 |
 |
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