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 Wikipedia.
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?
Related special offer: