The Stowers Initiative: It’s About More Than Cloning

“Top Ten Problems With The Stowers Initiative”

James S. Cole, General Counsel
Missouri Right to Life

With several months to go before Election Day, the promoters of the so-called “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative” have already spent over $10 million on their campaign, mostly for media advertising. According to press reports, 95% of that money, $9.5 million, has come directly or indirectly from the Stowers family of Kansas City. Although the promoters have blanketed the state with their ads, they are keeping quiet about many aspects of the Initiative that citizens ought to know about in order to make an informed decision on November 7. The problems involve much more than cloning.

Following the popular format of “top ten” lists, this writer has prepared his list of the Top Ten Problems With The Stowers Initiative:

1. Phony cloning “ban”: Because of the definition of “clone or attempt to clone a human being” in section 6(2) of the Initiative, it is not the process of cloning that is prohibited, but the process of implanting. It would not be illegal to create a clone; it would only be illegal to keep a clone alive by allowing him or her to be implanted in a mother’s womb.

2. Exemption from health and safety regulations: Section 2(7) and section 7 of the Initiative would invalidate any type of law or governmental action that tries to protect the health and safety of consumers and patients if such law or action would “discourage” or “create disincentives” for stem cell research and stem cell therapies. This would invalidate any state action that costs the cloners money, for any cost is a “disincentive.” Thus, sections 2(7) and 7 would invalidate any state health and safety regulations on stem cell therapies and sensible state regulations to prevent undue or misleading pressure on women to donate eggs for cloning.

3. Immunity from lawsuits by victims of injuries: Because of the language in sections 2(7) and 7 of the Initiative (see no. 2 above), stem cell researchers and businesses would be immune from lawsuits in state courts by victims for injuries due to negligence or misconduct in connection with stem cell therapies and cures. The state courts use state officials (judges and staff) to render judgments, and the judgments are enforced by other officials (sheriffs). Thus, as the courts have recognized for decades, lawsuits constitute state action. Under the Initiative, those who may be hurt by the negligence or malfeasance of stem cell professionals or products would not be able to sue in state courts to obtain recompense.

4. Nullification of certain abortion laws: Section 2(2) of the Initiative forbids the “production” of human blastocysts by fertilization solely for purpose of “stem cell research.” However, producing humans by fertilization for any other purpose is still allowed, and then later the unborn can be killed for their stem cells. (We are not speaking of clones here, but humans conceived by fertilization.) The Initiative would override the protection now found in Missouri section 1.205 for the lives of “extra” IVF embryos. It would also give abortionists a tool to use on women who may be doubtful about going through with abortions, in that “some good” can now result from their dead babies. The Initiative would nullify multiple subsections of section 188.036, Revised Statutes of Missouri, which now forbid various forms of taking unborn lives to obtain tissue or organs for transplanting.

5. 14-day limit on taking stem cells is insignificant: Section 2(3) of the Initiative says no stem cells may be taken “from a human blastocyst” more than 14 days after cell division begins. (Cell division begins within hours of inception of a human being.) The stage defined as “blastocyst” in the Initiative ends upon implantation. (Section 6(1).) Thus, once a blastocyst is implanted, it is no longer a “blastocyst,” and stem cells may be removed without any penalty. The 14-day provision is meaningless for humans created by fertilization; it only masks the ability for the cloners and abortionists to engage in the abuses described in no. 4 above.

6. Public funding: Section 5 prohibits state and local governments from withholding state funds from cloners if their institutions are eligible to receive public funds for purposes other than stem-cell related activities. Under the Initiative, if an institution is eligible for state funds—whatever the program, be it education, health, economic development, or whatever—the Legislature cannot prevent the institution from receiving state funds for cloning and taking stem cells from the unborn.

7. There are no applicable federal regulations if federal funds are not used: The Initiative says that research and therapy programs must meet the requirements of federal law. However, when federal funds are not being used, the President’s Council on Bioethics has stated that there are no federal regulations that are directly applicable. Furthermore, the promoters are not aiming for federal funding that would invoke federal rules; they are aiming at state funding. See no. 6 above.

8. Women’s health will be put at risk to obtain egg cells for cloning: Every known method of cloning, including SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer), requires use of an egg cell. Every woman who agrees to donate egg cells will be treated with hormones to stimulate ovulation of multiple eggs (“ovarian stimulation”). As the former medical chief of the FDA said in written testimony to Congress earlier this year, “Ovarian stimulation in general has been associated with serious life threatening pulmonary conditions in FDA trials including thromboembolic events, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary infarction, cerebral vascular accident (stroke) and arterial occlusion with loss of a limb and death.” Furthermore, the promoters have written the Initiative so that if any of these injuries are suffered, the promoters are immune from lawsuits by the victims. See no. 3 above.

9. The Initiative would warp the state constitution: Attorney Steve Rogers has pointed out that the right to engage in the stem cell business established by the Initiative would be the only right in the state constitution that is not subject to reasonable regulations. Even our most hallowed rights, such as free speech, are subject to reasonable regulation on the time, place and manner of expression. The Initiative forbids any regulations that would “discourage” or “create disincentives” for stem cell research and stem cell therapies, preventing the Legislature from enacting reasonable regulations, even those that may prove necessary to meet problems that are now unforeseen.

10. The cloners may have another agenda: Responsible scientists acknowledge that cures from embryonic stem cells are decades away. Knowledgeable observers have concluded that the promoters of cloning are not seeking to make or obtain embryonic stem cells so much as to create and own human embryos of several months’ gestation in order to harvest organs from them. As Robert P. George, Ph.D., a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, has written, “[B]ased on the literature I have read and the evasive answers given by spokesmen for the biotechnology industry at meetings of the President's Council on Bioethics, I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to create an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation.”

Conclusion

The Initiative will prevent the Legislature from protecting human life in many ways. It will override certain protections against abortion that now exist in the law. It would guarantee tax dollars for the cloners. The Initiative is anti-life and should be soundly rejected by the people.