 |
          
  |
|
|
 The Cures Without Cloning coalition will continue its campaign to amend the Missouri constitution to fully ban human cloning but must wait until 2010. Unfortunately, because of delays in the court process there will not be enough time for the coalition to gather enough signatures to put a true cloning ban on the Missouri ballot in 2008. Anti-cloning forces are encouraged by aspects of a recent appellate court ruling but plan to appeal the final verdict to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Regardless, Cures Without Cloning and other pro-life organizations in Missouri will prepare for the efforts to get the cloning ban on the 2010 Missouri ballot. Click here for read CWC’s press release on the recent court ruling and on plans for the future.
Mary E. Traeger explains
in the Metro Voice. Excerpt:
It is evident the cloners have won the day.
They have again used the court system to stop efforts to ban human cloning in
Missouri. Even though the judges would uphold Judge Joyce's new ballot language
there is not enough time now to gather the needed 150,000 petition signatures
by the 5 p.m., May 4, 2008, deadline. Again the will of the people of Missouri,
the majority of whom do not support human embryonic cloning, is mocked by
ambitious politicians and judicial charades.
At the same time this charade of justice
was playing out in Missouri, a renowned international scientist admitted to the
public that human embryonic stem cell research hasn't been successful. Of
course, this is not news to pro-life proponents, but it is quite an
acknowledgment for a well-accepted embryonic cloning researcher to admit. On
April 8, 2008, the chairman of the UK National Stem Cell Network, Lord Patel of
Dunkeld admitted in a "Scotsman" newspaper interview that this
controversial science may never deliver new treatments for diseases. He
explained, "In terms of embryonic stem cell therapy, there is currently no
such therapy that is available in a large number of patients. We have to be
cautious. It may not deliver therapy for anything. We may find that stem
therapy is quite a risky business." (LifeNews.Com, April 8, 2008) …
Bioethics conservative watchdog Wesley J.
Smith sums it up well in his statement, "By hyping the potential, the
politicized science sector misled people to win a political debate, and in the
process reduced science to just another special interest spinning and
obfuscating to get a greater share of gruel in the public trough."
It is regrettable that the State of
Missouri is also tied up to that public embryonic stem cell trough along with
the State of California which is facing a $16 billion dollar deficit.
The
fight against human cloning in Missouri will continue and you can find out more
about it at MOCuresWithoutCloning.com.
Unfortunately,
it appears that appeals by pro-cloning forces in Missouri may not allow
signature gatherers enough time to get the proposed
cloning ban on Missouri’s 2008 ballot.
It is still possible the feat could be accomplished with determined
grassroots effort, but the fight to fully and completely ban human cloning in
Missouri will continue regardless.
The
Columbia Missourian reports. Let’s
hope the Appeals Court upholds Judge Joyce’s
ruling allowing Missourians to see an
accurate summary of the proposed human cloning ban on their 2008 ballot.
Cures
Without Cloning is waiting until the court makes its decision before beginning its
signature gathering campaign to get the cloning ban amendment on the
ballot. If you live in Missouri click here to find out how you
can be a trained signature gatherer.
For
more information on human cloning click here or visit MO Cures Without Cloning.
There is exciting new hope that Missouri voters will be able read an accurate summary of the proposed constitutional amendment to fully ban human cloning in state when they step into the voting booth in November. Most Missourians would likely oppose the cloning of human life for the purpose of destroying it for research, but anti-cloning forces must get their message out despite well funded opposition, media bias, and unfriendly state officials (as in this case). Bioethics expert Wesley J. Smith summarizes the situation:
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.
Also, the AP (via the Columbia Missourian) has a lengthy article explaining the situation and its implications. Click here (PDF file) to read a press release from Missouri Cures Without Cloning.
For more background information about the Missouri case and about the science of human cloning check AdvanceUSA’s human cloning page.
Pro-human
cloning forces often resort to distorting the terms of the debate in order to
advance their cause. The cloning battle
in Missouri provides many examples.
Missourinet reports on the attempt
to correct the inaccurate ballot summary language
issued by the Missouri Secretary of State.
Unless fixed, the current summary language totally distorts what the
proposed amendment to completely (and truly) ban human cloning would actually
do.
For
more news and information on the cloning battle in Missouri (and to read
the text of the actual amendment) click here.
 Bruce R. Williams, a family physician in Blue Springs, Missouri, shares in a recent op-ed piece how the recent breakthrough with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) affects the current battle over human cloning in Missouri. He shows how this new research, which derives embryonic-like pluripotent stem cells from ordinary skin cells without creating or harming human eggs or embryos, makes the push for human cloning totally unnecessary.
Excerpts:
The new method, referred to as “direct reprogramming” allows researchers to use skin cells to reproduce stem cells believed to be identical to those that were previously taken from human embryos. No cloning. No destruction of human life. No ethical controversy.
How big is this breakthrough? The scientist who created Dolly the cloned sheep, Ian Wilmut, has already announced he is abandoning cloning research in favor of the new method. Wilmut believes this new method holds more promise for finding treatments, including treating strokes, heart attacks, Parkinson’s and other diseases.
…
The Missouri Cures Without Cloning initiative seeks to prohibit the unnecessary research. It would ensure that human cloning is prohibited within the state of Missouri.
While this new scientific breakthrough holds the promise to new treatments for diseases including diabetes and Parkinson’s, why do some continue their battle to support human cloning?
The time has come to say no to human cloning in Missouri.
For more information on human cloning check out the AdvanceUSA human cloning/Missouri page or check the Missouri Cures Without Cloning website.
 No, AdvanceUSA has not become a Star Wars fan site, but we are concerned about the multi-part battle over human cloning going on in Missouri and its implications for the sanctity of human life. Here are two important items relating to this issue.
Bruce R. Williams, a Missouri physician, has written an important op-ed piece entitled “Human Cloning's Curtain Call” in which he explains how recent scientific breakthroughs make the quest for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research totally unnecessary. Now that scientists can obtain induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from regular skin cells that have been coaxed into an embryonic-like state, the major argument for cloning human embryos for research is completely obliterated. It is also important for citizens to hear from people they trust (like doctors and scientists) who understand the science of the issue but also oppose violating ethical standards by using and destroying human life like a commodity. To hear about other scientists, doctors, and ethicists who oppose human cloning check out the Missouri Cures Without Cloning website.
Noted writer, lawyer, and bioethicist Wesley J. Smith responds to a recent column by cloning promoter Donn Rubin. Smith often exposes the distortions and outright deceptions frequently employed by the pro-cloning “Coalition for Life Saving Cures” and his latest piece, “The Mendacity of Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures”, calls Rubin to task for downplaying the significance of the recent breakthrough in ethical stem cell research, iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells).
Check out AdvanceUSA’s human cloning page for more cloning information and news from Missouri.
KWMU
reports. Excerpt:
"Somatic
cell nuclear transfer is the process for cloning, and if you somatic cell
nuclear transfer with a human, which has not viably been done, then that's human
cloning," said Winship. "And human cloning in any avenue for any purpose is
wrong," she adds.
Winship
and her group are trying to fill that loophole by putting another question on
the November 2008 ballot. And they're using this latest development to prove
that SCNT is no longer necessary.
The
Telegraph reports that for the first time scientists
have successfully cloned monkeys. The
ability to clone primate embryos indicates that the unethical cloning of human
embryos for research is a real possibility. Once again, scientists have
shown what is possible. It is now up to mankind as a whole to demand what
is ethical. Do we believe that human lives can be used for scientific
experimentation, or do we believe science should be subservient to ethics?
As
another UK
paper, the Independent, reports:
A technical breakthrough has enabled scientists to create
for the first time dozens of cloned embryos from adult monkeys, raising the
prospect of the same procedure being used to make cloned human embryos.
For more
information on human cloning click here.
 Some couples
unable to have children naturally are choosing to adopt unwanted IVF embryos
(snowflakes). The Columbia Missourian reports on the case of Chad
and Tanya Tatro and others who chose embryo adoption because of their religious
convictions. Their stories belie the oft repeated excuse by embryonic
stem cell proponents that “leftover embryo will only be discarded if we don’t
use them for research.” Note: The graphic to the left is an actual
photograph of the Tatro’s adopted embryos. Excerpt from story:
Embryo adoption is a growing phenomenon, especially among
Christians whose faith has put them in the middle of the debates over abortion
and stem-cell research. For people like the Tatros, this relatively new,
controversial form of adoption is as much a moral issue as it is a personal
decision. Moreover, many conservative Christians are re-focusing their energy
on the culture wars in a way that emphasizes adoption and foster care as part
of a solution. Embryo adoption is an option created by the explosion of in
vitro fertilization, which often results in embryos that are subsequently
destroyed or donated to stem-cell researchers. Stoddart, the executive director
of California-based Nightlight Christian Adoptions, established Snowflakes in
1997 to give leftover frozen embryos a chance at life. A year later, the first
stem cells were extracted from a human embryo, and Stoddart said the new
science and the ethical debate it has generated have helped his business. “If
it weren’t for that, trying to get the word out would be much harder,” he said.
“Embryo adoption is more relevant when juxtaposed to the embryonic stem-cell
debate.”
Embryo
adoption raises a number of legal questions which are discussed in another
article in the Columbia Missourian.
Check out
the Snowflakes website
to find out more about this exciting program. Click here for more
information on stem cell research.
As reported earlier some pro-cloning members of the media have taken to utilizing the euphemistic “early stem cells” instead of the scientifically accurate term “embryonic stem cells” in an effort to mislead the public into thinking this type of research does not destroy human embryos. Wesley J. Smith has some insightful commentary in which he observes that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does not recognize the term “early stem cell” and challenges the Kansas City Star (and reporter Kit Wagar in particular) to use scientifically accurate terms.
He also notes that the NIH clearly defines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) as a type of cloning, unlike what many in Missouri’s pro-cloning movement would have people believe.
For more information on the latest efforts to truly and fully ban all forms of human cloning in Missouri check AdvanceUSA’s Missouri cloning page or visit Cures Without Cloning.
 Welsey J. Smith reports on this example of anti-life, liberal spin.
Some pro-cloning reporters and publications in Missouri (and elsewhere) have taken to referring to embryonic stem cells as “early stem cells” in an effort to deceive the public. Slowly but surely the general public is realizing that embryonic stem cell research destroys or endangers tiny human lives. Using the euphemism “early” instead of the established scientific term “embryonic” is a desperate attempt to hide that fact.
For more information on the cloning issue in Missouri click here or check the other blog posts in the Missouri category. For more information on stem cells and cloning click here.
After narrowly losing a fight against a so-called “cloning ban” on the state-wide ballot last year, anti-cloning forces in Missouri have begun the effort to close the glaring loopholes and truly prohibit all forms of human cloning. The proponents of the new constitutional amendment to completely ban human cloning have to gather 139,181 - 151,619 signatures to get the measure on the 2008 ballot.
Their efforts hit a snag yesterday when the Secretary of State of Missouri (Robin Carnahan) released the official ballot summary which reads like an opposition talking point. Understandably anti-cloning groups charge the language is unfair and deceptive. To read the text of the ballot summary click here or continue reading.
Excerpt from Columbia Tribune blog post:
Curt Mercadante, a spokesman for Cures Without Cloning, said the language “in no way accurately reflects what we’re attempting to do.”
“Quite honestly, it sounds like a talking point out of an opposition group’s playbook,” Mercadante said. “What the amendment is attempting to do is very simple: attempting to prohibit all human cloning in the state of Missouri.”
Despite exaggerated claims of the potential of embryonic stem cell research, one disabled Missourian is speaking out against unethical research and supporting the efforts of Cures Without Cloning to truly ban human cloning in Missouri.
Excerpt:
"No matter what potential good may come of it, you know, you can't create and destroy human life for research," said Chelsea Zimmerman from Cures Without Cloning. "It's just wrong."
A car accident nearly eight years ago left Zimmerman in a wheelchair, but this did not change her view of embryonic stem cell research.
"Obviously, I would love to walk again, I would love to see other people out of their suffering," Zimmerman said. "We aren't trying to limit research, and we are in favor of cures, and there are cures and treatments happening with adult stem cells and adult stem cell research."
For more information visit Cures Without Cloning or the AdvanceUSA Missouri/Human Cloning page.
UPDATES:
Text of deceptive ballot summary below:
A doctor
who specializes in spinal cord injuries has come out in support of Missouri’s “Cures
Without Cloning” ballot initiative to fully ban human cloning in the
state’s constitution. Excerpt:
Those
who allege human cloning is necessary in the pursuit of these cures and
treatments are providing false hope.
The
Cures Without Cloning initiative would only prohibit research involving human
cloning - nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of promising research
methods, including many forms of stem-cell research, that do not involve human
cloning.
For more
information on this important pro-life cause in Missouri check the Cures Without Cloning website
or the AdvanceUSA human cloning page.
Last
November, a dangerous and deceptive amendment to the Missouri constitution was narrowly approved
by voters (51% - 49%). The amendment claimed to ban cloning but in fact
created a constitutional right to clone human embryos as long as they were
killed for their stem cells before 14 days of development. So cloning of
the “therapeutic” variety is actually legal in Missouri at this time.
Yesterday
morning a new amendment was proposed by the group Cures Without Cloning.
The proposed amendment would close the glaring loopholes in last year’s
amendment by clarifying the definition of cloning so that it is scientifically
accurate and so that it protects all innocent human life. The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch reports
here. Cures Without Cloning must obtain approximately 150,000
signatures in order to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot, but Missouri pro-lifers are
convinced that with the truth on their side they will see human cloning truly
banned in their state.
Some Missouri bloggers
covering this story are Rodney Albert at Press
On and the folks at Missourinet.
UPDATE:
More Missouri
bloggers will be linked here as blog posts on this issue become available:
UPDATE
2: Noted
bioethicist Wesley J. Smith exposes
an incident of media distortion regarding the new Missouri amendment on his
blog.
We can expect similar distortion from many (but not all) major news media
sources concerning the Missouri
anti-cloning movement in the days ahead.
UPDATE 3: David Freddoso at NRO has a
particularly helpful summary in his piece entitled ‘Third
Clone War: Missouri measure would repeal “right to clone”.’
For more
information on human cloning (including helpful diagrams) and the conflicts in Missouri check the
AdvanceUSA Missouri Cloning page.
Also, check the Cures Without Cloning
website.
To listen
to a recording of yesterday’s press conference click
here. To read the text of the new amendment click here
or continue reading.
|
|
| | |