It seems that Missouri’s “Constitutional Amendment 2 – Stem Cell Initiative” is taking on national significance. As an Ole Seagull tries to analyze it all, he is constantly reminded of the old adage, “You don’t use the same gun to hunt elephants and mice.”
The front page of a major website supporting Amendment 2, www.missouricures.com, proclaims that the passage of Amendment 2 “ensures that Missouri patients will have equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans.” Yet, as one goes though the site, they will not find one instance where it is even alleged that Missouri patients do not currently, today and now, have “equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans,” not one!
Even more ludicrous however, is the site’s answer to the question, “Are the research and cures protected by the Initiative already allowed under federal and state law?” Incredulously, the answer to the question is “Yes. Current federal and state law allows stem cell research involving all types of stem cells – including adult stem cells and early, or embryonic, stem cells.”
If Missouri’s Stem Cell Initiative passes on Nov. 7, exactly what type of stem cell research will be permitted on Nov. 8 that was not permitted on Nov. 6 or, asked another way, what stem cell research is prohibited on Nov. 6 that will be permitted on Nov. 8? May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer to both of those questions is zero, nada, none.
Why do supporters of the initiative say that Missourians need a constitutional amendment to give them equal access to that which they already have? According to the same www.missouricures.com website it is because some attempts have been made to try to regulate stem cell research in Missouri’s legislature. Information on the site says, “Making the Initiative a state constitutional amendment is the only effective way to ensure that the legislature cannot override the will of the people by passing some unfair ban on stem cell research and cures in the future.”
Now let’s get this straight, Missouri needs an amendment to its constitution to give the people of Missouri rights that they already have and to protect them from the very people that they, “the people” have elected to represent them. And what is it that they are being protected against; some possible “unfair” ban that those same elected representatives may or may not enact in the future. Its nuts!
When one thinks about whom will best represent “their will” and where they have the best chance of being represented, is it through their elected representative, be it at the city, county, state or national levels or through lawyers, judges and courts. Once passed, what the amendment means, its scope, and what is actually permitted and prohibited will be interpreted by lawyers, judges, and the courts at both the state and federal level and can have unintended consequences.
As but one example, when passed, soon after the Civil War, the intent of Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to give former slaves United States citizenship and all the rights associated therewith. In the years since its passage however, lawyers, judges, and courts have judicially expanded, interpreted and used that amendment to permit abortion, ban prayer from schools, try to take “Christ” out of “Christmas,” promulgate the alleged doctrine of separation of church and state and otherwise involve the federal government in state and local issues far beyond that intended by the original framers of the Constitution.
In an Ole Seagulls mind there is no doubt that, in terms of a “legal gun,” a constitutional amendment is an elephant gun. The question that he, and other Missouri voters, have to answer as they vote on Nov. 7 is whether or not they “want to hunt” stem cell research in Missouri with that gun.
“But Seagull isn’t it about the potential cures that can happen through stem cell research? About saving lives, eliminating pain, the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, when life starts, harvesting eggs from women, human cloning, and all the other things that the different ads, both for or against the initiative tout?”
To an Ole Seagull, the central issues on Nov. 7 are not those issues. To him the primary issue is how those very important, and complex, issues are best addressed. Is it through the “one amendment covers it all approach,” as interpreted by the courts, or the through his elected representatives and the legislative process? Also of significance, is the answer to the question, “If I vote ‘No’ on amendment 2 on Nov. 7 won’t Missouri’s patients still have the same equal access to any federally approved stem cell cures that are available to other Americans that they have always had?”
