Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
12.08.2008 11:11 pm

UPDATED: Stem-cell fight rekindled in Missouri

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

Missouri Roundtable For Life, a group whose leaders include the St. Louis region’s most famous conservative activist — Ed Martin – is launching a series of events this week to promote an initiative petition proposal that it seeks to get on the November 2010 ballot.

The proposal was filed Monday with the Secretary of State’s office, the group says.

According to its release:

The initiative, entitled the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, would forbid the use of tax dollars for abortion services, human cloning, or other controversial research.

The group says on its Web site, that its current campaign is “to limit or repeal the effects of Amendment 2,” narrowly passed statewide in 2006, which protects in Missouri all forms of stem-cell research allowed under federal law. (Editor’s note: It’s unclear if the Web site is referring to the 2010 campaign, or a now defunct 2008 effort, which was scuttled.)

The Roundtable group says its initiative proposal “contains multiple components, presenting the strongest possible front against this deceitful law, which mandates that taxpayer dollars fund human cloning and stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research.”

“With this amendment, we are simply trying to clarify what Missourians already believe to be true: that tax dollars should never be spent for abortion, human cloning or other controversial research” said Fred N. Sauer, identified in the release as the Roundtable’s president. “Missourians don’t want their hard-earned tax dollars being diverted to such uses.”

(This morning, a Roundtable spokesman clarified and corrected some identifications in the release. Fred N. Sauer is actually the Roundtable’s chairman of the board of directors. Martin is, indeed, president. Fred G. Sauer (a different person) is the group’s treasurer.)

The group says it’s proposal “uses the same language from the 2003 Life Sciences Research Trust Fund law that was passed almost unanimously by both chambers of the Missouri legislature and signed by the governor. Drafted carefully under the influence of the late Richard Byrd, state representative and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, the 2003 law was clear that tax dollars must not be used for abortion services, cloning or other human experimentation. In the years since 2003, some changes in Missouri law and public policy have made it so these protections may no longer apply.”

The Roundtable also has filed a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court “to clarify if public funds may be spent on controversial research and whether an entitlement to tax dollars has been created by the passage of Amendment 2 in 2006.”

The Roundtable says its “Pro-Life Taxpayer Protection Tour” will begin Thursday in Springfield, Mo.

“Each Tour stop will include a press conference, meetings with legislators and local leaders, and a pro-life townhall meeting to discuss how tax dollars should NOT be allowed to flow to abortion, cloning and other objectionable research. The townhall meetings are open to the public….”

Besides Sauer and Martin, the group says that speakers will include outgoing state Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, who has been active in the movement against Amendment 2.

Adds the release:

Tour Stops include:

- Springfield on December 11th

- St. Charles County on December 16th

- St. Joseph in early January

- Cape Girardeau TBD

- Columbia TBD

12 comments

Comments are closed.

Fantastic! And who says our state is backwards??

— SG
1:45 am December 9th, 2008

Kudos to Ed Martin and the Missouri Roundtable for Life! Such a proposal shows a lot of common sense on their part. Indeed, Missourians should not be forced to pay for practices so controversial as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Once tricked by Amendment 2’s misleading language and false hopes, Missourians will now, I hope, rally to support this straightforward, common sense proposal.

— Louis H.
9:08 am December 9th, 2008

Ed is a busy boy, and back to old GOP tricks–stack the ballot with a ton of conservative issues to ensure Republicans come out to vote for Republican candidates that just so happen to also be on the ballot at the same time. It is interesting that some of the tour stops are also locations that Democrats did better than ever in the most recent elections.

— BigDdemocrat
9:50 am December 9th, 2008

Here we go again. Let’s continue to hamper an Industry that has good paying jobs an unlimited potential for growth. We are on way to #50(fill in the blank).

— Rick James
9:58 am December 9th, 2008

BigDemocrat,

How does an issue become a “conservative issue” and therefore “ensure” that Republicans come out to vote?

If something on the ballot is adverse to the liberal/progressive philosophy, the Democrats won’t come out to vote against it?

I wish we would have known that sooner.

If a proposal to expand stem cell research was on the ballot; Do you think Republicans would stay home?

I don’t get your reasoning.

Rick James,

“an Industry that has good paying jobs an [sic] unlimited potential for growth”

Is that your moral/ethical standard? If it creates good paying jobs and has unlimited growth potential, we should do it!

That may explain why Rick James looks like a pimp. –Good paying jobs with unlimited growth potential. :>)

— Jim Byrne
10:51 am December 9th, 2008

This is ridiculous. There are big ticket biomedical companies that would be perfectly happy to set down in Missouri and support local economies, but they cannot trust the fickle local politics that could put them out of business on the whim of a biblically motivated political agenda.

Did no one notice the phrase “controversial research”? Exactly what constitutes that? I should hope it would be spelled out more clearly in the actual ballot, but I doubt it. Copernicus’ research was blasphemous in it’s time. One could call nuclear and defense research “controversial”. So what exactly is here to prevent these people from over reaching their bounds and trying to attack federally approved stem cell research.

Also, as a Chesterfield native, I take serious offense to the involvement of John Loudon. He is NOT representing the interests of his former constituency, he is attempting to build an outstate network. I am tired of Missouri republicans selling out to the religious right. Clearly, Chesterfield elected him for because of the traditional republican fiscal stance.

— KB
11:02 am December 9th, 2008

I agree with Jim. Dems will come out to vote against conservative ballot issues. And it’s hardly a masterful GOP strategy to merely get an issue of interest onto the ballot.

http://www.grafshepherd.com

— Graf Shepherd
11:06 am December 9th, 2008

I repeat: who is calling our state backwards? This is Missouri looking towards the future. We will be growing economically by keeping companies and jobs from coming here and growing morally by pushing the human cloners out of this state.

— SG
3:49 pm December 9th, 2008

The stem cell initiative the voters passed not only promised that MO might be home to high-paying, white collar scientific research jobs attracting and employing the kinds of professionals that gain worldwide recognition in their field, it also promised investment in the kinds of cutting edge research facilities that might bring other kinds of projects here. If we limit the scope of what scientists can do in this state, we limit the number of scientists that are willing to come here under such limitations. The ones who do come will either be the kind with limited imaginations and/or limited opportunities (i.e. not the best and brightest within the scientific community). I’m sure the good ones have already charted a wide path around Missouri to keep from becoming embroiled in this stupid controversy. Who would invest in science here when people are clearly deathly afraid of it? One minute the voters choose to clear the way for stem cell research, and the next minute guys like Ed Martin are litigating to overturn the will of the people and to throw the future of science here into perpetual uncertainty.

Don’t worry voters, big brother knows best. Let’s just build a few more casinos to keep the the crime, poverty and domestic violence flowing down by the rivers and a few more super wal marts to offer us terrific jobs and remove all doubt about Missour-uh’s status as a third rate state.

— Penelope
7:28 pm December 9th, 2008

Penelope,

If you don’t like Missouri, you are welcome to move. -I’ll join Ed Martin in helping you to pack.

“If we limit the scope of what scientists can do in this state, we limit the number of scientists that are willing to come here under such limitations.”

OH WELL!!! I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law, but Hitler had scientists without such limitations.

Do you want scientists to create human life for experimentation? –The could –if we didn’t provide them with limitations.

Perhaps we should get scientists to find out what makes attorneys tick. -Don’t worry. We won’t “limit the scope” of what the scientists can do.

Would you care to volunteer?

— Jim Byrne
9:30 am December 10th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All