The language on the ballot and the language in the actual constitutional amendment are different. Here's what you will see on the ballot with the myths unveiled (in red):
-----------------------------------------------
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will: TRUTH: Amendment 2 doesn't set any new limitations on stem cell research that isn't already in federal law.
- ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law; TRUTH: All US citizens (including Missourians) ALREADY have the same access to medical breakthroughs, and there is currently no laws keeping Missouri scientists from conducting research that the federal law allows now.
- ban human cloning or attempted cloning; TRUTH: Amendment 2's fine print defines cloning as resulting in a fully grown human baby, but does not consider cloning for research to be cloning.
- require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research; TRUTH: According to the full text of Amendment 2, this "oversight" would consist of the human-clone researchers policing themselves.
- 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? TRUTH: because "lawful stem cell research" described in amendment 2 requires human cloning, this means your tax dollars will be used to fund this research, and no state, county or local government will have the power to say no.
The proposed constitutional amendment would have an estimated annual fiscal impact on state and local governments of $0-$68,916.
-----------------------------------------------
1 comment:
Interesting that at least $28M is being spent in Missouri and Kansas in order to guarantee public (ie, taxpayer) funding of embryonic stem cell research. Nothing prohibits it now, and that money would certainly have funded several research projects. But they certainly want a constitutionally-protected pipeline, don't they?
Post a Comment