Missouri's Amendment 2 claims narrow lead
At the moment, Missouri's Amendment 2 has seemingly passed by a razor thin margin, something like 51-49, which is no where near the margin enjoyed by California's Proposition 71 two years ago.
The Kansas City Star reported:
The cutting-edge research, they said, could revolutionize medicine with novel treatments for Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal injuries and heart disease. At the same time, the research could expand the life-sciences industry in Kansas City and St. Louis and provide a high-income foundation for Missouri’s 21st century economy, supporters said.
Passage of the constitutional protections for stem-cell research would clear a major hurdle holding up plans for a $300 million, 600,000-square-foot expansion of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. The institute’s board had voted not to expand in Missouri if lawmakers could criminalize the cutting-edge research its scientists want to conduct.
Nelson Mann, former chairman of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, said passage of Amendment 2 would burnish Missouri’s reputation as a place that welcomes innovation and would help area universities and institutions attract world-class scientists. Failure, however, would be a major impediment to Missouri’s future as a center of life sciences research, he said.
Opponents, led by the Catholic Church, the Missouri Baptist Convention and anti-abortion groups, argued that whatever the potential benefits, the research is immoral because it ends human lives. Opponents were most successful by linking certain types of stem-cell research with human cloning.
Lawmakers and lobbyists who oppose the research have pledged to continue fighting research on early stem cells by keeping Amendment 2 tied up in court. They have said they plan to attach restrictions on stem-cell research to legislation next year in violation of the amendment’s protections. Such moves may further delay plans to expand such research at the Stowers Institute as well as state universities.
***
The Kansas City Star also had the text:
Actually, early stem cells come from microscopic fertilized eggs and, if implanted in a woman’s uterus, develop into specific tissues before the developing human becomes a fetus. Amendment 2 does not require the expenditure of public funds.
And fertility experts said studies have shown that egg donation involves only minor pain in most donors and causes no fertility problems or increased health risks.
***
When one is seeking stem cells from a fertilized egg, one does NOT implant the embryo (blastocyst) in a woman's uterus. When one is doing IVF, one does implant the blastocyst in the woman's uterus, and the blastocyst becomes a human being. If the Kansas City Star can't tell the difference between therapeutic and reproductive uses of blastocysts one day after the vote on Amendment 2, one really wonders what is going on in Missouri.
***A version of Amendment 2 can be found here:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Note that 6(1) says: “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
Hwang Woo Suk claimed to have made a human blastocyst through somatic cell nuclear transfer [SCNT]. The current status of the work at Newcastle is unclear.
6(5) says: “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.
6(8) says: “Permitted under federal law” means, as it relates to stem cell research and stem cell therapies and cures, any such research, therapies, and cures that are not prohibited under federal law from being conducted or provided, regardless of whether federal funds are made available for such activities.
IPBiz notes that the FDA requires an IND for any germ line therapy (which would include SCNT). Conducting research without an IND might not seem to be "permitted under federal law."
The Kansas City Star reported:
The cutting-edge research, they said, could revolutionize medicine with novel treatments for Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal injuries and heart disease. At the same time, the research could expand the life-sciences industry in Kansas City and St. Louis and provide a high-income foundation for Missouri’s 21st century economy, supporters said.
Passage of the constitutional protections for stem-cell research would clear a major hurdle holding up plans for a $300 million, 600,000-square-foot expansion of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. The institute’s board had voted not to expand in Missouri if lawmakers could criminalize the cutting-edge research its scientists want to conduct.
Nelson Mann, former chairman of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, said passage of Amendment 2 would burnish Missouri’s reputation as a place that welcomes innovation and would help area universities and institutions attract world-class scientists. Failure, however, would be a major impediment to Missouri’s future as a center of life sciences research, he said.
Opponents, led by the Catholic Church, the Missouri Baptist Convention and anti-abortion groups, argued that whatever the potential benefits, the research is immoral because it ends human lives. Opponents were most successful by linking certain types of stem-cell research with human cloning.
Lawmakers and lobbyists who oppose the research have pledged to continue fighting research on early stem cells by keeping Amendment 2 tied up in court. They have said they plan to attach restrictions on stem-cell research to legislation next year in violation of the amendment’s protections. Such moves may further delay plans to expand such research at the Stowers Institute as well as state universities.
***
The Kansas City Star also had the text:
Actually, early stem cells come from microscopic fertilized eggs and, if implanted in a woman’s uterus, develop into specific tissues before the developing human becomes a fetus. Amendment 2 does not require the expenditure of public funds.
And fertility experts said studies have shown that egg donation involves only minor pain in most donors and causes no fertility problems or increased health risks.
***
When one is seeking stem cells from a fertilized egg, one does NOT implant the embryo (blastocyst) in a woman's uterus. When one is doing IVF, one does implant the blastocyst in the woman's uterus, and the blastocyst becomes a human being. If the Kansas City Star can't tell the difference between therapeutic and reproductive uses of blastocysts one day after the vote on Amendment 2, one really wonders what is going on in Missouri.
***A version of Amendment 2 can be found here:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Note that 6(1) says: “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.
Hwang Woo Suk claimed to have made a human blastocyst through somatic cell nuclear transfer [SCNT]. The current status of the work at Newcastle is unclear.
6(5) says: “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.
6(8) says: “Permitted under federal law” means, as it relates to stem cell research and stem cell therapies and cures, any such research, therapies, and cures that are not prohibited under federal law from being conducted or provided, regardless of whether federal funds are made available for such activities.
IPBiz notes that the FDA requires an IND for any germ line therapy (which would include SCNT). Conducting research without an IND might not seem to be "permitted under federal law."
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 7:02 AM
1 Comments:
Is a blastocyst a stage in human life, whether implanted in a women's uterus or not?
If there is a God, does God know us before we are conceived, or not?
If there is no God (or a God that is not concerned), why should we distinguish between theraputic or reproductive uses of blastocysts except for sentimental reasons? Shouldn't what is expedient to therapy, and reproduction, for those with the means, and access to cutting edge medicine, not be encumbered?
How do you decide what is human life? Is it cognition? Is it language? Is it identity? A heartbeat? A complete set of human DNA? In the uterus? Outside the uterus? Is the blastocyst human life imediately upon placement within the uterus, but wasn't a second before? How do you, personally, decide?
Also, if, like so many who are supporters of Amendment 2, you find abortion ethical and acceptable for a civilized society, why the splitting hairs over theraputic or reproductive blastocysts?
Post a Comment
<< Home