Man Bites Blog

According to Andrew Sullivan and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board,  there is a great distinction between embryos and fetuses or babies, a distinction so great that it is acceptable to kill one and not the other.   Those who do not see that distinction are blinded by dogma and backward thinking.

But when it comes to same sex couples, we are expected to see absolutely no distinction between them and heterosexual couples.  Never mind that one can produce children and the other can’t.  Never mind that we’re talking about relationships rather than the people themselves.  Never mind that a same sex couple can never develop to produce children as a heterosexual couple can.  Never mind that the stakes are much lower — the difference is in how we officially recognize the relationship rather than saying that one is eligible to be killed for our benefit.  If you see any distinction at all between the two, and think the two should be treated differently at all based on that distinction, you are a beyond-the-pale bigot.

I’ll also note the Post-Dispatch’s enigmatic deference to the opinion of Missouri voters on the embryonic research issue.  I doubt they are similarly deferential to the same voters’ decision by a wider margin to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  And I suspect they’d be even less deferential if there was a manipulative publicity blitz in favor of the amendment funded mostly by a single family who stood to gain from its passage.

• What does Abp. Burke mean that this charity event to benefit children with cancer is a “scandal?”
  Abp. Burke didn’t say that the event itself is a scandal. He said he would be giving scandal if he were to remain a chair of the event with Crow performing. This has a very specific meaning for Catholics — he would be giving the appearance that Ms. Crow’s support for embryonic research is not a big deal (see below for why it is).

  If you think that giving scandal by being associated with those advocating policies one considers evil isn’t a problem, you probably haven’t seen this picture or this one or this one or this one.

• But those are evil people. Sheryl Crow is just a singer who holds political views which are very much in the American mainstream.
  Sheryl Crow appeared in an ad urging Missouri voters to vote for an Amendment that stripped the state of any ability to regulate research on embryos. The orthodox Catholic belief is that these are human persons, so from our perspective, what Ms. Crow supported is the moral equivalent of supporting something like slavery. Abp. Burke feels he cannot go along with it.
• But that’s Abp. Burke’s personal religious belief. He has no right to impose that on others.
  First, it is the belief of the Catholic Church, with which Cdl. Glennon is associated. Second, he’s not imposing anything. He’s just saying he can’t personally go along with it.
• But the organizers say they don’t impose any political litmus tests.
  The hell they don’t. I stongly suspect that if Don Imus had been scheduled to appear, he would have been nudged aside. I don’t think they would have put on the Dixie Chicks at the height of their controversy. They wouldn’t put up a white supremacist, homophobe, or sexist.
• This is to help kids with cancer. Can’t we put aside our political differences and come together on this?
  Abp. Burke likely believes that Cd. Glennon Hospital is able to help the children with cancer in part because of its Catholic identity, which includes seeing human life in all stages as a gift from God. To move away from that would be to disconnect from the driving force of its mission.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Abp. Burke and the local media has never been good, and they seem to relish every opportunity to portray him as an ultraconservative jerk who’s primarily interested in promoting Republicans. Would this were not so.

Amendment 2 Approved

I was somewhat giddy(see 8:12 comment) at the thought this would fail, but it appears to have passed.

So, the pro-ESCR crowd managed to buy their amendment. I hope they’re happy with themselves. I found this especially rich:

Donn Rubin, of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, said, “We’ve known for a long time that a large majority of Missourians support stem cell research. Unfortunately, the issue was clouded to a great extent in the last few weeks … I think that’s why the margin of victory was as narrow as it was.”

Ah, yes, pity the poort Amendment 2 advocates, with their 30 to 1 money advantage and array of star power, who nevertheless had the issue clouded. Perhaps if they had built their case honestly, instead of hyped promises, they wouldn’t have been open to such “clouding.” I mean really, how can a campaign that ran ads in pretty much every commercial break for the last month dare to complaing about their issue being “clouded?”

Oh, well..

McCaskill defeats Talent

I think Jim Talent is a decent guy who got caught up in the anti-GOP current, and lost because of it. And I am not expecting anything special from McCaskill in the Senate.

This may seem like sour grapes, but it looked to me over the past week that Talent’s heart wasn’t in it. I think he was tired of trying to bridge the tension between running for himself and running from the party’s unpopularity. When I saw him give his concession speech last night, he seemed relieved, glad he doesn’t have to play this game anymore.

He’s still a young man, hopefully he’ll do some more good things.

Dems take House

No skin off my nose. I think Washington needs a shake-up.

The big issue this would seem to have an impact on is immigration, which I’m not too firmly on one side or the other.

I saw Dan Murtha interviewed on NBC last night, and if he takes on a leadership position, I think his reputation is going to suffer. He looked to me like he has one gear — angry. He couldn’t take “yes” for an answer.

Yes, Dan, your anger about the Iraq war is understandable. But you just won the election, and now you have to govern. And blind rage isn’t going to do it.

If he becomes House majority leader, I expect he’ll become a punch line for a lot of Letterman and Stewart jokes.

Dems appear to take Senate

This is a bit more troublesome for me, because of the judiciary. Bush has already demonstrated that judicial nominations is one area where he’ll give a little bit. If there is another vacancy on the Supreme Court, I don’t know that Bush has either the capital or the will to back a conservative nominee against a Democratic Senate.

This will be especially true if, as expected, Christian conservatives emerge as the scapegoats for the rout. Especially with Santorum going down. (Even though he went down to a socially conservative Democrat, and his defeat probably has more to do with his stubborn defense of the Iraq policy than his social positions). I mean, do we even need to read Andrew Sullivan today to know that he’s saying that today’s election results should serve as a wakeup call to the GOP that to remain relevant they need to break the chains with the “Christianists?” Let me check… Here it is! I suspect more will follow.

It’ll be an easy bone for Bush to throw to nominate a “moderate,” and distance himself from the now discredited Christian Right.

Miscellany

• MO Cigarrette tax defeates — Somewhat surprising to me. It’s interesting to me that we’ll gamble on embryonic research, which may or may not cure diseases, but we won’t take serious measures to curtail smoking, which has more certain health benefits.

  Probably demonstrates that any initiative that has the word “tax” in it faces an uphill battles.

• Minimum wage increase approved by wide margin — It will be interesting to see how regions with higher minumum wages fare compared to those who have the federal one.
• Tom Brokaw’s “perspective” — I suspect a high correlation between Tom Brokaw’s “perspective” on what “America was saying” and Tom Brokaw’s personal beliefs.
• The New Divide Kaus says the red-blue divide may go away, and that may be true. I don’t think either party can count on taking whole sections of the map anymore, especially the GOP in the central plains. In order to have power, the GOP will need to find a way to appeal to what were “blue states.” They can’t just write them off and count on winning the South and West. That’s a good thing.

  But I think the red-blue state divide may be replaced by a lower scale urban-rural divide. Every state may be up for grabs (or at least open to Democrats), but regions remain solidly in one camp or another, especially with gerrymandering.

  This was driven home watching the results in Missouri come in last night. Amendment 2 was and McCaskill were trailing by 5-6 points most of the night. Then the results from the St. Louis and Kansas City cam in, and McCaskill and Amendment 2 surged ahead.

The backers of Amendment 2 are fond of saying that all Amendment 2 does (its 2000 words notwithstanding) is ensure that Missourains will have the same access to cures that other Americans have.

To do this, it removes from the Missouri legislature the power to restrict embryonic research. It essentially permanently punts these ethical questions to the federal government — you know, the folks who brought us the Iraq War and the Katrina disaster relief.

Isn’t this an odd thing for a state to do? To amend the constitution to explicitly strip itself of power?

Are the proponents of Amendment 2 so distrustful of the democratic process?

Speaking of amendments numbered 2, imagine if instead of stripping the state legislature of its power to regulate research, the amendment stripped the state government of its power to restrict firearms. If it essentially said, if a weapon is legal under federal law, it must be legal in Missouri, and there’s not a darn thing the state legislature could do about it. (To make the parallel complete, imagine that it included a ban of “assault weapons,” then defined assault weapons to only include, say, bazookas, and then the proponents went on and on about how the measure explicitly bans assault weapons.)

It seems to me that this will lead to even more political polarization. If amendments like this pass, then as an opposer of embryonic research, my only recourse is to attempt to influence the federal government. So if it’s midterm election time, and I’m not thrilled with the Republicans, and my choice is between a Republican incumbent who opposes funding embryonic research and a Democrat who supports it. It seems that I have one more reason to not consider voting for the Democrat. Essentially, proponent of the Amendment want to limit debate of this issue to two high-stakes venues — the debate over this amendment, and federal restrictions. Is it surprising that in this environment, people tend to dig in their heels on their own side?

OPPOSED TO SCIENCE?
One of the charges those opposing embryonic research often face is that they are opposed to “science.” An example comes form Scott Adams’s blog today:

Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science. Compare that to the current method where big money interests buy political ads that confuse snake-dancing simpletons until they vote for the guy who scares them the least. Then during the period between the election and the impending Rapture, that traditionally elected President will get busy protecting the lives of stem cells while finding creative ways to blow the living crap out of anything that has the audacity to grow up and turn brownish.

Now, I realize Scott Adams is a humorist, but similar assertions are a regular part of our discourse.

Since almost all of the opposition to embryonic research comes from religious groups, most prominently the Roman Catholic Church, which has made some serious missteps in its relationship with science, the debate can be framed as religious luddism vs. scientific progress, with an obvious conclusion.

But there’s a significant difference in the motivations for opposing Galileo in the Middle Ages and opposing embryonic research today. Galileo was opposed because those in power saw his conclusions as dangerous — a heliocentric solar system was a direct challenge to the Creation narrative, and thus to the authority of the Church. The same goes for evolution.

In fact, some who challenge the Church’s position on embryonic research point back to Aquinas and other Church scholars putting personhood at “quickening,” which is several weeks into pregnancy. But the Church’s position has developed since then based on what science has taught us about the early stages of development.

The driving force behind opposition to embryonic research is not fear of its conclusions, but opposition to the methods involved. The Church was wrong to suppress Galileo. However, if Galileo’s research involved launching condemned criminals into space,the Church would be correct to oppose this method.

This isn’t another round of the same religion vs. science fight. The sides may have the same general names, but we’re playing a different game.

SAME OLD, SAME OLD
Shouldn’t a newspaper run stories that are actually news?

One more note — I’m wondering if it would be a good tactic for people who want all human beings protected to threaten to leave states that do not, or to move to states that do so. We hear a lot about how we have to accept things like stem cell research or same sex marriage because it sends a message about what a with-it state we are and attracts smart people. (I find this argument deeply insulting), but let’s put that aside for now.

What would happen if those of us opposed to Amendment 2 committed to leaaving the state if it passed? Who would Missourians rather have — the hotshot researchers, or the decent people who live here.

Now, I don’t know if such a strategy is plausible, since there is probably a high correlation between wanting a society that protects all members and putting down roots. But it’s something to think about.

WHY NOT?
Archibishop Burke highlights an important contradiction in this week’s column:

Mr. Danforth and other proponents of Amendment 2 believe that human life begins with the implantation of the embryo in the womb of a woman, denying the identity of human life to the embryo before implantation. But what is the human embryo before implantation, if not a human being? Implantation adds nothing to the identity of the being, it only provides the natural place for the next stages of its development. The standard textbooks of embryology define the beginning of human life at fertilization or artificial generation by cloning.

Following the logic of Mr. Danforth, I suppose, Amendment 2, which claims to prohibit human cloning, actually prohibits the implantation of the embryo produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning in the womb of woman. Why? The obvious answer is: Because it is a human life which, once implanted in the womb, will simply continue its growth, in accord with the full identity which it already has.

I’ll draw this out a bit. The pro-choice, pro-research position rests on these premises:

• The embryo is not a human life until it is implanted in a uterus.
• A woman has absolute dominon over her body, including the right to end a pregnancy.

Given those premises, why would implanting an embryo created via somatic cell nuclear transfer into a woman’s uterus be at all morally problematic, indeed so very problematic that it’s the one thing proponents say they explicitly ban.

This seems a strange place to draw the line. And indeed, it is an extremely bright line. If they have there way, everything on one side of the line would be constitutionally protected, so precious that it cannot be touched by the democratic process; on the other side everyhing is banned.

The only reason I can see for drawing the line there is political expediency — the proponents know that people have a negative reaction to the word “cloning,” so they have tailored te amendment so they can plausibly say they share this rejection of cloning.

OH. MY. GOD.
I attended Washington University during William Danforth’s last year as Chancellor, and I admired what he did in making Wash U. and elite university, so going attacking him feels a bit like I’m attacking my own grandfather.

Nevertheless…

The ad that ran tonight featuring Dr. Danforth saying something like, “we enjoy watching the Cardinals play baseball, but when it comes to important medical issues, I hope Missourians will listen to experts.”

Arrrgh!!

First of all, which medical school did Sheryl Crow attend, again? How about Michael J. Fox? Or even your brother, former Senator John Danforth. Oh, that’s right, they’re not medical experts, are they? They’re celebrities Amendment 2 supporters brought in and put in front of the cameras in the hopes that we’d be so star-struck that we’d go along with whatever they tell us. But those opposed run an ad with the Cardinals #3 starting pitcher, and now we shouldn’t listen to anybody but experts? Right. I anxiously await Missouri cures pulling all the ads from endorsers who do not possess medical degrees, and removing the names of “Civic, Business, Government & Faith Organizations,” “African American Leaders,” and, for heaven’s sake “Faith Leaders,” because, as Dr. Danforth said, Missourians should only listen to medical experts. Anyone else’s opinion is irrelevant.

Secondly, think about the attitude Dr. Danforth is inviting us to have. Chill out, Missourians, don’t think about what those silly baseball players have to say, don’t think at all. The experts say it’s good; that ought to be good enough for us.

I seem to remember being invited to have this attitude about four years ago, and now our country is mired in a civil war half the world away.

UPDATE: I should mention that the context is an ad featuring Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, among others, opposing Amendment 2.

While I’m here, I have to rant a bit about the lack of savviness on display here. On the other side, we have an ad by a well-liked actor best known for his roles in sitcoms and comedy movies. One theme of the debate is that it’s a choice between scientific advancement and religious fundamentalism.

So, how do we begin our response? We start with an actor best (perhaps only) known for portraying Jesus in a film that many had derided as anti-Semitic (for now, it doesn’t matter whether it was in fact anti-Semitic, what matters is the perception) directed by someone who recently was shown making an anti-Semitic tirade. In case any viewers didn’t make the connection, this actor then mutters something in Aramaic, so it’s ultra-clear that opposition to Amendment 2 is fueled by Mel-Gibson style religion.

The appeal to those who have not already committed to voting against Amendment 2 is not at all clear to me, but the turn-off is.

BETTER DEAD THAN RED
The post below highlights what I think is a running subtext in the Amendment 2 debate.

In the last few elections cycles, Missouri has turned from a “swing” state to a “red” state. We’re home to Branson, the entertainment capital of the RedState world. We’ve elected a thirthysomething year old Republican governor from Springfield who is the son of the House Majority Whip. Out most prominent Democratic politician, Dick Gephardt, retired. We went for Bush twice. We overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We elected a Democratic governor and senator back in 2000, but that probably had more to do with a halo effect from Mel Carnahan’s untimely death than anything else.

A lot of people aren’t happy about this, including some who supported one or more of the developments listed above. Instead of being a battleground in presidential races, we’re a reliable source of electoral votes for the Republican candidates. Sure, we might have liked Bush better than Kerry, and we weren’t excited about re-defining marriage, but that doesn’t mean we wanted to become East (What’s the Matter With) Kansas.

This anxiety is espcecially prevalent in the metropolitan areas around St. Louis and Kansas City. There’s a sense that outstate politicians are leading us down a path to irrelevance. Hence, “Jefferson City politicians” which cues this distrust of outstate politicians.

This is probably best personified by Amendment 2’s most prominent supporter, former Senator Jack Danforth. In addition to promoting Amendment 2, Mr. Danforth has written a lot about how religious people have gone too far, and need to rein themselves back. He supports this amendment while maintaining his stance as “pro-life.” He reflects the mood of the state — we’ve lurched too far in the socially conservative direction; let’s back up.

Enter Amemdnment 2. Here, Missourians have an opportunity to amend their Constitution to protect controversial research from those representatives from tiny towns who get their voting orders from the church pastors. Nobody could say we’re in lock-step with the Religious Right then, could they? We’ll have shown our openness to technology, and proven we’re not some sort of red-state backwater, indistinguishable from any number of other rectangular states. We’d matter, damnit!

This is part of why celebrity appeals are such a feature. The message seems to be — This is an opportunity for Missouri to prove to us cool Hollywood people that you’re not a bunch of slack-jawed cold-hearted religious fanatics, but technologically savvy compassionate cosomopoltian people we’d like to associate with.

And while I’m here, thank you, Rush, for turning an interesting conversation about what type of ads and manipulations are in bonunds into a conversation about what a jerk you (an by extension, all those who oppose embryonic research) are. Really, it’s a big help. It’s not like we’re in the middle of a race in which the other side is claiming a monopoly on compassionm and are eager to demonstrate how only a cold-hearted ignoramus could oppose them. Thanks a heap.

I bring this up, but don’t know how to effectively counter it, But I think it’s something it’s important to be aware of. It’s bigger than this particular issue, bigger than whether or not the amendment itself is deceptive, bigger than whether it prohibits or protects “cloning,” depending on who’s defining the terms. For many Missourians, this is a referendum for their own independence from the socially conservative red state pigeonhole they find themselves in, and it’s not going to be easy to get them to vote “no.”

WHO DECIDES?
One of the themes of the Amendment 2 proponents is that medical decisions should be made by families and their doctors, not by politicians in Jefferson City.

This is an appealing argument, echoing the effective Who Decides? pro-choice argument. And it sounds good and makes intuitive sense.

But think about how this type of argument would be applied in other contexts:

• Soldiers on the ground should decide what methods of warfare are acceptable, not Washington politicians.
• Cops in the streets shoud decide what methods of search are reasonable, not self-important people in black robes in stuffy chambers based on what some guys in powdered wigs wrote over 200 years ago.

This isn’t how we do things. We are proud of the men and women in the armed forces, but we still believe in civilian control of the military. There is some benefit to a bit of emotional distance in determining the best guidelines; those guidelines should not set exclusively by those committed to achieving goals that the guideline would interfere with. They should have a say, but not the final say.

To strain an analogy, it’s best that these decisions be made by chickens rather than pigs.

How To Confront
There’s a good discussion going on at Mirror of Justice about how to effectively give witness the Church’s teaching on the fundamental dignity of human life.

This is especially topical for me here in Missouri, as I have been struggling on how to most effectively oppose Amendment 2, which will enshrine in our constitution that nobody can get in the way of using embryos for research. (And by the way, where are all those people who were weeping over the purity of the Constitution when it was proposed that it define marriage as it has always been defined… And while I’m ranting parenthetically, the thing is being promoted as ensuring Missourians have “access to cures.” Is there any chance a law preventing Missourians’ access to cures would pass? But there were actual court rulings establishing same sex marriage, but we kept hearing about how “unnecessary” these amendments were).

Amendment 2 has been promoted by a series of treacly ads about the potential benefits of the research that don’t even attempt to address why this research is controversial. The ads would be no less true if they were promoting the most brutally unethical type of research imaginable, such as forcibly seizing newborn babies, killing them and harvesting their organs. Just tell people it’s about cures and they’ll go along.

The main opposition to this has been to say that the Amendment is deceptive, and that “it’s cloning !!!” My concern is that if this tactic works in this election, it won’t work going forward.

I suppose the word cloning tests well, because people think of reproductive cloning, which gives them the creeps. But this is therapeutic cloning, which the Church considers even more problematic since the cloned embryo is necessarily destroyed. So the Church’s positions are nearly opposite those of the public. We might be able to get past this by conflating both using the word “cloning,” but I suspect only once, and it feels dirty (similar to how those on the other side conflate adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which nobody opposes, with embryonic stem cell research under the term “stem cell research.”)

Maybe the best place to oppose this is on my knees.

DRAWING LINES ON RESEARCH
Despite some advice to the contrary, I think it might be useful to draw some lines in discussing ethical research.

There are points of agreement in the research debate.

Most people agree that it would be unethical to kill an innocent child or adult or research purposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

Also, most would agree that it would be unethical to destroy en embryo even in the moment of conception if the benefit is non-existant or trivial (say, to make Coca-Cola taste sweeter).

So, in the graph below, I plotted these point on a graph, and drew a line between them separating destructive research that is definitely unethical based on the above two premises from research that is not ruled out by these premises alone.

But wait, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where we would be willing to perfrom on adolescents, and not adults. In fact, most people wouldn’t be willing to perfrom this research on infants, so let’s move the sticks…

Ok, so now our range of area of debate is bounded by conception and birth on the development access, and no benefit and save the world on the benefit access.

My position, and that of the Catholic Church, is that there is no more lines to draw. Or rather, there is a vertical line on the y-axis — it is unethical to destroy any human life for research puroposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

In my opinion, this is the most coherent position that has been articulated. In short, I have not seen a convincing argument for why that line (or whatever shape) should be anything other than a vertical line on the Y-axis.

CARE VS. CURES
I’m struggling with a notion I have that out culture has a disordered notion of how to express compassion for those with diseases.

There is a lot of work an effort expended on “curing” diseases, but not much about “caring.” We raise some money, take a nice walk in the park on a spring day, get a T-shirt, and tell ourselves we’re doing what we can for victims of disease. And things like Amendment 2 receive wide support, because we want to support cures for diseases after all.

But I think this is grace on the cheap. It’s a lot easier to take a walk through the park on a spring day than it is to clean up after someone who can’t control his bowels, or hold someone’s hand as they’re going through pain, or give your daughter daily chest therapy and medicine. But I think this type of care is what we’re called to first. I help Meagan more by caring for her every day than I would working for a cure.

The reason I’m struggling is that this all sounds good and makes sense until I look to how Jesus responded to those with diseases. He didn’t just love diseased people where they were – He cured them. He didn’t talk about the virtues of suffering blindness or leprosy or demons, he freed people from those things.
So, that stops me from getting to worked up about what I still think is our culture’s disordered response to diseases.

REVISIONS
The Post-Dispatch has a revised version of the article I criticized and parodied yesterday with a more appropriate headline, which I suspect is what was printed in today’s paper. Good for them. I’m sure they would say the web version yesterday was so imbalanced because they didn’t have time to get both sides before publishing. But this begs the question of why there was such a rush to get this out. Was there anything time-sensitive about that information? Would it make a difference if voters received that information 12 hours later? No and no. And it’s difficult to imagine the Post-Dispatch treating a press release from the other side in such a manner. The Post-Dispatch’s job is to accurately report the news, not the ensure that the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures gets their propaganda out as fast as possible.

The revised version still has some things worth pointing out.

One of the criticisms those opposing embryonic research often hear is that we’re “against science.” In this very article, those supporting amendment say that striking it down would create an “anti-science environment” in Missouri. Science is about testing hypotheses with experiments and data, and using that data to draw conclusions. But check this out…

The study also says that banning embryonic stem cell work, as has been attempted by state lawmakers in recent years, would put a chill on biotech research of all kinds, stifling a promising industry.

Winship contends the state’s biotech industry won’t suffer if embryonic stem cell research is banned, especially because a lot of Missouri’s biotech work is based in agriculture. Michigan banned certain types of stem cell work, but it has a vibrant biomedical sector, she said.

Donn Rubin, chairman of the coalition and a leader in building St. Louis’ biotech sector, said Michigan business leaders have called seeking advice on how to reverse that state’s ban. Their biotech cluster is beginning to lag, “their research infrastructure is going to continue to decline, and their potential for generating a 21st Century economy is going to decline if they can’t undo it,” he said.

Here we have:

• One side make an assertion, with no data to back it up.
• The other side responds with relevant data.
• The other side dismisses this data with anecdotes and more conjecture

Which side is making unsupported assertions and using anecdotes to trump hard data? That would be the side that accuses the other side of being against science.
Daniel Shipley captured things well: “They say, ‘If every person was adequately cured by a totally unproven medical procedure, then the following would occur.’ I could make a lot of business cases based on such assumptions and go to a bank, and they would laugh me out of there.” But Missourians are supposed to rewrite their Constitution based on this.

BREAKING NEWS!
AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION DEFEAT COULD COST TRILLIONS, PROPONENTS SAY
Proponents of a ballot measure that would protect controversial interrogation techniques in the United States today launched an economic salvo: A report claiming trillions of dollars in lost economic opportunity for the nation if the measure should fail.

The report was commissioned by the US Coalition for Lifesaving Questioning, a group of more than 100 miltiary, law enforecement, faith and civic organizations.

A copy obtained by Man Bites Blog reveals the Coalition’s dollars-and-cents case for passage of Amendment X, which would ensure that any aggressive interrogation techniques and the information obtained from them in the United States.

The study considers the costs of limiting questiones’ access to interrogation techniques and information that could result from aggressive interrogation techniques. It also says banning such work, as has been attempted by federal lawmakers in recent years, would put a chill on mitlitary efforts of all kinds, stifling a promising industry.

Opponents of aggressive interrogation techniques , which uses Palestinian hanging and waterboarding, liken it to torture. They say promising information can be developed from conventional interrogation techniques.

Most military experts experts say, however,coercive interrogation techniques have the potential to deliver into any type of information show unmatched potential – though after eight years of using these techniques, they have not been used to thwart any terrorist attacks.

The Coalition’s study makes broad economic and scientific assumptions, which critics are sure to challenge. It promises information that today are germs of basic data, years away from reaching decision-m,akers even if they should pan out. It also projects levels of interrogation that could shift under changing national and global economic conditions.

For example, the study assumes aggressive interrogation will lead to the complete neutralization of al Qaeda

If so, the state could save billions of dollars a year currently spent on national defense, the study said. What’s more, these military personnel could return to work or be more productive, contributing to the nation’s economy.

A more direct impact comes in Guntanamo, where the Rubber Hose Institute of Interrogation is considering a $300 million expansion – but only if the ballot measure passes, ensuring unfettered questioning opportunities for the world-class interrogators it hopes to employ.

Those 500 interrogators would be expected to receive the same average $72,500 in annual salary and benefits received by the 350 already working at the institute, adding to the nation’s tax base, the study said.

If voters should reject Amendment X, the US’s work to become a hub for intelligence research and industry would be severely hindered, said thechairman of the Coalition and a leader in building the Northeast’s intelligencesector.

Interrogators “don’t have to be doing aggressive techniques to be impacted by an anti-intelligence environment,” he said. And workers in all types of industries might hesitate to come to the US if they fear a lack of protection provided by these techniques.

Regulatory uncertainty also could keep the best and brightest interrogators away fromthe US’s military academites and intelligence-based businesses, the report said.

If Amendment 2 should fail, and lawmakers subsequently aggressive interrogation technques, that “could lead to a general and widespread exodus of defense from the country,” it said. “Essentially, l could take the view that the United States laws are unpredictable and antagonistic to the defense environment.”

OUR OBJECTIVE PRESS
Gotta love our objective, non-partisan press that puts out articles like this. Headline? : “Stem cell defeat could cost Missouri billions, proponents say”. Oh, I guess it is objective, since the headline writer tacked “proponenets say” on to it. I look forward to the similarly headlined articles presenting the other point of view.

Cherry-picking some passages:

Proponents of a Nov. 7 ballot measure that would protect controversial stem cell research in Missouri today launched an economic salvo: A report claiming billions of dollars in lost economic opportunity for the state if the measure should fail.

(Emphasis mine)

Protect is one of the words the press is liking to use in describing this intitative. Who could argue with protection?

The report was commissioned by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a group of more than 100 patient, medical, faith and civic organizations.

The article doesn’t mention that it’s mostly funded by one family.

It also says banning such work, as has been attempted by state lawmakers in recent years, would put a chill on biotech research of all kinds, stifling a promising industry.

And drug laws put a chill on drug dealing, stifling a promising industry that could lift people (mostly minorities) out of poverty.

The Coalition’s study makes broad economic and scientific assumptions, which critics are sure to challenge.

You think?

But I guess that’s kind of the point. While we waste our time and energy trying to refute their bogus numbers, they’ll run more ads with darling children and poor disease victims who have a chance to beat their disease, but only if you vote for Amendment 2 (don’t give up on hope!). These numbers are a distraction. Most voters will (probably correctly) assume that both sides are inflating their numbers a bit, and fall for the emotional story. We’ll argue over who’d statistics are better rather than having the real conversation we need to have over what is ethical, and how do we compassionatley respond to disease victims.

For example, the study assumes embryonic stem cells will lead to effective treatments for five conditions that combined affect about 285,000 Missourians: Parkinson’s disease, stroke, heart attack, spinal cord injury and Type 1 diabetes.

If so, the state could save about $299 million a year it spends on treating these diseases, primarily through Medicaid, the study said. What’s more, these patients could return to work or be more productive, contributing to the state’s economy.

Nevertheless, it’s hard to ignore ridiculous assertions like this. Would the cost of administering these treatments really be zero? And would they really be instnantaneously effective such that they could immediately return to work? And they would require no other treatment? Really?

Pro-lifers are often criticized for failing to be realistic. But to assume that if we only allow stem cell treatment, than we can eliminate all costs associated with treating a host of diseases even though no such treatments have yet been developed, is completely foolish.

A more direct impact comes in Kansas City, where the Stowers Institute for Medical Research is considering a $300 million expansion – but only if the ballot measure passes, ensuring unfettered research opportunities for the world-class researchers it hopes to employ.

(emphasis mine)

Those 500 scientists would be expected to receive the same average $72,500 in annual salary and benefits received by the 350 already working at the institute, adding to Missouri’s tax base, the study said.

And who would be paying these salaries? Wouldn’t they be coming from our taxes,since this is state-funded research we’re talking about? So, the cost of their salaries is not a cost, but the 10% of their salaries paid to taxes is a benefit. Right…

Scientists “don’t have to be doing stem cell research to be impacted by an anti-science environment,” he said. And workers in all types of industries might hesitate to come to Missouri if they fear a lack of access to potential medical treatments.

Regulatory uncertainty also could keep the best and brightest scientists away from Missouri’s universities and research-based businesses, the report said.

This is the type of argument cultural conservatives make and have dismissed all the time. Remember, “how does it hurt your marriage if two men want to get married?” Can you find a mainstream writer who would refer to the Culture of Life without scare quotes and a snicker? But we’re supposed to believe that an aerospace engineer wouldn’t want to work at Boeing because we didn’t change our constitution to ensure that no ethical considerations will get in the way of Progress.

If Amendment 2 should fail, and lawmakers subsequently banned stem cell research, that “could lead to a general and widespread exodus of scientific research from the state,” it said. “Essentially, researchers could take the view that Missouri laws are unpredictable and antagonistic to the research environment.”

I’ve taken on this before, but isn’t it also possible that people who might be vulnerable might not want to live in a state whose constitution explicitly says that there can be no interference in using some people for research? In addition to attracting the “best and the brightest,” might we also want to attract people who are concerned about others’ rights, who don’t see people as means to their ends?

In addition to the dishonesty, this approach is deeply insulting to those opposed to the measure — it pretty much says, “I know you won’t set aside your ethical concerns to save people’s lives, but maybe you will if it will lower your taxes and improve the national economy.” Yeah, I guess that makes it not killing.

More proof that the other side doesn’t get pro-lifers at all.

UPDATE: Right now, the front page of STLToday has this paraphrase of a press release tagged as “BREAKING” news. I certainly hope they’ll stay on top of the breaking story of an advocacy group faxing them a report.

UPDATE: The article has been revised. The headline now reads, “Stem cell proponents cite money,” which is considerably more honest (though it does have the error of conflating embryonic stem cell research with adult and umbilical stem cell reseach, but that’s so common it’s hardly worth mentioning).