2008 Woodie Awards
Amendment 2 legal battles don't reflect reality of lack of cloning
Jarrett, Phil
Issue date: 2/28/08 Section: Opinions
My distrust of clones began shortly after seeing "Jurassic Park." Chomped-off limbs, victims of cloned T. rexes and raptors taught me the dangers of this line of science. And that was before I saw "Star Wars."
In November 2006, Missourians passed Amendment 2, an amendment called the "ban on human cloning." It seemed the Show-Me State finally was taking an aggressive stance against potential armies of evil clones. The sad reality: The amendment was about preventing the blanket outlawing of stem-cell research. Pro-life groups across the state began an aggressive campaign to enlighten the public to this fact, including a commercial starring Jim Caviezel (you know, Jesus in "Passion of the Christ") saying in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), "Father forgive them. They know not what they do."
The real Jesus said that, but I doubt he was talking about stem cells.
I digress.
The amendment passed by a slim margin and really did not change any ongoing practice other than silencing a few nutty legislators who had tried in the past to criminalize stem-cell research. Nobody was birthing human carbon copies, which was how the amendment defined cloning. However, a line of stem-cell research that was allowed to continue was called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, the same technique used to create Dolly, the evil clone of a sheep. The horror!
Last week, Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia S. Joyce ruled that the summary of the amendment on the ballot written by the Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was "insufficient and unfair." I agree. The amendment was less about banning the duplication of people and more about protecting a field of scientific research. However, the bearer of the lawsuit against Carnahan, a pro-life group called Cures Against Cloning, is not trying to expose the true intentions of the amendment. Rather, the group is trying to spin a patch to the amendment that will use the same sci-fi fear-inducing rhetoric.
The proposed changes to appear on next November's ballot: "'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means create or attempt to create a human embryo at any stage, which shall include the one-cell stage onward, by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."
In November 2006, Missourians passed Amendment 2, an amendment called the "ban on human cloning." It seemed the Show-Me State finally was taking an aggressive stance against potential armies of evil clones. The sad reality: The amendment was about preventing the blanket outlawing of stem-cell research. Pro-life groups across the state began an aggressive campaign to enlighten the public to this fact, including a commercial starring Jim Caviezel (you know, Jesus in "Passion of the Christ") saying in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), "Father forgive them. They know not what they do."
The real Jesus said that, but I doubt he was talking about stem cells.
I digress.
The amendment passed by a slim margin and really did not change any ongoing practice other than silencing a few nutty legislators who had tried in the past to criminalize stem-cell research. Nobody was birthing human carbon copies, which was how the amendment defined cloning. However, a line of stem-cell research that was allowed to continue was called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, the same technique used to create Dolly, the evil clone of a sheep. The horror!
Last week, Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia S. Joyce ruled that the summary of the amendment on the ballot written by the Secretary of State Robin Carnahan was "insufficient and unfair." I agree. The amendment was less about banning the duplication of people and more about protecting a field of scientific research. However, the bearer of the lawsuit against Carnahan, a pro-life group called Cures Against Cloning, is not trying to expose the true intentions of the amendment. Rather, the group is trying to spin a patch to the amendment that will use the same sci-fi fear-inducing rhetoric.
The proposed changes to appear on next November's ballot: "'Clone or attempt to clone a human being' means create or attempt to create a human embryo at any stage, which shall include the one-cell stage onward, by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Jeremy Loscheider
posted 2/28/08 @ 8:57 AM CST
While I do not support embryonic stem cell research on moral issues, I do agree with Phil that the way the anti-cloning movement in Missouri has been working is utterly distasteful. (Continued…)
Post a Comment