An Analysis of the Petition of Deception
Commentary by Jim Day
St. Louis MetroVoice
Powerful forces in the so-called scientific
community, who have unlimited funds and political and civic backing, have
been challenged by the ethical and moral communities who espouse the dignity
of life at its earliest stages.
The scientific community is represented by the innocuously named
“Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures,” (referred to as the “Coalition”
going forward) - a 
name
which was surely chosen by a public relations firm to give cover to the Coalition’s
deceptive purposes. At stake are the ethical and moral underpinnings of the
basic concept of the right to life. This battle is over a proposed Missouri
constitutional amendment sponsored by the Coalition, which would permit unbridled
stem cell research of every kind.
In order to get their amendment on the ballot for a vote in 2006,
it will be necessary for the Coalition to convince more than 150,000 Missouri
citizens to sign an initiative petition. Under Missouri law, the initiative
petition must contain a title that fairly reflects and describes the contents
of the proposed amendment. To put it bluntly, the title of the initiative
petition is insufficient, unfair, misleading, illegal, and outright deceptive
in that it does not give fair notice of the subject of the proposed amendment
or its contents. Fortunately, a lawsuit has been filed by the Alliance Defense
Fund to stop the ballot process on that basis.
Is this lawsuit nothing more than hullabaloo o ver an insignificant
detail? Hardly! Anyone reading the title to the initiative petition, (See
Initiative Ballot Title Language below)
without reading and understanding the long and scientifically complex amendment
(which is no easy task), would more than likely ignore the title altogether,
or think that it’s a fair and honest representation of the amendment’s provisions.
The Coalition is relying on the usual circumstance that the title of the petition
is all Missouri citizens will ever read, or understand. But the title language,
when analyzed and compared to the amendment language and true intent of the
amendment, is indeed deceptive, as alleged in the lawsuit.
The first point of the title is not only deceptive but downright
dishonest. It states that the amendment would: “ensure Missouri patients have
access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct
any research, permitted under Federal law.”
What’s wrong with this seemingly innocent and favorable language?
What’s wrong is that the language implies that Missouri patients and researchers
do not already have these rights even though they do. Their goal is to create
a false threat. The Coalition needs cover for their amendment and is using
scare tactics in an attempt to convince unwary Missouri citizens to sign the
initiative petition. Missouri citizens NOW have and will always have access
to therapies and cures permitted under Federal law resulting from stem cell
research. Further, there is currently NO Federal law that in any way prohibits
or hinders stem cell research of any kind and the Coalition knows it.
On its own web site, under the title “Frequently Asked Questions
and Answers,” the Coalition states, “Federal law permits stem cell research
involving all types of stem cells-including adult type stem cells and embryonic,
or early, stem cells (ES cells) from fertility clinic embryos and Somatic
Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCAT)…” So much for honesty! Point one of the title
language is a red herring and a phony and empty promise.
The second point of the title language states that the amendment
would ban human cloning, or attempted cloning. Is this true? Well, not quite.
In order to give any credibility to the ban on cloning under their amendment,
it is necessary for the Coalition to make the case that “somatic cell nuclear
transfer,” (the stem cell research method promoted and preferred by the Coalition ) is not cloning.
To make its case the Coalition defines “cloning” narrowly as the implantation
of anything in the uterus other than the product of fertilization of an egg
of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating
a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a fetus, or the birth of
a human being. Based on its definition, somatic cell nuclear transfer would
not constitute “cloning.” Confused? Of course.
The truth is that, as explained in the lawsuit petition, the term
“cloning” is popularly and scientifically understood as meaning “asexual reproduction
of human beings.” Notwithstanding the
narrow definition of cloning used by the Coalition, established science holds
that the initial product of the cloning procedure known as 
“somatic
cell nuclear transfer” is a living human being at the embryonic stage of life;
i.e. a cloned human embryo. The plain fact is that the amendment does not
ban human cloning as represented in their title language.
The Coalition is hiding behind its strained and undocumented definition
of cloning, which removes from the definition somatic cell nuclear transfer,
to unfairly and deceptively induce Missouri citizens to sign the initiative
petition.
The preamble to the specific points in the title language states
that the proposed constitutional amendment is offered to “allow and set limitations
on stem cell research.” In fact the amendment sets absolutely NO limitations
on stem cell research. To repeat, Missouri law and Federal law impose NO such
restrictions. Instead of setting any limitations on stem cell research, their
amendment permits every kind of research now known to exist, including embryonic
stem cell research which results in the destruction of viable embryos - human
beings at the embryonic and fetal stage of life. Their title language is purposely
written to hide the real intent and purpose of the Coalition’s amendment.
Another troubling provision and deception in the title language
occurs in the last point which states that their amendment would “prohibit
state or local government from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell
research, therapies and cures.” While this language seems innocent enough,
and an attempt to prohibit ‘Big Brother’ from interfering with humane and
life saving research, it is instead a recipe for unbridled abuse by stem cell
researchers and institutions where stem cell research is conducted. Their
amendment language is significantly more restrictive than their title language
would suggest (no big surprise there).
Their amendment language strictly prohibits any state or local government
body or official from eliminating or restricting public funds available to
any person lawfully conducting stem cell research, or any institution in which
such research is being conducted, if such person or institution is eligible
to receive public funds for any reason other than stem cell research. But,
says their amendment, these restrictions only apply if the purpose is to create
a disincentive for any person to conduct stem cell research. Wow, that sounds
fair, but what does it really mean?
On its face the restrictions apply only if the reason is to create
a disincentive to conduct stem cell research. However, it is a sure thing
that regardless of the actual purpose for limiting or restricting public funds
to an institution, their amendment will be used as a defensive hammer and
the allegation will be that the “real” reason for withholding or restricting
any public funds is to punish the institution for permitting stem cell research
to be conducted on its premises. Consequently, every regulatory agency in
Missouri which oversees and enforces regulations on health care facilities
where stem cell research is conducted will face a constitutional challenge
every time it attempts to legitimately restrict or withhold public funds because
of statute or regulatory violations of any kind unrelated to such research.
Even the most inexperienced lawyer will pick up this defensive tactic. This
amendment provision, when combined with another amendment provision requiring
that all Missouri laws be construed in favor of stem cell research and shall
not restrict any such research or create any disincentives regarding such
research, creates an almost insurmountable barrier to the enforcement of any
legitimate regulations on medical institutions where stem cell research is
being conducted. These deceptive amendment provisions are designed to do just
that.
These provisions refer to prohibited restrictions on “public funds”
to institutions where stem cell research is being conducted. The Coalition
vigorously denies that it has any intention to seek public funding for stem
cell research. If this is true, then why the provisions in their Amendment
referring to restrictions on public funds for those conducting stem cell research?
This reference discloses the hypocrisy practiced by the Coalition in designing
the amendment language. It knows full well that if voters adopt the amendment
it will be a short road to induce our public officials to propose public funding
for stem cell research. Rest assured that the taxpayers are not the ones who
will benefit from the untold amount of profits that will result from the improbable
event of a cure produced by embryonic stem cell research. Instead, the Missouri
taxpayers will pay dearly for profits which will flow to someone else’s pocket.
To further the deception and to hide the real intentions posed by
their amendment, the Coalition has produced five TV and two radio commercials.
These slick ads are designed to induce sympathy for their amendment. No one
should criticize the hope that people suffering from a disease hold for the
long shot that embryonic stem cell research will offer a cure. But it is nothing
short of cruel for the Coalition to suggest in its commercials the false prospect
that any such cure is probable based on current science, or that any possible
cure from embryonic stem cell research will occur in the foreseeable future.
In one commercial former U. S. Senator and Episcopal priest, Jack Danforth,
states that he has always “voted pro-life,” and that his support for the amendment
is to “save human life.” Really? “Saving human life” for Mr. Danforth
apparently doesn’t include saving human life at its earliest stage of life.
Does Mr. Danforth favor the sacrifice of one human
life to save another simply because one has been born and the other has not?
Are we to this point in America? The Coalition’s Amendment would have this
exact effect!
The bottom line is this: The proposed constitutional amendment opens
a door to stem cell research which has no limitations or constraints, and
the title language is purposely deceptive. Missouri citizens should not be
deceived by clever advertising that clouds the facts. Missouri citizens who
honor the sanctity of life must not sign the initiative petition.
Initiative Ballot Title Language
The following is the ballot title
language that was approved by Missouri Sectretary of State, Robin Carnahan,
which was written by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (MCLC). Should the Alliance Defense Fund not be ultimately
successful in challenging this language, then this language will appear on
both the petition that Missouri citizens will be asked to sign by MCLC and
on the November 2006 ballot as well.
OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED
BY SECRETARY OF STATE
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on
stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:
