Missouri Amendment 2 Repeal

During the November elections of 2006, Missouri passed, by an extraordinarily slim margin, Constitutional Amendment 2, which allows the MO government to fund the destruction of human embryos to synthesize so-called "lifesaving cures" and therapies for terminal illnesses such as diabetes, certain blood disorders, and possibly even cancer.

While dissenters of Amendment 2 have no quarrel with the democratic process, I and many others do find issue with the fact that wealthy Amendment 2 supporters, such as the Danforths and Sowerses, have paid many millions to take this fundamentally important issue of human rights out of the arena of public opinion and into the Missouri Constitution, which already does not prohibit embryonic stem cell research.

Supporters of the amendment’s repeal also charge the deceitfully titled “Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures” with deliberate misinformation of voters and using claims based on unfounded or inconclusive research, and of deliberately manipulating experimental results to seem to reflect a favorable outcome. It is by now fairly well known that “human cloning” as defined in the misleading text of the Amendment is not, in fact, the actual scientific definition of cloning.

Therefore, Amendment 2 does not forbid somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the actual definition of cloning. Amendment 2 also claims that “No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.” However, it has also been proven that to conduct this research, many thousands of human eggs will be needed.

More often than not, these eggs come from economically marginalized, desperate women. The process of removing eggs from a woman’s ovaries is an exceedingly painful procedure which puts women at risk for life-threatening diseases such as ovarian overstimulation syndrome and of several cancers, including breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancer.

And, last but not least, there is no valid and objective research in support of embryonic stem cell research. Despite this fact, Amendment 2 gives this abominable and unethical form of research budget priority in the state of Missouri, taking money away from health care programs for seniors and the terminally ill in order to fulfill the investment of wealthy sponsors. This initiative would also take money from ethical and promising adult stem cell research, which does not require the destruction of innocent human life.

Research into the uses of umbilical cord blood cells, follicular stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, and skin cells has yielded far more valuable and promising results which would be truly accessible to all Missourians without putting the terminally ill or economically disadvantaged at risk for infection or further oppression.

Finally, the repercussions of Amendment 2’s passage will certainly spell disaster for Missouri’s economic situation. Biotechnical corporations will be discouraged from extending to Missouri due to the initiative’s slim margin of passage and rampant opposing attitudes to unethical embryonic stem cell research. Despite Missouri’s nationwide renown in the field of medical research, that position may decline if biotechnical companies and agencies shy away from locating in Missouri.

Given Amendment 2’s slim margin of passage, 49.8% of Missourians would be pleased, now that they know the truth behind the MCLC’s misleading claims, to repeal the Amendment 2 decision.