Amendment 2
What follows in a homily on the topic of Missouri Amendment 2, which would make embryonic stem cell research a "right" guaranteed by the state Constitution. More information can be found on the web sites listed under "Links" in the right column. The homily was updated October 28, 2006 for presentation at another parish.
Back in the spring, the Archdiocese asked for deacons to volunteer to speak on pro-life issues. I volunteered. Then, in August, I got an email reminding me that I had volunteered and offering me a list of parishes where I could go to speak on the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative”. Oh oh. All I knew about this “initiative” was that it had something to do with human cloning and that the Church was against it.
So, the first thing I had to do was to find out what this thing is all about. Then I had to figure out how to convince you that you don’t just need to vote “no” next month, you need to persuade your family and friends to vote “no” too. Why would you want to do that?
Don’t the television commercials tell us that this new research is going to produce cures for every terrible disease known to man? What about that poor guy in the wheelchair? What about Michael J. Fox? Aren’t we turning our backs on them and people like them if we vote “no”.
I have to admit, I spent more time preparing this homily than I’ve ever spent on a homily before. What you’re going to hear today is about the tenth re-write. The subject is so complex and there are so many different ways to approach it, that every time I thought I had it, something else came to mind and I ended up starting over again. The problem was that every time I re-wrote it, it got longer. About the fifth revision or so, I had to start cutting. So, here’s the final version.
As Catholics, we believe that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception until natural death. That includes life that’s created in the womb and life that’s created in a Petri dish. The idea of creating a life in order to destroy it in the name of science is repulsive.
Supporters of Amendment 2 will try to say that the embryos used in their experiments aren’t human. In fact this amendment, which will become the highest law in the state, redefines human life as beginning at birth, not at conception as current law states. The embryo used in the lab has 23 pairs of chromosomes, just like you and me. It has homo sapiens DNA, just like you and me. It’s a human being just like you and me, only smaller. Archbishop Burke has called these embryos “our tiniest brothers and sisters”, and rightly so. There's not a single person, not one, anywhere on this planet, living or dead, who wasn't once an embryo. To say that they're not human is just wrong!
My wife and I recently became grandparents. Isabella is just five months old and the world’s cutest baby. Sixteen months ago, she was an embryo just like the ones that are being used for embryonic stem cell research. Don’t tell me she wasn’t just as human then as she is now.
As Catholic Christians, do we really need any more information to make us vote “no” on November 7? Isn’t protecting all life enough? Our faith teaches us that it is. But you may be challenged by others who don’t share our beliefs. Why should they vote “no”? You’re in luck because I’m going to tell you.
For starters, did you know that embryonic stem cell research is LEGAL in Missouri? There is nothing in current Missouri law to forbid this research. I wonder, why do we need to amend the state constitution to legalize something that’s already legal?
Supporters of the amendment will tell you that it’s needed so the legislature won’t make it ILLEGAL. That’s strange logic. It’s supposed to be conservatives who are against this research, but for the past two sessions the Republican-controlled state legislature has defeated measures to outlaw embryonic stem cell research. Our Republican governor has promised to veto any such legislation. It just doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble and expense of amending the constitution to legalize something that’s already legal.
The supporters of amendment 2 have spent nearly $30 million. 95% of the money has come from one family, Jim and Virginia Stowers of Kansas City. The Stowers are founders of the Stowers Institute, a medical research organization. The Stowers have a lot of money, but why would they contribute $30 million to a constitutional amendment intended to legalize something that’s already legal. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on the research itself? .
You don’t get rich by being stupid and the Stowers aren’t stupid. Neither are the other supporters of Amendment 2. The thirty million isn’t an expense, it’s an investment. In return for their $30 million, they stand to make many times that amount. This amendment doesn’t just make cloning legal, it will require the taxpayers of the state of Missouri to pay for it. Supporters of the amendment will tell you that nothing in its language specifically calls for taxpayer funding, and they're right. But, there's nothing that says that there won't be taxpayer funding, and that's what's important. In fact, the amendment specifically forbids the state and local governments from doing ANYTHING that would discourage ESCR. That would include not paying for it.
The state of California is handing out $1.6 million grants to embryonic stem cell researchers. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine said that the Stowerses expect their institute to become a "powerhouse" in ESCR. Do the supporters of amendment 2 honestly expect us to believe that Missouri is going to become a "powerhouse" without matching those grants? California's taxpayers are shelling out BILLIONS of dollars to support this unethical research.
Amendment 2 is five pages long. Five pages! The entire Bill of Rights of the United States constitution, that’s ten amendments, is only one page long. None of the first ten amendments is more than one sentence long! The nineteenth amendment to the US Constitution, the one that gave women the right to vote, is only two sentences long. What could possibly be in this thing that takes five pages?
Could it be that the authors intended to make it so long and confusing that most of us wouldn’t bother to read it? Why would they do that? They knew how much money they had available. They know how little money their opposition would have. They have paid commercials, and a lot of them. We have me….and you, and others like us. We also have the advantage of being right.
This procedure will require millions of human eggs. Where will they come from? Some, but not most, will come from the leftover embryos from fertility clinics. Most will come from women who sell their eggs.
Since women normally only produce one or two eggs each month, donors are given what’s called ovarian hyperstimulation. It causes them to produce more eggs. I believe they do something similar to chickens. What the supporters of amendment 2 fail to mention is that ovarian hyperstimulation is a dangerous procedure. From five to twenty percent of women who undergo the procedure have serious medical complications. Some die.
Who’s going to donate eggs? It will be primarily poor women. They’ll become professional egg donors, endangering their health for cash. But, it won’t be just poor women. Many young people, particularly college students give blood for cash. Will they do the same with their eggs. I hope not. I have a daughter in college.
I could go on for a long time about all that’s wrong with amendment 2, but you’re smart people. You can go online and find copies of the amendment, just like the one I have, and read it for yourself. I promise you, unless you are an attorney, you’ll be confused. Is that the way to write good law?
For over 200 years, the first amendment of the US constitution has guaranteed us the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of our grievances. It’s one sentence long. What’s in this turkey that needs five pages???
There’s been quite a debate over Amendment 2 on the Post Dispatch web site recently. Here’s a quote that I thought was especially good, “The same rule applies here that should apply to any contract. If you don’t understand it, don’t sign it. Voters of Missouri: Do you really understand Amendment 2? If you don’t, prudence dictates you vote against it.”
If the measure’s supporters are serious, let them go back to the drawing board and come up with something that the average person can understand. Or, maybe they don’t want us to understand it.
Do you remember when we voted to legalize riverboat gambling in 1992. What did you think you were voting for? Wasn't it nice little riverboats that would cruise the state's rivers? The boats would remind us of the romantic days before the Civil War when riverboat gamblers, who all looked like Clark Gable and Jame Garner, played poker whild pretty dancing girls entertained the crowds. There would be rag time piano and banjo music. Not only that, but all the tax money that was generated would go to our public schools. It was a win/win.
What happened? The quaint riverboats have turned into multi-story land-based casinos with hotels attached. Huge amounts of money are being made. Missouri now has a problem with gambling addictions. And the schools are worse off now than they were in 1992.
What happened was that the constitutional amendment we approved was full of loophools, just like amendment 2 is full of loopholes. They didn't lie to us. They just didn't tell us the whole truth.
The fact is that every single dime of tax revenues from the casinos has gone to the schools. Unfortunately, the state has taken back an equal amount of money that was already going to the schools. The net result? No increase in school funding. Services have been cut. Tuition at the state Universities has gone through the roof.
The supporters have learned the lesson of 1992 very well.
Here’s what a supporter of amendment 2 had to say on the Post web site, “It is religious fundamentalists who are fanatic about opposing scientific research and progress. It is the fanatics who want minds to be closed to future discovery and who want us all to dogmatically accept that it is impossible that benefit can be derived from stem cell research.”
As Catholics, we support stem cell research. We’re one of the largest operators of hospitals in the world, along with the Baptists, and the Methodists, and the Presbyterians and other religious “fanatics”. Cardinal Glennon Hospital runs the 2nd largest cord blood bank in the world. There is great hope in stem cell research. It just doesn’t need to be done with human embryos. We certainly don’t want minds to be closed to future discoveries. That’s ridiculous.
This is just bad law. There’s no getting around it. It would give scientists the unrestricted right to perform their experiments at our expense. It will be a disaster if it’s passed. But an even bigger disaster is what it would say about us, as Christians, if it does pass. Since that first amendment was added to the US Constitution, it seems like our religious freedom has been gradually taken away from us. We can’t pray in schools, we can’t put a Nativity scene on public property, we can’t even display the Ten Commandments, the basis for all western law, in the courthouse that you and I paid to build.
It’s time for us to stand up and say “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.” We want our government to take care of our needs and the needs of our smallest and most vulnerable brothers and sisters, not the needs of a few wealthy people.
If we don’t show up on November 7 and make our feelings known, what’s going to be next? Euthenasia? If our tiniest brothers and sisters aren’t worthy of life, then what about the old people? One of the arguments of the cloners is that an embryo can’t be human because it can’t survive on its own. How many of our older Americans can’t survive on their own? It’s not a huge leap to go from one to the other.
How about legalized prostitution? There’s a lot of money in that. Somebody would probably be willing to buy a chunk of the constitution to make that happen. How far are we willing to let things go? What does it take to make Christians mad enough to do something? Would Jesus have put up with any of this nonsense? I don’t think so.
In the Gospel today, Jesus heals a blind man. He tells him, "Your faith has saved you." During his earthly ministry he performed other healings and even raised the dead. But Jesus was the Son of God. He could do that.
You and I are not God. Scientists are not God. We don't have the right to sacrifice one life in the hope of saving another. We just don't. Medical research is important, even vital, and should continue. There is great hope in the use of adult stem cells. That science should be encouraged, as it is in Catholic hospitals all over the world. But creating life in order to destroy it in the name of "cures" which may or may not happen is wrong.
If we don’t show up and vote “no” on November 7, we will have proven two things. One that our constitution is for sale to the highest bidder. And two, we just don’t care.
Back in the spring, the Archdiocese asked for deacons to volunteer to speak on pro-life issues. I volunteered. Then, in August, I got an email reminding me that I had volunteered and offering me a list of parishes where I could go to speak on the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative”. Oh oh. All I knew about this “initiative” was that it had something to do with human cloning and that the Church was against it.
So, the first thing I had to do was to find out what this thing is all about. Then I had to figure out how to convince you that you don’t just need to vote “no” next month, you need to persuade your family and friends to vote “no” too. Why would you want to do that?
Don’t the television commercials tell us that this new research is going to produce cures for every terrible disease known to man? What about that poor guy in the wheelchair? What about Michael J. Fox? Aren’t we turning our backs on them and people like them if we vote “no”.
I have to admit, I spent more time preparing this homily than I’ve ever spent on a homily before. What you’re going to hear today is about the tenth re-write. The subject is so complex and there are so many different ways to approach it, that every time I thought I had it, something else came to mind and I ended up starting over again. The problem was that every time I re-wrote it, it got longer. About the fifth revision or so, I had to start cutting. So, here’s the final version.
As Catholics, we believe that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception until natural death. That includes life that’s created in the womb and life that’s created in a Petri dish. The idea of creating a life in order to destroy it in the name of science is repulsive.
Supporters of Amendment 2 will try to say that the embryos used in their experiments aren’t human. In fact this amendment, which will become the highest law in the state, redefines human life as beginning at birth, not at conception as current law states. The embryo used in the lab has 23 pairs of chromosomes, just like you and me. It has homo sapiens DNA, just like you and me. It’s a human being just like you and me, only smaller. Archbishop Burke has called these embryos “our tiniest brothers and sisters”, and rightly so. There's not a single person, not one, anywhere on this planet, living or dead, who wasn't once an embryo. To say that they're not human is just wrong!
My wife and I recently became grandparents. Isabella is just five months old and the world’s cutest baby. Sixteen months ago, she was an embryo just like the ones that are being used for embryonic stem cell research. Don’t tell me she wasn’t just as human then as she is now.
As Catholic Christians, do we really need any more information to make us vote “no” on November 7? Isn’t protecting all life enough? Our faith teaches us that it is. But you may be challenged by others who don’t share our beliefs. Why should they vote “no”? You’re in luck because I’m going to tell you.
For starters, did you know that embryonic stem cell research is LEGAL in Missouri? There is nothing in current Missouri law to forbid this research. I wonder, why do we need to amend the state constitution to legalize something that’s already legal?
Supporters of the amendment will tell you that it’s needed so the legislature won’t make it ILLEGAL. That’s strange logic. It’s supposed to be conservatives who are against this research, but for the past two sessions the Republican-controlled state legislature has defeated measures to outlaw embryonic stem cell research. Our Republican governor has promised to veto any such legislation. It just doesn’t make sense to go to the trouble and expense of amending the constitution to legalize something that’s already legal.
The supporters of amendment 2 have spent nearly $30 million. 95% of the money has come from one family, Jim and Virginia Stowers of Kansas City. The Stowers are founders of the Stowers Institute, a medical research organization. The Stowers have a lot of money, but why would they contribute $30 million to a constitutional amendment intended to legalize something that’s already legal. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on the research itself? .
You don’t get rich by being stupid and the Stowers aren’t stupid. Neither are the other supporters of Amendment 2. The thirty million isn’t an expense, it’s an investment. In return for their $30 million, they stand to make many times that amount. This amendment doesn’t just make cloning legal, it will require the taxpayers of the state of Missouri to pay for it. Supporters of the amendment will tell you that nothing in its language specifically calls for taxpayer funding, and they're right. But, there's nothing that says that there won't be taxpayer funding, and that's what's important. In fact, the amendment specifically forbids the state and local governments from doing ANYTHING that would discourage ESCR. That would include not paying for it.
The state of California is handing out $1.6 million grants to embryonic stem cell researchers. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine said that the Stowerses expect their institute to become a "powerhouse" in ESCR. Do the supporters of amendment 2 honestly expect us to believe that Missouri is going to become a "powerhouse" without matching those grants? California's taxpayers are shelling out BILLIONS of dollars to support this unethical research.
Amendment 2 is five pages long. Five pages! The entire Bill of Rights of the United States constitution, that’s ten amendments, is only one page long. None of the first ten amendments is more than one sentence long! The nineteenth amendment to the US Constitution, the one that gave women the right to vote, is only two sentences long. What could possibly be in this thing that takes five pages?
Could it be that the authors intended to make it so long and confusing that most of us wouldn’t bother to read it? Why would they do that? They knew how much money they had available. They know how little money their opposition would have. They have paid commercials, and a lot of them. We have me….and you, and others like us. We also have the advantage of being right.
This procedure will require millions of human eggs. Where will they come from? Some, but not most, will come from the leftover embryos from fertility clinics. Most will come from women who sell their eggs.
Since women normally only produce one or two eggs each month, donors are given what’s called ovarian hyperstimulation. It causes them to produce more eggs. I believe they do something similar to chickens. What the supporters of amendment 2 fail to mention is that ovarian hyperstimulation is a dangerous procedure. From five to twenty percent of women who undergo the procedure have serious medical complications. Some die.
Who’s going to donate eggs? It will be primarily poor women. They’ll become professional egg donors, endangering their health for cash. But, it won’t be just poor women. Many young people, particularly college students give blood for cash. Will they do the same with their eggs. I hope not. I have a daughter in college.
I could go on for a long time about all that’s wrong with amendment 2, but you’re smart people. You can go online and find copies of the amendment, just like the one I have, and read it for yourself. I promise you, unless you are an attorney, you’ll be confused. Is that the way to write good law?
For over 200 years, the first amendment of the US constitution has guaranteed us the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of our grievances. It’s one sentence long. What’s in this turkey that needs five pages???
There’s been quite a debate over Amendment 2 on the Post Dispatch web site recently. Here’s a quote that I thought was especially good, “The same rule applies here that should apply to any contract. If you don’t understand it, don’t sign it. Voters of Missouri: Do you really understand Amendment 2? If you don’t, prudence dictates you vote against it.”
If the measure’s supporters are serious, let them go back to the drawing board and come up with something that the average person can understand. Or, maybe they don’t want us to understand it.
Do you remember when we voted to legalize riverboat gambling in 1992. What did you think you were voting for? Wasn't it nice little riverboats that would cruise the state's rivers? The boats would remind us of the romantic days before the Civil War when riverboat gamblers, who all looked like Clark Gable and Jame Garner, played poker whild pretty dancing girls entertained the crowds. There would be rag time piano and banjo music. Not only that, but all the tax money that was generated would go to our public schools. It was a win/win.
What happened? The quaint riverboats have turned into multi-story land-based casinos with hotels attached. Huge amounts of money are being made. Missouri now has a problem with gambling addictions. And the schools are worse off now than they were in 1992.
What happened was that the constitutional amendment we approved was full of loophools, just like amendment 2 is full of loopholes. They didn't lie to us. They just didn't tell us the whole truth.
The fact is that every single dime of tax revenues from the casinos has gone to the schools. Unfortunately, the state has taken back an equal amount of money that was already going to the schools. The net result? No increase in school funding. Services have been cut. Tuition at the state Universities has gone through the roof.
The supporters have learned the lesson of 1992 very well.
Here’s what a supporter of amendment 2 had to say on the Post web site, “It is religious fundamentalists who are fanatic about opposing scientific research and progress. It is the fanatics who want minds to be closed to future discovery and who want us all to dogmatically accept that it is impossible that benefit can be derived from stem cell research.”
As Catholics, we support stem cell research. We’re one of the largest operators of hospitals in the world, along with the Baptists, and the Methodists, and the Presbyterians and other religious “fanatics”. Cardinal Glennon Hospital runs the 2nd largest cord blood bank in the world. There is great hope in stem cell research. It just doesn’t need to be done with human embryos. We certainly don’t want minds to be closed to future discoveries. That’s ridiculous.
This is just bad law. There’s no getting around it. It would give scientists the unrestricted right to perform their experiments at our expense. It will be a disaster if it’s passed. But an even bigger disaster is what it would say about us, as Christians, if it does pass. Since that first amendment was added to the US Constitution, it seems like our religious freedom has been gradually taken away from us. We can’t pray in schools, we can’t put a Nativity scene on public property, we can’t even display the Ten Commandments, the basis for all western law, in the courthouse that you and I paid to build.
It’s time for us to stand up and say “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.” We want our government to take care of our needs and the needs of our smallest and most vulnerable brothers and sisters, not the needs of a few wealthy people.
If we don’t show up on November 7 and make our feelings known, what’s going to be next? Euthenasia? If our tiniest brothers and sisters aren’t worthy of life, then what about the old people? One of the arguments of the cloners is that an embryo can’t be human because it can’t survive on its own. How many of our older Americans can’t survive on their own? It’s not a huge leap to go from one to the other.
How about legalized prostitution? There’s a lot of money in that. Somebody would probably be willing to buy a chunk of the constitution to make that happen. How far are we willing to let things go? What does it take to make Christians mad enough to do something? Would Jesus have put up with any of this nonsense? I don’t think so.
In the Gospel today, Jesus heals a blind man. He tells him, "Your faith has saved you." During his earthly ministry he performed other healings and even raised the dead. But Jesus was the Son of God. He could do that.
You and I are not God. Scientists are not God. We don't have the right to sacrifice one life in the hope of saving another. We just don't. Medical research is important, even vital, and should continue. There is great hope in the use of adult stem cells. That science should be encouraged, as it is in Catholic hospitals all over the world. But creating life in order to destroy it in the name of "cures" which may or may not happen is wrong.
If we don’t show up and vote “no” on November 7, we will have proven two things. One that our constitution is for sale to the highest bidder. And two, we just don’t care.
posted by Mike at 1:23 PM
0 comments
