When voters go to the polls on Nov. 7 they will have an opportunity to vote on a proposal to amend Missouri’s Constitution to “allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures.” The Official Ballot Title of the Initiative is “Constitutional Amendment 2 – Stem Cell Initiative.” Although, as is the case with most issues, there are pros and cons, it seems that both supporters and opponents alike have forgotten the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
To avoid being fooled by supporters, opponents, or Old Seagulls, an examination of the information on the web sites of both those supporting and opposing the amendment could be beneficial in keeping voters from becoming “cloned drones” of one side or the other. Besides, isn’t it a voter’s responsibility to know what it is that they are voting on? A major website for supporters of the issue is www.missouricures.com and a major website for the opposition is www.nocloning.org.
From the name of the web site, “nocloning.org,” to the very first item on the sites list of “10 Things You Should Know Before you vote in November,” it is clear that the opponents of Amendment 2 are trying to use the publics overwhelming opposition to “human cloning” to try to defeat the Stem Cell Initiative. The very first thing that opponents want potential voters to know is that “The ballot amendment seeks to protect human cloning.”
Some might call that either misleading or deceptive. Doesn’t the Official Ballot Title for Amendment 2 state that one of its purposes is “to ban human cloning or attempted cloning?” Would not an examination of Amendment 2 itself show specific language stating, “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being?”
The Official Ballot Title for Amendment 2, the summary that the voters will see on the ballot as they vote, states that one of its purposes is to “ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law.” Yet, in spite of that statement, if one goes through the entire “Missouricures.com” web site will they find even one example cited where it is alleged that Missourians don’t “have access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to patients in other states?”
It’s even worse than that because the information on the website very plainly states that “The research and cures protected by the Initiative are already allowed under federal and state law.” In view of the above might not a reasonable person have a basis for believing that the official ballot language is either misleading or deceitful?
As one works through the arguments both sides present, a couple of questions become glaringly apparent. The first would be, if it passes, will the stem cell research Amendment 2 covers bring Missouri any closer to cloning a human being, as most people interpret the term, than the average population of Rockaway Beach is to the average population of New York City? And secondly, if it does not pass, exactly what “access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to patients in other states,” will Missourians lose?
Does language prohibiting any state or local law, regulation, rule, “or other governmental action” to “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures etc.” have any place in Missouri’s State Constitution? Is it even good law? What do terms like “other governmental action” and “discourage” mean? If a business applied to the state for a grant for stem cell research and the grant was either turned down or granted in an amount of less than they asked could that be interpreted as a “government action” that “discouraged” stem cell research?
One thing for sure, once passed by the voters, it will not be them or their elected representatives who will determine how the amendment is interpreted. That will be done solely by the courts, the same courts that interpreted Missouri’s river boat gambling amendment to the point where the vast majority of Missouri’s “river boat casinos” have about as much resemblance to a river boat as Table Rock Lake does to the Mojave Desert.
