By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, November 01, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Over the next few days we'd like to start a dialogue on Constitutional Amendment 2, the Stem Cell Research Initiative. Feel free to comment. Labels: Health, Open_Thread
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and St. Louis' KFTK radio host Jamie Allman asked a good question recently: Why isn't it reported more often that Jim and Virginia Stowers, the Kansas City couple who have spent $28 million of their own money to get Amendment 2 passed, also own BioMed Valley Discoveries, Inc., a for-profit company, which could stand to make "billions" from stem cell research?
Sounds like a fair question considering if Constitutional Amendment 2 passes there won't be very many chances for anyone -- including elected officials -- to ever ask a question again, because the amendment's language specifically states "no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds" at any time from any firm or institution performing stem cell research.
It also says "all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies" and no law or other governmental action shall "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures."
Is there any other kind of government expenditure that has such limits placed on it? Is this the best way to make laws -- especially such a complicated one. Do legislators who support Amendment 2 even know that they are giving up their legislative power to amend this law 5, 10 or even 100 years in the future?
These are just honest questions, ones that we're sure other undecided voters have too. Anyone have some answers out there?
19 Comments:
The Stowers will probably make lots of money through stem cell research whether this amendment passes or not. What is really in question is whether they will make that money and create those jobs in Missouri or in some other state, such as California or
New Jersey.
The language of the amendment is broad, and we recently saw an example of why that is so. When the MOHELA board voted to approve Blunt's plan to sell its assests, they stipulated that none of the funds could be used for facilities where embryonic stem cell research would be conducted.
If the amendment passes, it would prevent such unelected boards and commissions from undermining the will of the people as expressed in this referendum (i.e. that voters want stem cell research to be legal in Missouri and not subject to arbitrary restrictions).
Because it is a constiutional amendment, if it is passed it can only be repealed or changed by another public vote. This prevents the Legislature from circumventing the will of the public, as they did on the concealed carry legislation a few years ago.
This does not mean that it could never be changed. If there are problems in the implementation, the legislature could propose changes. But the voters would have the final say on any changes to be made.
11/01/2006 2:21 PM
Antonio, I believe you are asking the wrong questions. My question's revolve around the retorhic that has come from this campaign. How can people say that it makes cloning lawful? How can people say that it is bad to allow citizens of this state to get the treatment they deserve.
Also I believe that if the abortion laws had been created this way, and put into the constitution, we wouldn't have all of the little laws cutting away at the right to decide to get an abortion and then get one.
11/01/2006 2:33 PM
April,
I have no doubt that at some time Malcolm X said those words....However, he did not originate them. Credit for that phrase goes to George Santayanta, referring to the Holocaust.
11/01/2006 2:47 PM
A correction. My mistake. Actually Santayanta first spoke those words in 1905. This quote has been used in reference to the Holocaust though.
11/01/2006 2:56 PM
Does any one else remmeber when the USA, under Regan and Bush, stoped paying dues to the UN because, Gasp, the UN was giving condoms out in Africa.
The conservatives wanted an
-abstanance only- aproch to fighting AIDS in Africa.
Can you tell a content of people to stop having sex?
This situation of not funding projects because of illogical reasoning is why they put the strict language in the amendment.
11/01/2006 3:01 PM
How can people say that it makes cloning lawful?
Amendment 2 creates a constitutional right to "somatic cell nuclear transfer". The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) defines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer as "Therapeutic Cloning" (See http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/research/res0003.htm).
How can people say that it is bad to allow citizens of this state to get the treatment they deserve.
Get the treatment they deserve? We've known how to transplant organs, produce medicines to heal infections, and give valuable preventative health care for years. But have those treatments been made available to the hundreds of thousands of poor and working poor who are being asked to vote for Amendent 2? No.
Why then should anyone believe that even if cures were discovered 10-20 years down the road, that they would "be made available to all Missourians"?
And what law has been proposed that says that pills produced from research done years before at UCLA or John Hopkins won't be allowed to be sold at Walgreen's in St. Louis?
11/01/2006 3:19 PM
Antonio, thank you for pointing out that this amendment does make cloning legal. Sure, maybe it's not the kind of cloning in the movies with two of the same guy walking down the street. But if you are a Catholic that believes cloning even the smallest form of human life is immoral then this amendment is contrary to your beliefs. I fear so many people will wake up a year later a realize what they actually voted for. Then it will be too late.
11/01/2006 4:40 PM
I am against Amendment 2 because one day we might be living in some futuristic dystopian Sci-Fi movie like Blade Runner.
That is what the people who are against Amendment Two sound like.
This specifically bans the cloning of a human being. SCNT is a process which clones cells, yet this Amendment prohibits the full cloning of a human being. SCNT cannot be abused to the point of cloning a human being.
Many tools can be misused, yet that does not mean we should make them illegal due to fear of abuse.
11/01/2006 5:26 PM
The Catholic church and its leader,the Archbishop, are outright liars when it comes to Amendment 2 and what is does and doesn't do or mean !!!
The Archbishop and his cronies like Jamie Allman talk a great deal about whats right and whats wrong ,but their actions speaks for them alone.. What about your own Catholic teachers and the way you handle them as throw a ways , No Respect for their thoughts and feelings, yet YOU want to tell everyone that you KNOW (BS) that a cell in a dish is a person with a soul and you both have been put on this earth to protect every life!
Wow , then everyone , besides the few Catholics that you OWN, are condemned because you SAY SO. Yeah right, I believe that only GOD SAYS SO and neither of you are ....welll GOD, or are you?
Maybe the Archbishop thinks he's GOD and can do anything he desires , but the end result is clear, He and others are driving a wedge between people of of his own faith as they MOVE away from their faith and to what is reality and TRUTH! The truth is that the Archbishop and his cronies really DON"T KNOW what they are talking about , they just want to control their own interests.
Vote how ever feel your heart tells you to on Amendment 2 but know the facts, don't believe the LIES that the Catholic church and it's leaders are speading, read the Amemdment wording and decide for your self..YOU DECIDE!
11/01/2006 5:33 PM
Antonio I share you general distrust and hatred towards the drug companies, and this most likely would not be available for very cheap.
Yet that is an issue of national significance and shouldn't be used to justify not allowing this to proceed.
The Federal Government has backed drug companies at every turn, even putting pressure against allowing cheaper Anti-AIDS generic drugs to be sold in Africa.
It is a big issue, but again, we shouldn't block the research. Instead we should make protect it and enact further legislation specifying that any research will be made viable to the public at large.
11/01/2006 9:09 PM
Oh and let me make this final point.
If Missouri, or the United States, bans Stem Cell Research, you can bet Europe, and definately China, will be at the forefront of the research.
Not only will this put us at a disadvantage, but this technology in the hands of the Chinese is a real ethical dilemma.
The Chinese Economy is growing at a rate of 10 percent a year and they are starved for investment if they expect to sustain that growth. They are spending massive amounts of money and they are already heavily deep into the organ trade.
Yes, China is selling organs to Westerners without any oversight.
The more disturbing fact is that they are selling organs which were "donated" by "political enemies" and "criminals." Apparently they "donated" the organs in order to "pay their debt to society"
Basically China is killing their citizens, calling them prisoners, for the purpose of funding their economic expansion.
Would you rather have this technology in the hands of the US, where we can benefit and have oversight, or would you rather have foreign nations, some with a complete lack of ethics, be the pioneers?
If we protect this research, regulate it and create oversight, this can be a viable gain for the United States and Missouri.
If we allow domestic firms to be attracted overseas, the results could be more dangerous then allowing this to occur domestically.
For the BBC report on China's organ trade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1412348.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1412348.stm
http://digg.com/politics/Video_BBC_hidden_cam_shows_China_selling_prisoners_organs_2
http://blog.rightsbase.org/2006/09/29/china-admits-death-row-organ-trade/
11/01/2006 9:38 PM
You know, Doug, you act as if disingenuousness is limited to the Anti-Amendment 2 forces. Defeat of this amendment would not make stem cell research illegal in the state of Missouri as your post implies. In fact, if Amendment 2 opponents had their way (aside from Amednment 2) only one type of stem cell research would be prohibited in Missouri, that involving SCNT (a/k/a somatic cell nuclear transfer or embryonic stem cell research). There are many other types of stem cell research, including those involving adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and SCGT, which is similar to SCNT, but does not involve the ethical and moral implications of SCNT.
And don't even get me started on the outright deception represented by the short description of the Amendment that the Secretary of State approved for the ballot.
You say that we should develop oversight for the research and pass further legislation ensuring that any fruits of the research be made available (I assume for free or at the very least at cost) to the public at large, but this Amendment would probably prohibit such controls. You seem to ignore that this is a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would make SCNT untouchable by the state legislature.
Other issues:
1) Does it really make sense to guarantee in a state's constitution that the legislature cannot withhold funding from a certain recipient once granted? That's one reasonable interpretation (indeed, a probable interpretation) of a very vague and general statute.
2) Aside from the moral implications that the Catholic Church and other religious groups have put forth, aren't there any philosophers or would-be philosophers out there who have an ethical problem with using human life forms for the sole purpose of medical research? Say what you will about whether an embryo in a petri dish is worthy of rights, but there is no denying that an embryo is a form of human life. That is an ethical issue as much as it is a moral one.
3) Do we really want multi-gazillion dollar corporations constitutionalizing matters and placing them beyond the reach of the states duly-elected representatives? The Stowers Institute has spent millions to try to sneak this Amendment through and has won the support of a Democratic party establishment that is all too willing to try to find a wedge issue. Sure, you might be in favor of SCNT, but what is the next constitutional amendment that big business wil turn its hungry eyes towards? Abolition of welfare? Requiring the privatization of the state's highways? Abolishing the minimum wage? Guaranteed profits for utilities? Think about it for a second, and imagine your ox being gored.
11/02/2006 12:49 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
11/02/2006 1:15 AM
1. The right wing assault on stem cell research in the Missouri legislature warrants an outright protection which can only be guaranteed in the Constitution.
2. Cloning of a human being is banned. SCNT is used for many cloning purposes, yet cloning of a human, as in a person, is banned.
3. You seem to dodge my issue of China and their complete lack of morals. Bio-Tech will relocate to China and conduct full cloning of human beings, as in persons, if this is not allowed.
4. Your point about multimillion dollar corporations makes me laugh. State Constitutions are very specific and contain language which protects the various industries of the state's economy. The state Constitution is not a broad legal document as the US Constitution, rather it is specific and contains many items which would be considered controversial or against the idea of limited government. This Amendment is nothing new and compatible with the current precedent.
5. Again your fear tactics are simply that, tactics. I love to hear the "slippery slope" argument as it is always completely illogical. Lets all cower in fear as corporations take over the United States.
Reality check, they already have. The lobbying power of the corporation is extremely hard to fight and to suggest that this legislation will only enable more corporate power is basically moot.
In this instance the will of the corporation, being profit, is in line with the benefits of society, that being medical breakthrough. In areas where they are in conflict I can accept your argument, but it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the risks of not protecting stem cell thus leaving it open for outright ban by the right wing. This will enable the competition to overtake the US as well as conduct many unethical proceedures.
11/02/2006 1:18 AM
My one question for you Doug: Have there been any legit attempts in the legislature to ban any form of Stem Cell research?
I have a serious problem with legislation that specifically makes something legal that is already legal. and is not truly threatened in any way. I have plenty of other problems with this specific ammendment, but that will have to wait till later.
11/02/2006 1:48 AM
HB 457 and SB 160
11/02/2006 2:30 AM
OK, point by point:
1. The right wing assault on stem cell research in the Missouri legislature warrants an outright protection which can only be guaranteed in the Constitution.
Why? This isn't something like abortion or gun ownership or reading dirty magazines that you can at least make a plausible argument that it is a right (the things that are normally protected by constitutions). It's clearly something that should be subject to the CHANGEABLE will of the people without having to resort to dueling constitutional amendments. What happens if SCNT happens not to turn up anything fruitful? Should we really require a consititutional amendment to pull funding? That's the obvious outcome of passing Amendment 2.
2. Cloning of a human being is banned. SCNT is used for many cloning purposes, yet cloning of a human, as in a person, is banned.
So what? Cloning of a human being is a throw away issue. There is no good reason to do it and no one in the U.S is clamoring to do it. While cloning a human would be morally and ethically problematic, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research presents different moral and ethical dillemas. Address that issue. It is a real one, whether you agree with it or not.
3. You seem to dodge my issue of China and their complete lack of morals. Bio-Tech will relocate to China and conduct full cloning of human beings, as in persons, if this is not allowed.
That's because it's a red herring. Bio-Tech is already taking place in China. The Bio-Tech industry as a whole is not going to move to China because an amendment that would give the industry extra super secret special constitutional protection in one of the 50 states fails. It's far more likely that the industry moves to one of the blue states. While we're talking about dropped issues, how about your ignoring that the proposed oversight you were trumpeting would in fact be prohibited by the amendment that you support? Have you read it?
4. Your point about multimillion dollar corporations makes me laugh. State Constitutions are very specific and contain language which protects the various industries of the state's economy. The state Constitution is not a broad legal document as the US Constitution, rather it is specific and contains many items which would be considered controversial or against the idea of limited government. This Amendment is nothing new and compatible with the current precedent.
Really? Show me a provision in the Missouri Constitution that protects a state industry. Go ahead, I'll wait. . . Found one yet? Your comment might be true about other state's constitutions, but not Missouri's. Missouri's consitution has some odd things in it, to be sure (anti-nepotism provision comes to mind from 8th grade civics class, for one), but it is much more like the federal constitution than you would have us believe.
5. Again your fear tactics are simply that, tactics. I love to hear the "slippery slope" argument as it is always completely illogical. Lets all cower in fear as corporations take over the United States.
Reality check, they already have. The lobbying power of the corporation is extremely hard to fight and to suggest that this legislation will only enable more corporate power is basically moot.
In this instance the will of the corporation, being profit, is in line with the benefits of society, that being medical breakthrough. In areas where they are in conflict I can accept your argument, but it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the risks of not protecting stem cell thus leaving it open for outright ban by the right wing. This will enable the competition to overtake the US as well as conduct many unethical proceedures.
Wow, a lot here to chew on. First, you keep speaking as if Amendment 2 is some nationwide initiative that will cause an entire industry to move overseas or not be able to compete. It's not. It's merely an attempt to get an in-state industry special protection.
You criticize the slippery slope argument. Fine. But let's talk about the issue that I was trying to raise. Do we really want the initiative petition process (i.e. getting signatures to put Constitutional Amendments and other things on the ballot for a direct vote of the people) to be perverted and polluted by corporations? The theory behind the initiative petition is to allow common citizens to get things that are important to them on the ballot when the legislature won't respond to their concerns. Historically, it's been used effectively by grass roots organization. Heck even ACORN has successfully sponsored successful initiatives. Corporations, however, are much more capable of spending a lot of money to get their special pet projects heard. You really want to allow them to exert influece in this arena too? Seriously, think about that.
Here's a question for you Doug, and for any other Democrats out there who haven't thought these issues through to their logical conclusion. Try really hard to forget that the main purpose behind Amendment 2 from the Democratic Party's standpoint is to use it as a wedge issue against Republicans. Just by getting it on the ballot, that purpose has been fulfilled. Ignoring that issue, do you really want to give a corporation that gives a ton of money to Republicans an argument that it should receive state funding? Where do you think that funding's going to come from? New taxes? Yeah, right. Education? Maybe, but that's a pretty big political football. Social Services? Ding, ding, ding! I think we have a winner Alex. And before you dismiss this as scare tactics (which is a pretty diningenuous debate tactic), think it through. You've already gotten what your party wanted out of this issue just by getting it on the ballot. That's in the past. Think about what Amendment 2 really means, and what real effects it will have on the issues that you care about. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will find that it probably hurts those issues.
11/02/2006 9:12 AM
"Why isn't it reported more often that Jim and Virginia Stowers, the Kansas City couple who have spent $28 million of their own money to get Amendment 2 passed, also own BioMed Valley Discoveries, Inc., a for-profit company, which could stand to make "billions" from stem cell research?"
The reason it's not reported more is the allegation is total crap -- something the editorial boards at both the KC Star and St. Louis Post Dispatch understand. I've followed what the Stowers have done in KC for the last decade and anyone with half a brain -- which leaves out O'Reilly and that monkey Jamie Allman -- that Biomed Valley is a for-profit entity that was set up by Stowers to funnel profits back to the endowments at the Stowers Institute and other regional not-for-profit biomedical research facilities to support science. Stowers and his wife out in their 80s and frankly won't be alive at the point when any kind of discoveries make it to the marketplace. In other words: They will not make a dime -- repeat -- will not make a single dime on the commercialization of ANY discoveries. They've spent the better part of the last decade giving away money. O'Reilly's story was a crock, he knows it and he lied about it. He gets his kicks beating up on an elderly couple who are spending all of their money on trying to find a cure for cancer. There's a special corner of hell reserved for him as far as I'm concerned.
There's a legitimate case to be made against Amendment 2 (which I am totally against) but I do have tremendous respect for Jim and Virginia Stowers.
11/02/2006 8:27 PM
I lost all respect for Catholic bishops when I found out that they knew parish priest were sexually abussing children and all they did was re-assign these priest to new parishes, over and over and over again. Sees to me this is aiding and abetting criminal activity. There should be some bishops in prison.
11/14/2006 3:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home