I admit that I am pleasantly surprised. The pro cloning bias among the political elite and media in Missouri make it almost impossible to get the straight information to the people of MO about this crucial ethical issue. When a new initiative to outlaw all human cloning was filed awhile ago, the Secretary of State wrote a summary that was both inaccurate and breathtakingly biased. Well, lo and behold, a court has righted the wrong. From the story:

A judge rewrote the ballot language Wednesday for a proposed constitutional amendment banning a particular kind of embryonic stem cell research after supporters claimed the state’s original description was biased…

After Carnahan released the stem cell summary in October, the sponsoring group Cures Without Cloning immediately claimed her language was biased against it. Now that its legal challenge is resolved, a group spokesman said supporters plan to start gathering the petition signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot. Cures Without Cloning chairwoman Lori Buffa claimed Carnahan’s language was a “blatant attempt to mislead the Missouri voters. This ruling proves what we’ve said along: that our clear, concise initiative would prohibit human cloning and the taxpayer funding of human cloning in Missouri,” Buffa said in a written statement…

The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which sponsored the 2006 amendment, said it was considering an appeal of Wednesday’s court ruling and would mount a “vigorous campaign” encouraging people not to sign the new initiative petition. The coalition spent $30 million for the 2006 initiative.

The pro cloners will undoubtedly appeal , if for nothing else than to slow down the signature gathering process. Well, that’s politics and never mind. A little fresh air has entered the usual smog of bias that permeates Missouri on the cloning issue. Anyone who believes in the democratic process should be grateful regardless of their opinion on the propriety of human cloning.

I am still taken aback by the Hastings Center Report publishing a pro infanticide article–bringing that agenda into the heart of the bioethics mainstream. As is my wont, I wrote about it. This is a piece just published in the Center for Bioethics and the Culture’s weekly newsletter. Here is an excerpt:

The article assumes that guidelines will protect against abuse, but infanticide is by definition abuse. Moreover, even if undertaken in good faith, Dutch euthanasia guidelines for adults and teenagers have continually been violated without legal consequence for decades, and so why would any rational observer expect anything different from infanticide regulations? Even the authors understand that mistakes will happen and, typical of the mindset, assume that if murder of the helpless is committed in front of an open window it is somehow more acceptable:

Determining in an instant case whether the protocol is applicable will always require judgment, and because the stakes are inordinately high no matter what is decided, the judgment must be made with fear and trembling. That said, however, we believe that transparency in the deliberations concerning the ending of an infant’s life–which is just as important as it is in the deliberations concerning euthanasia in adults–is adequately promoted by the protocol’s requirements.

It wasn’t many years ago that almost everyone accepted that infanticide is intrinsically and inherently wrong. Clearly, this is no longer true. With growth of personhood theory that denies the intrinsic value of human life, and with the invidiously discriminatory “quality of life” ethic permeating the highest levels of the medical and bioethical thinking, we are moving toward a medical system in which babies are put down like dogs and killing is redefined as a caring act. But bigotry is bigotry and murder is murder even if you spell it c.o.m.p.a.s.s.i.o.n.

France’s Roman Catholic Church has called for embryos to be given a clear legal status following a court decision that let parents of miscarried fetuses enter them with a name in the official civil registry. (Washington Post)

Human stem cells helped repair stroke-related brain damage in rats, Stanford University researchers report. (HealthDay)