The statement, which will be considered by leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America next year, is intended to provide a framework for discussing such topics as stem cell research, cloning, and other advances of genetics.
"We recognize that contemporary power presents human beings with choices and responsibilities for which we are accountable to God," the draft statement reads. "What is the appropriate human role in God’s creation with regard to genetic knowledge and technology?"
The 63-page draft statement was drawn up by the ELCA Task Force on Genetics and is designed to assist the church and its members to "reach informed judgments on social issues from a perspective of faith." Though a theological and teaching document, the social statement is not intended to serve as "a list of specific decisions on particular genetic issues," Janet Williams, co-chair of the task force, told the denomination's news service.
The word "genetics" is never used in Scripture, the statement points out, but the task force notes that "God's word in Scripture illuminates the challenges and issues posed by genetic knowledge and its application."
The statement acknowledges both the promise and peril of the developments of genetic research. And it makes clear: "This church believes that the greatest danger in genetic developments lies in the sinful exercise of radically extended human power and not in any specific scientific or technological development per se."
On the issue of human cloning, the task force rejects the practice as "unacceptable experimentation."
"No individual should be brought into life for the sake of repeating another individual’s genotype," says the statement.
But it adds, "Should reproductive cloning progress, this church would honor the God-given dignity of cloned individuals and would welcome each to the baptismal font like any other child of God."
In regards to the contested issue of embryonic stem cell research, the ELCA panel says "embryo farming" is incompatible with the church's understanding of the value of life.
"The ELCA has maintained that 'human life in all its phases of development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity,'" the statement reads. "This church’s respect for the 'value, worth, and dignity' of human embryonic life precludes the creation of embryos expressly for research purposes."
While supportive of finding alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells that do not involve the use of embryonic human life, the panel says the church "accepts the use of surplus frozen embryos that were created for infertility treatment but are no longer needed."
"Since they are unlikely to be implanted and will ultimately be discarded, it seems preferable that they be used in research that may be beneficial to millions of humans and future generations."
Other issues addressed in the social statement include agricultural biotechnology and genetic research on animals.
Though appreciative of the developments of genetic research and technology, the church places its trust "not in human achievements, but in the Triune God who creates, redeems and will finish making all things new," the statement reads.
ELCA social statements set policy for the church, guide its advocacy and aid its life as a public church. They are developed through an extensive process of deliberation involving the whole church and are adopted by a two-thirds majority of a churchwide assembly. The final text of the statement on genetics is scheduled to be presented at the next assembly in August 2011.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Stupak feels arrows from his own side
If there were two words Bart Stupak never expected to hear, those were the two. Shouted at him. In front of Congress. In front of the world.
"Baby killer."
Bart Stupak had been an Eagle Scout from the Upper Peninsula, a law school grad, a police officer, a small-town Democratic congressman with strong Christian ties and an intractable anti-abortion record who had voted to ban partial-birth abortions, to forbid human cloning and to stop embryonic stem cell research.
"Baby killer."
The person shouting this ugliness was a Texas Republican named Randy Neugebauer. His reason? Stupak had just announced he was supporting the health care bill, but only after President Barack Obama committed to an executive order barring any federal money from paying for abortions.
"Baby killer," Neugebauer yelled.
Forget, for a moment, your personal views on health care. Forget, for a moment, your political side. Imagine a life largely dedicated to discouraging abortion in any way, shape or form, then standing before Congress and being called that.
"Baby killer."
How does it feel?
A sad, sad series of voice mails
"It's a sad day for the Congress when we resort to that," Stupak, 58, told me this past week. "I mean, disagree with me if you will, but we don't need personal attacks. ...
"If we can't conduct ourselves any better on the House floor, how do you expect people in society to behave?"
Don't worry. People in society already are behaving worse. After Stupak's vote (one of 219 votes in favor; he was hardly alone) some of the voice mails left for him were stunning.
"You are one big piece of human (excrement)," said one. Another began, "Stupak, you lowlife baby-murdering scumbag pile of steaming crap. ... You ought to fill your pockets with lead and jump in the Potomac." And then there was this one: "You baby-killing (expletive). I hope you ... get cancer and die."
These death wishes, we assume, are from people who call themselves pro-lifers.
Now, remember. It's not as if Stupak suddenly turned pro-abortion. He is -- and always has been -- adamant on the subject. He was cosponsor of the amendment that insisted no federal money be spent on such procedures. He was vilified plenty from the other side for that.
"Baby killer."
Bart Stupak had been an Eagle Scout from the Upper Peninsula, a law school grad, a police officer, a small-town Democratic congressman with strong Christian ties and an intractable anti-abortion record who had voted to ban partial-birth abortions, to forbid human cloning and to stop embryonic stem cell research.
"Baby killer."
The person shouting this ugliness was a Texas Republican named Randy Neugebauer. His reason? Stupak had just announced he was supporting the health care bill, but only after President Barack Obama committed to an executive order barring any federal money from paying for abortions.
"Baby killer," Neugebauer yelled.
Forget, for a moment, your personal views on health care. Forget, for a moment, your political side. Imagine a life largely dedicated to discouraging abortion in any way, shape or form, then standing before Congress and being called that.
"Baby killer."
How does it feel?
A sad, sad series of voice mails
"It's a sad day for the Congress when we resort to that," Stupak, 58, told me this past week. "I mean, disagree with me if you will, but we don't need personal attacks. ...
"If we can't conduct ourselves any better on the House floor, how do you expect people in society to behave?"
Don't worry. People in society already are behaving worse. After Stupak's vote (one of 219 votes in favor; he was hardly alone) some of the voice mails left for him were stunning.
"You are one big piece of human (excrement)," said one. Another began, "Stupak, you lowlife baby-murdering scumbag pile of steaming crap. ... You ought to fill your pockets with lead and jump in the Potomac." And then there was this one: "You baby-killing (expletive). I hope you ... get cancer and die."
These death wishes, we assume, are from people who call themselves pro-lifers.
Now, remember. It's not as if Stupak suddenly turned pro-abortion. He is -- and always has been -- adamant on the subject. He was cosponsor of the amendment that insisted no federal money be spent on such procedures. He was vilified plenty from the other side for that.
Medvedev Extends Russian Ban On Human Cloning
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed into law a bill to extend a ban on human cloning, the Kremlin press service reported on Monday.
The bill was approved by the lower and upper houses of the Russian parliament on March 10 and 17, respectively.
It says that the ban on human cloning will continue in Russia until new legislation is adopted regulating the cloning process.
Human cloning has been a subject of debate since the 1960s. Although technology for human cloning remains incomplete, its advocates have already faced a number of legal, ethical and religious challenges.
Human cloning is formally permitted in the United States and Britain, which became the first country to legalize the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research in 2001.
Therapeutic cloning, which involves the production of stem cells from embryos, was permitted in the United States a few days after Barack Obama's inauguration as president. The law on this type of cloning requires embryos to be destroyed within 14 days. Obama, however, ruled out reproductive cloning, which he called "dangerous" and "profoundly wrong." It "has no place in our society or any society," he said.
Russia's moratorium on human cloning expired on June 23, 2007.
The bill was approved by the lower and upper houses of the Russian parliament on March 10 and 17, respectively.
It says that the ban on human cloning will continue in Russia until new legislation is adopted regulating the cloning process.
Human cloning has been a subject of debate since the 1960s. Although technology for human cloning remains incomplete, its advocates have already faced a number of legal, ethical and religious challenges.
Human cloning is formally permitted in the United States and Britain, which became the first country to legalize the cloning of human embryos for stem cell research in 2001.
Therapeutic cloning, which involves the production of stem cells from embryos, was permitted in the United States a few days after Barack Obama's inauguration as president. The law on this type of cloning requires embryos to be destroyed within 14 days. Obama, however, ruled out reproductive cloning, which he called "dangerous" and "profoundly wrong." It "has no place in our society or any society," he said.
Russia's moratorium on human cloning expired on June 23, 2007.
Should We Clone Neanderthals?
If Neanderthals ever walk the earth again, the primordial ooze from which they will rise is an emulsion of oil, water, and DNA capture beads engineered in the laboratory of 454 Life Sciences in Branford, Connecticut. Over the past 4 years those beads have been gathering tiny fragments of DNA from samples of dissolved organic materials, including pieces of Neanderthal bone. Genetic sequences have given paleoanthropologists a new line of evidence for testing ideas about the biology of our closest extinct relative.
The first studies of Neanderthal DNA focused on the genetic sequences of mitochondria, the microscopic organelles that convert food to energy within cells. In 2005, however, 454 began a collaborative project with the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, to sequence the full genetic code of a Neanderthal woman who died in Croatia's Vindija cave 30,000 years ago. As the Neanderthal genome is painstakingly sequenced, the archaeologists and biologists who study it will be faced with an opportunity that seemed like science fiction just 10 years ago. They will be able to look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative and understand its biology as intimately as our own.
In addition to giving scientists the ability to answer questions about Neanderthals' relationship to our own species--did we interbreed, are we separate species, who was smarter--the Neanderthal genome may be useful in researching medical treatments. Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory. There are still technical obstacles, but soon it could be possible to use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. Should it be done?
At the 454 Life Sciences offices, Gerald Irzyk, Jason Affourtit, and Thomas Jarvie explain the process they use to read the chemicals that made up Neanderthal DNA and the genes that determined a large part of their biology. DNA has a shape, called a double helix, that makes it look like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is called a base-pair. The rungs are made up of a pair of chemicals called nucleotides--adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which are usually referred to by their first initials. The sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA determines what genes an organism has and how they function.
Although most of the Neanderthal genome sequencing is now being done by the San Diego-based company Illumina, the Max Planck Institute initially chose 454 because it had come up with a way to read hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences at a time. Genome-sequencing technology is advancing at a rate comparable to computer processing power. "Six years ago if you wanted to sequence E. coli [a species of bacteria], which is about 4 million base-pairs in length, it would have taken one or maybe two million dollars, and it would have taken a year and 150 people," says Jarvie. "Nowadays, one person can do it in two days and it would cost a few hundred dollars."
Putting the fragments themselves in order can be a little tricky. "At first glance, it's just this completely random assemblage of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs," says Irzyk. "But it turns out there are patterns and motifs, and sometimes these are very specific to a group of organisms." For the Neanderthal sample, the human and chimpanzee genomes were used as references for checking the sequence.
Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages--C changes into T, and G turns into A--which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.
The first studies of Neanderthal DNA focused on the genetic sequences of mitochondria, the microscopic organelles that convert food to energy within cells. In 2005, however, 454 began a collaborative project with the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, to sequence the full genetic code of a Neanderthal woman who died in Croatia's Vindija cave 30,000 years ago. As the Neanderthal genome is painstakingly sequenced, the archaeologists and biologists who study it will be faced with an opportunity that seemed like science fiction just 10 years ago. They will be able to look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative and understand its biology as intimately as our own.
In addition to giving scientists the ability to answer questions about Neanderthals' relationship to our own species--did we interbreed, are we separate species, who was smarter--the Neanderthal genome may be useful in researching medical treatments. Newly developed techniques could make cloning Neanderthal cells or body parts a reality within a few years. The ability to use the genes of extinct hominins is going to force the field of paleoanthropology into some unfamiliar ethical territory. There are still technical obstacles, but soon it could be possible to use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. Should it be done?
At the 454 Life Sciences offices, Gerald Irzyk, Jason Affourtit, and Thomas Jarvie explain the process they use to read the chemicals that made up Neanderthal DNA and the genes that determined a large part of their biology. DNA has a shape, called a double helix, that makes it look like a twisted ladder. Each rung on the ladder is called a base-pair. The rungs are made up of a pair of chemicals called nucleotides--adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, which are usually referred to by their first initials. The sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA determines what genes an organism has and how they function.
Although most of the Neanderthal genome sequencing is now being done by the San Diego-based company Illumina, the Max Planck Institute initially chose 454 because it had come up with a way to read hundreds of thousands of DNA sequences at a time. Genome-sequencing technology is advancing at a rate comparable to computer processing power. "Six years ago if you wanted to sequence E. coli [a species of bacteria], which is about 4 million base-pairs in length, it would have taken one or maybe two million dollars, and it would have taken a year and 150 people," says Jarvie. "Nowadays, one person can do it in two days and it would cost a few hundred dollars."
Putting the fragments themselves in order can be a little tricky. "At first glance, it's just this completely random assemblage of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs," says Irzyk. "But it turns out there are patterns and motifs, and sometimes these are very specific to a group of organisms." For the Neanderthal sample, the human and chimpanzee genomes were used as references for checking the sequence.
Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages--C changes into T, and G turns into A--which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.
South Dakota Senate Rejects Effort to Undermine Embryonic
South Dakota Senate Rejects Effort to Undermine Embryonic Stem Cell Ban
PIERRE, South Dakota, February 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The South Dakota Senate voted down a bill Tuesday that would have sabotaged the state’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate rejected S.B. 74 by a 21 - 12 margin, after the bill was substantially revised to permit South Dakotans to access embryonic stem cell treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The original bill intended to throw out South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell research and treatments entirely and replace it with a set of “ethical guidelines” by which research and treatments could be carried out.
The proposed legal restrictions included a ban on human cloning, but defined “human cloning” mainly in reproductive terms, leaving some ambiguity over whether scientists could perform human cloning for therapeutic purposes.
The bill also forbade the purchase or sale of “human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures,” prohibited the creation of human embryos “by fertilization” for the sole purpose of ESCR, and required documented written informed consent.
However, the penalties for violating the law were criticized for being exceptionally light, especially considering the millions of dollars researchers have at their disposal. The bill stated that violators of the law would be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In South Dakota, a Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of “one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both.”
The original bill also erroneously defined “stem-cell research” to apply only to stem-cell research derived from human embryos, to the exclusion of adult stem-cells or stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood. The latter two forms of stem-cell research are considered free of the ethical problems that dog ESCR, and unlike ESCR have delivered a host of scientifically proven therapies and cures.
But after enduring blistering testimony on the failure of ESCR to provide any practical results, especially in comparison to proven therapies that do not have ESCR’s ethical baggage, the Senate Health and Human services gutted the bill.
Bob Ellis, a writer for the conservative Dakota Voice explained that "the original bill had been a direct assault on the ban on ESCR. However, it became apparent from the damning scientific testimony before the Health and Human Services Committee against embryonic stem cell research and for adult stem cell research that the bill was about to go down in total flames."
"The prime sponsor Senator Ben Nesslhuff then offered to gut the bill and replace the outright attack on the ban with a much weaker measure which might serve as a 'foot in the door' to get the results of ESCR into the state,” he explained.
The amended bill instead read only that “nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of any Food and Drug Administration approved treatments derived from or involving human embryonic stem cells."
The committee then approved the bill 4-2 before handing it off to the South Dakota legislature where it was handily rejected.
The Associated Press reports that former state Treasurer David Volk of Sioux Falls had suspended a petition drive to put the state ban on the November ballot for public vote, while the legislature debated the issue. However, he may now revive those efforts.
But South Dakota appears likely to benefit from steering clear of ESCR, if the experience of the near-bankrupt State of California offers any lesson. Back in 2004, California’s government pumped $3 billion into research at California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, seeking some medical use for stem cells harvested from human embryos, which are killed in the process.
However after years of fruitless work and facing the prospect of total failure, the Institute has now quietly diverted funds away from ESCR to adult stem cell research – which has already produced at least 73 documented therapies and cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer's, to Type I diabetes.
PIERRE, South Dakota, February 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The South Dakota Senate voted down a bill Tuesday that would have sabotaged the state’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
The Senate rejected S.B. 74 by a 21 - 12 margin, after the bill was substantially revised to permit South Dakotans to access embryonic stem cell treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The original bill intended to throw out South Dakota’s ban on embryonic stem cell research and treatments entirely and replace it with a set of “ethical guidelines” by which research and treatments could be carried out.
The proposed legal restrictions included a ban on human cloning, but defined “human cloning” mainly in reproductive terms, leaving some ambiguity over whether scientists could perform human cloning for therapeutic purposes.
The bill also forbade the purchase or sale of “human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures,” prohibited the creation of human embryos “by fertilization” for the sole purpose of ESCR, and required documented written informed consent.
However, the penalties for violating the law were criticized for being exceptionally light, especially considering the millions of dollars researchers have at their disposal. The bill stated that violators of the law would be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In South Dakota, a Class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of “one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both.”
The original bill also erroneously defined “stem-cell research” to apply only to stem-cell research derived from human embryos, to the exclusion of adult stem-cells or stem-cells derived from umbilical cord blood. The latter two forms of stem-cell research are considered free of the ethical problems that dog ESCR, and unlike ESCR have delivered a host of scientifically proven therapies and cures.
But after enduring blistering testimony on the failure of ESCR to provide any practical results, especially in comparison to proven therapies that do not have ESCR’s ethical baggage, the Senate Health and Human services gutted the bill.
Bob Ellis, a writer for the conservative Dakota Voice explained that "the original bill had been a direct assault on the ban on ESCR. However, it became apparent from the damning scientific testimony before the Health and Human Services Committee against embryonic stem cell research and for adult stem cell research that the bill was about to go down in total flames."
"The prime sponsor Senator Ben Nesslhuff then offered to gut the bill and replace the outright attack on the ban with a much weaker measure which might serve as a 'foot in the door' to get the results of ESCR into the state,” he explained.
The amended bill instead read only that “nothing in this chapter prohibits the use of any Food and Drug Administration approved treatments derived from or involving human embryonic stem cells."
The committee then approved the bill 4-2 before handing it off to the South Dakota legislature where it was handily rejected.
The Associated Press reports that former state Treasurer David Volk of Sioux Falls had suspended a petition drive to put the state ban on the November ballot for public vote, while the legislature debated the issue. However, he may now revive those efforts.
But South Dakota appears likely to benefit from steering clear of ESCR, if the experience of the near-bankrupt State of California offers any lesson. Back in 2004, California’s government pumped $3 billion into research at California's Institute for Regenerative Medicine, seeking some medical use for stem cells harvested from human embryos, which are killed in the process.
However after years of fruitless work and facing the prospect of total failure, the Institute has now quietly diverted funds away from ESCR to adult stem cell research – which has already produced at least 73 documented therapies and cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer's, to Type I diabetes.
Guv adds embryonic stem-cell research to agenda
Gov. Bill Richardson has added embryonic stem cell research to an already-packed agenda for this year’s 30-day legislative session.
The governor’s message came down last week, and Richardson told lawmakers that he wanted legislation to permit “biomedical research on limited categories of human embryonic stem cells” while prohibiting human cloning.
Rep. Al Park, D-Albuquerque, has introduced such legislation, but it hasn’t gone before a committee yet, judging by the Legislature’s bill locator and House committee schedules.
With little more than two weeks to go in the session, that would lead some to believe the bill’s chances aren’t great–especially in a 30-day session that’s supposed to be focused on the budget.
The governor’s message came down last week, and Richardson told lawmakers that he wanted legislation to permit “biomedical research on limited categories of human embryonic stem cells” while prohibiting human cloning.
Rep. Al Park, D-Albuquerque, has introduced such legislation, but it hasn’t gone before a committee yet, judging by the Legislature’s bill locator and House committee schedules.
With little more than two weeks to go in the session, that would lead some to believe the bill’s chances aren’t great–especially in a 30-day session that’s supposed to be focused on the budget.
Mississippi Pro-Lifers File Lawsuit to Get Personhood Amendm
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A Mississippi pro-life group has filed a lawsuit against state officials in order to be able to get a personhood amendment on the state ballot. Such an amendment would declare that unborn children are persons starting at conception and could overturn laws allowing abortion or human cloning.
Personhood Mississippi filed suit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in their official capacities.
The group has been working since February of last year to collect signatures for a ballot access initiative that would put an amendment before state voters in 2011.
The amendment states: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The lawsuit, which will be filed by attorney Stephen Crampton today, attempts to clarify the intent of the amendment and give volunteers the full twelve months to circulate petitions as outlined by statutes and the County Clerk the time needed to correctly validate the signatures.
"We are confident that we are well on our way to putting Personhood on the ballot," Personhood Mississippi sponsor Les Riley told LifeNews.com today. "This lawsuit is simply to ensure that the valid signatures are recognized by the state. Our volunteers have worked hard to submit so many valid signatures, and we want to ensure that every voice is heard."
Riley said the need for a lawsuit arose when a large portion of valid signatures were wrongly discounted by some County Circuit Clerk's offices.
"I noticed that my father's signature was marked as invalid, yet he is a registered voter and his information was correct," amendment supporter Buddy Hariston told LifeNews.com.
"This prompted me to obtain my county's voter database, and I was shocked to see that about three out of every four discounted signatures were actually legitimate. It seems that the County Circuit Clerk's office has too short a timeframe to complete the verification process with precision," he added.
Personhood Mississippi has until February 12, 2010 to get 89,285 valid signatures.
But not every pro-life advocate is on board with the strategy and one attorney worries the entire effort will be struck down in courts.
Paul Linton, a prominent pro-life attorney, tells LifeNews.com he doesn't think the amendment will ever get before Mississippi voters.
He explains that the under the express terms of the Mississippi Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be amended by the initiative mechanism.
"Thus, even if the necessary signatures are obtained by the February 12th deadline, which is doubtful, Measure 26 will never appear on the ballot," he says.
As such, Linton predicts that "even if the proponents of Measure 26 gather enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, it will be struck from the ballot by the Mississippi Supreme Court because the subject of the initiative lies outside the scope of the permitted uses of the initiative mechanism."
Linton says it 'would be exceptionally embarrassing to the pro-life movement in Mississippi to continue with the signature gathering process. What is the point in collecting signatures for an initiative that cannot ever appear on the ballot?"
The court may even strike down the amendment process under the lawsuit Personhood Mississippi filed, using Linton's logic.
"It could happen after the signatures have been gathered and before it is placed on the ballot. Or it could happen after it is voted on," he writes. "But one thing is certain–Initiative Measure No. 26 will never become part of the Mississippi Constitution. The Bill of Rights cannot be amended via the initiative process."
Personhood Mississippi filed suit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in their official capacities.
The group has been working since February of last year to collect signatures for a ballot access initiative that would put an amendment before state voters in 2011.
The amendment states: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
The lawsuit, which will be filed by attorney Stephen Crampton today, attempts to clarify the intent of the amendment and give volunteers the full twelve months to circulate petitions as outlined by statutes and the County Clerk the time needed to correctly validate the signatures.
"We are confident that we are well on our way to putting Personhood on the ballot," Personhood Mississippi sponsor Les Riley told LifeNews.com today. "This lawsuit is simply to ensure that the valid signatures are recognized by the state. Our volunteers have worked hard to submit so many valid signatures, and we want to ensure that every voice is heard."
Riley said the need for a lawsuit arose when a large portion of valid signatures were wrongly discounted by some County Circuit Clerk's offices.
"I noticed that my father's signature was marked as invalid, yet he is a registered voter and his information was correct," amendment supporter Buddy Hariston told LifeNews.com.
"This prompted me to obtain my county's voter database, and I was shocked to see that about three out of every four discounted signatures were actually legitimate. It seems that the County Circuit Clerk's office has too short a timeframe to complete the verification process with precision," he added.
Personhood Mississippi has until February 12, 2010 to get 89,285 valid signatures.
But not every pro-life advocate is on board with the strategy and one attorney worries the entire effort will be struck down in courts.
Paul Linton, a prominent pro-life attorney, tells LifeNews.com he doesn't think the amendment will ever get before Mississippi voters.
He explains that the under the express terms of the Mississippi Constitution, the Bill of Rights cannot be amended by the initiative mechanism.
"Thus, even if the necessary signatures are obtained by the February 12th deadline, which is doubtful, Measure 26 will never appear on the ballot," he says.
As such, Linton predicts that "even if the proponents of Measure 26 gather enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, it will be struck from the ballot by the Mississippi Supreme Court because the subject of the initiative lies outside the scope of the permitted uses of the initiative mechanism."
Linton says it 'would be exceptionally embarrassing to the pro-life movement in Mississippi to continue with the signature gathering process. What is the point in collecting signatures for an initiative that cannot ever appear on the ballot?"
The court may even strike down the amendment process under the lawsuit Personhood Mississippi filed, using Linton's logic.
"It could happen after the signatures have been gathered and before it is placed on the ballot. Or it could happen after it is voted on," he writes. "But one thing is certain–Initiative Measure No. 26 will never become part of the Mississippi Constitution. The Bill of Rights cannot be amended via the initiative process."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
