Missouri’s Titanic Embryonic Stem Cell Research Initiative Deceptive

Bioethics   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Oct 11, 2006   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Missouri’s Titanic Embryonic Stem Cell Research Initiative Deceptive Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Jill Stanek
October 11, 2006

LifeNews.com Note: Jill Stanek fought to stop "live birth abortions" after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Her speaking out led to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation, signed by President Bush, that would ensure that proper medical care be given to unborn children who survive botched abortion attempts.

Consider the iceberg, of which only the tip is visible.

Such is the short Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative to be
voted on next month. Beneath it looms a titanic constitutional amendment.
Amendment Two, as it is called, is a proportional Titanic. At five pages and
2,000 words, it is half the length of the entire United States Constitution.

Its opening paragraph – conveniently omitted from promoter Missouri
Coalition for Lifesaving Cures’ website – lists 45 sections of the
Constitution of Missouri it would incredibly delete or change.

Amendment Two is also a linguistic Titanic. Crafted by researchers and
groups with financial stakes in its passage, it is packed with convoluted
legal and scientific jargon chopped up and buried in various places so it
really says the opposite of what they say it says.

Why would Show Me State voters – of all voters in the land – agree to
drastically alter their own Constitution to ends no one can predict, all to
force speculative science experiments on themselves forever? Even without
knowing Amendment Two’s specifics, doing so would seem schizophrenic.

And specifically, Amendment Two is full of lies. Here are four whoppers:

1. "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

In actuality, Amendment Two would force cloning on Missourians.
Crafters knew people overwhelmingly oppose cloning. So to authorize cloning while maintaining they were not, they simply changed the definition of cloning to say a clone isn’t a clone unless implanted in a mother’s uterus.

This is like saying you are not you unless you are in your house. If you
leave your house, you are no longer you. You are a thing. And if you are
caught outside your house, you can be dissected and sold for parts.
Crafters said while they banned cloning, they endorsed "somatic cell nuclear transfer." This is like banning the killing of humans but endorsing the killing of Homo sapiens. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning. Google "somatic cell nuclear transfer" or its shortcut, SCNT. Look it up on

The embryonic stem cell/cloning industry’s dirty little secret is they need
to clone to stand any chance of making good on their hype. While embryos are unique humans with their own genetic codes that would make treatment matches difficult, clones are human replicas that would provide exact matches.

2. "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the
purpose of stem cell research."

They want us to believe Amendment Two would make it illegal to create
embryos just for experimentation. But another part of the amendment
authorizes researchers to purchase embryos from in vitro fertilization
clinics, which it would permit to create "any number of human blastocysts."
Ask any Missouri university student about the recent proliferation of
college ads offering big bucks for eggs by in vitro clinics, and recall the
middleman concept.

3. "No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than 14 days after cell division begins."

They want us to believe Amendment Two would make it illegal to grow embryos older than two weeks for experimentation. The loophole is the amendment’s dishonest definition of blastocyst, so while researchers may not grow embryos in petri dishes more than two weeks, they may grow embryos in uteruses indefinitely.

4. "No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human
blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies or cures."

They want us to believe Amendment Two would prohibit the sale of embryos and eggs. The loophole is the amendment instead would let people and businesses receive "reimbursements for reasonable costs" not just for buying and selling but also for "processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer . and lost wages to the donor."

Why the push for Amendment Two?

Among other things, Amendment Two paves the way for Missouri public funding of embryonic stem cell/cloning research. This would:

Let researchers keep patents for themselves, which they would have to share with private investors;

Eliminate the need for results, which private investors demand (and is why
they’re not investing), and force accountability for wild promises;

Let researchers keep any profits for themselves, which they would have to
share with private investors.

Amendment Two also forbids legislators from overturning it.

If you don’t believe me on all this, read and understand Amendment Two for
yourself. And if you can’t understand it, why would you vote for it?