Amendment 2 - A Raid on the Public Treasury

The media has failed miserably in its coverage of the "Phony Cloning Ban", according to this letter from a local resident:

To the editor:

Forget about all of the religious, moral and political arguments for and against Amendment 2 on the November ballot. Where is the media on this one? Those watch dogs of the powerful and the "special interest groups," the protectors of we, the underdogs.

Could it have escaped their notice that a bunch of politicians and special interests who stand to profit from publicly-funded stem cell research, promising nothing but grandiose speculation, are being allowed to define the status of fertilized eggs from invitro fertilization (IVF) and human cloning to suit their own interests and needs?

And, because it seems to further suit their agenda, they conveniently omit a procedure from their cloning definition, somatic cell nuclear transfer, where controversial, is generally recognized by the scientific community as a cloning procedure.

Then to define as useless, therefore suitable as "raw material" for their research, surplus human fertilized eggs from "IVF."

Finally, to propose an amendment to the Missouri Constitution to enshrine and protect their funding, their definitions and their procedures; when did that last happen, perhaps Dred Scott?

It should be clear to everyone that Amendment 2 is not a ban on human cloning, as it is being presented nor is it a quest for miracle cures. But rather, it is little more than a raid on the public treasury by special interests and a pre-emptive effort against any legal challenges to their funding or the methods they use to secure and use their "raw materials."

This whole matter of seeking to protect commercial processes and research techniques by constitutional amendment, and government-funding of private research, too speculative to attract funding from the private sector, is a dangerous precedent that should be seriously questioned by the media.

I've seen and heard all manner of arguments and speculations from advocates, opponents, various luminaries, and endless "opinions" on "Op/Ed" pages, but what I haven't seen is an "objective analysis" by a credible reporter of the specifics of this constitutional amendment.

One would think that, in order to have an informed electorate, a subject as important as this would receive something more than "opinion" from the media and questionable advertisements and testimonials from advocates and opponents.

And a kiosk at the Science Center trying to explain to the general public incredibly technical matters that neither they nor the biology community fully understand, contributes nothing but confusion to the discussion.

Tom Rieser
Concord

Emphasis above added....

Source