Your $7.00 monthly contribution will go a long way to helping us expand the coverage and services you enjoy.
GET THE LATEST PUBDEF NEWS 24/7:
ABOUT PUB DEF
PUB
DEF is a non-partisan, independent political blog based in the
City of St. Louis, Missouri. Our goal is to cast a critical eye
on lawmakers, their policies, and those that have influence upon
them, and to educate our readers about legislation and the political
processes that affect our daily lives.
CONTACT US
Do you have
a press release, news tip or rumor to share?
With the show of support for the state's newest Democratic elected official, former Republican State Senator Chris Koster — who's also jumping in the field of Democratic candidates for Attorney General — the following question deserves to be asked: What kind of treatment can the party's most loyal block of voters expect in 2008?
Will the Missouri Democratic Party ask its strong African-American base to support yet another statewide ticket with not a single black candidate, but one anchored by a candidate for Governor with a long and controversial history on issues most sensitive to the black community and a candidate for Attorney General who will have been a Democrat only slightly longer than it takes for a Missouri girl to go from an abstinence-only education to the host of an unwanted pregnancy to a single mom with no health care coverage?
In an environment with some supporters of a certain white male Democratic Presidential candidate saying that it would be bad for the party for Jay Nixon to have to campaign in the state's more conservative counties with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the top of the ballot, what will the Dems offer its strongest, most loyal block of voters — or rather, what should black elected officials demand of the party they fuel?
Over the next few days we'll be discussing Constitutional Amendment 2, the Stem Cell Research Initiative. Believe us, we're just as confused as you are. Feel free to leave your two cents.
Last week on the Charlie Brennan Show on KMOX, representatives from both sides of this debate made their cases. In the end it all came down to this question: Is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer cloning?
The supporter of Amendment 2 said no. The opponent said yes.
Our research shows that they were both right.
The Association of American Medical Colleges, as well as dozens of other resources on the Web, defines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer as "Therapeutic Cloning". A definition on the website of Princeton University's Department of Molecular Biology includes this warning: "Because SCNT involves cloning, there are many ethical concerns in using this technique in humans. For this reason, experiments of this nature have only been conducted in mice."
Until now.
So the opponents are right, Amendment 2 does allow cloning. But the supporters are right too.
The language of Amendment 2 clearly states: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being". It then goes on to provide this layman's definition of cloning:
"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.
While that is clearly not the medical definition of cloning, which does include SCNT, it probably meets the definition of cloning as most of the people who will be voting on this question think of it.
So what do you think? Does Amendment 2 allow cloning or not?
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.
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?
