Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

It’s on the ballot: Stem-cell petitions certified

By Ed Brayton | 08.20.08 | 12:03 pm

A referendum to liberalize limits on embryonic stem-cell research in Michigan has enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot, according to The Michigan Bureau of Elections.

Under the existing law, passed in 1997, it is illegal for researchers in the state of Michigan to create new embryonic stem-cell lines, limiting scientists only to those lines that were developed prior to that time. Researchers say that that restriction significantly reduces the diversity of the genetic pool available to them, which severely limits their research and its potential benefits.Proponents of this referendum are seeking to overturn that law with one that would allow researchers to use donated blastocysts (embryos only a few days old, made up of a few hundred cells at most) from couples that undergo fertility treatments to develop new embryonic stem-cell lines.

In the process of fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization, more eggs are fertilized and grown to a few days old than are ultimately implanted in the mother’s uterus. The leftover blastocysts are then frozen for future use (such fertilization techniques often take several times before successful pregnancy is achieved), most of which are ultimately discarded once the couple has achieved their goal.

Under the proposed law, those couples would be able to donate those leftover blastocysts for medical research rather than having them destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of such frozen blastocysts stored at fertilization clinics around the country at any given time.

Proponents of the measure had to turn in about 380,000 valid petition signatures to get it on the ballot. The Bureau of Elections certified about 498,000 valid signatures, far more than required. A state elections board now needs to certify the results of the bureau’s report, which should happen yet this week, to officially place the referendum on the ballot.

Comments

  • Tomor

    Ed Brayton's summary of the Proposal is flawed in several respects due largely to the stealth campaign of the Proposal's supporters.

    This proposal would also provide its Michigan supporters with patent right and royalties for any therapies developed. As Michigan scientists can not research (kill) live embryos at present, the patent rights are retained elsewhere (mainly by Wisconsin Scientists).

    More importantly, however, is the fact that the Proposal will create unrestricted research on live human embryos. Legalesse language in the Proposal's section 2 (d) (i) and (ii) when moved into the state Constitution will allow scientists to ignore any regulation including restrictions on where the embryos come from. California scientists are already screaming for the ability to buy women's eggs to keep up with the demand for embyos. Stimualting women's overaries carry side serious sideeffects, some fatal.

    Here come the clones! Here come Human-Animal Hybrids. Too bad for Michigan especially because Embryonic stem cell research has and is continuing to be done at the U of M Center for such research. However, U of M must do it on embryo stem cell lines derived elsewhere by killing the embryos out of state.

    • ebrayton

      You've made a naked assertion without supporting it. Please provide the actual wording of the referendum that “will allow scientists to ignore any regulation including restrictions on where the embryos come from.” The referendum, as far as I know, specifies that the blastocysts must be donated by the egg and sperm donors.

      • Tomor

        Hello E. Brayton:

        Thank you for your inquiry:

        “Article I, Section 27 (d)

        All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be
        conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general
        applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and
        medical practices and patient safety and privacy, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY
        SUCH LAWS DO NOT:

        (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or
        stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this
        section; or

        (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate
        with such research or therapies or cures.”

        Further, placement of this proposal in the STATE CONSTITUTION (assuming the
        voters agree to pass the ballot initiative) will prevent the Michigan
        legislature from enacting any future regulation of embryonic stem cell
        research and will (as is one intention of the supporters of the proposal)
        void existing Michigan embryonic stem cell law — which prevents Michigan
        Scientist from conducting research on live embryos.

        Still further, the language of Article 1, Section (1) “Nothing in this
        section shall ALTER Michigan's current prohibition on human cloning” is far
        different than saying “this section prohibits human cloning” The proposal's
        language in (1) only says that this proposal will not change any existing
        prohibition on cloning — which is to say that the proposal does not rule
        out future legislation dealing with human cloning. Embryos come from human
        cloning.

        No such language is used in the proposal with regard to embryonic stem cell
        research, however. In fact, the language of (d) (i) and (ii) says just the
        opposite — to wit — any laws that (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct etc. or
        (ii)create disincentives to engage in stem cell research etc. are exceptions
        to the requirement that all stem cell research must be performed as
        indicated by the first four lines of paragraph (d) beginning with “All stem
        cell research” and ending with “such laws do not:”

        Lastly, Article 1, Section 27 (2) has the phrase “any research permitted
        under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to
        the requirements of federal law and ONLY the following additional
        limitations and requirements:” The proposal then only addresses human
        embryos created for the purpose of fertility treatment. It does not
        mention women's eggs , embryos from miscarriages or aborted fetuses or from
        cloning. Because these are not specified as additional limitations, they
        will also be available for research under this proposal.

        P.S. The proposal prohibits the purchase or sale of human embryos
        (presumably in Michigan only) but does not so prohibit the purchase and sale
        of women's eggs from which embryos come after fertilization.

        I hope this answers your questions eleslie

        • ebrayton

          tomor writes:

          “Article I, Section 27 (d)

          All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be
          conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general
          applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and
          medical practices and patient safety and privacy, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY
          SUCH LAWS DO NOT:

          (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or
          stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this
          section; or

          (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate
          with such research or therapies or cures.”

          But you're ignoring the key part of the text, which is “that are permitted by the provisions of this section.” So what types of embryos are allowed to be used for research in this law? That's found in the part just above that:

          (a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen
          days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.

          (b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

          (i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

          (ii) the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

          The section you cite only says that existing state laws cannot interfere with the type of research explicitly allowed by this law, which means research undertaken pursuant to the first section of the law, which I just cited. The text is quite clear that the only blastocysts that can be used for such research must be leftover blastocysts from IVF clinics and they must have the written permission of the egg and sperm donors for that blastocyst. Your claim that this language “will allow scientists to ignore any regulation including restrictions on where the embryos come from” is absolutely false.

          Your second claim:

          Still further, the language of Article 1, Section (1) “Nothing in this
          section shall ALTER Michigan's current prohibition on human cloning” is far
          different than saying “this section prohibits human cloning” The proposal's
          language in (1) only says that this proposal will not change any existing
          prohibition on cloning — which is to say that the proposal does not rule
          out future legislation dealing with human cloning.

          Is simply irrelevant. It is already illegal to perform human cloning in the state of Michigan. It will remain illegal even if this referendum is passed. The text only makes clear that this proposal does not legalize cloning in any way in the state of Michigan, the current prohibition remains in place.

          Lastly, Article 1, Section 27 (2) has the phrase “any research permitted
          under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to
          the requirements of federal law and ONLY the following additional
          limitations and requirements:” The proposal then only addresses human
          embryos created for the purpose of fertility treatment. It does not
          mention women's eggs , embryos from miscarriages or aborted fetuses or from
          cloning. Because these are not specified as additional limitations, they
          will also be available for research under this proposal.

          I'm sorry, you're either completely incapable of reading statutory language or you are incredibly dishonest. Those other sources of embryos will not be available for research. The text I quoted above shows very clearly that the only embryos that may be used are ones that were “created for the purpose of fertility treatment,” are leftover and for which they have the written permission of the donors.

          • Tomor

            Thank you E. Brayton for your comments. However, your comments are based
            on your opinion that the phrase “permitted by the provisions of this
            section” found in (2) (d) (i) applies only to (2) “To ensure that” etc. etc.

            In fact, the use of the term “in this section” applies to Article 1,
            SECTION 27, not just to portion (2) of Article 1, Section 27.

            This is clearly the case as can be seen by portion (3) where the language
            states “Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be
            severable from the remaining PORTIONS OF THIS SECTION” Portion (3) applies
            to the entire proposal — Article 1, Section 27 — otherwise (3) makes no
            sense as it would mean if (3) were found to be unconstitutional it shall be
            severable from the remaining portions of this section but there are no
            remaining portions of this section (3). Hence, your opinion as to the
            applicability of (d) (i) and (ii) only to (2) because you think (2) is a
            section is incorrect.

            Accordingly, the limitations and requirements of (d) (i) and (ii) you cite
            as applying only to (2) (a) and (b) and (c) actually apply to the entire
            entire Article 1, Section 27. This being the case, the concerns I earlier
            mentioned about the proposal are valid.

            By the way, you might notice that I do not attribute “dishonesty” or assert
            that you are “incapable of reading statutory language” just because we
            differ as to the meaning of this language. I do not subscribe to tossing
            verbal bombs at people with whom I disagree on issues. To assert that the
            language is clear is simply not factual.

            eleslie

          • ebrayton

            Tomor wrote:

            However, your comments are based
            on your opinion that the phrase “permitted by the provisions of this
            section” found in (2) (d) (i) applies only to (2) “To ensure that” etc. etc.

            In fact, the use of the term “in this section” applies to Article 1,
            SECTION 27, not just to portion (2) of Article 1, Section 27.

            No, I am arguing the exact opposite. When (2) D 1 says that all research much be consistent with state laws except when those laws “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this
            section” it is referring to the entire referendum, which will be Article 1, Section 27 of the Michigan constitution if passed. It refers to all of section 27, which is the entire text of the referendum. All this provision says is that all earlier state laws that are not consistent with this constitutional amendment are voided. And this amendment spells out with absolute clarity in (2) a and b that the only embryos that can be used are leftover embryos from fertility clinics with the permission of the donors. The language in (2) (d) is absolutely standard statutory language and you are distorting its meaning to scare people into believing that it does something it clearly does not.

            By the way, you might notice that I do not attribute “dishonesty” or assert that you are “incapable of reading statutory language” just because we differ as to the meaning of this language. I do not subscribe to tossing
            verbal bombs at people with whom I disagree on issues. To assert that the
            language is clear is simply not factual.

            The language is absolutely clear. Clear enough that there are only two possible conclusions: you're either lying intentionally or you are not capable of understanding statutory language. That may be insulting to you but it has the great virtue of being true.

          • Tomor

            Well , there is a third possible conclusion and that is that you, and not I, may be wrong in your reading of the language. One thing for sure, the language with all its references to other laws and sections is at a minimum unclear . Beyond that minimum is possible deceptiveness on the part of supporters. We agree to disagree.

          • ebrayton

            Tomor wrote:

            Well , there is a third possible conclusion and that is that you, and not I, may be wrong in your reading of the language. One thing for sure, the language with all its references to other laws and sections is at a minimum unclear .

            It isn't the least bit unclear, you just don't know how to read it. Every statute ever written contains language with references to other laws and sections; that is the nature of an amendment, for crying out loud. But there is nothing the least bit ambiguous about this law. It is very clear in saying that the only embryos that can be used for stem cell research are leftover embryos from fertility clinics with the permission of the donors. The language could not be any more explicit than it is. The ambiguity you claim to see is a result of your inability to read such language, not any lack of clarity in the statute itself.

        • http://www.CureMI.org Mrs. Smarts

          That's not the proposal's wording – see below.

  • http://www.oaklandpolitics.com Chetly Zarko

    It won't be “certified” until the Board of Canvassers' actually takes a vote in about 3 hours (the Bureau of Elections Staff has merely recommended it as having sufficient valid numbers of signatures), but no one realistically expects anything other than vote to put it on.

  • http://www.CureMI.org CureMI

    Liberalize? The stem cell proposal forbids the state or local governments from making laws pulling stem cell restrictions within the guidelines of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, the National Academies of Sciences, and virtually every bioethics board in the world … who have limits less 'liberal' than in the petition or proposal.

    Michigan has no restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research – only on research on live embryos … this proposal is outside the bounds of internationally acceptable ethics.

    • ebrayton

      CureMI wrote:

      Liberalize? The stem cell proposal forbids the state or local governments from making laws pulling stem cell restrictions within the guidelines of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, the National Academies of Sciences, and virtually every bioethics board in the world … who have limits less 'liberal' than in the petition or proposal.

      Please cite the ethical rules of any of those organizations that say it's unethical to create new stem cell lines from leftover blastocysts from fertility clinics with the permission of the egg and sperm donors. That is the only think this amendment legalizes and it is absolutely consistent with what stem cell researchers do every day all over the world – except in Michigan.

      • http://www.CureMI.org Mrs. Smarts

        You haven't read the proposal, have you.

      • http://www.CureMI.org Mrs. Smarts

        A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE NSTATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO AND
        HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

        The proposed constitutional amendment would:

        - Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal
        law subject to the following limits; the embryos –

        – are created for fertility treatment purposes;

        – are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;

        – would be discarded unless used for research;

        – were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.

        - Provide the stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than
        14 days after cell division begins

        - Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem
        cell research

        - Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.

        ———
        The embryo age is outside internationally recognized restrictions for research, as well as the ISSCR & National Academies of Science.

        The last bit – PROHIBIT STATE AND LOCAL LAWS is the scariest bit, though. Since there are no federal laws (doubt it? Find it.) this would make the research completely unregulated and left up to the pharmaceutical industry – the only ones that stand to profit from the research since, as Scientific American stated: Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, cannot be used directly in therapy because they cause cancer.

        • ebrayton

          Mrs Smarts wrote:

          The embryo age is outside internationally recognized restrictions for research, as well as the ISSCR & National Academies of Science.

          This is an absolutely bizarre claim that has been made by two other people as well, but not one of you has provided any evidence for it. The proposed law merely says that the stem cells cannot be taken from any embryo older than 14 days. It says this because that is the only age at which embryonic stem cells are useful. Please cite anything from the ISSCR or the NAS that supports your claim.

          The last bit – PROHIBIT STATE AND LOCAL LAWS is the scariest bit, though. Since there are no federal laws (doubt it? Find it.) this would make the research completely unregulated and left up to the pharmaceutical industry – the only ones that stand to profit from the research

          This is the same lie told by Tomor above. Like Tomor, you are leaving out the key part of the text: the law overrules state and local laws in Michigan that “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section. That doesn't mean it eliminates all restrictions on such research, it means all current state and local laws are replaced with the restrictions found in this referendum. And you listed those yourself – the embryo must be leftover from fertility treatments, must be less than 14 days in development, they must have the permission from the parents, it must not be suitable for implantation and it would otherwise be discarded.

          Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, cannot be used directly in therapy because they cause cancer.

          Actually, you have this backwards. Adult stem cells that are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells cause cancer. They do so because the only means we currently have of resetting adult stem cells to a pluripotent embryonic state is to introduce viruses into them. Embryonic stem cells do not have that problem, nor do adult stem cells that are not reprogrammed.

          • Tomor

            “This is the same lie told by Tomor above. Like Tomor, you are leaving out the key part of the text: the law overrules state and local laws in Michigan that “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section. That doesn't mean it eliminates all restrictions on such research, it means all current state and local laws are replaced with the restrictions found in this referendum. “

            Well, I see that your ( ebrayton) previous generosity of claiming that I am “either completely incapable of reading statutory language” or I am “incredibly dishonest” has now decended into calling me a liar without qualifications. While you are very effective in throwing verbal bombs around, I find you lacking in ability to explain the use of the term “in this section”. As I said before (see above) the use of the words “by the provisions of this section” refers to Article 1 Section 27, not to (2) (d) (i) and (ii). As proof of this usage, I refer you to (3) wherein the lawyer writing this proposal's language uses these words: “(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.”

            The lawyer wants to be sure that all other portions of this section remain in effect if a judge were to rule that some protion of Article 1 Section 27 unconstitutional.

            Hence if the lawyer wanted to limit the impact of “prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section” to portions (2) (a) (b) and (c) he would have used the words “by the provisions of this portion of this section”.

            Hence, the lawyer either improperly crafted the language or he is attempting to deceive the public. As the language of the proposal stands now as signed by the 580,000 or so voters to get it on the ballot and which will be incorporated into the state's constitution upon receiving 50.1% of the November 4 voters approval, the proposal approves unrestricted embryonic stem cell research. The full control of such research would be granted to scientist and research firms without any legislative regulation of abuses. As the constitution outweighs legislation, Department of Community Health, legislators and the governor would be powerless to regulate research fully capable of combining human and animal genes as done in England.

          • ebrayton

            tomor wrote:

            As I said before (see above) the use of the words “by the provisions of this section” refers to Article 1 Section 27, not to (2) (d) (i) and (ii).

            I've concluded, quite reasonably, that you are lying because it's almost inconceivable that someone could be this clueless. Article 1 Section 27 includes (2)(d))i). You just admitted exactly what I've been trying to say, that “this section” refers to the entire referendum, not to any particular provision of the referendum. The referendum would insert section 27 into Article 1 of the state constitution. if “by the provisions of this section” refers to the entirety of Article 1 Section 27 – which is exactly what I told you and you just admitted – then when it says that it will overturn any laws that “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section” it means those types of stem cell research explicitly authorized in provision 1 of Article 1, Section 27 — which means only research that uses embryos from fertility clinics less than 14 days old with the explicit permission of the donors. You can keep claiming that this provision does more than that, but you are either incomparably dense or you are lying. It really is that simple.

          • Tomor

            “The proposed law merely says that the stem cells cannot be taken from any embryo older than 14 days. It says this because that is the only age at which embryonic stem cells are useful.”

            This statement of ebrayton is incorrect in a number of respects. 14 days is not the only age at which embryonic stem cells are useful. They are certainly “useful” before 14 days. They are also “useful” before the primitive streak develops regardless of any fourteen days. Further the 14 day limit is arbitrary. It is a generally consensed limit by scientists and government officials. Why fourteen days?

            Some scientists argued 14 days is the time beyond which twinning can occur. But others disagreed and assert that twinning can take place earlier. Other scientist argued embyros become organized between 7 and 14 days. Still others argued that 14 days represents a stage beyond the implementation stage when a zygote normally takes root in the womb. Still other researchers resorted to the neural development argument – it's OK to dissect embryos if they can't feel pain or think. But other scientists argued that there is no possibility of pain as only after six weeks of pregnancy can a fetus develop a nervous system and feel pain at the earliest..

            The 14 day rule is arbitrary and relied upon by researchers as an ethical provision because it represents an estimate of time available for research which will limit ethical arguments that an individual has been killed ( not a twin, not an organized, growing embryo, not an implanted embryo, not a sentient fetus, not a person ).

          • ebrayton

            tomor wrote:

            This statement of ebrayton is incorrect in a number of respects. 14 days is not the only age at which embryonic stem cells are useful. They are certainly “useful” before 14 days.

            For crying out loud, it should be quite obvious that I meant that they are only useful before they reach that point of development (and in fact, prior to 5 days development is preferred).

  • http://www.CureMI.org CureMI

    This proposal also prohibits complying with internationally acceptable stem cell research guidelines.

    Whether it's the International Society for Stem Cell Research, the National Academies of Sciences, California's Prop 71, or virtually every bioethics board in the world, their restrictions are greater than this proposal's.

    If passed, the proposal would “Prohibit state laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, therapies or cures” – including those keeping with with currently recognized guidelines – or any new ones.

  • Tomor

    After additional study of the language of this proposal, it is even more deceptive than I previously stated.

    Sec 27 (2) Federal law has no restrictions on the research that can be done on human embryos, only on its federal funding. So this phrase “any research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Michigan does not limit anything the scientists want to do in Michigan.

    Sec 27 (b) embryos created “for the purpose of fertility treatment” doesn't limit any process or technique but rather its purpose. Therefor this language does not regulate research on living embryos created by cloning for the purpose of fertility treatment.

    Section 27 (c) “No person may —purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research” does not limit sales and purchases of live embryos for any other embryo research such as infecting them with diseases.

    Section (d) would not permit Michigan legislators to regulate research on live human embryos but the US Congress and President would be able to do so. — so much for local control

    Yes, this constitutional amendment will permit unrestricted experimentation. Follow the money – once Michigan scientists can kill live embryos they gain the patent rights and royalties to attract investors. Here come the clones (not prohibited by this amendment) and human – animal hybrids.

  • Tomor

    After additional study of the language of this proposal, it is even more deceptive than I previously stated.

    Sec 27 (2) Federal law has no restrictions on the research that can be done on human embryos, only on its federal funding. So this phrase “any research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Michigan does not limit anything the scientists want to do in Michigan.

    Sec 27 (b) embryos created “for the purpose of fertility treatment” doesn't limit any process or technique but rather its purpose. Therefor this language does not regulate research on living embryos created by cloning for the purpose of fertility treatment.

    Section 27 (c) “No person may —purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research” does not limit sales and purchases of live embryos for any other embryo research such as infecting them with diseases.

    Section (d) would not permit Michigan legislators to regulate research on live human embryos but the US Congress and President would be able to do so. — so much for local control

    Yes, this constitutional amendment will permit unrestricted experimentation. Follow the money – once Michigan scientists can kill live embryos they gain the patent rights and royalties to attract investors. Here come the clones (not prohibited by this amendment) and human – animal hybrids.

  • Tomor

    After additional study of the language of this proposal, it is even more deceptive than I previously stated.

    Sec 27 (2) Federal law has no restrictions on the research that can be done on human embryos, only on its federal funding. So this phrase “any research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Michigan does not limit anything the scientists want to do in Michigan.

    Sec 27 (b) embryos created “for the purpose of fertility treatment” doesn't limit any process or technique but rather its purpose. Therefor this language does not regulate research on living embryos created by cloning for the purpose of fertility treatment.

    Section 27 (c) “No person may —purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research” does not limit sales and purchases of live embryos for any other embryo research such as infecting them with diseases.

    Section (d) would not permit Michigan legislators to regulate research on live human embryos but the US Congress and President would be able to do so. — so much for local control

    Yes, this constitutional amendment will permit unrestricted experimentation. Follow the money – once Michigan scientists can kill live embryos they gain the patent rights and royalties to attract investors. Here come the clones (not prohibited by this amendment) and human – animal hybrids.

Categories & Tags: State Politics| | |