MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Honorable Members of the Missouri General Assembly

FROM:           Pam Fichter, President
James S. Cole, General Counsel

RE:                 SB 389 and Other Legislation or Substitutes Dealing with “The MOHELA Deal”

DATE:            March 12, 2007

            Last week, some news media reported that a “new direction” will be introduced for the MOHELA deal.  The change made in the “new direction”, as reported, appears to consist in what projects are listed to receive MOHELA money, with the headlines claiming that no cloning or embryonic stem cell projects will be funded.

The full text of the proposed “new deal” has not been made public.  Missouri Right to Life will not change its opposition to the MOHELA deal without examining closely the text of any Senate Substitute for SB 389 or any other legislation.  However, assuming that the media reports are accurate, Missouri Right to Life does not find the “new direction” for the MOHELA deal acceptable. 

First, $15 million from the MOHELA sale will go to the Missouri Technology Corporation, an entity that is controlled or heavily influenced by officials of the Stowers Institute, the main sponsor of Amendment 2.  Missouri Right to Life joins in the comments that the Missouri Catholic Conference has made on that issue.  By itself, it renders SB 389 and any other legislation dealing with the MOHELA deal unacceptable.

Second, the “new direction” reportedly proposed for SB 389 or other legislation appears to reduce funding for “stem cell research” to zero, and public statements by legislators indicate the change is made specifically for that purpose.  Such a reduction by the Senate or the House, for that purpose, after the introduction of a bill that would have allowed such funding, appears to violate Amendment 2’s language on funding, as follows:

[N]o state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research .  .  .   but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.  (Art. III, Section 38(d), subsec. 5, Mo. Const.)

            Pursuant to this language, therefore, an institution such as the University of Missouri, which already conducts experiments using human embryonic stem cells, could sue the state for restoration of the MOHELA funding that is “eliminate[d],” “reduce[d],” and “den[ied]” by any action of the legislature, and the chances of the University’s winning such a lawsuit would be good.  Other institutions might be able to file and win such lawsuits as well.  The substitute, or any action by the legislature to eliminate, reduce or deny any funding, in other words, is worthless.  Missouri Right to Life does not see how SB 389 or other restrictive legislation can be written to deny the funding in light of the language of Amendment 2 quoted above.  Only if the breathtaking reach of Amendment 2 as to state money is curtailed by another constitutional amendment can this situation be rectified.

            Third, apart from Amendment 2, the cooperation agreement creating the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative apparently remains in place.  It is the understanding of Missouri Right to Life that this contract allows unilateral changes by any of the parties thereto concerning what projects are funded.  Whether or not it does, all the parties are free to change a contract at any time.  All the parties to the cooperation agreement have incentives to restore the projects that any legislation purports to cut out.  SB 389, or any other legislation can do nothing to impede changes in the cooperating agreement by the parties.  It appears, therefore, that the list of projects funded by MOHELA money may be changed as soon as the ink is dry on the Governor’s signature on SB 389 or any other legislation.  Of what use, then, is the “new direction” of the MOHELA deal?  To pro-life citizens, none.

            It is these and other concerns that led the Board of Directors of Missouri Right to Life, on March 10, 2007, to reaffirm the opposition of Missouri Right to Life to SB 389 and any other legislation dealing with the sale of the MOHELA assets, including the “new direction” of MOHELA, as described in the media.