Area417

Missouri Amendment 2

Formula for the passage of a constitutional amendment:

Wads of cash + artful deception + shameless play on emotions = the passage of the Stem Cell Research Initiative.

O'Reilly & St. Louis Talker Jamie Allman On The MO Stem Cell Debate

Hat tip to PubDef

Missouri Amendment 2: Follow The Money

In reference to the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which has sunk boatloads of money into supporting Amendment 2, blogger X-Catholics notes that "about 97 percent of the group's funding has come from just two people -- Jim and Virginia Stowers, founders of the Stowers Institute.."

Most Missourians assume that the Stowers Intitute is a not-for-profit research facility and that their interest in passing Amendment 2 is strictly on philanthropic grounds. Such is not the case. Jesse Water', the producer of the O'Reilly Factor, did some research on the Stowers Institute:

...it has been reported that the Institute has made a $300 million expansion project contingent on Amendment 2 passing. If Amendment 2 fails, the project could well be move to another state and jeopardize the Stowers’ long term goals. (ed: Hence Gov. Blunt's support of the amendment.)

...The Stowers Institute has also formed the BioMed Valley Partnership, which includes a for-profit arm, BioMed Valley Discoveries Inc., set up to “patent, develop and market the discoveries of the Stowers Institute” and its partners to medical and pharmaceutical companies such as Merck or Pfizer. The BioMed Valley Partnership includes Kansas University and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, whose researchers cede their intellectual property rights to BioMed Valley Discoveries in exchange for large endowments. Although Stowers officials claim that the conglomerate’s current business plan requires that profits be plowed back into Stowers Institute activities, this plan could be changed by its board of directors at any time. BioMed Valley Discoveries could go public at any time and possibly create billions of dollars in value, much of it generated by the tax dollars provided by Amendment 2 that would finance research at Stowers Institute. Stowers’ investment company could potentially be an early investor.

Virtually the same individuals serve as board members or officers in Stowers’ non-profit and for-profit entities. In fact, the IRS was reportedly wary of Stowers’ organizational structure several years ago. Also a concern for many is the almost $2 million in federal tax-payer grants that the Stowers Institute receives each year, which could potentially be used for harvesting human embryos after November 7th. Records indicate the Jim & Virginia Stowers have donated significantly to lawmakers sympathetic to his research.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Missourians Against Human Cloning Call Amendment 2 A Fraud

READ THE FINE PRINT ON MISSOURI AMENDMENT 2

(Hat tip to Sister Toldjah)

A Doctor's Thoughts On Missouri Amendment 2

This letter was was written by a doctor in Washington, Missouri. Since the author invited readers to share his thoughts, I am reposting his letter in it's entirety. The only editing has been to change the letter to single spacing and bolding some sections. PC


Friends,

This letter is about the stem cell amendment. It is a far bigger deal than
all but a few realize.  There is a lot of misinformation out there and as I
have some knowledge of the subjects of medicine and law, I would l like to share, admittedly unrequested, my point of view of the matter.

First off let's be clear this is not a law we are voting on, it is not a proposition, it is a Constitutional amendment, the highest law in our state, and can only be changed by another Constitutional amendment or Federal action.  We should be careful in changing this document.  The reason we are discussing a constitutional amendment as opposed to a law so that the researchers, businessmen and administrators don't have to worry about the legislature trying to impose community standards on this research every legislative session.

Be aware that this amendment will clearly and explicitly place the right to pay women for the harvesting of embryos and eggs into our state constitution.  Never before has the right to purchase a body part been placed in any state constitution anywhere.  It is a certainty that women will be exploited to their detriment under this provision.  I am a big believer that everyone gets to go to hell in their own way.  I am also a big believer that the strong should not exploit but rather should protect the weak.  There are women who will, without really understanding the risks, sacrifice their long term health for a little short term cash under this bill. I cannot sanction such exploitation.

An activist court could, and there is no reason to think it could not, extrapolate this right and interpret this amendment as a constitutional right to sell other body parts such as organs and fetuses.  Some might be in favor of this, fine, but for reasons similar to above, I am not and I think
that the pros and cons of such an issue needs to be debated on its own merits in the light of day, not in some sneaky underhanded way.

Also be aware that any restriction in place concerning the practice of abortion in our state will be challenged under this amendment.  This would include, parental notification, age restriction, and partial birth abortion. Please see the advocacy sections of the web sites of the national office of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU to review discussions of this.  This
amendment represents among the states a truly unique approach to the regulation (or deregulation) of all sorts of reproductive questions and is being watch very closely by a number of national advocacy organizations. Once again, your position on this may be different than mine (and you might be surprised what mine is), but shouldn't such a debate be held out in the open on its merits, rather than using underhanded language to subvert open debate.

This amendment is being disingenuously pushed by those with an enormous financial interest in its passage.  Be aware of this fact when anyone who argues in favor of this is from a large academic institution such as Wash U. or Mizzou. There are billions of dollars of research grants depending on the passage of this amendment. We will be the only state in the country with
such an amendment.   Its passage will turn our state into the destination for anyone who wants to do any federally approved research on embryos free of any kind of community standards.  Any standards we want to impose will have to be done by another constitutional amendment.  What Las Vegas was to gambling, we will be to stem cell research.  This is an important bias to remember when listening to "experts" describe their support for the amendment.  All this is not to protect the right to access to lifesaving cures, It is to protect the access of these researchers to this money.  In
their quest for cash, they are cynically playing on the hopes of the ill and buying the support of an additional segment of out community who hopes to use the language to support their own agenda of backdoor deregulation of abortion in our state.  For this dissimilation alone, the amendment should be defeated.  Honestly, I would look on the amendment more favorably if it was being pushed as a vehicle for economic development, at least that would be more honest.

Look, these researchers are people just like you and me.  They mean well and are not evil money grubbers.  They do great work.  But they do themselves and us a disservice by not admitting to all the horses they have in this race.  It makes me concerned they are overstating the promise of their work for a few bucks.  I would rather they avoid all these issues and spend more effort on stem cells that don't require the destruction of human embryos (so called somatic  stem cells).  It seems to be more promising but there is currently less money in the pipeline for it.

Aside from the economic stimulation, there is no real benefit to you and me in changing the constitution in this way.  Cures will still be researched. Wash U will just get less money at the expense of women who want to sell their embryos.  We will reserve our right to debate these other ethical issues openly and honestly while ensuring this research is done within the standards of our community.  This amendment gives us a head start in the race to the bottom of embryonic stem cell research.  It is not a race I personally wish to win.

If you found this useful forward it to your contacts to stimulate the
debate, let me know what you think, even if I made you angry.

Tom
(Thomas Davis MD)

More On The Cloning Bill, Missouri's Amendment 2

Missouri Roundtable for Life notes that we can't even foresee all the problems this amendment will create:

The length and complexity of the proposed initiative ensures that it will change the Missouri Constitution in ways unrelated to cloning and unforeseen by the voters. The Secretary of State here lists at least 45 specific sections of the Constitution that may be altered by this proposed amendment. The true extent of these changes will not be known by Missouri citizens until they are litigated in the courts. For this reason alone, the proposed amendment should be rejected.

They properly note that it would be more appropriate to call this the "Human Embryo Cloning and Destruction Initiative."

Check out their site for an in-depth critic of the amendment. (Hat tip to Blonde Sagacity for the link.)

Tom Hanna, of Tom Rants fame, has this to say:

Some sections of this proposal might be desirable as statute law. The total package is some of the worst legislative sausage ever made. The language is so misleading that it is either purposefully misleading or written by idiots. Whether it’s the work of liars or the work of idiots, it shouldn’t be enshrined in the state Constitution.

I Vote NO On The Missouri "Stem Cell" Amendment

After doing some reading and listening on the subject, I'll be voting NO on Amendment 2 (the Stem Cell Initiative) for the following reasons:

• It involves the destruction of a human embryo. You can disagree with me all you want about when life begins. We'll have to agree to disagree.
• We have no business amending Missouri's constitution for the purpose of funding research. Even the News-Leader calls it economic blackmail. (I find it strange that some of the very same people who scream about corporate welfare have no problem with this.)
• To date adult stem cells have shown more promise, though Harvard University did find that embryonic stem cells can help repair heart tissue.

There are some, such as Hands Off Our Ovaries,  that are worried about the exploitation of women:

Biotechnological research and development often affects women more directly than men. In the case of human embryonic cloning, women’s health and safety have already been affected—adversely. Sadly, there have been too many instances of coercion and deception, and violations of informed consent. Left uncontrolled, research demands will place undue burdens on young, poor women. Read the Entire Manifesto

For more on this issue, check out the following links: The Truth About Stem Cells, A Bad Amendment,The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, Adult stem cells affect a cure, Natl. Institutes of Health: Stem Cell Information. Missouri blogger Ask The Pastor has compiled lots more useful links.