WARREN, Mich.—An unseasonably warm Fall day in Michigan was a welcome boon for voters flocking to the polls on Tuesday.
Met with only three state proposals on the ballot this November, the one that has stirred up controversy is Proposal 2. The proposal would add an amendment to Michigan's Constitution, allowing for embryonic stem cell research.
One of the controversial aspects of the amendment would also block any further state or local regulation. At present, Michigan is one of the five most restrictive states in the nation, due to a 1978 law that criminalizes the use of embryos for research, which has effectively discouraged life-science research in the state.
For many Michiganders the proposal is controversial because it concerns the age-old debate regarding when life begins. Opponents, such as the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right-to-Life lobbyists, argue that life begins at conception and, therefore, any use of embryos in research is morally wrong, especially where alternative sources exist for research purposes. While recent advances toward manipulating adult stem cells and skin cells into an embryonic-type state have made great strides, obstacles still exist that limit their use.
Some feel that the argument regarding embryonic stem cell research is taken to an extreme by the main opponent to the proposal, Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science & Experimentation (MiCAUSE). MiCAUSE argues that opening the door to embryonic stem cell research will ultimately lead to human cloning, animal/human hybrids, and higher taxes, all implied consequences that fall outside the actual language contained in Proposal 2.
For instance, the “2 goes 2 far” television ads that have peppered the air waves in Michigan state that similar proposals in other states cost taxpayers loads of money. However, the ad is misleading because the states in question included state funding within their proposals, while Michigan’s Proposal 2 does not.
Supporters of the proposal argue that embryonic stem cell research is an area with huge potential for cures and treatment of Alzheimer’s, Diabetes and Parkinson’s Disease.
Interviewed after exiting the poll, Matt Hartmann explained why he voted in favor of the proposal; “My grandmother suffered terribly during the last years of her life from both Parkinson's Disease, as well as Alzheimer's. I'm only 30 years old, and my hands have begun to shake. I'm wondering how long it's going to be before I get Parkinson's.”
But another voter, Eden Huggins, disagreed, “Since the proposal would block any further regulation, how far will they go? Those embryos can potentially become human babies. We'll end up being locked into a situation that we can't easily change. It's just going against nature. They are meddling in things that we have no right to alter.”
With the lifting of Michigan’s long-term prohibition/criminalization of embryonic stem cell research, supporters argue that Michigan could benefit financially by scientists and life-science companies coming to the state. The state has been suffering from a bad economy in recent years.
Restrictions in the amendment address the moral concerns of the pro-life argument. For instance, only those embryos left over from fertility treatments and scheduled for destruction can be used and only those that were specifically donated by the patient. Additionally, the embryos can only be used within 14 days after cell division begins, and embryos cannot be bought or sold.
The concern voiced by many voters is that the proposal’s restriction on any state or local regulation is perhaps the best objection to the proposal. The proposal would only decriminalize stem cell research to the extent that is already allowed by federal law.
