Proposal 2 is Deliberately
Deceptive
The language of Proposal 2 is
deliberately deceptive. For the last two years, Representative Andrew Meisner
and Senator Gretchen Whitmer have been working in the state legislature
to legalize human cloning and allow for unrestricted experimentation on
live human embryos. Their legislative efforts have to date failed. In January,
the Stem Cell Research Ballot Question Committee announced language for
the proposed constitutional amendment. Of the numerous stem cell proposals
that have appeared on the state ballots across the country, Proposal 2 is
the most radical ever proposed.
Proposal 2 is not about human embryonic stem cell research. Human embryonic
stem cell research is already legal in Michigan and has been conducted in
the state for years. It continues today at the University of Michigan Center
for Human Embryo Stem Cell Research. Proposal 2 authorizes unregulated and
unrestricted research not on stem cells, but on live human embryos. |
Proposal 2 Does Not
Ban Human Cloning
Proposal 2 does not secure a human
cloning ban in Michigan's Constitution. The proposal states it will do nothing
to change the current law banning cloning, but it actually does nothing
to protect Michigan's ban on cloning.
Leaders of Proposal 2 have already introduced bills in the Michigan legislature
that would legalize human cloning by deceptively changing the current definition
of human cloning to a misleading definition which would allow researchers
to create cloned human embryos. Proposal 2 would do nothing to protect Michigan’s
current ban on human cloning and would not prevent this proposal’s supporters
(like Honorary Chair, Sen. Whitmer) from continuing in their attempts to
legalize human cloning. |
Proposal 2 Permits Unrestricted
Science
In November, voters should not
be deceived by Proposal 2. It will allow for unregulated, unrestricted experimentation
on human embryos.
Proposal 2’s language allows for any research on live human embryos which
is permitted under federal law. Federal law currently has no restrictions
on human embryonic research. Therefore, research on live human embryos in
Michigan would have no restrictions.
Proposal 2’s language intentionally tries to fool the public into believing
there are restrictions on research where there are none. Confusing legalese
is used in section 2 (d) of the proposal to say all research must be conducted
in accordance with state and local laws unless those laws prevent, discourage,
and restrict the research or create disincentives to participate in the
research. So in other words, if a state or local law restricts the research,
scientists can ignore the law. Adding this language to the State Constitution
would allow unrestricted research on live human embryos and no state or
local law could change that.
The proposal’s language says that “no stem cells” may be taken from a human
embryo 14 days after cell division. If the proposal’s organizers didn’t
want human embryos killed or researched on after 14 days, the language could
have clearly said so. Instead this language would allow for research on
and the killing of human embryos older than 14 days as long as researchers
don’t remove stem cells. By the time a human embryo is 14 days old, the
primitive neural streak (which is the beginning of a spinal cord and brain)
has begun to develop. There are numerous experiments researchers could perform
on human embryos after 14 days and if Proposal 2 passes, researchers will
be allowed to perform such research as long as they don’t remove stem cells.
Unrestricted research has led some scientists down a very dangerous path.
Researchers in Great Britain recently used a cloning technique to create human-cow
hybrid embryos by inserting the nuclei of a human cells into cow eggs
and encouraging them to grow into embryos. These embryos were part human
and part cow.
AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE |
