Oct. 25, 2006
Stem Cell Opponents To Air Celebrity Ad
To Rebut Ad Featuring Michael J. Fox, World Series Pitcher Speaks Out Against Missouri Amendment
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Fox Reacts To Limbaugh Jab
Michael J. Fox responds to Rush Limbaugh's remark that Fox was "exploiting" his illness. Fox is campaigning in Wheaton, Ill., for Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth. Mike Puccinelli reports.
-
Video
Michael J. Fox In Campaign Ad
Actor Michael J. Fox, who has suffered from Parkinson's disease for several years, appears in a campaign commercial for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.
-
Video
Michael J. Fox Backs Dems
Actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, appears in a political ad supporting Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. She backs embryonic stem cell research.
-
-
Photo
Rush Limbaugh, right, said he would apologize to actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, if he is wrong in characterizing Fox's behavior in a political ad as an act. (CBS/AP)
-
Photo
St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan will start Game 4 of the World Series, Wednesday Oct. 25, 2006. Suppan appears in an ad telling Missouri voters to reject a controversial stem-cell law. (Getty Images)
-
-
Interactive
Stem Cell Research
Follow the debate, and learn how and why the cells are harvested.
-
Interactive
Campaign 2006
Complete coverage and analysis of Senate and key House races, plus gubernatorial elections.
The ad, sponsored by Missourians Against Human Cloning, is likely to draw attention after Fox's ad triggered a backlash — most notably from conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting."
An added twist to the opponents' response is that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan appears in the ad and will be the starter Wednesday against the Detroit Tigers.
Suppan, a devout Catholic, says in the ad: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived."
The proposed amendment to the state constitution would protect embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. A referendum on Amendment 2 will be decided during congressional elections on Nov. 7. Referendums are often included in general elections as a practical matter.
Joining Suppan are celebrities such as NFL quarterback Kurt Warner, actors Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton, and, baseball player Mike Sweeney. Caviezel played the role of Jesus in the film, "The Passion of the Christ."
The minute-long advertisement was completed and made available on the Internet on Tuesday afternoon. It will air across Missouri in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 election, reports the St. Louis News-Dispatch.
Missourians Against Human Cloning spokeswoman Cathy Ruse said the ad was already in the works, "but we sped up production after the Michael J. Fox ad came out.
"That ad claims opponents want to criminalize research and prevent the expansion of stem cell research. Those claims are just false and misleading," Ruse said. "Our gripe with Amendment 2 is it creates a right to do human cloning and it creates the right to human egg trafficking for cloning research."
Each of the celebrities warns against the measure, with Warner saying, "Beware of loopholes" and Heaton adding that the law will encourage women to sell their eggs to fertility clinics. "Low income women will be seduced by big checks," Heaton says.
Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a supporter of the amendment, called the opponents' ad "a pathetic attempt to distort the facts and mislead voters."
"To believe the claims made in their ad you'd have to believe that over 100 nonprofit patient and medical organizations, including the Missouri State Medical Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, just to name a few, are conspiring to mislead voters," Farrow said. "And that defies commonsense."
Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, displays the tics and twitches typically associated with the disease throughout the advertisement, which backs Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, who is running for Senate and supports Amendment 2.
Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.
Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder of the central nervous system that leaves patients increasingly unable to control their movements.
McCaskill is trying to unseat Republican incumbent James Talent, who opposes Amendment 2.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.




- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 CommentsEggs are not "babies" Patricia. Glad we are having this debate, though. Good to get the facts out in the open.
Mr. Fox, as an actual sufferer of Parkinson's, at least has the benefit of both personal experience with the disease, as well as having done his own research into his own disease, to know what he's talking about.
These others know nothing and are just being paid to tout the party line.
Unfortunately, based on the First Amendment, these people have the benefit of free speech- there's no qualification that what anyone of them says is accurate, or scientifically proven (unless you're trying to sell something- in which case its considererd false advertising.)
Might that not be an important distinction?
The ad says: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived." The amendment reads: %u201CNo person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."In the ad, we are told "Beware of loopholes" and that "Low income women will be seduced by big checks.%u201D The amendment: Provision #2: "No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research." And #4: "No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures." Stored away in laboratory fridges all over our great country are fertilized eggs. When infertility couples have their eggs harvested, they don't get just one. The eggs are then fertilized and observed for a few days. It's not uncommon to produce 10 little blastocysts per IVF cycle. How many of the eggs are used? A few. What happens to the ones that are not used? Most are destroyed. The parents don't want the leftovers after a successful pregnancy, and the clinic runs out of space - so they're destroyed. What would be done with them? Well, the blastocysts could then be used to grow the cells that might cure diabetes, or - essentially to grow a healthy replacement for any diseased organ. Cloning should be forbidden. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to donating eggs. But blastocysts that would BE DESTROYED ANYWAY should be allowed to cure disease.
Shane on those other celebrity who have been enlisted to combat Michael's notoriety and have no moral decency left that they prostitue themselves for a party line that is afraid of the potential breakthroguh of medical science.
This is something that bothers me greatly.
Another thing to consider, as is the way with most "foot in the door" methods to science...once that door is open, all hell could and will break loose. Today it will be (according to the Ammendment) that women can only "donate" their eggs. Tomorrow they will be selling them. How ethical is it to sell the potential to life?
I think we're messing with God's plan here. I for one am not about to step on God's toes.
What do these posters - especially the ones who speak for God - think about the absolutely true fact that as of right now, and indefinitely if stem cell research isn't conducted - those precious stem cells, which could cure diabetes, Parkinson's and other diseases - are destroyed?
Another way to create an embryo is via a technique called therapeutic CLONING. This technique merges a cell (from the patient who needs the stem cell therapy) with a donor egg. The nucleus is removed from the egg and replaced with the nucleus of the patient's cell.
Both methods -- using EXISTING FERTILIZED EMBRYOS and creating NEW EMBRYOS specifically for research purposes -- are controversial."
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
Assuming you're directing your comment at me.
I speak for what I believe in, as is my right. And you speak for what you believe in, which is yours.
When God created man, supposing you believe in God, he didn't create us in a laboratory.
Most US citizens are unaware of the difference between and the scientific and economic merits of ebmryonic versus adult stem cell research. Liberals argue on moral grounds that millons of tax dollars should be spent on embryonic stem cells regardless of its scientific, medical economic and technological merits. Others argue that funding for research should be based on scientific, technological, and economic calculations. Hence they support adult stem cell research.
A. Current State of Research (Raw Data)
100% of all NIH approved stem cell clinical trials (308) on live human subjects were those involving adult stem cell research. Source: www.clinicaltrials.gov on 8/29/2005 at 2:45 PM
B. NIH Acknowledgement That Adult Stem Cells Have More Promise and Scientific Merit
Adult stem cells . . . are currently the only type of stem cell . . . used to treat human diseases . . . for over 40 years . . . to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders[, and recently] . . . diabetes and . . . kidney cancer. From http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/health.asp
C. Embyronic Stem Cells May Be Obsolete
Argonne National Laboratory scientists have made a breakthrough in adult stem cell research that would make the need for embryonic stem cell research obsolete and unnecessary. From http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos21-2/stem01.htm)
In Missouri, this one amendment would "change, repeal, or modify" at least 45 provisions of the Constitution of Missouri to make the creation of human beings for scientific research a constitutional right in the state. It would indeed "overthrow all of the other laws, amendments, and referenda that ban human cloning" - of which there are currently none in Missouri. That is what this amendment seeks to do - enshrine in the constitution the right to do this research so that no other law, action or regulation can change it.
As for blastocysts currently being destroyed, scientists do want to use IVF leftovers for research, but that does not hold the kind of potential for BIG money that cloning does. The product of cloned humans can be PATENTED to use for drug testing, for example.
Make no mistake - this is about MONEY. The proponents of this amendment have spent $26 MILLION on trying to get this passed - more than any other political campaign in the history of the state! Do you honestly believe the biotech industry is spending this kind of money for the good of mankind? Call me cynical, but there is HUGE money in the medical research field - for doing research, not for finding cures.
38d 2-1 "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
38d 6-2 "Clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
I'm sure someone will explain how a document that specifically says "no cloning of humans" is being touted as a document that supports cloning of humans....
38d 6(5) ' "Human embryonic stem cell research," also reffered to as "early stem cell research", means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For the purpose of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials. '
When you lookup "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) you will find that this is the technical term for cloning! More specifically Therapeutic/Research Cloning. This still produces a human embryo, i.e., human LIFE.
For a more detailed analysis, please see http://www.moroundtable.org/pdfs/full.pdf.
The "change, repeal or modify" wording comes from the actual amendment.
NOTICE: You are advised that the proposed constitutional amendment may change,
repeal, or modify by implication or may be construed by some persons to change, repeal
or modify by implication, the following provisions of the Constitution of Missouri %u2013
Sections 2, 10, 14, and 32 of Article I; Section 1 of Article II; Sections 1, 21, 22, 23, 28,
36, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of Article III; Sections 1, 14, 36(a), 37, 37(a), 39, and 52 of Article
IV; Sections 5, 14, 17, 18, and 23, and subsection 17 of Section 27 of Article V; Sections
18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(k), 18(m), 19(a), 20, 31, 32(a), and 32(b) of Article VI; Section
9(a) of Article IX; Sections 1, 6, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(f) of Article X; and Section 3 or
Article XI.
I did not make that up - it's right there in the actual amendment. And no, it is not impossible. That is what constitutional amendments do - they amend the constitution, i.e., CHANGE it.
I have a 24 year old daughter who is wheelchair bound with a spinal cord injury and she is completely against using human embryos for research. One reason is that adult stem cells show much more promise without the ethical and moral concerns. Embryonic stem cell research shows less promise and is more costly. Why not spend research dollars on something that has more chance of showing results sooner? Right now all this research is legal in Missouri but not being done because the research companies are holding it hostage until they get guarentees that no laws or regulations will be passed to "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies" (again, right out of the amendment wording).
Fortunately, Amendment 2 specifically takes human cloning completely off the table, by saying in Section One - specifically - "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
If you want to pose a "slippery slope" argument against the amendment, that's fine, you can argue that future amendments could open the door for human cloning. But as the amendment currently stands, the ONLY use provided by law for SCNT would be for stem cell research, and cloning humans is specifically forbidden.
SCNT is human cloning. That is the bottom line of what is most wrong about this amendment. SCNT is DEFINED by the scientific community as CLONING. It is not a "first step". It is what it is - making a genetic copy of an organism, in this case, a human being.
The amendment makes its own definition of cloning - it's not a human clone unless you implant or attempt to implant it into a human uterus.
As far as an analysis being just what one side thinks the amendment is - again, it is what it is. The amendment specifically grants constitutional protection to the scientific community to manufacture human life for the purpose of research. And the biotech industry ALONE is spending millions of dollars to make that happen.
We in America need to pull back from this Frenzy of Fear that has spellbound us since September 11, 2001. I am not saying to let down our guard or not be prudent with our Law enforcement, Intelligence agencies or Military as their constant job is to protect the American people and they do it well. Rationally speaking it is more likely that a person will be killed in a car accident on the way to get milk than killed by a Terrorist in America. Hispanics coming across our border for work are not the terrorist or the enemy. Unfair trade practices initiated by our government are the cause of our jobs leaving and the demise of the Middle Class in America not some Terrorist plot. Political Parties have been using fear in an attempt to maintain power in this country. Americans do the math you are more likely to do yourself bodily harm than to be harmed by a Terrorist. America is a Land of Opportunity and hopes where people live in Freedom. America is not a land were people will be governed by Fear.
Michael C. Boetjer
Captain U. S. Army
Double Blue Star Father
The discussion is about using the process to create stem cells, not about reproductive cloning (to "make human clones"). Since Amendment 2 (link in the article above) specifically says "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being", and since the Amendment is specifically for allowing research into stem cell research, the argument that this is about Human Cloning doesn't apply.
To make a human clone you need to skip the step of harvesting the stem cells for research and instead take the following step: the egg with the replaced nucleus is inserted in a womb and the fetus is brought to term.
It's like the hypothetical situation that has been proposed - if there is an embryo in one room and a five year old in another and you can only save one from a fire, which would it be?
Okay - what if it's a newborn and a five year old? Or a teenager and a five-year-old? An senior citizen or a young cancer patient?
Stages of life or location do not determine humanity - only the genetic makeup does. That is present from the cell-division stage of SCNT - a genetic replica of the original somatic cell. Whether you harvest the cells or let it grow in a uterus, or maybe an artificial womb someday - they are human from the very start. Otherwise, what use are they to researchers?
Thank you cintyzimmer, for finally clearing this up. I didn't know this was a religious debate. While I respect the beliefs of all religions, I have to disagree with your opinion that a cell can be defined as a human.
I may be wrong but I'm going to say that the vast majority of people, myself included, will choose the 5 year old over the embryo because one is an actual living, breathing human, while the other is only the possibility or potential to become such.
And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?
The growth difference between a newborn and a five-year-old is greater than the difference between a blastocyst and a newborn. Is the newborn less human?
pakaal, Please look in your Bible at Jeremiah 1:5, "Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
If anyone has doubts about the begining of life, I suggest that you forget about asking what the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or anyone else says or thinks. Just very simply and sincerely pray, read your Bible and ask God to show you. You won't need anyones opinion if you go to the Source. God loves you and me regardless of what we think about various issues. For one, I am glad that public and personal opinions don't affect what God thinks about me. Arguing political and religious opinions is a waste of time because the final authority is certainly NOT what I or anyone else "thinks". Only God's Word matters in the end. God loves you pakaal, unconditionally.
NCDaveNC
What is true? What is not true? Who knows?
But I feel that when you start messing with the unknown, it can sometimes come back to bite you in the ***.
My "wheelchair bound" son is 25. I've watched him deal with this disability for the past 7 years and I find it very difficult to watch. He was a great athlete before his spinal cord injury and had a wonderful career planned as a physical therapist helping people. Obviously this dream went out the window. I get to tend to his bedsores and dress him everyday before my 8 hour shift starts. I haven't asked him his opinion on this subject but I know for a fact he would rather be on the baseball or football field rather than sitting in his wheelchair. I think everyone should try sitting in a wheelchair for a week and see how difficult it is trying to get around; especially on public transportation. I know it would drive me insane from the frustration in no time.
The good news is that adult stem cells hold the greatest promise for spinal cord injury victims. A doctor in Portugal (where embryonic stem cell research is illegal) has used olfactory tissue from patients to improve their conditions. You can read a good summary of Dr. Lima's clinical trials here http://www.healingtherapies.info/OlfactoryTissue2.htm. This therapy is also supposed to be done in Michigan - where embryonic stem cell research is also illegal.
Here's the bad news. Concentration on the desire to use embryos, whether manufactured or leftovers, is stifling this more promising research, which has the potential of curing people with stem cells from their own bodies. What is more disturbing is that embryonic stem cell research on the animal testing level has been a disaster, often resulting in tumors. This research should be proven successful on animals before anyone even thinks of moving on to humans.
As to your questions before that, my definition of "human" doesn't include single cells, no. Or even multiple clumps of cells. Obviously a true definition of "human" would first require other specifications - moral? physical? You're making a link between thinking, judging, rational creature human and living organism human. Terry Schiavo, at the end of her life, was human - physically. Mentally, she was not.
"And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?"
Gee, you keep asking me which life to spare. Makes me think I'm God or something. I don't know which I'd choose. I still wouldn't choose a blasocyst over a newborn though, because one's human, the other is not.
I agree with NCDaveNC. God loves you unconditionally. So does Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 Comments