Thursday, October 02, 2008

Detroit News, R.I.P.

The once staunchly pro-life Detroit News is now stumping for passage of Prop 2, a proposed amendment to Michigan’s constitution overturning the ban on fetal research. The News’s editorial perception has now degraded to the point of printing statements like the following: “Currently, it is against the law to destroy a human embryo in Michigan.” (“Vote yes on Prop 2 to overturn research ban”).

Far from it, of course, or Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be making such a nice income destroying human embryos in Michigan (26,269 in 2004). As long as it’s by abortion, we can destroy all the embryos we want in Michigan, just like in the other 49 states.

Anyone with a clue about what makes a pro-lifer pro-life (which is that we recognize the inalienable humanity of the unborn), would have known this. Which demonstrates, I suppose, that the barbarians are already well inside the gates at the once-great Detroit News.

Prop 2 is a disaster. It isn’t just that in a single stroke Prop 2 makes what is now a felony--destroying human embryos for research purposes--into a perfectly lawful act. It also replaces the ban on fetal destruction with a ban on future regulations of any kind on stem cell research. It will actually be against the law to pass laws to regulate stem-cell research:

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

i. prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

ii. create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures. (Emphasis added).

Oh, writes the editorialist at the News, we agree that part of the amendment's a problem, absolutely. “In a new area of research, regulation may be necessary. But if that necessity arises, a process is in place to revise the state Constitution.”

Revise the state Constitution just to get regulations in place? Seems like doing things the hard way. The last time we gave that kind of constitutional license to a homicidal medical procedure, we ended up with 45 million dead potential stem-cell donors.

This kind of nonsense we could always get in the Free Press. So now what's the difference?

No comments: