Thanks for posting this, Ray.
I profess to be a Christian and even taught adult Sunday School last week.
And I am not in favor of abortion except when a threat to the health of a
woman. But for the life of me (no pun intended), I cannot see how anybody
could be so wrapped up in such a ridiculous Constitutional Amendment as is
proposed in the Blastocyst Protection Act!
Defining a blastocyst as a human being will destroy years of research - to
include in vitro fertilization. That's right - no more artificial
insemination. Also about 100 million people who suffer from chronic
illnesses will lose their hope in the potential of stem cell research.
Do you know what a blastocyst is? Read this information taken from an in
vitro fertilization lab site: "Definition of a blastocyst - an embryo
that has developed for five to seven days after fertilization and has
developed 2 distinct cell types and a central cavity filled with fluid
(blastocoel cavity). The cells in a blastocyst have just started to
differentiate. The surface cells that surround the cavity (just under the
outer shell) are called the trophectoderm and will later develop into the
placenta. The more centrally located group of cells are called the inner
cell mass and will become the fetus".
(see this link for photos: http://www.advancedfertility.com/4cell.htm )
Now read this taken from the same site: "The blastocyst culture and day 5
embryo transfer procedure for in vitro fertilization facilitates selection
of the best quality embryos for transfer to the uterus of the mother. The
concept of embryo quality is a very important one for couples experiencing
infertility. With blastocyst embryo transfer, we can transfer fewer embryos
- reducing risks for multiple pregnancy - while keeping overall pregnancy
rates high"
If we define a blastocyst (as a human being, it will be murder if a doctor
"culls" the bad blastocysts. Note that the blastocyst is about the size of
a pin-head, and the cells contained in it are not yet differentiated; i.e.
they have not yet been programmed to become skin cells, or liver cells, etc.
Yes, you do have the DNA or genetic code of both the sperm and egg
contributors, but there is no way this fertilized egg can live unless
implanted in the womb.
I could go on as to why this amendment will set science back many years, but
I would like to hear some of your thoughts.
Peggy
#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
