darinsmasthead2

Friday, October 20, 2006

Amendment 2--What exactly are they proposing?

One of the frustrating things about politics is that people rarely say what they mean.

So it is with proposed Amendment 2---Proponents have spent a lot of money encouraging Missourians to amend their constitution, but a close look at the amendment seems to contradict what the proponents claim. They say it will ban human cloning, and ensure equal access to treatments by all Missourians but if you read it carefully, it really just redefines cloning and then seeks to ban the redefined practice while leaving all other cloning activities not only legal, but actually above the law--where local governments cannot restrict-or even discourage the research. The equal access to cures is a red herring, there is no discriminatory law that allows some people access to certain "cures" or treatments while preventing others from receiving the same.

The official summary says .

So who is behind it? The Coalition for Cures, funded by billionaires James and Virginia Stowers has spent roughly $28,000,000 on the initiative campaign for Amendment 2…what do they intend to get out of it?
They just happen to have founded a research institute in Kansas City that seeks to take a leading role in stem-cell research. Where are the anti-business howls from the left when there is such a clear attempt to purchase a favorable government ruling by this organization? Where are the cries about the government being bought and paid for by powerful and rich corporate interests?

Some researchers and doctors think that potential upside of the embyonic stem cell research has been oversold.
I have to admit that there is something disturbing about the emotional appeals from celebrities claiming that if we would just have the government (taxpaying citizens) paying for some controversial research involving the destruction of human embryos that we would be able to cure _____. (insert terrible affliction here)

There is nothing preventing private firms from doing stem cell research and some companies have already found success in stem cell research. What the opponents oppose is the government funded harvesting of human embryos for destruction in the name of science.

$28 million would have paid for a lot of research, but instead we get a special interest group spending their money and time trying to dupe Missouri voters into amending our Constitution by blurring the distinctions between cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer and promising cures for all sorts of ailments and claiming that all they really want to to make sure everyone has equal access to treatments.

Here is a link to an opponents website.

3 Comments:

Anonymous JW said...

You make an interesting argument. While I'm not a fan of favors, and this isn't a perfect solution, it is a response to lawmakers who have in recent years tried to ban any kind of stem cell research.
I know this; stem cell research and the promise of bio-engineering is the foundation of our future economy. I would rather lead the way, than be left chasing the caboose.

11:25 AM  
Blogger djobe said...

I think we could all use more education on the issue, and like I said--that's one of the frustrating things about politics--it's hard to weed through the spin and confusion and get to the reality...and when both sides deliberately blur their positions to confuse it makes it even worse, no wonder so few people participate in elections.

I think that whatever the proponents are truly asking for---they don't need a constitutional amendment to get it....

12:49 PM  
Anonymous JW said...

One thing is certain. This is the second thing voters are being asked to decide this fall because legislators aren't doing their job.

3:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home