{"id":5154,"date":"2006-10-20T10:01:29","date_gmt":"2006-10-20T10:01:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/amendment-2.html"},"modified":"2006-10-20T10:01:29","modified_gmt":"2006-10-20T10:01:29","slug":"amendment-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/amendment-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Amendment 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

We’ve been sporadically following the MIssouri battle over Amendment 2 – a battle which just might overtake California’s similar process in 2004 as winner of "Most Deceptive." Let’s try to do a wrap-up.<\/p>\n

Amendment 2 would essentially write the "right" to conduct research involving cloning human embryos into the Missouri state <\/a>constitution. It is, of course, not being sold that way. And "sold" is the operative word:<\/p>\n

Look at the numbers:<\/a><\/p>\n

Backers of a measure on the Nov. 7 ballot to support stem-cell research in Missouri raised nearly $12.7 million in the last quarter, campaign reports showed Monday.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, three opposing groups reported raising $1.2 million, according to reports filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Amendment 2, the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, would permit scientists to conduct all federally allowed stem-cell research while placing certain restrictions on research techniques. Some opponents said the initiative could lead to cloning.<\/p>\n

The Coalition for Lifesaving Cures raised $12.68 million from July 15 to Oct. 15, reports show. The group raised $28.74 million in the past year, with about $28 million of that from James and Virginia Stowers, who created the Stowers Institute for Medical Research.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The summary of the amendment, as voters will read it on the ballot is:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will: <\/p>\n