Why don't the advocates of stem cell research put their money toward privately-funded research, instead of buying ad time to advocate for public funding of research?
"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.
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).