|
Banned
|
The religious right and elected republican officials in Missouri have a track record of interfering with women's access to reproductive information, treatment, and contraceptives...to a much more radical extent than at the federal level:
<b>At the following link, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt allows the display of a deliberate, inciting falsehood:
RU-486 is never dispensed by pharmacists to prescription holders....</b>
Quote:
http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/bib2007/Pro-Life.pdf
2006 Legislative Priority
Conscience Protection for Pharmacists
2006 Legislative Priority
Tax Credits to Support Alternatives to Abortion
25
2006 Legislative Priority
Prohibiting Abortion Providers from Teaching in Schools
2006 / Fiscal Year 2007 Priorities
Representing Missourians’ Values Currently, some school districts around the state allow Planned Parenthood and other abortion
providers to offer sex education in their schools. Governor Blunt believes that these providers
should not be providing information to Missouri school children. The Governor proposes
legislation:
• That will prohibit any public elementary or secondary institution from allowing abortion
providers to present sex education programs to students.
Currently, Missouri law provides conscience protection for certain medical professionals with
respect to abortions. <b>Recently, pharmacies have taken action against pharmacists who refuse to
fill prescriptions for RU-486 or the so-called morning after pill.</b> The Governor proposes
legislation that:
• Protects the conscience rights of pharmaceutical professionals.
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone#_note-26
.....In the United States it is sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex. (In some countries including the United States and Australia, the drug is still commonly referred to as "RU-486".).....
.....Mifepristone was approved under the second part of sub-section H. <b>The result is that women cannot pick the drug up at a pharmacy but must now receive it directly from a doctor.</b> Due to the possibility of adverse reactions such as excessive bleeding which may require a blood transfusion and incomplete abortion which may require surgical intervention, the drug is only considered safe if a physician who is capable of administering a blood transfusion or a surgical abortion is available to the patient in the event of such emergencies.[30] The approval of mifepristone under Subsection H included a black box warning.
http://www.fda.gov/ola/2006/mifepristone0517.html
|
<a href="http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t51505.html">"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.</a>
The deliberation in the Missouri state senate in 2005 over this bill was the motivation for the vote on a constitutional amendment. Republicans who are not batshit crazy from religious influences, including gov. Matt Blunt, are presumably in favor of keeping the state on an equal footing with the rest of the countryas far as in the development of this science:
Quote:
http://www.missouricures.com/news_040605SLPD.php
NEWS ARTICLE
April 6, 2005
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Missouri Senate shelves proposal for ban
By Matthew Franck
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau
JEFFERSON CITY, MO - After five hours of debate that pitted Republicans against Republicans on the most fundamental questions of human life, the Missouri Senate shelved a bill Wednesday that seeks to ban stem cell research involving cloning.
Now even the bill's sponsor, Sen. Matt Bartle, questions whether he has the political support to bring the matter back to the Senate floor later this session. "It's become pretty obvious to me a long time ago that there is more than enough political will to kill the bill," said Bartle, R-Lee's Summit.
Bartle's remarks came at the end of what some senators described as an agonizing debate over a research procedure that's viewed alternately as a salvation for the sick or the destruction of the earliest forms of life.
The debate saw senators sparring over genetic science in arcane detail. They spoke passionately of the ravages of disease and paralysis, including that of one of their Senate colleagues. And above all, they clashed over when life begins and how that definition holds up to technologies once unforeseen.
At issue is whether to ban research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer, often referred to as therapeutic cloning. The procedure is used to harvest stem cells, offering hope of one day curing diseases.
Senate Republican leaders have been hesitant to cast votes on an issue that pits Republican Gov. Matt Blunt against some of his anti-abortion supporters while splitting two of the party's key constituencies. <b>On one end are abortion opponents who oppose the procedure on moral grounds</b>; on the other are business leaders and Blunt, who see the research as an engine of economic development.
Bartle agreed to shelve his bill after several lawmakers threatened to filibuster it. In doing so, he worked out a deal with Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, to seek a compromise bill to bring back to the floor later this session.
Shields said he'd like to see an alternative bill that would ban cloning that results in a human child, but allow research involving cloned cells.
But Bartle said he would not concede to such a bill. Instead, he said he would seek support for a three-year ban on the cloning research to give lawmakers a chance to study the issue.
<h3>Bartle opened debate on the bill with 40 minutes of remarks that sought to equate the human cells produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer as human life worthy of legal protection.</h3>
Under somatic cell nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of an ordinary human cell. The cell is then stimulated to divide into a group of cells from which stem cells are harvested. Many hope those cells could be used in the future to form into a variety of human cells, potentially repairing human hearts, lungs and spinal cords.
Bartle argued that the cells produced through the process are human life that if implanted in a womb could result in a human child.
Bartle said that if senators doubt whether the process does, in fact, result in life, they should "err on the side of protecting human life."
But most of the Senate debate was dominated by opponents of Bartle's bill. Leading the charge was Sen. Chris Koster, who had for weeks been viewed as undecided on the stem cell issue.
Koster, R-Harrisonville, argued that the cells produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer would only take on human characteristics if they were implanted in a womb.
"What makes us human occurs in the womb, not the petri dish," Koster said.
Koster borrowed Bartle's own rhetoric, arguing that if senators lack the science to declare the cells human life, they should err on the side of protecting the lives of those who await cures for disease.
Koster alluded to Sen. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, who lost the ability to walk after an auto accident as a teenager. Without mentioning Graham by name, Koster spoke in intimate detail of the nature of Graham's disability.
Graham joined Koster in arguing against the bill. He recounted how he has waited as the promises for breakthrough in spinal cord injuries have not been realized. He said supporters of the research ban have focused on the "margins of life," while ignoring the hope such research offers to thousands.
Prior to Wednesday's debate, some had questioned whether Bartle's bill would even reach the Senate floor, given the opposition of many Republicans.
Blunt has said he would likely veto the bill. The governor said he does not believe the process produces human life, since no egg and sperm are involved in producing the cells.
An earlier version of Bartle's bill would have spelled out felony criminal penalties for those who engage in the research. A substitute version presented Wednesday instead spells out up to a $50,000 civil fine.
During debate, some anti-abortion senators expressed frustration over Bartle's unwillingness to compromise by offering a bill that would ban reproductive cloning but allow cloning research.
Sen. John Griesheimer, R-Washington, who had been a co-sponsor of Bartle's bill, blamed Bartle's inflexibility for creating a rift between Republicans.
"It's sad that we're fighting against ourselves," he said. "And it's sad that it's come to this."
Bartle's bill is SB160.
|
<b>Two pieces follow that helped me to understand the science better, and potential treatment of disease:</b>
Quote:
http://bluegalinaredstate.blogspot.c...endment-2.html
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Missouri Vote: Amendment 2
Here in Missouri, we are going to the polls on November 7, just like everyone else. However, here in Missouri, we have a constitutional amendment to consider and the emotions are running high on both sides.
Amendment 2, The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, is the hot-button issue this year. On one side you find the Catholic Church and Missouri Right to Life. On the other side you have a whole host of medical research foundations and Jack Danforth.
In the breach, you have me. I will say up front that I am in the "Pro" camp. I will, however, attempt to explain why I take the stand I do. In plain English. And without going on for pages.
First lets clear up a huge misconception. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is technically "cloning" - up to a point. In the sense that cloning means replication. But it stops there.
The amendment specifically outlaws human cloning. When the opposition says it legitimizes cloning, they are disingenuous at best, and more likely they are flat-out, intentionally, being dishonest.
In SCNT, eggs are extracted and the nucleus is removed from the egg with a very tiny glass pipette. The same procedure is used to remove the nucleus of a source cell, and the nucleus is injected into the vacated (enucleated) egg cell. If we say just the right magic words in the perfect pitch and cadence, this cell will begin to replicate. At five days, we have a blastocyst of stem cells, and we can harvest those undiferentiated cells. Remember that word. It is going to be revisited a bit down the page.
Passage of Amendment 2 will assure that Missourians have access to any and all stem cell therapies that might be developed in the future (embryonic stem-cell research is only about five years old) that would be available to other patients from other states. Passage of Amendment 2 will ensure that medical institutions in Missouri would be able to conduct research to help develop new cures to horrific diseases so long as those treatments are not prohibited by federal law. Many scientists, myself included, feel these cells provide the most promising treatments for traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, organ failure, neuro-muscular diseases, Alzheimers, organic brain disorders, and a whole host of others...including, yes, Parkinsons.
If Amendment 2 is not passed, members of the Missouri legislature would be able to outlaw therapies that are developed that use embryonic stem cells. Those with private insurance or resources could gain treatment out of state, such as in Massachusettes or California. Those who are reliant on Missouri Medicaid (a high percentage of disabled and diabetic patients) will be out of luck. The state would not pay for the treatment. So the bottom line is the state legislature could pass laws that prohibited low income people from accessing cures available to those who are better off.
I don't believe that the opponents are intentionally discriminating against these future patients. I don’t think they have even thought about them, but they should. Especially since they are not only picking up the tab for long-term treatment, they are consciously denying them any hope for a cure, possibly without even realizing it. I have heard people say they don't oppose it across the board, they just don't want it here. I have changed a few minds when this has come up in conversation. I see what I have come to refer to as "the look" cross their faces, and they often say "Wow. I never thought of that." or "Why isn't that part of the debate?"
I don't know why it isn't part of the debate. I don't fancy myself the smartest person in Kansas City, let alone the entire state, but nobody else seems to be considering this facet of the argument.
The research is going forward, in this country, and cures will be found. Failure to pass this amendment will impact the economy of our state because research will move away under threat that the work could be criminalized. This will hurt the economy of Missouri while helping the economies of states on both coasts. If the amendment fails, and the legislature bans all embryonic stem cell research, this state will deny Missouri residents therapies that will be readily available to patients in other states.
Those who oppose the Amendment say something along the lines of "Embryonic stem-cell research hasn't produced a single cure, and besides we already have adult stem cell therapies available, and adult stem cells are readily available."
This is true - but we are also exploring a totally new science in embryonic stem cell research. (Edison's lightbulbs didn't work at first, you know.) Embryonic stem cell research is so promising precisely because we have had success with adult stem cells. Bone marrow transplantation is a form of adult stem cell therapy. Success with them is how we even got to where we are. Currently, adult stem cells are most often used in cancer treatment, and indeed many lives have been saved because of these therapies.
Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated. In other words, they can become anything. Let's say that you or someone you love has diabetes and is facing a future of insulin dependence that will lose effectiveness and it will lead to amputation, organ failure and death. Embryonic stem cells can, in theory, be used to grow healthy cells for implantation into your pancreas. The idea is that healthy cells can be introduced and will replicate to replace the unhealthy ones. This is the only hope that currently exists for a cure for diabetes and many other diseases, as well as spinal cord injuries.
Or perhaps you will be in an auto accident and your spinal cord is severed. Or your child falls while roller skating and lands just right and is paralyzed. Embryonic stem cells are the only cells that have been coaxed into replicating as nerve cells. Animal studies have successfully restored movement after spinal cords were surgically severed. This is something we never thought possible even ten years ago. The factsheet from Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures is here.
This is an area where I have a little more than an opinion. I am a working scientist, a science educator and a grad studednt in science. I am also a member in good standing of the <a href="http://www.ascp.org/">American Society of Clinical Pathologists</a>. I have been an associate researcher (read uncredited student lackey) on papers published in respected journals by my professors.
Yeah. I got some game here. Any questions you might have about this issue, pose them in comments and I will attempt to give an unbiased answer that provides information to allow you to make an informed and well-though-out decision as to where you stand on the issue.
|
Quote:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-disease.html
<b>Stem cell trial to combat childhood brain disease</b>
* 12:13 25 September 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Helen Phillips
The first clinical safety trial of a purified human fetal stem cell product is about to begin in the US for a rare and fatal childhood brain disease. The trial could pave the way for neural stem cell transplants to treat a range of brain and spinal cord disorders.
A team from the Oregon Health and Science University Doernbecher Children’s Hospital plan to treat six children suffering from the inherited neurodegenerative condition, Batten’s disease – also known as neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL). There is currently no alternative treatment for the disease.
The team expect to treat the first child before the end of 2006. The children will receive injections of neural stem cells that have been purified – isolated from other cell types – and grown from donated human fetal tissue. The stem cell product and isolation technique was developed by StemCells Inc, of Palo Alto, California, which is sponsoring the trial.
Children with Batten’s disease suffer seizures, motor control disturbances, blindness and communication problems. As many as 600 children in the US are currently diagnosed with the condition – death can occur in children as young as 8 years old.
The children lack an enzyme for breaking down complex fat and protein compounds in the brain, explains Robert Steiner, vice chair of paediatric research at the hospital. The material accumulates and interferes with tissue function, ultimately causing brain cells to die.
Neuron support
Previous tests on animals demonstrated that stem cells injected into the brain secreted the missing enzyme. And the stem cells were found to survive well in the rodent brain.
Once injected, the purified neural cells may develop into neurons or other nervous system tissue, including oligodendrocytes, or glial cells, which support the neurons, say the researchers. Steiner is hopeful that the treatment will work for the 25 or so other hereditary brain diseases related to Batten’s disease.
In addition to secreting enzymes, Steiner says these cells can become the type of nerve cells found in spinal cord, and so they could potentially help after spinal cord injury. The stem cells can form into neural cells found in the brain or nerve cells found elsewhere in the central nervous system, he explains.
However, Stephen Minger, director of the stem cell biology laboratory at Kings’ College London, believes that despite Steiner’s claims about the versatility of the new purified cells, their use is limited to Batten’s disease. “The cells in question have little clinical relevance to other neurological disorders,” he says. ....
|
|