I don't think this act was approved but  I'll check into it.

Rayilyn Brown
Director AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation
[log in to unmask]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Schaaf Angus / Meadow Creek Ranch" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:46 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Blastocyst Protection Act

> 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 

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