Debating the Stem Cell Amendment 

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?