Proposition 73 may criminalize stem cell research. in California

[DanCa]

Subject: MESSAGE FROM DON REED

Hi Folks:

I want to get the following message sent out to the largest number
of California voters possible. I think I can count on a budget of
$2,000.Could you give me a call ASAP?
Thanks, Don

PROPOSITION 73 MAY CRIMINALIZE STEM CELL RESEARCH
Dear Friend of Stem Cell Research:

If you live in California, know someone who lives in California, or
if you just plain support stem cell research, this concerns you.
If you follow the column www.stemcellbattles.com, you know we are
very concerned about a new initiative: Proposition 73, the "Waiting
Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's
Pregnancy Initiative Constitutional Amendment" on the California
special election ballot just a few days from now. It redefines human life in a way which could jeopardize embryonic stem cell research.
The bill sounds reasonable, at first. What parent would not want to
know about something so hugely important (and tragic) as their
child's abortion?



But from that commonsense beginning, nightmares grow.
The bill contains a poison pill: language which defines abortion as
the "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born,"
(emphasis added)--and would place that new definition of life into
the California State Constitution. What does this have to do with stem cell research? If microscopic cells can be legally defined as a child, scientists doing embryonic stem cell research could be said to be murdering a person. This insanity could stop the research altogether: or cause years of litigation and delay, as the case winds its way through the courts, all the way to an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.Am I worried for nothing? I hope so.

But remember that the California stem cell program has already been
sued on behalf of "Jane Doe", a fictional embryo. That case was
recently dismissed, but it can and probably will be brought again in
another court. It is ridiculous; but it could ruin everything.
Because this new definition of life would be installed in the
California State Constitution, the damage would be permanent,
ongoing, and almost impossible to undo.Poll numbers on 73? Literally tied: 45% to 45% in the most recent survey. And if supporters of stem cell research stay home…It is up to us. There are only a few days left before November 8. If you live in California, vote NO on 73. If you have friends in California, write them, call them, email them. If you belong to a group, tell them. If you want to be really helpful, write a letter to the editor of a California paper, even if you do not live in the state. If you would like some tips on how to write a letter to the editor, go to www.stemcellbattles.com, and click on HOW TO WRITE A LETTER*. Worst nightmare? We lose by a handful of votes, and regret it for the rest of our lives.We must not sit idle, and give the enemies of research a victory they have not earned.



The official title is:
PROPOSITION 73: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before
Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
More info? http://campaign4teensafety.phoenix.vertex.net
Thank you!
Don C. Reed

Co-chair, Californians for Cures
*Here is some possible language for a letter, feel free to use all
or any part of it.

Dear Editor:
Proposition 73, the Parental Notification Bill, seems threatening to
me, for a reason no one is talking about. 73 would put a new
definition of life into the California Constitution, defining
abortion as "the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but
not yet born". If that definition becomes law, pushing back legal
personhood to the instant when sperm meets egg, scientists working
to cure sick people may find themselves in legal jeopardy, as their
work on invisible cells becomes the legal equivalent of murder. It
could tie up our beautiful new stem cell research program in the
courts for years.Our family is proud to support stem cell research, and we oppose Proposition 73.
Thank you!

[rinsd]

1. CA law already recognizes such as life.....

...see the Scott Petersen case and the law he was prosecuted under dealing with murdering pregnant women.

[AX10]

2. Doesn't this violate Roe v. Wade?

[DanCa]

3. You would think so