Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 08, 2006
Jonathan Garthwaite :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jumping the gun on stem cells in Missouri
by Jonathan Garthwaite
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

Nowhere are the warts of democracy more apparent than during the campaigning process on a citizen initiative and referendum. In 27 states, citizens and lobbying groups can put proposed constitutional amendments up for a vote by the public. But in an era of sound bites, negative ads, and outright deception, the debate over something as complicated as a constitutional amendment doesn’t lend itself well to being decided with a single up or down vote by a drive-by voting public.

This is being demonstrated very clearly in Missouri, where a deceptive campaign is being waged to pass a constitutional amendment that would promote false hope for the suffering and create human life in order to destroy it.

In November, the citizens of Missouri will be asked if their state constitution “[should] be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures….”

Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? Most Americans would probably think so too and may vote yes if they don’t keep reading. If they did, the amendment gets a tad murkier.

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

• ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
• ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
• require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
• impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
• prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?"

I’m confused. Does this constitutional amendment limit stem cell research or encourage it? Unfortunately, the language above is all the voter gets. The actual legalese of the amendment is tucked away and is the ultimate in “fine print.” It’s no surprise there is a great deal of confusion in Missouri over this amendment.

Opponents of “Amendment 2” correctly point out several deceptions in the language that would raise concerns if the measure were to pass. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jonathan Garthwaite is the editor-in-chief of Townhall.com.

Be the first to read Jonathan Garthwaite's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Stem Cell
Nice job skewing the truth for your benefit in your article published in the West St. Louis County NewsMagazine regarding the upcoming stem cell initiative. The opinion I find most disturbing by your side is your blantant ignorance when it comes to the SCNT procedure. You first comment that the liberal media is touting all these breakthroughs with this process, yet I can't recall once it being tied to a current cure. Furthermore, it is this last statement which you feel should be the driving force behind not supporting stem cell research: the fact that it has yet to produce any tangible cure. What you fail to mention to your legion of religious brainwashed followers is the process and technique has only been being used for a short number of years compared to research with adult stem cells. So because it hasn't produced any cure during a ten year period, the research should be abandoned? That's ludicrous. Name me one cure or treatment of a disease, affliction etc. that was identified and cured within 10 years. My guess would be zero. I had Hodgkins Disease 16 years ago and is now highly treatable because of research. 50 years ago it was a death sentence. I guess they should have given up 40 years ago because they just were not finding any cures for that troubling inflammation of the lymph nodes? That thinking is archaic.

The other pressing issue is the fact that you fail to mention that these stem cells are predominantly created as a result of in-vitro fertilization not purposely harvested for this research as you would like your followers to believe. Where unless the couple decides to pay a yearly cost of minimally $280 to store these, they are destroyed. I am also a proud father of twin girls as a result of in vitro, so I know all too well what is kept, destroyed and the cost with which to maintain these cells. Without the parents agreeing to freeze and maintain these cells and/or embryos, they are DESTROYED! Did you hear me? Destroyed. Why is that not such a crusade by your side?

And lastly, I don't see a M.D. after your name? Come to think of it, I can't remember ever seeing anyone opposed to this that does. So the opinion of thousands of highly skilled and trained doctors and scientists are off the mark with their opinion on this initiative as a possible for future cures? No, why listen to them. Let's listen to the non-trained and non-medically educated to make that determination. Once again, your opinion much like all from the right, stem from beliefs rather than facts.

Can't wait for you to expand on your next topic in the Newsmagazine: "How big was that Ark in order to transport all those dinosaurs?"




Odd Language for a Constitution
It doesn't say the state shall provide funding -- but it says the state shall not arbitrarily withhold funding.

I.e., it's not, "Pay Me", it's "Don't Not Pay Me."

It's a bad law, just from a Constitutional perspective, nevermind it's purposes or side-effects, or its blatent anti-liberty provisions (why *can't* a person sell items for "valuable consideration"? What's up with that?). It's too specific, e.g., specifying stem cells can't be taken after "14 days" and such. What if science determines a huge value in cells that are 14 days 10 hours and 25 minutes old? That sort of thing.

They need a short, quick, Constitutional amendment, then put all this nit-picky specific stuff into legislation based on it.

It seems clear to me that a whole lot of somebodies have lost sight of the *purpose* behind having a Constitution. It's not supposed to specify the legal methods of wiping your a**. Just whether or not you're allowed in the Men's room.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.