#443Tuesday, May 20, 2008
   BLASTOCYST PROTECTION ACT?
   Colorado "Personhood

In Colorado this November, voters will decide on a Constitutional Amendment 
which defines life as beginning at fertilization*.
 If approved, this religiously-driven initiative threatens the entire field 
of embryonic stem cell research, at very least in Colorado, and if 
successful, in other states as well.  Why do I call it religiously-driven, 
when so many members of faith communities (including 72% of  American 
Catholics, according to one poll) support embryonic stem cell research?

First, the author of the initiative, Kristy Burton, a twenty-year old 
graduate of home school high school and an on-line religious law school, 
makes no secret that  religion is her motivation, publicly announcing that 
God is on her side in this issue.  "And, more than anything, we have God on 
our side (Ms. Burton) said."
--"Anti-abortion plan gets OK: Amendment would say fertilized egg qualifies 
as person", J. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News, November 13, 2007.

Secondly, according to the Catholic News Agency. (CNA, May 14, 2008) "about 
500 participating churches" helped in the effort to put the Personhood 
Amendment on the ballot.

Leaving aside the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and 
state, the proposed Constitutional Amendment sounds harmless at first.
 'The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of 
fertilization."
 Would it matter, if those words became a permanent part of the Colorado 
Constitution?
 The sponsor's website (http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com) gives a hint:

"To see that the Colorado state constitution is amended to include pre-born 
from the moment of fertilization as having their "personhood" clearly 
established, so that they may enjoy equal protection under the law."Look 
closely at the words, remembering they may become law:

".the moment of fertilization." when sperm meets egg: the blastocyst.".personhood 
clearly established." the blastocyst would be legally defined a full-fledged 
human being. ".that they may enjoy equal protection under the law."-the 
blastocyst is quite literally entitled to a lawyer: this essentially 
invisible dot of tissue could be represented  in a court of law- with rights 
equal to all other American citizens.

Why is this amendment being pushed?  First and foremost, it is an 
anti-abortion law, and is recognized as such by both sides, although Ms. 
Burton herself denies this, saying that would be up to the courts.  But if a 
blastocyst has "equal protection under the law", ending a pregnancy at any 
stage would be a matter for the courts. The Amendment would offer new legal 
grounds to challenge the constitutional right of a woman to choose, such 
rights being currently guaranteed under the Roe V. Wade decision of the 
United States Supreme Court. Consider the following, from a Supreme Court 
justice who voted on Roe v. Wade:

"If this suggestion of personhood (emphasis added) is established, the 
appellant's (Roe's) case, of course collapses, for the fetus's right to life 
would then be guaranteed specifically by the fourteenth Amendment." -U.S. 
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

The personhood issue is not new; it is usually called a "Human Life 
Amendment". On the national front, ever since the 1973 Supreme Court 
decision, Roe V. Wade,  there have been "more than 330 different 
proposals.called a Human Life Amendment.introduced in Congress."-http"//www.humanlifeamendment.info 
Till now, such efforts have been studied, recognized as dangerous nonsense, 
and thrown out. Now, however, given the conservative makeup of the U.S. 
Supreme Court, they may be taken more seriously.

How does this threaten our hoped-for research?  Embryonic stem cells are 
made from "left-over" blastocysts.  When a childless couple decides to try 
the In Vitro Fertility (IVF) procedure, the man provides sperm; the provides 
eggs. These are brought together in a Petri dish of salt water, usually 
resulting in about twenty blastocysts.  Only one or two blastocysts (the 
healthiest) will be implanted in the woman's womb.  What happens to the 
other eighteen?  They may be frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at the 
donors' continuing expense. Blastocysts can also be donated to other 
couples. (This is rarely successful; most couples want their own cells. The 
highly touted "Snowflake" program has only been used in about one hundred 
cases-not very many considering there are an estimated 440,000 frozen 
blastocysts currently in storage.)  The rest are thrown away-and once that 
decision is made, the blastocysts can then be donated to research, rather 
than simply being tossed.

Under a microscope, the stem cells are gathered.  Instead of being thrown 
away as medical trash, they have become treasure: cells which may offer 
precious hope to someone in your family, or mine.  People like my paralyzed 
son, Roman Reed. He was nineteen years old, playing college football, 
September 10th, 1994, when an accident occurred on the field. His neck was 
broken; he became paralyzed from the shoulders down. The doctors told us 
there was no hope. Our son would never walk again, never close his fingers, 
almost certainly never father a child-and he would die prematurely, because 
of the condition's stress on the body's organs.

California passed a law named after my son, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord 
Injury Research Act, which provided funding for the first use of the 
Presidentially-approved human embryonic stem cell lines.  And on March 1, 
2002, I held in my hand a laboratory rat which had been paralyzed, but which 
now walked again, thanks to stem cells developed from a human blastocyst, 
which would otherwise have been thrown away.  That is the research which is 
before the FDA right now, being considered for human trials.  Such research 
could become illegal, in Colorado and perhaps in other states as well,  if 
Colorado's initiative becomes law.

To those who think such a law would not affect the stem cell effort, I will 
close with the following chilling paragraph about a similar law, proposed in 
Pennsylvania:
 "In floor debates the primary sponsor of the legislation was asked if a 
person who intentionally knocked over a Petri dish of fertilized eggs 
(blastocysts) could be charged with multiple homicides. He responded, "If 
you knew, and it was your intent, then yes."
-"The Boundaries of Her Body: a Troubling History of Women's Rights in 
America", Debra Rowland, 2004

If passed, Colorado's Personhood Amendment will protect blastocysts-and 
endanger the health and hopes of  Colorado families.
  * The Colorado Personhood Amendment Initiative* turned in 131,000 petition 
signatures. As the requirement for ballot appearance is only 76,000 in that 
state, it is almost certain to make the ballot.  I am not sure what its name 
will be. When I emailed the Colorado Secretary of State's office, I received 
the following answer: I am not sure what the actual name will be during the 
campaign. I emailed the Colorado Secretary of State's office, and received 
the following answer:

The official title recognized by the Dept. of State is: "An amendment to the 
Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being 
from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of 
the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of 
justice, and due process of law." Personally, I think a better title might 
be: "The Ill-considered Blastocyst Protection Act".

P.S.  Where does Presidential candidate John McCain stand on such 
legislation? We know that five Republican candidates** stated they would 
sign a similar law, the (thankfully now defunct) Michigan personhood law. 
But Mr. McCain claims to support embryonic stem cell research, and did in 
fact vote twice for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.  According to 
Paul Kruger of the New York Times, (The Right's Man, By Paul Krugman, The 
New York Times, Monday 13 March 2006) McCain's campaign has stated he would 
endorse the following South Dakota law, which contains a similar personhood 
provision (underlined below):  South Dakota Women's Health and Human Life 
Protection Act (HB 1215) Signed into Law by South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds
March 6, 2006
AN ACT
       ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to 
reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an 
unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefore, and to provide for the 
implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.

by Don C. Reed

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn