Posted on 10/16/2006 10:42:25 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
Misleading Measure May Launch U.S. Cloning
October 16, 2006
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
A new video available on YouTube marks a late attempt by pro-life forces to avert serious defeat in Missouri Nov. 7, with national implications. Cathy Ruse, speaking for Missourians Against Human Cloning, declares: "Amendment 2 is a fraud. It is an attempt to trick Missourians into approving -- in their Constitution -- human cloning, the right of biotech firms to do human cloning in Missouri -- something Missourians oppose by an overwhelming majority." But Amendment 2 is identified for many Missouri voters by the language at the beginning of the five-page, 2,000-word ballot initiative: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." That explains why polls have shown a substantial margin of support for the constitutional amendment, also backed by key Republican politicians and business interests. It seems to offer the best of all worlds: government support of stem cell research without fear of cloning.
The problem is that the proposal so narrowly defines cloning as to open the door in Missouri to any cloning procedure that takes place outside the womb. If this is approved by a state that historically is a barometer of national trends and is considered a pro-life stronghold, it will be a national model for breaking popular resistance to what the scientists and biotech companies want.
A campaign costing an estimated $20 million has helped build a substantial lead for the amendment. A September poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates shows a 59 percent to 31 percent advantage. Democrats appear to have no doubt, favoring it 75 to 22, with only 3 percent undecided. But Republicans are split, 40 percent in support and 45 against, with 15 percent undecided.
Big Republican names -- former Sen. John Danforth, Gov. Matt Blunt and party contributor Sam Fox -- support the amendment. The $2 billion-endowed Stowers Institute in Kansas City, funded by GOP benefactors, spearheads the campaign.
That establishment Republican support for Amendment 2 has created a difficult situation for first-term GOP Sen. Jim Talent, engaged in a difficult re-election campaign. I reported Talent's "defection from the anti-cloning ranks" in February when he took his name off a Senate bill to ban cloning on grounds it might hamper acceptable scientific research.
Talent at that time was taking no position on Amendment 2, but he has since come out against it. In a recent debate with the Democratic Senate candidate, state Auditor Claire McCaskill, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Talent said the proposal "would create ... an unqualified constitutional right to clone the earliest stages of human life. " But he hastened to add he is not against stem cell research.
McCaskill sought to cast the debate in terms of whether the candidates are for or against the medical miracles that can be achieved through stem cell research. She proclaimed "I come down on the side of hope, hope of cures and supporting science." But she put this in the framework of the constitutional amendment that, she said, "strictly prohibits human cloning."
This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep.
Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures."
This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities.
It all depends. If, say, Ronald the Great is to be cloned - then OK [the constitutional limit of 2 terms already served would not apply to the clone, and after that we could grow yet another one]. If, OTOH, they are trying to clone hillary - then the place better be burned down together with everyone in it.
Thread already going
Only if you believe that the clone of George Bush is a cell with his DNA rather than a walking, talking human being that looks like a fraternal twin. When most people think of a clone of a sheep (Dolly), a cat or a human being, they are thinking of a sheep, a cat, a human being, not a clump of cells with identical DNA.
OK, thanks. This was my first shot at it. I did at least TRY to search. :) Need more practice I guess.
In theory, sure. :) The problem is that the good guys aren't going to be the ones volunteering their DNA. We'd more likely end up with an army of liberal professor drones coming to save us. :)
As a Missourian, I can verify that #2 is deceptive in many ways. You can read the entire text at the Secretary of State's website:
www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Freepers with friends and/or relatives in Missouri, please tell them about the dangers and deceptions of Amendment 2.
Well, what do you think the necessary implications are if Amendment 2 passes? You can't really think that the left will stop with cloning cells, do you? This thing is the definition of incrementalism and the slippery slope. This is exactly how it works. Science by unGodly men will achieve whatever it can. When governments give their blessings, it just makes it all the easier.
Different titles.
What ways do you see?
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
My s-i-l was talking about this legislation last week during my hubby's family reunion. She and her hubby live in MO, and she is appalled by this measure.
Many folks are cowed by their fear of being considered unsophisticated, or anti-science by those pushing the measure. They won't speak out, even though they might not actually vote for it.
I was thinking of the GOP big wigs's motives, not so much the ordinary folks. The people who are pushing this.
Oh they are very very tricky in their deceptive writing skills and if anyone would like I will type the proposed amendment for all to read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.