Print

---

I posted an article a few weeks ago about attitudes re SCR world-wide and 
whether people were for it or against it was related to how much they knew 
about it.

I am convinced if people actually knew what a blastocyst is they would favor 
ESCR.  I also posted  Don Reeds 24 ESC advances with animals and that 
article clarifies why this research is so important.  Scientists need to 
know how cells behave in order to treat and cure diseases and injuries.

It's all about cells and as Peggy points out, using cells for research 
should not constitute a religious blockade.

Ray

Rayilyn Brown
Board Member AZNPF
Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peggy Willocks" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Blastocyst Protection Act


> 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 

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