|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xxSquirtxx
|
Some of the state legislators in Missouri are batshit crazy religious fundamentalists. IMO, the purpose of the Missouri initiative 2 on the Nov.7 ballot is to prevent the legislature from narrowing whatever stem cell research federal law allows, and to prevent the state government from using funding restrictions to further narrow federal law:
Quote:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_...54131821528523
Missouri: Where mules and Jesus are king
Rep. David Sater
Missouri House of Representatives
Dear Rep. Sater,
I want to thank you personally for sponsoring the resolution making Jesus Christ <a href="http://www.radicalruss.net/blog/2006/03/missouri_proposes_making_christianity_the_official.html">the Official God of the State of Missouri</a>. It's about time the state recognized that Jesus deserves the same exalted status as mules and paddlefish. I can't wait to see the poster.
I hope your bill is only the first step toward remaking Missouri into the new Zion. I long for the day when I see blasphemers, Buddhists, and sabbath violators locked up in stocks on the courthouse lawn. That'll set society right in a hurry, won't it.
But there are a couple of other tasks that need to be completed before the pillorying begins. First, you'll need to cleans the legislature of Satan's minions. You might consider starting with Rep. Susan Phillips. Sure, she seems like a god-fearing woman--her bill defending the parental rights of fathers who impregnate their daughters is proof of that--but her strange mutterings and the fact that her eyebrows don't move have convinced me that she might be a witch. If you're unsure, you might consider sitting next to her at a hearing and sticking her repeatedly with a pin to see of you can locate her devil's mark.
Next, you'll need to destroy Branson. If Las Vegas is the new Sodom, then Branson is definitely the new Gomorrah. Think about it. Aren't you ashamed that a town in your state markets itself as the home of acts like the Baldknobber's Jamboree and the Tall Timber Lumberjack Show. I bet the place is crawling with homosexuals.
Some might defend the Baldknobber's Jamboree for perpetuating positive stereotypes about the state and, thereby, counterbalancing the negative stereotypes the coastal elites promote about us, but dammit, the show is called the Baldknobber's Jamboree--I think that tells us all we need to know about their true agenda.
Others might argue Branson isn't all bad, citing shows like Act for God and the Lowe Family as examples of traditional family entertainment. But in Act for God's case, the title may be misleading. A picture on their website shows a skit featuring body parts. If you look closely, you'll notice a not-man standing between the head and the left hand. She's holding a ball. Case closed.
The Lowe Family is the exception that proves the rule. The part of their show where they re-enact raising the flag at Iwo Jima, albeit while wearing Liberace wear, is proof that they are not a part of Branson's hedonistic culture. Like Lott and his family, the Lowes should be spirited out of this New Gomorrah before it is leveled.
Well, that should be enough to give you a good start.
Heterosexually yours,
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Update: I was going to call this update, David Sater is a better Christian than you. After all, he's not only a Baptist, he's a Methodist too. Then, I noticed that he's the music minister at the Methodist church in Shell Knob and that sounds just a little too dirty to me.
From his official House bio:
Rep. Sater is both a member of the First Baptist Church of Cassville and the United Methodist Church of Shell Knob, where he is with the music ministry of the church.
posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot | 3:06 AM
|
Quote:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...D?OpenDocument
News > St. Louis City / County > Story
Stem cell debate heats up over wording
By Matt Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/29/2006
The political battle over a constitutional amendment to protect embryonic stem cell research has increasingly placed the ballot measure itself under the microscope, fueling bitter disagreement over its legal meaning.
At issue is how the 2,000-word amendment, which would protect all forms of federally legal stem cell research, would relate to the Missouri constitution and existing laws.
With a Nov. 7 vote approaching, television and radio ads by opponents have attempted to portray the measure as deceptive on issues such as human cloning, state funding and egg donation.
<b>But some arguments against the amendment are based on shaky legal footing, such as a claim that the measure would allow fetuses to be aborted to harvest human tissue. In fact, that practice is federally banned.
Other arguments have more to do with semantics than substance, particularly over dueling definitions of the term "human cloning."</b>
But those on both sides of the debate agree the ballot affects fundamental constitutional matters, such as the authority of the Legislature to pass laws and appropriate state funds.
And some legal experts say judges may have the final say on how some details of the amendment would play out.
An indirect approach
Disagreement on the issue roots largely from legal structure of the amendment, which some regard as unusual.
"It's peculiar in a lot of ways," said Carl Esbeck, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Esbeck is referring to the indirect way in which the amendment would protect certain forms of stem cell research.
In essence, the amendment does three things at once:
First, it states that all research legal under federal law shall be legal in Missouri. Second, it limits the authority of state and local governments in regulating the research. Finally, the amendment seeks to ban forms of research that are widely rejected by ethicists. Those include a ban on using cloning technology for reproductive purposes, as well as restrictions on the sale of human eggs.
The restrictions were include because there's currently virtually no regulation of the research at the federal level.
But much of the uproar over the amendment focuses on whether it truly bans what it claims to ban, particularly as it concerns human cloning and the sale of eggs.
The rest of the fight largely deals with the limits the amendment would place on state and local governments.
Legislators would retain the right to regulate health and safety issues, but not if doing so is designed to hamper research. Similar language limits legislators' ability to withhold state funds from institutions conducting research.
But exactly how those limits would play out in unclear.
"It does get tricky," Esbeck said.
"No" is called easier
Donn Rubin, of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which supports the measure, said opponents have purposefully exaggerated claim about the measure, finding loopholes where there are none.
He describes the campaign as one of desperation, born from a realization that most voters have no moral objections to embryonic stem cell research.
"The strategy of defeating an amendment is to create doubts," he said. "It's easier to vote 'no' than to vote 'yes.'"
Opponents, meanwhile, aren't letting up with their strategy to portray the measure as deceptive, even if it means downplaying larger moral questions.
That was true in a recent statewide radio debate, in which a lead opponent of the measure twice refused to answer the question of whether the research destroys human life.
"No, that's really not the issue here," said Jaci Winship, of Missourians Against Human Cloning. "The issue here is a bold attempt to deceive the Missouri voter."
|
The argument that the amendment proposition "allows adult human cloning" is a key provision of the disinformation campaign of those who oppose the amendment's passage. IMO, if there were not "fringe" legislators who have already introduced state legislation proposals to officially designate Missouri as "Jesus Land", there would be no need for this amendment.....
Here's the relevant portion of Michael J. Fox's ABC interview transcript:
Quote:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...ics&id=4707455
Oct. 29 - The actor tells ABC News' "This Week" about his disease, those controversial ads, and answers Rush Limbaugh's suggestion that he may have played up his illness for political effect. Read the full interview.......
.......Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the Steele campaign. Both the Steele campaign and the Talent campaign have said you're not being fair to them, because they want to expand stem cell research, too, they say, but it's adult stem cell research.
Fox: Right, and I agree with them on adult stem cell research. I mean, let's talk about what we agree on. I agree that stem cell research is fantastic; we should pursue it. I agree that we should have no human cloning. We're against that. We're against egg farming, that notion. We agree on all of that.
The only thing is, we would like to include embryonic stem cell research, which our scientists say has the best hope for cures and breakthroughs.
See, we're in agreement. I think that when they say talk about not being fair, there has been, again, not as much focus on the content of the ad. It's really the appearance of the ad. But really, because all the statements are verifiable and to direct comparison, it is, in effect, an ad for their position. If you see the ad and you agree with their position, and there are people that do, then it should incentive you to vote for them.
Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, "You betray me with a kiss." And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri <b>they say the initiative is against cloning, it's actually going to allow human cloning.
Fox: Well, I don't think that's true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I-- On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly.</b>
But I've made this point before, and I really am sincere in it, that anybody who's prayed on this, and thought about it, and really considered it and can't get their mind around or their heart around the idea of embryonic stem cell research, I'd go to war for your right to believe that. And you're right to feel that. I respect it. I truly do.
My point is, and our point as a community, is we have a very good and supportable conclusion that a vast majority of people in this country are in favor of science playing a leading role in making changes in the future and believe in embryonic stem cell research.
So we're just saying, know that we have prayed on it, too, and we have thought about it, and we are good people, and we are family people, and we are people that take this very seriously, and we're as concerned as you are.
And we've decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for.
But, allow us to do that without infusing the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling and fear-mongering. It doesn't help.
Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?
Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction -- thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.
And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction--
Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought
Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic.
But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that -- what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away -- use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes. People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury.
That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.
|
|