Court Overrules MO Secretary of State on Cloning Initiative
I admit that I am pleasantly surprised. The pro cloning bias among the political elite and media in Missouri make it almost impossible to get the straight information to the people of MO about this crucial ethical issue. When a new initiative to outlaw all human cloning was filed awhile ago, the Secretary of State wrote a summary that was both inaccurate and breathtakingly biased. Well, lo and behold, a court has righted the wrong. From the story:
A judge rewrote the ballot language Wednesday for a proposed constitutional amendment banning a particular kind of embryonic stem cell research after supporters claimed the state's original description was biased...The pro cloners will undoubtedly appeal , if for nothing else than to slow down the signature gathering process. Well, that's politics and never mind. A little fresh air has entered the usual smog of bias that permeates Missouri on the cloning issue. Anyone who believes in the democratic process should be grateful regardless of their opinion on the propriety of human cloning.
After Carnahan released the stem cell summary in October, the sponsoring group Cures Without Cloning immediately claimed her language was biased against it. Now that its legal challenge is resolved, a group spokesman said supporters plan to start gathering the petition signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot. Cures Without Cloning chairwoman Lori Buffa claimed Carnahan's language was a "blatant attempt to mislead the Missouri voters. This ruling proves what we've said along: that our clear, concise initiative would prohibit human cloning and the taxpayer funding of human cloning in Missouri," Buffa said in a written statement...
The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which sponsored the 2006 amendment, said it was considering an appeal of Wednesday's court ruling and would mount a "vigorous campaign" encouraging people not to sign the new initiative petition. The coalition spent $30 million for the 2006 initiative.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:36 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Will the new law stop the destruction of embryos? No, leftover IVF embryos will continue to be created and destroyed to make stem cell lines. It won't stop creating human embryos from genetically engineered gametes and destroying them. And, the new law will change the current law to ALLOW implanting embryos creating from genetically engineered gametes, where the current law prohibits implanting embryos that are not the union of natural gametes.
Cures Without Cloning did change their proposal (perhaps after I contacted them) to prohibit creating embryos that are not the union of an egg and sperm, but they didn't keep the old "sperm of a human male and egg of a human female" language that made Missouri the only state that prohibited genetic engineering.
So, net result of the new law: creation and destruction of human embryos remains legal, and genetic engineering of people stops being illegal.
And focusing on state laws distracts us from the need for a federal ban on creating people from modified gametes. Massachusetts has the same hole in our anti-cloning law, as do all the states that have anti-cloning laws (I think). They all do not define "egg" or "sperm" and allow creating gametes however a lab wants to, rather than insisting that they be "of a" real person. This is how the federal law should read that would supercede all these state laws.
Whether or not it bans creating the embryo or just implanting them (and I would certainly agree it should ban creating the embryo) it needs to have Missouri's "of a" language.
And as long as it is going to allow for embryo creation and destruction, it seems to me that the only kind of embryo creation and destruction that ought to be allowed is SCNT intended for stem cells, since SCNT doesn't create a unique new person, it creates pluripotent tissue culture of an existing person for that person's therapeutic use. Yes, at the embryo stage it might be possible for it to become a person, but even adult stem cells have that same potential, theoretically.
It is excellent to see that that misleading ballot summary was overturned and replaced with one that actually describes the proposed amendment. Judge Joyce’s ruling is a victory for the democratic process.
Yes, when a judge rewrites a proposed law, its called legislating from the bench.
I guess Missouri voters from the last election don't count and both sides can spend lots of money fighting eachother. I think I know which side has more ammo for that battle.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home