Regarding the article “Cloning ban wording draws fire” (10/11, Local) and editorial (10/18) “Stem-cell wording is fine”: Remember a year ago? Remember the ads against Amendment 2? Did they say, “Protect the unborn”? No. Those I saw implied that college students and impoverished women were going to be exploited for their eggs.
They implied that scientists were going to use trickery to steal tax dollars to clone human babies. They implied that scientists, the Stowers Institute and, most ludicrously, Jim and Virginia Stowers themselves, were only in it for the money. Remember?
That is because they realized that the Missouri electorate wasn’t buying the first argument. The electorate didn’t equate somatic cell nuclear transfer — a laboratory procedure to place the nucleus from a body cell into an unfertilized egg and create a cell line in a dish — with abortion.
Their spin doctors had to resort to misleading people.
The amendment the voters approved included the protection of this specific procedure, somatic cell nuclear transfer. The new proposed amendment wants to reverse that. What’s wrong with the wording of the ballot initiative?