Missouri Roundtable for Life Fights
Cloning on Three Fronts

By Jim Day

Associated Press: “A Missouri trial judge said Tuesday that a state constitutional amendment endorsing stem cell research likely creates problems for a law set up to award life science research grants. 

At issue in the case before Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan is whether state grants for life sciences research may be spent on stem cell research. Critics of embryonic stem cell research have filed suit seeking to block $21 million from going toward the research grants over fears for how the money will be used.” This article describes the reactions to a lawsuit brought on behalf of taxpayers by the Missouri Roundtable for Life. The acknowledgement in secular courts and media that a problem exists is groundbreaking.

Ask former Missouri State Senator John Loudon “how the fight goes against cloning and for life” and he will tell you - pointblank - “it’s a multi-front battle but we have joined the fight with strength, with certainty, and with the truth on our side.” Loudon is one of the leaders of the Missouri Roundtable for Life, the pro-life group that is leading the fights for life.
The Missouri Roundtable for Life (MRFL) is a grassroots effort started in the summer of 2006 by long-time pro-life supporter, Fred N. Sauer, to assist in the fight against the passage of Amendment 2. The Roundtable founders found support from a wide range of Missouri pro-lifers - including members of the Missouri Baptist Convention, the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and other groups. In 2006, the Roundtable specifically focused on disseminating information to refute the misleading claims of Amendment 2 proponents. The Roundtable distributed 250,000 copies of its first research document entitled “Missouri Roundtable For Life Presents: A Word-By-Word Critique of the So-Called ‘Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.’” This document became an essential primer for opponents of Amendment 2 around the state. Today, the Roundtable continues as an educational force for life while adding a legal component to its effort. The Roundtable’s President, Ed Martin, an attorney who sued Governor Rod Blagojevich for his persecution of pro-life pharmacists and former chief of staff to Governor Matt Blunt, described the Roundtable as “a statewide public policy organization focused on telling Missourians the truth and fighting for life.”

Background

The truth is that the battle over cloning really began back in 2003. That is the year that the Legislature passed HB688 which created the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund. This piece of legislation was originally pushed by corporate research interests in the 2001 Session of the Legislature but was stymied when pro-life forces insisted on inserting language that prevented any public funds from being spent on abortion services or embryonic stem cell destruction. The legislation only passed in 2003 after the pro-life majority insisted on the insertion of life protective language. This compromise was simple and logical. The Legislature may begin investing public funds into life sciences research, but only if those funds were spent on research that is not morally offensive to huge segments of the taxpaying public.

All was well until Amendment 2, the so-called Missouri Stem Cell Amendment, passed in 2006 and amended the Missouri Constitution. This constitutional change was pushed by the same corporate research interests that pushed HB163 but this time they had a poll-tested and deceptive name: the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. Because constitutional amendments passed by voters prevail over “statutory” laws passed by legislators, Amendment 2 now trumps HB688, the research bill that had been so carefully crafted to protect life.

The Amendment 2 Problem: When the Constitution and Statutes Conflict

The Legislature enacted HB688 stipulating that “(p)ublic funds shall not be expended, paid, or granted to or on behalf of an existing or proposed research project that involves abortion services, human cloning, or prohibited human research.” The 2006 Amendment 2 is just the opposite stating: “no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.”

It is important to note that while our elected Legislators authored the statutory language, the Amendment 2 language was bought and paid for by a small handful of wealthy individuals spending over $31 million. It is a reasonable assumption that the financiers would write the law that was best for them first, taxpayers later. So what does this mean for taxpayer money? When a legal conflict exists, the question can only be settled by the courts or voters.

The 3-Front Battle for Life
MRFL has set out to make clear these troubling questions and to answer them when possible. It has done so by opening three fronts in the battle for life in Missouri.

Battle Front #1

MRFL was formed initially and remains committed to education. Its first employee, Executive Director Todd Jones, a former prosecutor, has overseen this focus: the first role of the Roundtable is in educating the public about the conflicts created by Amendment 2. Since the passage of Amendment 2, the Roundtable has published a second research document entitled “Missouri Roundtable For Life Wonders: So Why Did the Cloners Spend $30 million on Amendment 2, the So-Called ‘Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.’” MRFL has distributed in excess of 20,000 copies of this document and communicated directly with over 100,000 Missourians about the Amendment 2 problem.

The Roundtable has designed a statewide organization to assist in education. This includes regional coordinators (Bev Ehlen, Keith Miller, Nancy Holth, Jeremy Boucher, Andrea Plunkett, Diane Burnich and Valinda Free) and a network of volunteers in churches and local communities. Former State Senator John Loudon, a long-time pro-life activist and former statewide candidate, is one of the leaders of the Roundtable’s education efforts. He has been traveling the state over the last 16 months meeting with activists in the 40 biggest counties educating people about the scope of the problem.

Veteran grass roots organizers Dave Hageman and Wayne Yocum have assisted in building a statewide grassroots organization who continue to speak to civic and activist groups and enlisting more recruits to build the network. One great example is the aforementioned Bev Ehlen, a pro-family activist with vast experience in working for truth and defending life. The long-time political director of Concerned Women for America of Missouri, Bev uses her strong personal appeal and connection to reach thousands of Missourians.

The driving purpose for the Roundtable is to educate voters about the problems with Amendment 2 in order to create broad public consensus for addressing those problems – especially since it appears that Missouri tax dollars may be spent on abortion service, human cloning, and other unethical research. As Loudon sums it up, “If taxpayer dollars are involved, the taxpayers ought to have a voice in how they are spent.”

Battle Front #2

The AP article cited a discussion regarding a lawsuit brought by the Missouri Roundtable For Life in Cole County circuit court. The legal team is headed up by well-known litigation attorney Steve Clark and has a number of lawsuits on-going to try to make clear what Amendment 2 has done to Missouri.

The first lawsuit is one that MRFL uncovered and first wrote about in their second research document. On page 15 (available online at www.moroundtable.org) we learn about the Redmond lawsuit. The Redmonds have sued the state seeking an additional $275 million of taxpayer money to go into the controversial Life Sciences Research Trust Fund. There was absolutely no publicity on this issue until the Missouri Roundtable for Life began their public awareness efforts.

A second set of lawsuits is over Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s handling of the anti-cloning petition ballot language. Every time pro-lifers have filed petitions to roll back the offensive language of Amendment 2, Robin Carnahan has used her position to write the summary language that the voters would see in ways the proponents of the legislation find very misleading. The Missouri Roundtable for Life has filed a number of petitions in order to determine the boundaries that Carnahan and the courts can push.

The third lawsuit is the one discussed at the beginning of this article. MRFL uncovered an amazing tidbit in their research: a non-severability clause in the original life-sciences trust fund law.

When legislators write a law, they prefer that it remains the way they wrote it. Throughout the modern legislative era, lawmakers have been frustrated by courts striking down portions of their laws and leaving them effectively different from what they had intended. In order to prevent that, they often put a “non-severability clause”in their legislation. This means that if any portion of a law gets struck down or “severed” then the entire act is void. The act that created the Life Sciences Research Trust Fund grant program contains an iron clad severability clause. It certainly appears that if the lawmakers banned taxpayer money going to cloning and the Amendment 2 proponents mandated money for cloning, that the lawmakers’prohibition would lose to the Constitution. Under the severability clause, if the lawmakers’prohibition is void then the Trust Fund at the center of the controversy should also be void. The Missouri Roundtable for Life has asked the courts to declare whether lawmakers can prohibit public funds for cloning or, if not, to determine that the controversial statute is void.

Battle Front #3

Now that the public education process is well under way and the legal challenges are working through the process, it appears that there may be no other solution but correcting the fouled language in our Constitution. This means taking a petition drive to the voters. The Missouri Roundtable for Life proposed a solution that seems to have, as the political insiders say, “wheels”to move forward. The Roundtable has authored and filed a citizens’petition that reads as follows: “It shall be unlawful to expend, pay, or grant, any public funds for abortion services, human cloning, or prohibited human research, as such terms were defined by the 92nd Missouri general assembly in 2003, in Revised Statutes of Missouri Section 196.1127, L.2003, H.B.688.”
This initiative seems clear and simple: no tax dollars to abortion, cloning or other bad research. The folks at MRFL launched a statewide Taxpayer Protection Tour in December to ask Missourians what they think and to educate them about the problems. The Roundtable – including former Senator Loudon - was in Springfield on December 11th and St. Charles on December 16th. Enthusiastic crowds turned out despite the busy time of year and sometimes bad weather to engage in a give and take with Ed Martin, Loudon and MRFL founding board member Fred Sauer and left very energized and hopeful that something was going to get done.

The language has been carefully crafted to restore legislative control over taxpayer dollars. It takes the provisions of HB688 that gave control to the legislature and places them in the Constitution. This move restores control over every taxpayer dollar back to our elected Legislators. This is important because the public and private statements of the cloning advocates have been that they do not want taxpayer dollars for cloning. If they are sincere, then they should have no problem clarifying legislative control over the budget.

A constitutional amendment can be placed on the ballot either by a citizen’s petition drive or by the Legislature. Ideally the Republican Legislature would place this amendment on the ballot. Not only does this bypass Governor Nixon but the Legislature, not Secretary Carnahan, would write the critical ballot summary language. Should the Legislature fail to act, the citizens petition drive is the next step. MRFL has the team in place to move from education to action if that is warranted.

Going Forward

The Missouri Roundtable for Life has the team in place to take on this issue. Pro-lifers can know that a serious reform effort is in the works. They are continuing to educate the public about the problem. They are building a statewide team of activists to engage in the education process until it is time to switch gears to the petition effort. If the legal effort does not see the life sciences research trust fund struck down, then the MRFL team is ready to take their constitutional language to the Legislature. If that does not work they will take the petition drive to the public. The forces for cloning have met their match.

If you want to join the Missouri Roundtable for Life, please call (314) 854-1381 or go to their website at www.moroundtable.org.