Missouri’s Proposed Amendment 2 and Claire McCaskill’s recent campaign ad . . .That’s the subject of this Big B File..
On the way home from my sisters’ place in Chesterfield to my Apartment in Florissant, Missouri, I heard a soundbite of Michael J. Fox on the Matt Drudge on 97.1 FM Talk. I have also seen ad he did for Claire McCaskill for Senate. In the Clip from his appearance on Good Morning America, Mr. Fox says that people like myself who oppose Amendment 2 are in the minority.
What!?! Michael J. Fox has gotten a number of things wrong, not to mention out of context. Allow me to correct the record here.
- Last time I checked, I have seen far more signs for Jim Talent and for opposing Amendment 2. I have encountered very few people who say that they will support amendment 2 based upon this , I thing that the amendment will go down to a huge defeat.
- I have heard news stories about various studies over the years that the only benefits of stem cell research that have come from research on Adult stem cells and Stem cells that come from the blood from the umbilical chord.
- I have never read or seen news reports about a single study of positive results that have come from that Embryotic. To the contrary, I have seen examples of how bad the effects of experiments using Embryotic Stem Cells have turned out. In many cases, they have had deformities and have resulted in Lab rats developing cancer . . . cancer (no joke).
Contrary to what Michael J . Fox, Sheryl Crow, and other proponents of Amendment 2 have been saying, it does allow a certain kind of cloning called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and embryonic Stem cell research, which the Majority of people in Missouri and the United States are opposed to on moral grounds. Those of us who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning (or any cloning for that matter) have absolutely no problems with the research using the other forms of stem cells, Adult stem cells and stem cells from the umbilical cord blood.
In reference to the argument from the proponents of Amendment 2 on research using ALL forms of Stem cells, including embryotic stem cells, that “with the use of cell therapies, we may soon have dramatic cures for cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes, kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration and a host of other diseases. Cell therapies have also shown great promise in helping to repair catastrophic spinal injuries, and helping victims of paralysis regain movement. It is even possible that the human life span could be greatly extended due to the replenishment of tissues in aging organs.”
Oh really? In 1994, the voters in California were presented with and approved Proposition 71, which was very Similar to, if not the same as, Amendment 2 currently on the ballot here in Missouri. See the wording of the two ballot measures for yourself:
CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 71 (2004)
- Should the “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee? Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research.
- Establishes “California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” to regulate stem cell research and provide funding, through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities.
- Establishes constitutional right to conduct stem cell research; prohibits Institute’s funding of human reproductive cloning research.
- Establishes oversight committee to govern Institute.
- Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for Institute’s initial administration/implementation costs.
- Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance Institute activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million
- Appropriates monies from General Fund to pay for bonds.
MISSOURI’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2 (2006)
- Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:
- Ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
- ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
- require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
- impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?
- The proposed constitutional amendment would have an estimated annual fiscal impact on state and local governments of $0-$68,916.
According to Reuters, a study came out this past Sunday and “researchers Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors. Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.” This has been the case with Human Cloning and embryotic Stem Cell Research from the beginning.
All the “successful” cloning experiments have eventually ended in failure . . . Remember Dolly the Sheep? She had to be put down due to a whole hose of health complications that were a direct result of the Cloning.
It is morally wrong to create Human Embryos and them to destroy them period, not just for Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and to clone Human Beings for research purposes (or any cloning for that matter). Let Mr. Fox and others use their own money to fund the research themselves . . not our hard earned tax dollars. I just hope that they are willing to live with the real bad effects of Embryonic Stem Cell Research as the study mentioned above Illustrates.
It would also wipe out 47 different laws that are currently on the books in Missouri and as was said on Allman & Smash Morning Show on 97.1 FM Talk this morning. The hosts put it best when they said that passing this amendment would be like the writing a continous blank check to the Biotech Industry. Big B files wants to leave you with the following story clip from Wednesday, October 4, 2006 edition of the Washington post about the effects of Proposition 71 in California two years later. . . .
South-Central L.A. Hospital in Critical Condition
King/Drew, Founded After ’65 Watts Riots, Likely to Cut Services After Failing InspectionLOS ANGELES — Activists who fought hard to bring a hospital to south-central Los Angeles after the 1965 Watts riots are in mourning since the announcement that their beloved but deeply troubled hospital failed a crucial federal inspection and will lose more than half its funding.
While the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors weighs a proposal to slash services and turn most of King/Drew Medical Center’s management over to a nearby county facility, African American community members met for a combination pep rally and wake. Its [King/Drew] trauma center was closed in 2004, dealing a blow to community pride and further diminishing emergency care in Los Angeles County, where nine emergency rooms and trauma centers have closed in the past five years.
– Portion of an Article by By Sonya Geis, Washington Post Staff Writer.
That’s the Big B File. Click on “Comment” link below and tell me what you think…I’m Bryan Hewing.