Posted on 10/30/2006 10:25:37 AM PST by jmaroneps37
As you can imagine, this controversy has stirred the emotions of everyone on both sides and has a lot more people involved in the debate than had been during the late Summer.
The Michael J. Fox ad caused several Missouri celebrities, who are opposed to Amendment 2, to create their own ad starring St. Louis Rams quarterback Kurt Warner, Passion of the Christ star, Jim Caviezel, and Everyone Loves Raymond actress, Patricia Heaton.
So much for secretly passing the constitutional amendment in the dark of night. Missouri voters are in a full-fledged debate about cloning and they are beginning to see the light.
The embryonic stem cell proponents may still prevail and pass this Amendment, but they have a much tougher road ahead now that they have overreached.
In just the past two weeks, polling has shown that the number of people whose vote is a “certain yes” on the measure has dropped from 57% to 45%. It seems the more Missourians know about Amendment 2, the more they know they don’t like it.
(Excerpt) Read more at Townhall.com ...
Question: Why would the drafters of this measure specifically create a Constitutional right to clone human beings?
I'll be back in ten minutes with the answer.
True, they had devoted a great number of resources to a "yes" vote.
But they had lied about what voters would be sanctioning with this vote. The statement is true, in the sense it implies deceit was going to pass easily without voters being aware they were writing cloning into their state constitution as a right.
"The result is a restriction on regulations that translates into the advocacy and funding of embryonic stem cell research which most Missourians would oppose if they found out the truth? Should the Amendment pass, it could actually have the effect of forcing the state to fund and conduct embryonic stem-cell research."
Because by amending the constitution this way, James and Virginia Stowers, make sure the massive investment they have made in a research facility, in Kansas City, MO will be able to conduct human experimentation. They get to change the definition of cloning, and then make sure that the citizenry cannot restrict, in any way, their "research".
See this press release from Sept. 14, 2006.
Answer: Because selling body parts will become a multi-billion dollar industry.
Campaign finance reports filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission reveal that the Kansas City billionaire couple has contributed about $15.4 million of the $16 million raised since last fall by the so-called "Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures."
Adrienne Hynek, director of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocesan Respect Life Office, said that James and Virginia Stowers are using their personal wealth to rewrite the state constitution.
"The Stowers are funding 95 percent of this effort," Hynek said. "They are effectively attempting to purchase a state constitutional amendment that would create an unprecedented and unregulated constitutional right to clone human life simply to turn around and destroy it.
Before cheering too loud, the "Certain No" votes are still smaller.
I've gone from Pro Ammendment to ambivalent primarily over I dont want to change the constitution over every little thing and you folks may be right. There hasnt been a problem yet, so why take a chance on screwing the constitution up. IF the legislature starts making people leave the state for medical treatment, then vote the idiots out even if they have an R after their name.
Obviously Me!!
The ammendment does not advocate public funding. Read the damn ammendment, all 2000 or so words of the actual ammendment and then comment on it. There is no public funding of stem cell research involved in this ammendment. The only thing remotely connected to funding, is that the ammendment makes it so the legislature cant cut Medicaid spending to Barnes Hospital (which would offer treatment if they come about and they also do research) if they are not similarly cutting Medicaid spending to St. Mary's. They cant use their position on stem cell research and usage as a criterion in whether they allow them to receive funding that they would otherwise get for services provided to the community (i.e. you cant refuse to pay for an indigent elderly person's care because the hospital does stem cell research).
The whole state is in a surly mood, and the Dumbs will probably take the brunt of the anger.
Mizzou lost to OU Saturday. Seethe, seethe, seethe.
The purpose of this measure was to create a club to beat Jim Talent with. Talent might have ignored a measure that would simply endorse embryonic stem cell research or provide modest funding. But no responsible politician could sit idly by while a right to clone human beings was enshrined in the Missouri Constitution. Thus the trap was set.
The trap was sprung when Talent came out against the measure. The TV spot by Michael J. Fox was intended to drive Talent down in the polls and get Claire McCaskill elected. Nobody involved in promoting this measure gives a damn about embryonic stem cell research, imagined cures, or Michael J. Fox. This is just power politics, pure and simple.
The Democrats have been running variations on this play for the last three years. It is about time somebody called them on it.
Because it requires a supermajority vote of the public to overturn. The legislature cant vote 51-49.
LOL, temper temper....
Would the Danforth family derive any financial benefit from this?
I was not aware of the Stowers' involvement or financial interest. Well, that's just another reason these punks need to be crushed.
Same as the beef against abortion. A cloned embryo is a very tiny human boy or girl at the earliest stage of human life.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with that - it's the "killed and dismembered for parts" that is unconscionable.
Ah, where to begin...
I am certain you will get a high-speed education from various people on this thread, so hold on tight.
My first $0.02 on this would be that if researchers are permitted to create human life, then that life must be protected. If people are permitted to create human life that does not have legal protection, then the potential for abuse is huge
For instance, a doctor could clone a perfect genetic replica of a patient and then harvest tissues from that clone to transplant into the patient. But what about the rights of the clone? Does it have any?
That's just one small aspect of the problem. I am certain you will hear many more from everybody else here.
Agreed. Thanks for making the statement complete.
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.
