Missouri: Gateway to Human Cloning?

Posted: Oct 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Missouri: Gateway to Human Cloning?

Human cloning is on the ballot in Missouri.

Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Insidious science -- “science” that puts poor women at risk and pays them for their eggs; that toys with human embryos and then destroys them at will; that ushers in a host of experiments a Nazi could only dream of -- could very well become the status quo in America’s heartland.

Many intelligent citizens in Missouri will vote for Amendment 2 on Election Day because of propaganda and lies perpetrated in a massive media campaign by the proponents of the dark science -- proponents who stand to cash-in big time if the Amendment passes.

On the surface, Amendment 2 appears to be an eminently reasonable approach to cloning and stem cell research. According to the amendment itself, it’s designed “to ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures” and to guarantee “that all such research is conducted safely and ethically.” And it flatly states that “no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.”

But voters in the “Show Me” state must take a closer look. A good place to start is with Missourians Against Human Cloning (MAHC), an alliance of many Missouri-based scientists, doctors, medical professionals and researchers. Their conclusion: Amendment 2 will actually give constitutional protection to the act of cloning human embryos.

And you felt uncomfortable with the mad science of Dolly the Sheep.

Consider the part of Amendment 2 that says “no person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.” In Section 6.2 of the initiative, we read:

“Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

In short, the initiative would ban only the placement of a cloned embryo in a uterus, not cloning per se. This splicing of words was carefully crafted to trick voters into a false sense of security. The fact is, the language is specifically designed to allow, not ban, the cloning, experimentation on, and destruction of human embryos at will.

Another important fact that MAHC points out: Embryonic stem cell research has yet to provide any medical treatments or potential cures. You would think, from all the hype surrounding the issue, that stem cells from human embryos were already showing great promise to cure numerous diseases. But that’s not the case, which may explain why “none of the major biotech companies -- none of them -- are putting their money behind therapeutic cloning,” according to Leon Kass, former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

Under Amendment 2, however, Missouri taxpayers will be putting their money behind it. Why? As MAHC states, “The proponents of the amendment are after your tax dollars to fund questionable research because private money has been directed to more promising research avenues.” And what type of research is, in fact, more promising? Adult stem cells. As the doctors and scientists behind MAHC note, “Adult stem cells are successfully being used in clinical trials and the research and treatment of numerous disorders.”

Last year, The Heritage Foundation held a panel featuring leaders in the bio-tech world who went into great detail about the many advances in adult stem cell research. A leading expert, scientist and bio-technology patent attorney at the law firm of Williams Mullen, Dr. Kelly Hollowell, says, “The deception is so great and the media so biased that the average American has no clue that over 65 diseases and conditions are now being successfully treated with adult stem-cell therapies. Scientists have not even been able to control the tumor growth intimately associated with embryonic stem cell research, which is one of many reasons why there are no clinical applications or current use of the embryonic stem cells. Science does not support the effective application of embryonic stem cells in human therapies.”

In other words, folks, there is no evidence -- nada, zippo, nothing -- that embryonic stem cells offer hope. Even abortion advocates who believe the human embryo isn’t really human (rhetorical question: Then what is it? A dog maybe? A cat?) can look at the evidence and see, as Heritage Foundation Ed Feulner pointed out in one of his weekly columns, that we’re wasting our time discussing embryonic research.

Those supposed-advocates of women’s rights also must take note that Amendment 2 would lead to the exploitation of disadvantaged women who would be enticed -- for financial reasons, obviously -- to undergo risky medical procedures in order to provide their eggs for stem cell research. Yet, where is the feminist outrage on Amendment 2?

And let’s not forget the most salient aspect of this issue: It’s impossible to conduct human embryonic stem cell research without destroying human life. To do so in a quixotic pursuit for cures that research has shown to be non-existent is perverse in the extreme.

Through dark deception, the wonderful state that once served as the gateway to a new world may very well become America’s gateway to insidious science.