posted
So I'm in a bit of a bind on Prop 2 here in Michigan. We have two proposals on the ballot this year. The first is about medical marijuana which I've decided to vote yes on. The second is about stem cell research. Now, stem cell research is already legal in Michigan. This ballot proposal deals with the destruction of embryos to create new stem cell lines for research, which is currently banned in Michigan.
The text of the proposal (it's a page and a half long, very short) is here. You just have to scroll past the 15 pages of medical marijuana proposal.
I went to a seminar today at school where a woman against prop 2 was stating her reasons for opposition. I really wish I had read the whole text of the proposal before I'd gone to the proposal, as the woman seriously misrepresented parts of it. Before I went, I was planning to vote yes, as I was under the mistaken impression that stem cell research as a whole was banned here already, and it is not. I even don't have a problem with lifting the ban on creating new stem cell lines. The proposal has a specific restriction on human cloning and on everything being subject to federal law (both things the woman at the seminar left out and specifically said the opposite of). In other words, if this was a state legislative proposal, I'd be 99% positive that I'd vote for it.
But it's a constitutional amendment. I am against using the constutition for issues as small as this, to be blunt. The constitution is there to set up our government framework, to enshrine specific rights and ideals that we as a state espouse and protect for our citizens. It's meant to codify specific rights and protections, not to deal with hot button social issues like this, or flag burning, or gay marriage even. I said as much at the seminar, and said that even though I support this measure and everything therein, I can't support it as a constitutional amendment (at which point the woman asked me to come up and say it over the microphone, wherein extreme awkwardness set in and I was nowhere near as eloquent as I was when I thought only two people within earshot could hear me).
So here's my little dilemma: I support this measure, and would vote for it in a second as a legislative issue. In other words, if this was like the medical marijuana law and would be a "legislative amendment" instead of a "constitutional amendment" I would vote for it in a heartbeat. But I have serious, serious issues with voting for this as a constitutional amendment. I kind of hope it fails and that they try again at the midterms in 2010 but as a legislative amendment, so I could support it.
I'm curious as to what other people think. I'm curious as to how you'd balance the two issues, of wanting this to pass, but not wanting it to pass this way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd tend to agree with you. That seems like a really specific amendment to have. If the state insists upon a constitutional amendment for a hot-button issue, then it should most certainly be in more general terms.
I'm kind of the fence about stem cell research. Morally, it makes me squeamish, but I know how vital it is to scientific advancement. The specific restrictions in the amendment seem to leave little room for changing standards of morality. I really doubt that any constitutional amendment with this level of specific information is going to be able to stand for long, and that's certainly not the intended purpose of a state constitution.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that's a really tough question Lyrhawn. I'd say you need to weigh the relative value of the measure you want passed vs. your qualms with what you see as improper use of the constitution. In other words, do the ends justify the means?
I don't think there's a universal answer for this question and it's most likely specific to each individual situation and each individual person making the decision. In general, the answer is no to me. The ends don't justify the means. But there's definitely leeway. If the ethical infraction of the means is minor compared to potential outcome, then maybe its worth it. So I think that's what you have to ask yourself. Is it worth going against a fundamental principle you believe about how our government should work, to bring about this particular goal?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it worth going against a fundamental principle you believe about how our government should work, to bring about this particular goal?
That's excellently framed, and it's killing me. I might consider saying yes to that question if there was no other way to bring about this particular goal, but there is a perfectly acceptable alternative, it was skipped over to go right for the unacceptable method.
I think when you frame the question that way, I have to say no. I have to give more weight to how I believe government should function than to how I believe medical research should be conducted.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel for you man. Like you, part of me would want to vote for it because of my strong support for stem cell research.
This reminds me of some conversations I have with my family who are staunch republicans and Bush supporters. One of the things I really stress with them is how severely the Bush administration has abused executive powers. I try to get across that it's not necessarily the things they do(though it is) but also how they do them. They're fine with it because they happen to agree with the administration's actions, but if it were a democrat in charge, and they had abused power in a similar way to accomplish their own ends, my family would be the first to be crying foul.
And so it's what it means for government when an administration engages in activities like this. And that's what scares me more than the particular things they're trying to do. I hope I remember this if and when a ruling party behaves like this to bring about a goal I *do* support.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have voted no in the past on things I agree with because I did not feel that they should be codified in the constitution. I don't know about your state, but here it takes 70% to pass -- or repeal -- a constitutional amendment. Today's whim could be tomorrow's curse. It's a tough one, but if that were up in my state I would vote no, even though I agree with it. Then I would write my state representative and tell him/her why.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with you about the state constitution part. I wonder why it was chosen to be a constitutional amendment, perhaps to get some "no" votes for political reasons, then present a victory as a moral one. I feel that other people are compelled by popular opinio., and lifting the ban in Michigan or getting very narrowly defeated would make other people see that the research means a lot to the world.
Anyway, the bill seems to be rather strict about which stem cells can be used. I rather like it. The stem cells to be used must have already been slated for discard and must be young.
Last Saturday, I went to the funeral of a woman with Parkinson's, a mother of a good friend. She graphically detailed much of what her family went through on her LiveJournal, including some extremely strongly worded and compelling posts on stem cell research. It's only with a connection to that reality that people realize how important the research is. I wouldn't wish what my friend her family went through on anyone.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I am inclined to vote against it. Voting against stem cell research would be pretty difficult for me, but I don't like the inflexibility of having it as part of the Constitution. Science changes and can take us to totally different and unexpected places. If science does change and a law needs to be passed quickly, I want that possible. Changing the Constitution is just too slow. The specific thing I can see objecting to at some future time (though I don't right now) is "Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures." I can see some therapy that might need to be discouraged and this preventing it from being outlawed.
ETA- I know that the federal law could force a change, but I like local control.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with everyone else. If you don't think it should be part of the constitution, don't vote for it as a constitutional amendment.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've just hit on one of the biggest problems with ballot proposals. It seems they almost always have some major legal or logistical problem with their implementation. Most people don't have enough time or expertise to understand those problems so the vote basic on the overall concept without regard to the details which frequently leads to some really poorly conceived law.
And worse, when you do take the time to look into the details and decide they are unworkable even though you like the overall concept, you are left with a dilemma. If you vote against it, politicians will likely interpret it as a vote against the basic concept which will make it harder to get favorable laws passed through legislative channels. If you vote for it, you are voting for something you know can't work.
Direct democracy definitely has its downsides.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
