regarding whether or not the state would be required to fund any research allowed under federal law. I'm not willing to take that chance.

Finally, given the notions about clones and implantation above, this is in effect a back-handed way of defining when life begins. It doesn't begin when the cell is created, but when implantation occurs. I don't want to even start down that slippery slope.

The linked article was very interesting, if what it says is true. I've been hearing some noise about adult stem cells for a while now.

Allen: But the way you describe the issue really conflates many different problems into one confusing jumble. I don't have any problem with cloning prima facie, but I do have a problem with humans being killed for medical research, regardless of whether they're clones or not. There's no need to mix the two issues together.

I agree the nocloning.org focus is odd - the only thing I can think of is that they don't want to make it a purely religious issue. The destruction of embryos offends some more than others, and if you're trying to appeal to a public that doesn't do a lot of digging, no cloning is probably a safer outrage point than the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells. Do a poll on the street and see if people know the difference.

The literature from the opposing point of view was equally off on a tangent, though. It said "stem cells don't come from babies." Yes, well...

But back to the first point, no, there isn't that strong enough constituency. Certainly not in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia. Springfield, certainly. But that single city and its surrounding area won't carry enough weight from a purely Christian bent. This state only barely, barely swings red.

hln

The language of the amendment is what is making the "no-cloning" people like me look bad. It's not our fault though.

If I were to put out a petition to stop all murders, then defined murders as sticking a knife into someone, thus making shootings legal, then there would be a problem.

The language of the amendment is faulty, and that is reason enough to vote against it.

There are 2 issues to consider: why this is a constitutional issue, and the science itself.

First, the constitution should be used to protect general principles that are universally accepted: free speech, freedom of the press, etc. This issue is one that we don't know enough about to legislate that it should become the supreme law of the land, which cannot be challenged in the future. Also, look at the actual language, it is quite deceptive. For example, on the ballot it says eggs can't be bought. However, the actual amendment itself redefines payment, so that paying fair value for the eggs is not considered payment. It does the same thing with cloning...it says fertilizing an egg isn't cloning, just implanting it would be, so that also is deceptive. If the sponsors were on the up and up, they should have been more forthright with the bill. Read it, see for yourself.

Second, the science itself. I'm all for cures. Nothing stops embryonic stem cell research currently. What this amendment does is force MO taxpayers to pay for the research. The problem is that only adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell has actually produced any results, nothing has been successful re embyonic. The lab that has paid more than 17 million on this campaign wants MO tax dollars. This will be a great windfall for them. All this does is force MO taxpayers to fund research that is already legal but that no one wants to pay for because no cures have been found. CA has paid over 6 billion for this kind of research and have found nothing. But the lab owners in CA have profitted greatly. This will now enrich MO lab owners.

I agree with the remarks that my fellow proponents of "no cloning" above. In addition I have an extreme aversion to destroying embryos.

Add to that, I think about the women who will be fiscally motivated to donate eggs. I doubt that they will typically have a 401K or an investment portfolio to fall back on, in case of an "ooops", and likely will not have medical insurance to cover the same. That narrows it down to a group of females in a socio economic bracket, that have, if you don't mind my saying, aleady been victims of a long string of deceptions and abuses. Sure, if we vote Prop 2 in, we will be adding to their misery, and we must take some responsibility for what happens to THEM, shouldn't we?

But now, here's the real rub, and the question that makes me ask why the liberal news media isn't just scared out of their wits. I am more than concerned about the first paragraph of the proposition. Have you actually looked those sections up in the Missouri State Constitution. We have. And I can tell you if that thing passes, every Missouri citizen should be afraid...we should be very, very afraid.

It seems as if this thing is being driven by some entity, with a lot of money, muscle and influence, that is bent on becoming a little government within a government (or wants to be THE government). Note, the last section, of the 45 different sections up for change is a little piece that prevents a local corporation from having higher authority than the local constabulary. Do you really want a biopharma corporation as your authority and protector? Gee wiz, I don't.

At least investigate a few of the sections they say will be subject to some kind of change, which they do not disclose at this stage (gee I wonder why THAT is?). If you are pretty concerned about it, please don't keep quiet. Print out a copy of the proposition, along with some of the sections from the Missouri State constitution that you feel we can least afford to have changed.

The very first section in the first Article, the basic human rights, as we know them in this country, is up for grabs.

If Missouriroundtable.org didn't already do a thorough discussion on the topic, I would feel that my husband and I were alone in our concerns about this.

Proposed Section 38(d)6.(2) states: " '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."

The medical definition of a fetus is that after 8 weeks of gestation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).

So not only could you clone an embryo, using common understanding of the word "clone". You could implant it into a uterus as long as the "purpose" was not to allow it to go past 8 weeks of pregnancy. By definition of Amendment #2.

It's that simple.

Proposed section 38(d)7. goes on to empower the above sub-section by stating: "The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures."

This gives any benefit of the doubt in interpreting to the scientist conducting his "research" for a cure.

You decide. But make sure it's an EDUCATED decision.

I find it amazing how we are so concerned with cell life, which is forteen days are younger when most of us kill, eat and throw away more product than any other person on the planet. Religion has become a moral cop in our society to point the hollier than now cannon and anything that threatens someones concious. I believe in God, and I can read between the lines of Amendment 2. So what if somebody get's money to do research in Human science. At least the money is going to something other than welfare. We give money to jobless people everyday who use it to buy food and sit in their govenment funding homes. Then they go and have more children, who grow up with out full families. The Church's support those people, saying the are unfortunate. So are we not already responsible for moral decay and misuse of money? How much good will come from passing this bill? How much good will come from not passing this bill? Who knows.

My .02 cents

Sorry folks, but I think many of you are grasping at any straw remotely available in an attempt to shoot this amendment down. I have a PhD in Molecular Biology and also a law degree, and my read of the amendment is that it is scientifically and legally well crafted.

In addition, a couple of points:

For those of you averse to "killing embryos," how come you aren't complaining about the estimated 50-70% of ALL fertilizations that are spontaneously aborted by the body, often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant? And please, don't use the "god works in mysterious ways" cop out.

Secondly, folks against embryonic stem cells always point to adult stem cells. Yes, adult stem cells may provide useful therapies. No argument there. However, embryonic stem cells have the POTENTIAL to provide even more therapies. Simply because they haven't yet yielded any therapies in NO way means that they won't. Nuclear power was a pipe dream until the first bomb was exploded....Like it or not, no one argues it's a pipe dream anymore.

Jimmy, your post is interesting to me, but what I wish someone could explain to me is why this has to be legislated in an Amendment to the constitution? I mean, will it really affect current research that much if this doesn't pass?

Laura-
In 2001, by Presidential Directive, GW Bush terminated federal funding for embryonic stem cell research except in cases where the cell lines were already created. Without belaboring the issue, the idea that those existing cell lines would be sufficent to proceed with viable research that would produce effective therapies, is frankly, laughable.

What is to prevent a future Missouri governor - or some future Missouri legislature - from making a similar decree in Missouri that no state funded academic institution may perform research on embryonic stem cells? -prohibiting stem cell therapies from being performed at a state supported hospital? Only a constitutional amendment.

Laura-

I don't believe the amendment would be on the ballot today if conservative rural legislators had not introduced legislation in recent years to prohibit stem cell research.

The actual amendment language regarding funding is as follows:

"To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures,
but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities."

I don't see public funding for stem cell research in the amendment. But if adopted, then no agency could punish an institution receiving funding for other medical research because they are also doing stem cell research. It would prevent future agencies who may disagree with the will of the people from circumventing that will, assuming the amendment passes.

For clarity on why this is, in fact, a debate on the cloning issue, see www.2tricky.org. It has to do with what the popular consensus knows about "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer," which is not much. It's tricky language, and it was written that way on purpose, to deceive the populus.

Anyway, many blessings. Glad you're voting no.

jimmy says:

For those of you averse to "killing embryos," how come you aren't complaining about the estimated 50-70% of ALL fertilizations that are spontaneously aborted by the body, often without the woman even knowing she was pregnant? And please, don't use the "god works in mysterious ways" cop out.

Jimmy-

Shouldn't the groups that would win the patents and make money off of the cure be the ones to fund it? Last I checked, healthcare was mostly paid for by private citizens and insurance companies (which are paid funded by the work of private citizens), not the government, and any profits went to the healthcare companies.

If embryonic stem cells have such potential that it should be funded, why aren't any venture capitalists funding this? Pfizer had a gross profit of $42 billion and a net income of $8 billion last year. That makes the average cost of $800-900 million to develop a drug look like small potatoes.

I completely agree with Just The Fact's comment above about the government issue. It is most definitely not a government issue, just some issue that is both very controversial and differs greatly from person to person. Also, as for the whole "no cloning" thing, I don't think cloning should be mentioned at all in discussing this initiative considering the purpose is to create cures for several diseases that kill many each and every day. As it clearly states (and trust me, I have read the initiative carefully),"no cloning" described in the initiative means not implanting in a uterus or attempting 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. And Allen is correct when talking about Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, however when the cell is replicated it is NOT put to use as a reproductive clone cell, it is put to use to FIGHT DISEASE...not CLONE animals, people, or anything else.

I find it ironic that "Just the Facts" has his/her facts wrong.

1. Constitutional amendments are rarely about "universally" accepted principals. They are often hotly debated values, and their adoption serve to establish the will of the people, providing parameters that representative government must respect while conducting day-to-day business.

2. The constitution CAN be changed in the future, but it requires a vote of the people, not a body of 198 elected officials in Jefferson City.

3. The amendment does defining cloning, but not how you describe it. What it actually says is that cloning is 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..." "Just the Facts" must not understand the difference between cells resulting from somatic cell nuclear transfer (Dolly the sheep technology),which would NOT be permitted, and fertilization, which occurs during normal conception and in fertility clinics all around the country. Implanting a FERTILIZED egg ISN'T cloning. And anything OTHER THAN THAT is clearly banned in the amendment.

4. This amendment DOES NOT force MO taxpayers to pay for the research. As I detailed in a previous comment, it only prevents future agencies from using research funding to blackmail institutions who are performing legal stem cell research if the amendment is passed. If Washington University has research money for eye treatments, and separately is conducting stem cell research (regardless of how it is funded), then the research money for eyes could not be pulled. It is just that simple.

I do agree with one statement by Just the Facts: "Read it, see for yourself."

I have read the language of Amendment 2 and I admit that it is a tough read for the average person. I believe this fact alone can create a sense of doubt, fear, and concern for people who are already weary of indiscernible agendas and deceptions that plague politics & religion today.

This issue, like many others, has become a playground for political spin doctors, educated elitists, and moral extremists to use as a hammer on the average person.

I see it this way...over the last few decades, society embraced scientific "work arounds" to nature and fertility without considering future consequences of those choices, i.e. the abundance of unused frozen embryos. Embryonic stem cell research seems like a logical, humane, and righteous solution to the unintended consequence of well intentioned scientific advancements of yesterday.

Re: Killing embryos?

It is legal for fertility clinics to fertilize a batch of eggs in hopes than they will get one that they can implant in a host monther.

The extras are thrown away (killed). Is that murder?

Jinky: Yes, it is murder.

They are simply cluster of cells. Just look at a picture of any one of them.

In literature, especially popular literature, which is what you average voter is going by, refers to 'clones' as actual people. Not a simple cluster of cells (or blastocyst).

This process is problem only to those who think life begins at conception. The rest of us are more than happy to get cures.

Markus: Really? Which cures have come from embryonic stem cell research?

This debate is being terribly spun. Religion and government should be seperated. If you do not understand a topic you should do the research. It will be a terrible shame if many potential cures are abandoned due to misleading conservative commercials. The ammendment is not tricky it even defines the language as required for any bill. It is the science that is not clearly understood and even my 15 year old cousin with cerebal palsey understands what this is about. Please look up what we could learn to cure before stamping a religious NO. If we force this technology out of our country only the super-rich will be able to go overseas for treatment. As they will be banned here. We currently have similar problems with cancer drugs and aids treatments. Due to political pressures and FDA regulations we are becoming dependent on other countries for medical advancements. I personally would volunteer for these research projects in light of the potential advancements for all of humanity. The main reason this was proposed was due to political pressure to stop the research. This bill only serves to protect the research from further regulation on a local level.

Steve C: You're obviously crazy or haven't read the proposed amendment.

1. Embryonic stem cell therapy hasn't led to any cures, and in fact appears to do nothing but generate grant money and tumors.

2. Embryonic stem cell research is already completely legal in Missouri, and no one is proposing to outlaw it.

3. The whole purpose of the amendment is to enrich biotech researchers by preventing any government oversight of embryonic stem cell research whatsoever. I'm generally in favor of restricting government oversight, but not for procedures which I consider to be even worse than abortions (because the people are created for the express purpose of murder).

Michael, I appreciate your passion for the subject. You might have a better chance of modeling peoples thoughts and ideas after your own if you stop calling people crazy for disagreeing. When you use the argument that MO 2 must be wrong because of how much money is spent by proponents or it is wrong because is is "voodoo", just a pipe dream never to do any good, and lastly the argument that any cures can be found by already know procedures.

How much money has been spent by those that oppose this issue. How might that money be better spent. In your effort to "help people" what are you actually doing? Don't you think if adult stem cells are that promising that the opponents of MO 2 would have better bang for their marketing dollar by investing in that research and advertising their reasons to do so?

I am completely discouraged that this has become an issue of politics. Some people don't even realize their moral beliefs are being hijacked to further the effort of conservatives in the closest Senate race in the Nation. It is a perpetual "grass roots" machine.

Reading your blog was the last part of my research on this issue. I have spent nearly four hours of reading on this subject. I hope you at least appreciate that I have done my due diligence and can respect my opinion.

As I finish this I can't help but wonder how you feel about all the people that vote based on what "pundits" or "zealots" have to say. Seems kind of scary to me that there are millions of dollars being thrown around on both sides of an issue and a minority of voters will actually do the research. What a waste of money.

Michael, I appreciate your passion for the subject. You might have a better chance of modeling peoples thoughts and ideas after your own if you stop calling people crazy for disagreeing. When you use the arguement that MO 2 must be wrong because of how much money is spent by proponents or it is wrong because is is "voodoo", just a pipe dream never to do any good, and lastly the arguement that any cures can be found by already know procedures.

How much money has been spent by those that oppose this issue. How might that money be better spent. In your effort to "help people" what are you actually doing? Don't you think if adult stem cells are that promissing that the opponents of MO 2 would have better bang for the marketing dollar by investing in that research and advertising their reasons to do so?

I am completely discouraged that this has become an issue of politics. Some people don't even realize their moral beliefs are being hijacked to further the effort of conservatives in the closest Senate race in the Nation.

Reading your blog was the last part of my research on this issue. I have spent nearly four hours of reading on this subject. I hope you at least appreciate that I have done my due diligence and can respect my opinion.

As I finish this I can't help but wonder how you feel about all the people that vote based on what "pundits" or "zealots" have to say. Seems kind of scary to me that there are millions of dollars being thrown around on both sides of an issue and a minority of voters will actually do the research. What a waste of money.