Blastocysts lobbying politicians ?

I always suspected Americans were weird :)

Quoting Schaaf Angus / Meadow Creek Ranch <[log in to unmask]>:

> Unbelievable.
> This country was founded on and for religious freedoms.
> Legislating morality is stupid and evidenced every day we see that
> politicians are stupid too. Personal choices need to be just that and keep
> the government out of our private lives and decisions.
> So if you dont believe in having an abortion and want to bring whatever into
> existence then do so but dont impose your beliefs on me or anyone else that
> believes differently.  Rob
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rayilynlee" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:00 PM
> Subject: Blastocyst Protection Act
> 
> 
> > #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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
> 




----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

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