Mark's blog

If you're a Michigan resident, you've likely heard a lot of back-and-forth about Proposal 2.

I have to say, what has surprised me most about the Proposal 2 debate are the protests from the Catholic Church, a self-described "pro-life" institution.

To start my analysis, let's take a look at the actual text of the amendment:

PROPOSAL 08-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN
EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

ARTICLE 1
Section 27.   

(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning. 

(2) To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, 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:  

(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.  

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.   

(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.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. 

Just to make this clear: The embryos are going to be destroyed anyway. (See: 2b, i & ii) The logical thing to do would be to make use of the cells for research purposes, right?

We are presented with two, very clear options:

(A) Don't make use of the excess embryos. According to the proposed amendment, the cells "would be discarded unless used for research." In this scenario, embryos will certainly be destroyed, and no good can possibly come of the situation.

(B) We make use of the embryos for stem-cell research. While they will be destroyed, there is the potential that cures may be developed as a result of this research.

It's pretty clear that (B) is the logical choice.

Not so, according to the Catholic Church. My pastor, at the beginning of his homily this weekend, directed us to read a letter attached in our church bullietin from Cardinal Maida, urging the congregation to vote against proposal 2. It just boggles my mind how the Church can be so backwards on this issue.

Let's look at some of the fallacies being propagated here:

Fallacy: "If Proposal 2 becomes an amendment to the State constitution, it would allow the unregulated destruction of human embryos in Michigan."
Propagator: Cardinal Maida, in his letter to Michigan parishes
Truth: Read for yourself.

According to the amendment, research will be done under the following restrictions:

(2a) Stem cells can only be taken from an embryo that is 14 days old or younger.
(2b) Embryos will be taken exclusively from fertility clinics, with the written permission of the person seeking the fertility treatment, and these embryos will only be used if (i) they are in excess of clinical need or (ii) they are not suitable for implantation. In both cases (i) and (ii) the embryo would otherwise be destroyed.
(2c) Embryos cannot be purchased or sold.
(2d) Stem cell research/therapies/cures will be conducted "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", as long as the laws do not (i) prevent stem cell research/therapies/cures or (ii) create disincentives to do so.

If anyone tells you that the amendment would allow "unrestricted" or "unregulated" science and experimentation, then they either aren't familiar with the text of the amendment, or they're deliberately lying. I would hope in the Cardinal's case, that it is the former, and not the latter.

Fallacy: "In short, it would give scientists the unfettered legal right to kill days-old human beings."
Propagator: The Michigan Catholic, on the front page of their October 24th issue.
Truth: This sentence is wrong on so many levels.

I don't know about you, but when I think of a "days-old human being", I think of this, and not this. But hey, that's just me. I get the sense that they're trying to paint a picture in people's heads of a mad scientist killing newborn babes. Some might call that an appeal to fear.

Are human embryos sacred and worthy of our respect? Absolutely.
And which choice best reflects that sacredness and respect? Putting them to use finding cures, or leaving them destined for the nearest medical wastebin?

Fallacy: "Instead of using the embryos for stem cell research, the answer is to..." (A) Impant them into willing adoptive mothers or (B) not allow assisted reproductive technology at all.
Propagator: Various Catholic officials
Truth: Both of these "solutions" are simply not realistic.

With regards to (A), I'm sure there are many people willing to adopt these unused embryos. And if they're willing to do that, then God bless them. But it's not a realistic solution to the problem at hand. The amount of excess embryos produced far surpasses the amount of people who could possibly be willing to be implanted with excess embryos. Futhermore, a great deal of the embryos left over from IVF that aren't suitable for implantation, but can be used for research. What should we do with those? Continue to throw them out?

And option (B), not allowing IVF or other assisted reproductive technology at all, is rediculous. Are there risks and concerns involved with IVF? Sure. But if two parents are unable to concieve naturally, and they're willing to undergo the procedures involved, then who are we to stop them? The need to procreate is at the fundamental core of our existence. Now certainly, adoption is a choice that we should strongly encourage infertile couples to make. But, at the same time, there is something to be said for the need to produce genetically-related progeny. And I don't think that as a society, we have the right to take that chance away from people, even if we're personally opposed to it.

Fallacy: "Proposal 2 does not ban human cloning." & "Proposal 2 will raise your taxes!"
Propagator: MiCAUSE (Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science & Experimentation)
Truth: Once again, read for yourself.

According to the actual amendment: (1) "Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan's current prohibition on human cloning."

It's RIGHT THERE at the beginning of the amendment. I don't know how you can get more misleading.

And as far as taxes go, show me one line in the amendment that talks about taxes. Go ahead, I dare you.
 

Those are just a handful of the half-truths being spread about Proposal 2. If you want the facts, I again urge you to read the actual amendment.

Proposal 2 won't raise your taxes, it won't lead to human cloning, and it won't mean "unrestricted research". Don't buy into those lies.

Thousands of excess embryos are being thrown away daily by fertility clinics as medical waste. This amendment seeks to make the best out of this unfortunate situation. I'm sure everyone reading this has a loved one who could potentially benefit from stem cell research.

If you live in Michigan, I urge you to vote yes on Proposal 2.

It's the only decision that makes sense.