Even though voters approved a constitutional amendment last year protecting embryonic stem-cell research, expanded research hasn’t happened yet in the state, the New York Times reported. That’s in large part because some state lawmakers in Missouri are still fighting the issue, introducing new bills to try to block certain types of research. As a result, the Stowers Institute for Medical Research has suspended its plans for a $300 million expansion, citing the "persistent negative political climate," the Times reported. A Harvard University professor who put off his plan to move to Missouri to work at Stowers called what has happened since the amendment passed "a big disappointment."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
70 Comments
The Every-Sperm-is-Sacred crowd strikes again!
The Stowers Institute has the cash and the mission to make Kansas City one of the leading centers of 21st Century technology, and Bible-Belters have scared their boy-Republican governor so much, he’ll prevent progress in hopes of getting a second term in Jefferson City.
Missouri is traditionally a bellweather state and the writing is on the wall. The Republic Party’s hijacking by the twice-born will prove to be its downfall. No longer with evangelicals be able to dictate their candidates be born again, they’ll have to accept Rudy Giuliani who’s been married again and again… or a candidate in funny prayer underwear…
It looks to me that the more Liberal big cities took advantage of their population size over the majority of the Missouri Counties (re: the Article.)
I can see why there might be a hold up in their legislature as the vote was mixed in with the Congressional elections and a lot of voters may have just been temporarily caught off guard.
When 85 percent of a State’s Counties go against a measure, but lose because of the larger population center – then “Houston, we have a problem.”
“Kansas” –
You’re really outdoing yourself?
It’s not “one county, one vote.”
Just as one of today’s earlier posts claimed George WMD Bush “won” more “square miles” in the 2000 election, Missouri’s sparsely-populated Ozark counties shouldn’t get more voting power than real live people in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas.
How silly can you get?
(Wait. Don’t answer. You already have. Many times.)
Maybe the reason there is a “holdup in the legislation” as KANSAS puts it… is because there is not one shred of proof that embryonic stem cells yield any positive results… where on the otehr hand… adult stem cells have brought about great results and no one has to die to harvest them.
“every sperm is sacred”… LTPFTL — you are a nitwit.
Anybody read the MO constitutional amendment the voters approved?
It was the most complicated, misleading constitutional document I have ever seen!
Do people really know what the voted for?
I think people were duped into voting against cloning, when in fact, they were voting for it.
And now even the MO legislature appears to be confused.
So much for simple to read “Truth-in-Lending” statements the government requires from the business I’m in. Too bad there is no truth in legislation requirement.
It’s simple enough to post, I guess. This was the actual ballot language. Think every voter read and understood this?
2006 Ballot MeasureConstitutional Amendment 2
Stem Cell InitiativeSubmitted October 11, 2005
NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change, repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal or modify by implication, the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri – Sections 2, 10, 14, and 32 of Article I; Section 1 of Article II; Sections 1, 21, 22, 23, 28, 36, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Article III; Sections 1, 14, 36(a), 37, 37(a), 39, and 52 of Article IV; Sections 5, 14, 17, 18, and 23, and subsection 17 of Section 27 of Article V; Sections 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(k), 18(m), 19(a), 20, 31, 32(a), and 32(b) of Article VI; Section 9(a) of Article IX; Sections 1, 6, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(f) of Article X; and Section 3 or Article XI.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Be it resolved by the people of the state of Missouri that the Constitution be amended:
One new section is adopted by adding one new section to be known as section 38(d) of Article III to read as follows:
Section 38(d). 1. This section shall be known as the “ Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.”
2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.
(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.
(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.
(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.
(6) Human embryonic stem cell research may be conducted only by persons that, within 180 days of the effective date of this section or otherwise prior to commencement of such research, whichever is later, have
(a) provided oversight responsibility and approval authority for such research to an embryonic stem cell research oversight committee whose membership includes representatives of the public and medical and scientific experts;
(b) adopted ethical standards for such research that comply with the requirements of this section; and
(c) obtained a determination from an Institutional Review Board that the research complies with all applicable federal statutes and regulations that the Institutional Review Board is responsible for administering.
(7) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section other than this subdivision (7) to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.
3. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to fifteen years or by the imposition of a fine of up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, or by both. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivisions (2) or (3) of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to ten years or by the imposition of a fine of up to one hundred thousand dollars, or by both. A civil action may be brought against any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state any of subdivisions (1) through (6) of subsection 2 of this section, and the state in such action shall be entitled to a judgment recovering a civil penalty of up to fifty thousand dollars per violation, requiring disgorgement of any financial profit derived from such violation, and/or enjoining any further such violation. The attorney general shall have the exclusive right to bring a civil action for such violation. Venue for such action shall be the county in which the alleged violation occurred.
4. Each institution, hospital, other entity, or other person conducting human embryonic stem cell research in the state shall (i) prepare an annual report stating the nature of the human embryonic stem cells used in, and the purpose of, the research conducted during the prior calendar year, and certifying compliance with subdivision (6) of subsection 2 of this section; and (ii) no later than June 30 of the subsequent year, make such report available to the public and inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain copies of or otherwise gain access to the report. The report shall not contain private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information. Individuals conducting research at an institution, hospital, or other entity that prepares and makes available a report pursuant to this subsection 4 concerning such research are not required to prepare and make available a separate report concerning that same research. A civil action may be brought against any institution, hospital, other entity, or other person that fails to prepare or make available the report or inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain copies of or otherwise gain access to the report, and the state in such action shall be entitled as its sole remedy to an affirmative injunction requiring such institution, hospital, other entity, or other person to prepare and make available the report or inform the Secretary of State how the public may obtain or otherwise gain access to the report. The attorney general shall have the exclusive right to bring a civil action for such violation.
5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.
6. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
(3) “Donated” means donated for use in connection either with scientific or medical research or with medical treatment.
(4) “Fertilization” means the process whereby an egg of a human female and the sperm of a human male form a zygote (i.e., fertilized egg).
(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.
(6) “In vitro fertilization” means fertilization of an egg with a sperm outside the body.
(7) “Institutional Review Board” means a specially constituted review board established and operating in accordance with federal law as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 289, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, and any other applicable federal statutes and regulations, as amended from time to time.
(8) “Permitted under federal law” means, as it relates to stem cell research and stem cell therapies and cures, any such research, therapies, and cures that are not prohibited under federal law from being conducted or provided, regardless of whether federal funds are made available for such activities.
(9) “Person” means any natural person, corporation, association, partnership, public or private institution, or other legal entity.
(10) “Private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information” means any private or confidential patient, medical, or personnel records or matters, intellectual property or work product, whether patentable or not and including but not limited to any scientific or technological innovations in which an entity or person involved in the research has a proprietary interest, prepublication scientific working papers, research, or data, and any other matter excepted from disclosure under Chapter 610, RSMo, as amended from time to time.
(11) “Solely for the purpose of stem cell research” means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.
(12) “Sperm” means mature spermatozoa or precursor cells such as spermatids and spermatocytes.
(13) “Stem cell” means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer).
(14) “Stem cell clinical trials” means federally regulated clinical trials involving stem cells and human subjects designed to develop, or assess or test the efficacy or safety of, medical treatments.
(15) “Stem cell research” means any scientific or medical research involving stem cells. For purposes of this section, stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.
(16) “Stem cell therapies and cures” means any medical treatment that involves or otherwise derives from the use of stem cells, and that is used to treat or cure any disease or injury. For purposes of this section, stem cell therapies and cures does include stem cell clinical trials.
(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.
7. The provisions of this section and of 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 cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) 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 (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.
8. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.
Home Robin Carnahan’s Bio News Contact Us Jobs Accessibility Info Driving Directions Kids’ Page Administrative Rules Emergency Rules Code of State Regulations Missouri Register Search Administrative Rules Frequently Asked Questions Archives & Records Missouri State Archives About the Archives Research & Resources Frequently Asked Questions Hours & Directions Online Resources & Databases Virtually Missouri Missouri History Education Educational Initiatives Resources for Educators Resources for Students Sites of Interest Exhibits Online Exhibits Traveling Exhibits Calendar of Events Local Records Preservation Program County Inventories Database Grant Program & Application Retention Schedules Conservation Lab Records Management State Records Commission Off Site Record Storage Record Resources Business Corporations File Annual Report Online Print Annual Report for Filing General Services & Filings Online Services Search for a Business Starting a Business Corporation FAQs Notaries & Commissions Notary Reappointments How to Become a Notary Search for a Notary Public Trademark/Service Mark FAQs UCC File a Lien Online Search Lien Filings UCC Forms UCC FAQs Small Business Advocacy Center Elections Voting Information Voter ID Information Voter Registration Info Absentee Voting Military/Overseas Voting Voter Bill of Rights Election Calendar Election Results & Statistics Election Results By Year Elected Officials District Maps Registered Voters FAQs Help America Vote Act (HAVA) For Election Candidates Qualifications Filing Calendar Independents, Write-Ins Be a Poll Worker Voters First: 2006 Election Report Securities & Investing File a Complaint Smart Investing Investor Publications Enforcement Enforcement Orders FAQs Registration Brokers & Advisers FAQs State Library Reference Services MOSL Collections State Gov Publications Federal Documents Books Journal & Newspapers Find a Resource Work-Related Services Subscription Services Keeping Up Table of Contents Governor’s Executive Orders FAQs Library Development Grants Programs Education for Librarians Certification of Libraries Services for Libraries MOSL Publications Wolfner Library What Is Available? Recommended Readings School Services Institution Services Reference Services Volunteer Services Online Catalog (WolfPAC) Publications Patron Manual Wolfner News Web Braille Publications Voters First: 2006 Election Report 2007 General Assembly Roster 2005-2006 Official Manual 2007-2008 Missouri Roster Missouri Constitution State Symbols SOS Forms
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
“It’s not “one county, one vote.”
That’s true LTP.
However, it does point out the problem of popular vote when 85 percent of a State’s Communities are opposed to a measure.
Ugh Max,
No wonder there was mass confusion.
I think that’s the most ridiculous ballot item (and for a Constitutional Amendment!) I have ever seen.
How complicated do we want our Government to be?
max-
I understood it, but it is a good question. I doubt many even read the whole thing. However, probably irrevelant. It passed. Time to move on.
Sorry, don’t know what that garbage is after #8 sorry.
(Of course, I don’t know what that garbage is thru #8 either!)
“It’s not “one county, one vote.”
That’s true LTP.
However, it does point out the problem of popular vote when 85 percent of a State’s Communities are opposed to a measure.
Posted by: Kansas | August 10, 2007 at 01:58 PM
–
Don’t be absurd, “Kansas”
(oops! sorry! too late!)
So the three voters in Hog Fart, Missouri are somehow the equivalent of overwhelming majorities of people voting for an issue in metro St. Louis?
Why do you hate democracy?
So, “Max” –
If you really don’t understand it, ask about it. There were plenty of opportunities to assess the ramifications of the question. And, yes, in these days legislation can become complicated. And plenty of people on both sides of the issue did everything within their power to interpret Missouri’s constitutional amendment and persuade people to vote their way.
Stem Cell Research won that battle. Just as the casino opponents won theirs. And the arena people won theirs.
In December 2000, I accepted (though certainly didn’t agree with) the SCOTUS vote that handed George WMD Bush the presidency by a 5-4 vote. Those were the rules, them’s the breaks.
But I expected Shrub would have the common decency to serve as the President of an obviously-divided nation. No such luck. He manipulated his power as if he’d won by a landslide. And was cutting brush in Crawford when he should have been responding to “Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack in the U.S.” And lied about the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. And mismanaged the war that never should have been and sent 3,500 additional Americans to their graves for no good reason at all.
Still, I understand the rules. People in Wichita voted against casinos. Fine. I think it’s a mistake, but they had their say and them’s the rules.
More Missourians than not believe there might be tremendous progress in developing embryonic stem cell research. A billionaire is willing to bet his fortune on research that might solve the questions of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Mulpital Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Lou Gherig’s Diseas, birth defects, arthritis, heart disease…
But no, “Kansas.” You think the Bible-belter in Hog Bluff, Missouri’s opinion is equal to — nay, *SUPERIOR* to — the majority of Missouri voters. Because why? Because the legalese required to amend the Missouri Constitution is a bit complicated for you?
I suppose it’s a lot easier for people like you to retreat to your bigotry by saying, “But Jeee-HEEEEEEEZUS says so!!!” But He didn’t, you know.
No LTP, I was pointing out how a majority of Missouri communities voted against the measure. Each community has an identity and a certain ideology it holds.
I was simply pointing out the dangers of using popular vote as a measure on what issues pass.
This could even apply to let’s say an issue on Gay Rights where a majority of communities voted for a proposal that would allow Civil Unions but they lost to an overall popular vote in the State.
This means that the majority of communities in a State supporting Civil Unions would be disenfranchised by a majority vote using the popular vote method.
I know basically what the Stem Cell research represents, but not being a Micro Biologist specializing in Genetic Engineering, I don’t claim to be an expert like yourself LTP.
Our founding fathers set up the electoral college so the vote would not just be high population areas chosing our president. They also set up the Senate for each state equally represented and the house based on population so legislation must go through both tests.
The Missouri voters were sold a bill of goods. ESCR has been made unnecessary by research advances, if it ever was. Other types of stem cell research are at least as promising and don’t require embryos as a source.
And, “Outlander,” –
Additional research into Ebryonic Stem Cell Research couldn’t result in even more discoveries?
You know that… how?
Especially when frozen embryos are routinely destroyed?
The same people who railed against in vitro fertilization are now reworking their old arguments, even though they’ve lost every argument in the past. You’re becoming boring.
Maybe that’s your strategy. Claim *you* know the moment when life begins, keep moving the goalposts, and portray yourself as horrified as you were in the 70s when in vitro fertilization was breakthrough science.
Maybe you’ll wear us out because you’re so goddamned persistent and so goddamned predictable.
But I doubt it.
I am still waiting for someone that is opposed to ESC research to tell us what we should do with the discarded cells besides throw them in the trash.
Easy question.
The the trash preferable to research?
So, if you find a cure that uses ESCs, what then? You have to have a source. Start farming embryos? I don’t think that would be very popular, do you?
Why go there when you don’t have to? Politics over life???
Article from USA today on Fertility Clinics use of Embryos
“Patients with frozen embryos have four options: Discard them, give them to other couples, pay hundreds of dollars a year to store them at minus-310 degrees Fahrenheit, or donate them to medical research.
At Weill-Cornell, “we’ve avoided it,” says Gosden. She says 54% of her clinic’s patients who have finished their families ask to have their embryos destroyed, 43% donate them to basic science unrelated to stem cells, and 3% offer them to other infertile couples.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-29-embryo-debate_x.htm
“Kansas” wrote:
“I was simply pointing out the dangers of using popular vote as a measure on what issues pass.”
Yeah, “Kansas,” democracy is a bitch. Sometimes more people disagree with you.
And that’s what the Constitution of the United States is for.
You remember the Constitution, don’t you? It’s what makes ours (potentially) the Greatest County in the World.
‘Cause, ya see, even if some people’s skin is darker than others, they still have rights.
The Bill of Rights exists not to *grant* right of, say, habeas corpus, but to prevent the government from being able to deny it. (Before George WMD Bush, anyway.)
Civilization goes into a lot more detail than simply, “My right to swing my fist ends when it hits your nose.”
I understand some Libertarians’ objections to manditory vaccinations. But if my daughter’s attending school next to a sniffly-nosed kid, I want a bit of assurance he’s not carrying active Whooping Cough bugs. I’m funny that way.
If stem-cell research develops a cure for some disease (”god” forbid) you come down with, I’ll be there to support your right to refuse treatment because some pinhead-sized embryo contributed to the cure.
Way up there at the top of the Constitution of the United States of America there’s a mission statement, “…to promote the general welfare.” Even if my individual right to slug you in the jaw promotes my “persuit of happiness,” the real governing document of America restrains me. It’s probably not in the interest of “general welfare” if I’m allowed to punch every putz like you in the nose.
It’s about balance, “Kansas.” And if my participation in this forum has taught me anything, it’s that you tend to be unbalanced.
Okay LTP,
I wonder if any of the LIB posters will take note of your threat of violence to me.
I doubt it.
“Kansas” –
You’re really pathetic when you go into Victim Mode.
Tell us specifically how I threatened you.
Show your work.
LTPFTL, I did ask a scientist I know to read the MO proposal.
It allows cloning.
And I’m ok with MO people voting for it, as long as they understand what they are voting for.
When the ballot looks like a schematic to build the Space Shuttle, I doubt if many understood it. Was the ballot written even as low as the 12th grading reading level?
According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, this ballot is written at Grade level 17.8.
Masters Degree Level guys.
Way to pull the wool over the voters eyes.
If you can’t understand the thing, why would you vote for it?
Apparently it is okay for Republank to threaten to stalk, burgle or punch, but he takes offense when someone mentions that their right to punch HIM in the nose is restrained.
What a hypocrite.
Max, show me a ballot and or Constitutional Amendment that isn’t written at Grade Level 17.8.
“Our founding fathers set up the electoral college so the vote would not just be high population areas chosing our president.”
Uhh, not quite but close. This country was set up as a Republic because of the distances involved with voting, communication lags, states rights, etc. Now that instant communication takes distance out of the equation, the electoral college is quite useless and should be discarded for popular vote. In fact, it makes a point for discarding the Republic in favor of a Democracy.
All of them are written normally between the 6th and 8th grade reading level.
Rox, show me any other ballot that has a Constitutional Amendment this complicated?
“Max” –
Laws are written that way.
If you went to court over a parking ticket you’d probably have 20 pages or more of legislation to deal with. That’s why lawyers get the big bucks.
Because the law tends to evolve.
You can’t park at a yellow-painted curb…unless:
You’re tending to an injured person. Or dog. Or have a passenger in the car suffering from a medical emergency. Or if a tree fell on the car in front of you… and so on for 20 pages or more in K.S.A.
The very length of the Missouri Constitutional Amendment speaks to its careful crafting.
And, as I mentioned and you ignored, advocates on both sides of the Missouri issue had plenty of money and lots of opportunities to make their case.
Like the process or not, the measure passed.
Whining that *you* understand it but “the people” didn’t smacks of elitism. You come off as sounding like the world would be perfect if only everyone in the world were subject to your biases, beliefs, and dictates.
That’s the problem with democracy. Sometimes you’re in the minority. Deal with it.
That’s the problem with democracy. Sometimes you’re in the minority. Deal with it.
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 10, 2007 at 03:32 PM
There are many that need to take that advice
LTPFTL – Go Clone Yourself!
“Max” –
That’d be unfair. Already, one on one, I outnumber you with facts, logic, and truth.
LTPFTL, I did ask a scientist I know to read the MO proposal.
It allows cloning.
Posted by: Max | August 10, 2007 at 03:17 PM
1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
3. Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to fifteen years or by the imposition of a fine of up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, or by both.”
It does NOT allow cloning, and even has the punishment for doing so in the wording!!!
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory technique for creating an ovum with a donor nucleus, sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_cloning
ESC research does involve SCNT (i.e., cloning) as does the measure passed last year in Missouri.
The main difference in an embryonic stem cell and an adult / umbilical / amniotic stem cell is that the ES cell isn’t programmed to be anything and its potential is to be everything.
There have been some recent successes whereby scientists have been able to reprogram adult stem cells. How are these cells reprogrammed? By injecting their nuclei into egg cells or enucleated ES cells. This is known as “nuclear transfer” (i.e., cloning).
There is something about egg cells and ES cells that causes chromatin remodeling, such that genes that are permanently turned off in an adult cell can be turned back on. No one knows the mechanisms controlling this phenomenon.
And with regard to stem cell research this is what “CLONING” is all about; they aren’t making a duplicate of a person or animal or even an organ (yet!).
All the cures and treatments from all types of stem cell research will be available to everyone, whether they supported them or not. Science doesn’t discriminate.
When we finally get rid of THIS president we will be able to federally fund all types of medical research, including embryonic stem cell research.
Thank you lindainks55 for confirming this is a cloning procedure.
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory technique for creating an ovum with a donor nucleus, sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning.
Max confuses cloning cells with cloning an entire human being.
The MO amendment clearly states, as was just pointed out upthread, that cloning of a human gets you 15 years in The Big House, and a $250,000.00 fine.
I hear Sylvan Learning Center has a _fabulous_ adult reading program, complete with one-on-one tutoring. Just FYI.
S/he has her/his mind (?) made up. I don’t think an adult reading program would help.
That’s the great debate isn’t it?
When are human cells human or not human?
“Max” –
A human appendix is human.
When it becomes inflamed, it’s cut out and tossed away.
Human tonsils are human. When they become infected they’re cut out and tossed away.
Human embryos are created for invitro fertilization. When they’re not needed, they are tossed out.
Oh… but there’s evidence that enhanced research into embryonic stem sells could reveal secrets of cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, muscular distrophy, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and on and on….
Ah! But in the minds (such as they are) of the every-sperm-is-sacred crowd, those zygotes are tiny little human beings. And even though — after decades of ethicists discussing the matter — the twice-born are rabbled all up because those smaller-than-a-pinhead clumps of cells are now “human?!”
Give it up, “Max.”
Or take it upon yourself to accept as your “christian” ministry to visit cancer wards, victims of ALS, sufferers of MS, and Jerry Lewis’ MDA kids and tell them to their faces that you fought the good fight against finding a cure for their ailments.
Yeah, that’s what you should do.
I am the voice of God speaking to you. (He works in mysterious ways, after all.)
Max,”When are human cells human or not human?”
As soon as cloning becomes possible are you going to start collecting and cloning the 10,000 or so skin and intestinal cells you shed daily? How do you plan on coming up with the child-support payments? Enquiring minds want to know!
LTP,”Ah! But in the minds (such as they are) of the every-sperm-is-sacred crowd, those zygotes are tiny little human beings.”
It’s called the Homunculus theory of reproduction, and was debunked sometime in the 18th century. Apparently, some of us haven’t gotten the word yet.
One last fact worth repeating. ES cell research has its origins less than ten years ago. AS cell research first started in the 1940s and only matured into conventional therapy in the 1970s (with a high failure rate). Only in the last 10 to 15 years has AS cell therapy started to become somewhat routine for some diseases.
ES cell research is new and promising. Scientists know all types of stem cell research offer our greatest hopes for cures and treatments and encourage all types continue and receive federal funding.
The Democrats should easily win back Missouri in 2008. If they don’t, they are sorry.
“It allows cloning”
Max, you are either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous. When the lay population thinks of cloning, they think of making a Mini-me. The term “cloning” refers to a number of medical and scientific procedures.
For example, when you go to the doctor with an unknown bacterial infection, the medical technologists will use cloning help diagnose you (a whole different thing from making a Mini-me)
Another example is nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning. However, this refers to cloning single cells and these resulting cells DO NOT have the potential to grow into a human being like a fertilized egg does. They do have the capacity to reproduce and perhaps generate usable tissue, but certainly not a human being.
Strictly speaking, this bills allows cloning. But it’s not the kind of cloning that the God people are all bent up about.
I think the dirty secret that many of the fundies who oppose medical research is the many Christians(not all) want people too be sick and suffer. Faith healers in their revival tent or the TV evangelist who tells the diabetic to put his hand on on the Screen and he can then throw away his Insulin, bank on the cripples, MS, Parkinson, brain damaged sufferers to fill their coffers with cash in the hopes that Jesus will wave his hand or wiggle his nose and cure them of their ails
TomThe Catholic Church runs more hospitals than any other institution in America.The Catholic Church opposes Ebryonic Stem Cell Research.
Please stop pretending that you are so intellectually superior to all of us who disagree with you.
—-As far as the Missouri situation goes: Embryonic Stem Cell research is a flop, a dud, a waste of time and money, so far — compared to adult stem cell research and umbilical cord cell research.
If there was REAL promise in the proceedure, we would be DOING IT!
There is absolutely NO Federal law against ESC research. The Amendment, itself, claimed that Federal Law would be followed!
Therefore: The investment community does not support your “Soylent Green” or “Dr. Frankenstein” baloney.
There is no risk capital lining up to fund such research because it has been OVERSOLD and serious investors are smarter than the political hacks that back this garbage.
(One small “hedge” on my part: If ESC research ever DOES show any real promise, the money will follow. We aren’t there yet, not by a long shot. What the lefties want is GOVERNMENT money to subsidize this measure in order to justify, somehow, their view of humans as “commodities”.
The materialist investment world, so far, rejects the materialist view of human life: Because it is NOT profitable!—-On the “Republic” front, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!
We are a Republic. The Constitution specifially provided for a Republic in the electoral college, in the Ratification Process for Amendments, in the Electoral College, in the make up of the U.S. Senate, and in some other ways as well.
We are a Republic, not a pure “Democracy.”
“Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what to do for lunch”
And part of being a Republic, of course, means that the “majority” can NOT create an illegal law.
Tom P,And who are we supposed to turn to when we are suffering? And to whom are we supposed to donate cash to assuage our pain and guilt? And who is busy trying to create more pain and guilt so they can stand at that pulpit in an Armani suit and Rolex?
I doubt Jesus ever had or needed more than two sheckels to rub together.
Paul,
Take your bedtime meds, you are losing it to a much greater extent than usual.
JedYou have obviously had some bad experiences with religious people.
You have a stereo-typical view of the faithful that is neither accurate nor fair.
Nobody denies that there have been, and will always be “abuses” done in the name of “God” — just as there are abuses done in the name of patriotism or honor or family or countless, other, poorly considered motivations.
Faith IS the glue that holds society together.
The “cure” for those people of Faith that you disagree with, is MORE people of Faith speaking against them.
That is how our country has ALWAYS found our way through tough issues.
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.
Paul,Take those meds.
SevenEverything I have said, on this thread, is supported by facts.
I live in reality.
Reality is for people who can’t handle drugs!
(Though I am sorry that I repeated myself a couple of times, my point of view is solidly in the mainstream of political thought)
I am also sorry that I seem to be missing some keys, more than normal.
(Though I am sorry that I repeated myself a couple of times, my point of view is solidly in the mainstream of political thought).
You have NEVER been in that stream. Please dont’ lie.
Steven
Do you disagree with the following points:
1.) Embryonic Stem Cell Research is now, and has always been, LEGAL?
2.) George Bush has only been against Federal Funding of ESC research?
3.) No REAL breakthrough, in the area of ESC research, has happened, so far?
4.) MANY useful treatments ARE being developed using Adult stem cells?
5.) Investment dollars are NOT flowing into ESC research. There is no venture capital market for ESC research.
6.) There are Billions of Dollars in Health Care mutual funds, Venture Capital funds devoted to health care and research, and Billions of Dollars in Drug Company research money, currently, in the United States. Virtually 0% of that money is invested in ESC research, which is perfectly legal but a horrible investment?
Well, I am guessing that you will not disagree with these points, because you don’t want to be proven wrong, on the facts.
Pall,Yes, I’ve had my share of difficulties with religious asses, starting from my time in the civil rights movement. I’ve also known some pretty good people who were religious, but they, for some reason, don’t actively oppose the ones who have made a trainwreck of christianity. I would certainly like to hear of at least a few decent christians who spoke out against the trivialization of their faith, but I don’t expect to anytime soon. The RR is too adept at cowing the dissent.
Pall,Let me ask you a question. If I recall my reading of the New Testament, Jesus spoke out at least fifty times about the dangers of monetary wealth. Have you ever heard a sermon stressing those warnings?
JedThere is a politically active “Religious Left” in this country.
There are politically active pacifist churches.
Many LIBERAL churches are very anti-gambling.
Yes, many religious leaders can be a royal pain in the butt. That is their JOB at times. I respect that. It doesnt mean I have to agree with them.
I had a sincere person once tell me “God is calling on me to oppose you on this issue.”
I responded, “God is calling on me to oppose you.”
She responded, “That is not possible, my God is not the God of confusion.”
I responded: “Is a court room confused? Every court room has opposing sides. Is every election confused? Is every game of sports confused? God calls on all of us to do our best, and to make the best arguments we can for our side. That is how it works. That is the system God gave us.”
Now, I will admit my frustration with this person. She expected me to roll over for her, since she saw herself on some kind of mission, (on a trivial matter, actually). However, I respected the fact that she MIGHT actually be motivated by sincere faith, I showed her the respect she deserved, and I did not back down.
My guess is that many people who complain about the “Religious Right” have not had enough respect for their opponents to actually engage them in that way.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Whenever the religious Left takes on the Religious Right, all we get is a bunch of ad hominem, about how we are an embarrassment to our faith, and how do our churches put up with us, and a bunch of other garbage… They dont want to discuss issues… And that is because basically, they believe they are RIGHT, and anybody else is WRONG… So, psychlogicaly, they have nothing do discuss…
SOME even go so far as to preach to their people that those who disagree are of the “devil”… And everybody knows you have to LIE to the devil… LOL
“Econ101″ –
“Jed” asked you a couple of pretty direct questions which, like a politician, you adroitly evaded.
As if your admittedly “trivial matter” shows you to be somehow independent of the Evangelical “Christian” Republican agenda. Sorry. Nobody who’s read your contributions to this forum believes you.
You’ve obviously manipulated your religion and personal philosophy to conform with your personal prejudices and biases.
We see it nearly every time you post here.
JedI did hear an explanation of this warning:
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle that it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
The “Eye of the Needle” was a gate, in the wall around the Biblical City.
It was entirely possible to get the camel through the gate, but, usually, the rider had to get off the camel and take off some of the baggage, first!It was possible, but difficult!
It is a spiritually difficulty, for the rich, as well as a problem with stewardship and the management of wealth.
The Wealthy might be more prone to pride and less likely to pray.—-Christians are NOT required to live in poverty.
Also, Charity is NEVER provided by Government. Our duty to help our fellow man is an INDIVIDUAL duty.
You will be hard pressed to show any support for the idea that we are commanded to support GOVERNMENT assistance to the poor.
You will be hard pressed to find ANY support for the idea that GOVERNMENT should reduce the wealth of the rich, in order to make things “fair.”
You WILL find Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testaments, refering to stewardship and making USE of wealth.
Jesus did not think much of the servant who burried his riches.
The story of Joseph, cutting taxes to produce “Seven Fat Years” also is a story about the morality of encouraging people to be productive. Joseph, the Jew, saved the Rich country of Egypt from famine, by encouraging more production through tax cuts.—-Now, in direct answer to your question: YES, I have heard Priests, and others, who did not understand their faith speak against good economic measures.
There are Priests who follow, “Revolution Theology” which is actually prohibited by the Church.
There are Priests who have never read the theory of “Subsidiarity” which actually makes the case that it is IMMORAL for the State to take the place of the family, and immoral for the National Government to act on matters best left to Local Government.
Yes, I have heard religious leaders speak against wealth.
So far, none of them have known what the hell they were talking about!
Wow Econ, that’s the most F’d up convoluted rationale for being stingy I’ve ever heard.
“Sorry. Nobody who’s read your contributions to this forum believes you.”Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 10, 2007 at 11:55 PM
A statement which holds true for yourself LTP.
pmom
Who said anything about being “stingy”?
I am only making the case that there is no BIBLICAL command to empower government to do those things which we are required to do ourselves.
“The Good Samaritan” was not a story about a foreigner establishing a “Bureau to assist those travelers who are roughed up on the road.” The Samaritan gave PERSONAL help to those in need!
In fact, it is wrong to delegate to the highest levels of government those things that are best left to lower levels of authority. I am no Libertarian. I expect government to be involved in many areas of life. However, supporting higher taxes on the rich is NOT charity. If Envy is behind the support for higher taxes, then such a position is actually a sin!
My Evangelical Protestant friends keep telling me that “good works” won’t get me into Heaven, and that I need a “personal relationship” with God. Why would I get that warning, on a regular basis, if they thought I was a “stingy” person?
I think I have such a personal relationship. It goes like this: When I know Someone NEEDS my help, and nobody else but me can do the job, at that moment, I am more than likely to say “yes” to any request (or even to help with no request being made). I do so because I think that is what God expects of me. God knows I will do the job, that is why he sent that person to me. How is that “stingy”?
Useless, unethical clone-and-kill lab goons might as well head for other parts, like maybe France, because very few are buying their selfish lies anymore in Missouri.
parkay, you and your loved ones will benefit from all scientific research success you and yours may need. I’m glad we are all able to have that hope no matter what we think or believe. Aren’t you? We’ve come a long way and have a longer way to go. It is good.
Promises of hope and promises of horror – if left in the wrong hands.
I’m sure our Government will control everything perfectly, and nothing will get out of hand.
“Econ101″ –
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)
shorten url
http://liteurl.net shorten url
strepsilswishers222