 |
 |
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